August 2004 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

ARIN to allocate from 71.0.0.0/8 and 72.0.0.0/8
by Leslie Nobile 16 Sep '04

16 Sep '04

Hello- ARIN received the IPv4 address blocks 71.0.0.0/8 and 72.0.0.0/8 from the IANA on Aug. 2, 2004. In the near future, ARIN will begin making allocations from these new blocks. This will include allocations of /20 and shorter prefixes, according to ARIN's minimum allocation policy. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered IP blocks can be found under "CIDR Blocks" at: http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 1

Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by Paul Vixie 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

> ... > Unfortunately, SiteFinder did not have such a destructive effect as we > had all wanted it to have. > ... that apparently depends on what you wanted and what you consider destructive. to me, as a domain holder under .COM, the damage was latent, coming in the form of "unacceptable business risk". as long as i know that my competitors would have to actually register "nearby" names in order to steal business from me, then i know (a) their costs are linear with my risk, and (b) i can find out what they're doing and perhaps even who they're paying to do it. in the presence of a wildcard and paid advertising, (a) no longer holds and there is no way to do (b). if sitefinder returns, i'd expect to have to find a new parent domain, who has no wildcard-like keyword system, just for risk management reasons. some domain holders might prefer to manage this risk by paying verisign extra money to get all the nearby keywords, but i'd consider this blackmail and i'd rebrand my offerings out of .COM and .NET, and i expect that many other domain holders would feel (and do) the same. ultimately i'd expect domain registration fees in wildcard-free TLDs to cost more than domain registration fees in wildcard-containing TLDs. also, to me, as a domain holder under .com who uses my domain for more than just a web site, i can't tolerate the lack of RCODE=3 when a "nearby" name is used by mistake. verisign promised not to use the connections for anything nefarious, but they are not a public-benefit corporation and if they thought that the best way to return value to their shareholders was to keyword-search e-mail that was sent to them by mistake, then they would be stupid NOT to do so. (this has been called a strong argument for all TLD registries to be required to be public-benefit corporations... foxes guarding chicken houses, and so on.) > So while SideFinder was not as destructive as we might have thought > or hoped, ... i wasn't hoping for anything in particular. but sitefinder was incredibly damaging, and its return would mark a sharp uptick in my risk management costs, and there's no way you could say it wasn't "destructive" based simply on your local network traffic analysis. simply put, i would have chosen a different TLD if i'd known that wildcard processing was going to occur, and i do not recognize verisign's right to unilaterally change the terms under which my domain's delegation data is served.

9 14

Re: Are AOL's MXs mass rejecting anyone else's emails?
by rwcrowe＠comcast.net 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

Just a suggestion, but make sure that your mail servers have the correct reverse DNS. AOL has been rejecting mail for any mail servers that have incorrect or no reverse DNS entries. -- Rob Crowe rwcrowe(a)comcast.net -------------- Original message -------------- > > We're currently getting this from AOL MX servers: > > > > 64.12.138.57 failed after I sent the message. > > Remote host said: 554-: (RLY:FA) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554r > lyfa.html > > 554 TRANSACTION FAILED > > > > Yet, after viewing their alleged reason for rejecting the mail, we can find > nothing wrong with our mail headers. Wondering if this is a bug on AOL's s > ide or if anyone else has encountered/fixed this issue to stop the bouncing > mail? > > > > -Andrew

