- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Friendly XO Mail-operational contact ?
by Andy Davidson 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

hi, Can anyone put me in touch to a friendly XO mail admin ? For 36 hours (at least) my mail systems have been refused connections to any of the XO MXes listed in 'dig mx xo.com'. I've asked some other UK based operators, and roughly three-quarters get connection refused to the example I gave them - dalsmlprd08.dal.dc.xo.com. Many thanks Andy -- Regards, Andy Davidson // Engineering Localphone Limited http://www.localphone.com +44-(0)114-3191919 // Sheffield, UK

3 4

Returned mail: 17 Delivery failures on Tue, 06 Nov 2007
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

On this date, there were delivery failures where the associated deliver status notification messages were suppressed. --- The following addresses had suppressed delivery status notifications --- nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu ----- Transcript of session is unavailable ----- No information is available on specific messages.

1 0

local routing problem...
by Steven M. Bellovin 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Somewhat OT, but this audience will appreciate it more than most. This item appeared in RISKS Digest. Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:55:50 +0100 From: Stefan Alfredsson <Stefan.Alfredsson(a)kau.se> Subject: Cellphone in USB charger became default route His cellphone charger was broken, so 17 year old Christoffer connected his phone, a Sony Ericsson k800i, via USB to his parents computer and left it to charge over night. A month later, he got a bill of SEK 6911 (about USD $1100). It turns out that the phone became the "default broadband" when plugged in via USB, and his long-running downloads were done over the phone instead of his broadband connection. The common price per Mbyte GPRS/UMTS data traffic is SEK 10 to 15 (about USD $1.5 to $2.3), which would correspond to about 500 Mbyte downloaded data. Christoffer claims "there was no warning to allow the phone to take over the connection. I did not even know it was possible". According to the operator Tele2, he must pay the bill even if it was a mistake. They concluded that the phone modem had been used, but could not tell how it happened. The operator were not aware of previous incidents, but claims that "there is software to link the phone to the computer and start the phone Internet function, but it's not possible for the computer to do this on its own". Original article in Swedish: http://www.aftonbladet.se/goteborg/article1141706.ab

1 0

AS 7018 BGP blackhole / AT&T contact sought
by Nathan Anderson/FSR 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Hello, It seems that this question has been asked here in the past before... http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2006-02/msg00173.html ...but without a (public) reply. It has been suggested (both in the follow-ups to the above and elsewhere) that there are people involved with 7018 that are frequent readers here; I'm really hoping one of them will take pity on us and either reply here or communicate with me off-list. We are in need of an RFC3882-esque method of null-routing /32s on-demand on our provider's network before they are sent to us. I can provide details of our circumstances if requested. I have been trying to get the answer to this question from AT&T MIS support for days now, but have gotten nowhere. The telephone support guys won't talk to me about this and tell me to use "Life Cycle" / e-mail for this issue. E-mail replies from AWMIS are days in coming and not helpful (typically just providing me with more hoops that they want to make me jump through), and I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the level of "support" being given. All I need is a "yes" or "no" response and, if "yes" is the answer, the proper community to use. I can provide past e-mail communications, trouble ticket numbers, further details...whatever you need. I apologize if this is inappropriate for this list; if it is, let me know, and I'll take this somewhere else. Thanks, -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nathana(a)fsr.com

2 1

Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
by Robert Bonomi 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

> From: Steve Atkins <steve(a)blighty.com> > Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again... > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:07:14 -0800 > > On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> From: Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> > >> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:05:26 -0500 > >> Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again... > >> > >> Since this is verizon, one wonders why this has never been tried on > >> wrong, non-working phone numbers? > >> > >> Visit your local chevy dealer, no interest for 12 months! We're > >> sorry, the number you have reached.... > >> > >> is it illegal? > > > > Before they could do it, they'd have to file -- and get approved -- a > > tariff with the public utilities commission in each state. > > > > I'm not at all sure how well such a proposal would fly there. > > There are already companies offering advertising funded > long distance service. And advertising funded VoIP dialtone. > > It's not like this is a hypothetical that's bizarrely out there. Then there was the day, circa 20 years ago now, that the ILEC modified 'ring no answer' handling to insert a voice ad for their call-back service on every call that hadn't been answered after some small number (4??) of rings -- while continuing to ring the line. We had a large outgoing faxmodem bank to estabished clients, that would alarm and abort if it encountered 'VOICE' on a _known_ data-only line. That was an 'interesting' day. *VERY* strong words were said to the telco -- to the effect of 'remove that misbegotten feature _RIGHT_NOW_, and never, *never* put any additionnal 'feature' on any of our lines without our specific approval in writing.' We weren't the only people expressing extreme displeasure at the tactic. I don't know of any lawsuits actually filed -- I do have direct knowledge that several were under serious consideration. I believe that the State regulatory authority made them remove it as a 'default', and deploy it only for lines where the owner made specific request for it to be added.

