July 2000 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: RFC 1918
by Michael Shields 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007141956280.95155-100000(a)overlord.e-gerbil.net>, "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> wrote: > I still have not seen a single compelling arguement which says you gain > one bit more security by filtering RFC1918-source'd packets. It is useless > at best, and disruptive at worst. No correct configuration will send me packets with a source address from RFC 1918 space. In a correct world, such filters will have no effect. Only packets from the incorrect world will be hit by these filters. As a matter of network policy, I do not wish to speak to incorrect hosts, whatever their intentions. If being unable to connect to MSRL hosts causes people to fix their incorrect configurations, I am pleased. If it causes them to be upset, I am indifferent. The smoothly running Internet is the set of standards-compliant hosts. We must guard against incorrectness with a steady, ruthless, automated hand. -- Shields.

1 0

RE: Piracy on parade.
by Exiled Dave 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

Geeze paul. People have been dealing with impersonation for eternity. Just because you get impersonated by a few people you want to put the entire list under marshall law? I hope you dont ever run a country. Let YOUR actions speak louder than impersonated words ("Paul would NEVER say that...") Dont you have some bugs to fix in bind or something? Instead of whining about other people's actions, bring yours up to par first. (exiled!dave) http://www.tch.org/~ser/wtf2.jpg (Jason Legate) >Agreed, there is far too much impersonation happening >on this list, I am >sure that Bandy Rush would agree with me as well. To >have malicious people >abuse our good names is just unacceptable. > >Vaul Pixie - vaul(a)wayabove.net > >>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:24:42 -0400 >>From: Dmitri Krioukov <dima(a)krioukov.net> >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: RE: piracy on parade >> >>wouldn't it to be a right time >>to get list moderated? >> >>thanks, >>-- >>dima. >_____________________________________________________>_________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

2 1

The state of NANOG
by Richard A. Steenbergen 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

<rant> At the risk of generating more useless traffic that noone cares about, could please try and show a little more maturity on NANOG? The occational diversion is nice, but noone wants to sort through spoof mails from "Vaul Pixie" or "Bandy Rush" every day to fill someone's #nanog or #cisco vanity fix. Noone wants to hear about the personal tales and tribulations of .god and the little roach that could. Noone wants to hear the latest rant about the moral righteousness of someone's spam or RFC1918 filters. NANOG is NOT the replacement for whois and a phone book, if you can't get ahold of someone from some of these company's you havn't tried hard enough (for example, if you're looking for an abovenet engineer, why don't you try mailing noc(a)above.net, I'm sure you'll find one), and if you want to post messages and then ignore your private responses you don't need to tell us about it. And for the love of god, if you can't read a book, try asking your Alcatel coworkers about your beginner questions before you make a useless post to NANOG. If we wanted to read these things we'd subscribe to inet-access. Please, no reply's to this (cc'd 4 times) with "I agree", no ensueing debate on making NANOG moderated, no spoofed CERT advisories about the insecurities of "Vaul Pixie", just realize that its time to knock it off, and maybe stop to think before you open your mail composer. </rant> -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

None
by Vaul Pixie 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: piracy on parade
by Vaul Pixie 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

Agreed, there is far too much impersonation happening on this list, I am sure that Bandy Rush would agree with me as well. To have malicious people abuse our good names is just unacceptable. Vaul Pixie - vaul(a)wayabove.net >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:24:42 -0400 >From: Dmitri Krioukov <dima(a)krioukov.net> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: RE: piracy on parade > >wouldn't it to be a right time >to get list moderated? > >thanks, >-- >dima. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

None
by Vaul Pixie 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: RFC 1918
by Michael Shields 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

In article <20000714194722.AD3EA35DC2(a)smb.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(a)research.att.com> wrote: > No -- 1918 addresses would only break PMTU if folks did ingress or > egress filtering for 1918 addresses. It is easy to argue that using interface 1918 addresses and PMTUD are incompatible with connecting to the Internet, for PMTUD requires sending an ICMP message with the source address of the interface, and using 1918 space on the Internet is not allowed. RFC 1918 section 3: "In order to use private address space, an enterprise needs to determine which hosts do not need to have network layer connectivity outside the enterprise in the foreseeable future and thus could be classified as private. Such hosts will use the private address space defined above. [...] However, they cannot have IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise." "Indirect references to such addresses should be contained within the enterprise. Prominent examples of such references are DNS Resource Records and other information referring to internal private addresses. In particular, Internet service providers should take measures to prevent such leakage." -- Shields.

3 2

RFC 1918
by Shawn McMahon 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

Some naughty person in either BBNPlanet or DeltaCom needs to re-read RFC 1918: traceroute to www.everybuddy.com (209.16.236.3), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets <snip> 12 p1-0.tamqfl1-cr4.bbnplanet.net (4.24.7.186) 50.724 ms 49.658 ms 50.428 ms 13 p0-0.itctampa.bbnplanet.net (4.24.176.6) 44.791 ms 44.299 ms 45.233 ms 14 10.254.0.14 (10.254.0.14) 46.290 ms 45.467 ms 47.701 ms 15 10.52.1.10 (10.52.1.10) 44.798 ms 46.038 ms 48.682 ms 16 1.ATM10-1.IDGAUB7513.TR.deltacom.net (209.192.87.198) 48.998 ms 49.069 ms 49.670 ms <snip>

4 3

Re: Mostly operational content (was Re: piracy on parade)
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

In message <000801bfede1$db5ca690$aba4b9d0@PEREGRIN>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writ es: > >> Right. Have a look at the IAB statement on the subject of DNS >roots: >> http://www.iab.org/iab/IAB-Technical-Comment.txt > >Yes, pure politics, zero operational content. When was the last >time the IAB released a technical, politically neutral paper? >Ans: a ver long time ago (years). That paper caused me to cast a >negative vote for Brian Carpenter, in the last ISOC elections. >They presented zero technical support for their position. It was >all anecdotal, pure opinion, no substance. I suspect I'm going to regret even responding to this, but... Did you even read that document before posting? It's purely technical -- it outlines the purely-technical reasons why the DNS has to have one root if we're to have effective communication on the net. As for technical papers -- if nothing else, there are the workshops the IAB sponsors; the reports of those workshops are also on the IAB Web page. The report on the Network Layer workshop is about to be released; there are also forthcoming RFCs on QoS and security. > >I submit that the IAB isn't doing its job and until they do, they >should refrain from wasting their resources in the policy arena. > I suspect that the entire IAB wants to spend less time on politics -- I know I'd rather stick to the technical stuff. But external affairs are explicitly our responsibility, per RFC 2580 and its predecessort, RFC 1601. --Steve Bellovin

1 0

Re: Mostly operational content (was Re: piracy on parade)
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Jul '00

14 Jul '00

In message <20000714130518.J24018(a)mail-abuse.org>, "J.D. Falk" writes: > >On 07/14/00, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > >> But seriously - there's serious operational considerations involved if >> everybody doesn't have a consistent view of the DNS root - it's called >> Balkanization. > > Very true. There are some who don't care about that, but in > all the years they've been proposing alternate roots (and I, > too, was in favor of the idea for a few months, early on), not > one has ever had more than a handful of real users -- IMHO, > this is due at least in part to the fact that the spokespeople > for these schemes confuse invective with salesmanship. > > If your goal is to provide customers with access to the entire > Internet, and to provide the entire Internet with access to > your customers, then you'd be doing them a disservice if you > encourage them to use non-standard top-level domains. Right. Have a look at the IAB statement on the subject of DNS roots: http://www.iab.org/iab/IAB-Technical-Comment.txt --Steve Bellovin

2 1