11 14

RE: Best Practices for Enterprise networks
by Michel Py 04 Sep '04

04 Sep '04

>> Tracy Smith wrote: >> Specifically, to NAT or not to NAT? This is not much of an issue anymore. If you receive IP addresses from your ISP, not natting would be foolish. Even if you do own your own public IP space, the NAT issues are fundamentally no different than the firewall ones and since not having a firewall is not an option, most enterprises will indeed NAT some of their subnets in their firewalls, whether or not they have or could easily obtain public space. > At what point should NAT-ting be performed ... > exclusively at the Egress point If there is only one egress point, indeed (typically at the firewall that's between the outside router and the inside router). If there are multiple egress points it's more interesting. There are multiple designs. > about firewalling - centralized/decentralized? Greatly varies depending the design and requirements of a given enterprise. > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Fortunately, I've never been in the position > to make such decisions, That's when you understand the real meaning of FUD: when you @55 and/or your job are on the line ;-) > but I can tell you one thing: if you have multiple connections > to the internet, you had better make sure that your NATs and > firewalls are equipped to handle the case where you send a > packet out through connection A and the reply comes back > through connection B. Indeed. > Paul Ferguson wrote: > Asymmetric paths are a fact of life in the Internet. Not for enterprise operators except the largest ones. Asymmetric traffic does happen in the core, where there are no firewalls or NATs; as far as the edge is concerned though I know several companies that multihome to two or more ISPs but only in one location, largely because they don't want to deal with NAT/firewall issues. Although it can work, it requires extra engineering and most of the time a fat pipe to replicate state information between the sites. Michel.

2 1

Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
by Henry Linneweh 02 Sep '04

02 Sep '04

So I would like some professional expert opinion to give her on this issue since it will effect the copyright inducement bill. Real benefits for production and professional usage of this technology. -Henry

29 51

Re: optics pricing (Re: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior)
by Dickson, Brian 02 Sep '04

02 Sep '04

Actually, (and this is from memory from a couple of years ago), most of the reason for cost of optics on 10G interfaces is simply *physics* (and the technology of component production at the current state-of-the-art level). (If any of the people questioning the pricing had bothered to look into *cost* (you know, that "input" thing before mark-up), or done any reading (and "light" reading doesn't count ;-)), you'd already know the reasons.) What it boils down to, is that the way solid-state on-chip lasers are made, for 1.0 GHz (really 933 MHz, IIRC), or even 2.5 GHz, fundamentally doesn't work for 10Ghz. It's because they are *lasers*, where component accuracy is really critical, and at 10Ghz, it crosses a threshold that likely won't be solved until someone clever invents some new way of doing things, or until "nanotech" becomes nanotech (without the quotes). And the VSR 10G, is really a misnomer. What it is, is 10 x 1.25 GHz "parallel" interface with fibre-optic ribbon cables. The 10 is so they can build in some hardware redundancy in case of failure, and also to improve the yields and infant mortality rates on production of the chips. Basically, 1.25 GHz (or maybe it's 1.125? It's been too long) are easy to do, with current-generation chip-production technology. 10Ghz optics are old-school lasers, several orders of magnitude larger, much more power-hungry, delicate, and in all likelyhood, hand-crafted with low yields. They really are that expensive. Just check out the price on 10G transponders (eg DWDM equipment) if you don't believe that's the case... On the other hand, it'd be nice to see a copper 10GBIC, even if its max cable length were a few metres. ;-) Keep in mind, I'm following standard NANOG methodology and quoting old information without checking my facts against current reality. :-) Your mileage (or cost) may vary, as they say. -------------------------------------- Brian Dickson Arbinet

4 3

RE: Definition of P2P (was Feinstein)
by Joe Johnson 02 Sep '04

02 Sep '04

You're staring in on a good point. What happens when this backfires, and they mis-define (or badly define) P2P traffic? What if it is so broad that any traffic routed from one point to another is illegal? What if my dark fiber is against federal law? Who would fight for or against that? Would you shutdown your routers or switches that do P2P links? All this hit here in Illinois when the Super DCMA took effect, and it technically became illegal to use a router in your home (as the Illinois DCMA restricts the ability to hide the source or destination of any electronic communication, kinda like NAT). I certainly didn't pull NAT off my home or my office connections! I think no one has been called down (e.g., no one has challenged) on the law, but I could be arrested at any time for running a basic Netgear router on my broadband at home. Joe Johnson > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > David A. Ulevitch > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:32 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Definition of P2P (was Feinstein) > > > > <quote who="Bora Akyol"> > > > > Sorry, was it possible to search for a file from > millions of storage > > nodes > > in IRC? > > Yes, not that millions of storage nodes were connected... > > Napster was more or less a glorified version of IRC w/DCC, that's why it > was centralized for searching. > > Anyways, we all know the biggest P2P bit movers are the routers... > > -davidu > > ---------------------------------------------------- > David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net > http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net > ---------------------------------------------------- >