1 0

Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
by Greg Skinner 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Bill Stewart wrote: > When Verisign hijacked the wildcard DNS space for .com/.net, they > encoded the Evil Bit in the response by putting Sitefinder's IP > address as the IP address. In theory you could interpret that as > damage and route around it, or at least build ACLs to block any > traffic to that IP address except for TCP/80 and TCP/UDP/53. But if > random ISPs are going to do that at random locations in their IP > address space, and possibly serve their advertising from servers that > also have useful information, it's really difficult to block. > Does anybody know _which_ protocols Verizon's web-hijacker servers are > supporting? Do they at least reject ports 443, 22, 23, etc.? > In contrast, Microsoft's IE browser responds to DNS no-domain > responses by pointing to a search engine, and I think the last time I > used IE it let you pick your own search engine or turn it off if you > didn't like MS's default. That's reasonable behaviour for an > application, though it's a bit obsequious for my taste. Hmmm. When using IE 7 on Windows Vista out of the box, and I give it a non-existent domain, it prompts me to connect to a network (even if I'm already connected to one). It also puts the browser in "work offline" mode. (Very annoying.) I've never been pointed to a search engine or prompted to select one. Perhaps this is something that is controlled by the machine's initial setup. --gregbo

2 1

DNS servers
by J. Oquendo 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Nice to get news third string... // Last week, ICANN setup a new IP address for one of the thirteen "root name servers" that oversee DNS queries across the net, and it plans on retiring the old address as soon as the late spring. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/06/icann_rolls_out_new_root_name_serve… ==================================================== J. Oquendo SGFA (FW+VPN v4.1) SGFE (FW+VPN v4.1) "I hear much of people's calling out to punish the guilty, but very few are concerned to clear the innocent." Daniel Defoe http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E

3 3

Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
by Robert Bonomi 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

> From: Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:05:26 -0500 > Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again... > > Since this is verizon, one wonders why this has never been tried on > wrong, non-working phone numbers? > > Visit your local chevy dealer, no interest for 12 months! We're > sorry, the number you have reached.... > > is it illegal? Before they could do it, they'd have to file -- and get approved -- a tariff with the public utilities commission in each state. I'm not at all sure how well such a proposal would fly there. > How long before they'll just make you sit thru a few seconds of pitch > before connecting any call? Or any website? How hard is it to stick up > a quick bit of flash (e.g.) and then fade to the page you requested? For a browser -- like, say 'lynx' -- that doesn't even fetch flash links?? <evil grin>

2 1

Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
by David Lesher 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/11/verizon_search.html November 3, 2007 Subscribers to Verizon's high-powered fiber-optic Internet service (FiOS) are reporting that when they mistype a Web site address, they get redirected to Verizon's own search engine page -- even if they don't have Verizon's search page set as their default. ,,,,, You can guess most of the rest. I guess we didn't get that wooden stake in deep enough last Tuesday... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

23 39

AS-level connectivity survey
by Ricardo V. Oliveira 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Hi, We are doing a survey as a part of an academic research on inter-AS connectivity, namely assessing how many AS-level links are missing from that inferred from public sources such as BGP tables. If you could participate in this survey, it will be greatly appreciated. All data will be anonymized in any kind of use, including the survey report. If you would like to participate, could you please send me a message offline with information bellow? For each ASN in your network: * Type of network (transit/content/eyeball/research) * Total number of neighbor ASes (e.g. if AS A and AS B have multiple eBGP sessions, it will count only once). * Number of peers (versus customers) * Number of peers that peer at IXPs? * Which IXPs do you have presence Plus any comments you'd like to make about inter-AS connectivity, and feel free to give a partial answer. We have condensed the BGP-derived AS-level connectivity information in the following website: http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/topology/survey Which you can use to check how accurate is the "public view" of your network connectivity. Thanks! --Ricardo

1 0