2 1

RE: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior
by kwallace＠pcconnection.com 01 Sep '04

01 Sep '04

2 quick things come to mind- single mode vs multimode, or the signal is too hot and you need attenuators. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:48 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior Hello all, wondering if anyone has seen or experienced this same problem. Currently deploying an OC12 on a campus network and am using Netgear media converters. Set up the lines and had lit fiber to the building I needed it to go to. On one end (main drop) I had light and tested the connectivity which worked fine, on the other side, when I jacked up my Netgear, it flickered. Now, when I went to swap out the fiber, I noticed a full contact between the wires and the converter dropped it out. Meaning if I had the wires not fully plugged it lit, if I plugged them entirely in, it dropped. So... I ran to the other building and tried to replicate it there, and it did the same. I figured bad media converter so I swapped it out, next one worked fine. However, I took the media converter and swapped the funky acting one to yet another building and it worked fine. Anyone care to offer a thought on this? Relevant to my media converter? Bad line, "Murphy's Law", etc? =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x51F9D78D Fingerprint 2A48 BA18 1851 4C99 CA22 0619 DB63 F2F7 51F9 D78D http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x51F9D78D sil @ politrix . org http://www.politrix.org sil @ infiltrated . net http://www.infiltrated.net "How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster?" Joseph McCarthy "America's Retreat from Victory"

11 12

RE: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P 2P
by Brian Battle 01 Sep '04

01 Sep '04

Akamai or not, microsoft is overwhelmed by the demand for SP2, and today is giving the message listed below on windowsupdate: Download and install it now - Currently not available We are currently experiencing a high level of demand for Windows XP Service Pack 2, so please check back later for availability. We apologize for any inconvenience. If you prefer to obtain SP2 another way, the easiest way to get Service Pack 2 is to turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP and it will be downloaded when you are connected to the Internet without you having to take any further action. So then I thought about getting it from the torrent at sp2torrent.com, but sadly microsoft has made them remove the torrent... -----Original Message----- From: Byron L. Hicks [mailto:bhicks@nmsu.edu] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 3:21 PM To: Jeff Wheeler; Henry Linneweh Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P Not true. For those of us who host Akamai servers, we could download SP2 with no problems. We did not need P2P, or MSDN. In fact, I would be very reluctant to trust a Windows update downloaded via P2P. -- Byron L. Hicks Network Engineer NMSU ICT On 8/30/04 12:43 PM, "Jeff Wheeler" <jwheeler(a)usip.org> wrote: > > My two cents: > When Windows XP SP2 was released the only way to get it (for those of > us not part of MSDN at least) was via P2P. The same has been true for > countless other large but important software releases on various > platforms (particularly ones like Linux that aren't backed by huge > corporations with tons of bandwidth to host these sorts of files). > > Point is? P2P is extremely valuable for the timely and cost-effective > delivery of critical updates to the masses. > > -- > Jeff Wheeler > Postmaster, Network Admin > US Institute of Peace > > > On Aug 30, 2004, at 2:27 PM, Henry Linneweh wrote: > >> >> So I would like some professional expert opinion to >> give her on this issue since it will effect the >> copyright inducement bill. Real benefits for >> production and professional usage of this technology. >> >> -Henry >

6 8

More on Sri Lanka fiber outage....
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 01 Sep '04

01 Sep '04

Via: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_965656,00050002.htm Sri Lanka court holds back Indian ship, seeks $5mn in damages Press Trust of India Colombo, August 23 A Sri Lankan court ordered that an Indian ship, which allegedly damaged a submarine cable severing the island's main internet access with the rest of the world, be held at the port of Colombo till a case seeking five million US dollars in damages was settled. The Colombo district court ordered that the vessel, 'State of Nagaland' be held at the port where it is currently anchored until the case filed by Sri Lanka Telecom is heard on September 6. SLT, the island's main telecommunications provider said they want five million dollars in damages and that internet, international dialling and data services of 800,000 subscribers had been affected since yesterday. The ship is alleged to have dropped anchor and damaged the SEA-ME-WE III cable linking Sri Lanka to the internet backbone. Services will remain interrupted for at least another day or two until a repair ship carries out its work. 8<----------- snip ----------- - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

8 8