- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: the future of the net
by Gregory Hicks 17 Nov '05

17 Nov '05

> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > From: Gordon Cook <cook(a)cookreport.com> > Subject: Re: the future of the net > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:08:26 -0500 > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > > > I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very > good very rich ...filled with links and yeah > > now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. I just read the page - and have a copy if you want... > > Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky > > and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. > > On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > > > >> Oh, the irony - all I get is: > >> Access denied > >> You are not authorized to access this page. > >> I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it > >> it now... > >> > >>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 > >>> > > > > same here not half an hour after i read it at that url > > > > i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, > > as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on > > the hyperbolic. > > > > perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can > > sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. > > > > randy > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." - Benjamin Franklin "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

1 0

Re: STILL Paging Google...
by Matthew Elvey 17 Nov '05

17 Nov '05

Ok, the bug is still there. Received replies from helpful folks who missed various parts of my posts. I'll stop posting about this now; it is indeed a bit OT. As I said in my initial post: I'm looking for a fix, not a workaround, and again: See http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html The above page says that User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: /*? will block all standard-looking dynamic content, i.e. URLs with "?" in them. On 11/16/05 11:44 AM, Michael Loftis sent forth electrons to convey: > I think that maybe googlebot parses robots.txt in order, so it's > seeing your USer-Agent: * line before it's more specific line and > matching that. > > I'm not saying googlebot is right doing that, just saying maybe that's > what it's doing. Try reordering your file? Could be, but their documentation, as I mentioned, specifically says otherwise. Michael Dillon wrote: > [put dynamic content in cgi-bin and have robots.txt block it] > ... > When something doesn't work, the correct operational > response is to fix it. > > AGAIN, I'm just asking Google to comply with the documentation they provide! In other words, Googlebot is broken; it doesn't do what its documentation it claims it will do. The correct operational response is for Google to fix it. Whether they change the code or the documentation is their choice. I'd say allowing * to be special is a change worth making, despite the robustness principle. (FYI, IETF does from time to time knowingly make changes that are not backwards-compatible.) Oh, and a ? in an URL has been a near-certain sign of dynamic content for a decade Oh, and I'm not a MediaWiki developer... Niels Bakker wrote: > robots.txt is about explicitly spidering your site; Google will still > follow links from outside towards your website and index pages linked > that way.[...] No, the robot.txt is being violated. There aren't ~40,000 links to the site. Only around 130, according to http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awiki.fastmail.fm On 11/16/05 8:49 AM, Mike Damm sent forth electrons to convey: > Could you please give me the URL to your robots.txt? > > It was implied, below. (Oh, and they removed it from my webmasterworld forum post; it was in there initially.) > On 11/15/05, Matthew Elvey <matthew(a)elvey.com> wrote: >> (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awiki.fastmail.fm) http://wiki.fastmail.fm/robots.txt On 11/16/05 7:44 AM, Bill Weiss sent forth electrons to convey: > I attempted to respond on Nanog, but I don't have posting privs there it > seems. What I tried to send then: > > http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html > > Specifically, http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#robotstxt covers the > problem you're having. > > To paraphrase: you don't get wildcards in the Disallow section. Fall back > on using the META tags that do that sort of thing, or reorg your website > to make it possible without wildcards. > > If you would forward this to the list for me, I would appreciate it. Bill: you're right, except that Google has defined and documented an extension, as I mentioned. On 11/15/05 5:23 PM, William Yardley sent forth electrons to convey: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:56:12PM -0800, Matthew Elvey wrote: > > >> Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong >> with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, >> instead of way down. >> > > Did you try abuse(a)google.com? I've had good luck there in the past with > crawl related issues. > Yup. Emailed 'em on my last post. > Also, there were some folks from Google at the last NANOG meeting - look > near the top of the attendee list, and there is someone whom I believe > works on security stuff - googling should turn up her email address > pretty quickly. Thanks. I'll hit some google folks directly. I just know someone in the gmail area-pretty far removed. > > --On November 15, 2005 4:56:12 PM -0800 Matthew Elvey > <matthew(a)elvey.com> wrote: > >> >> Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong >> with >> the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, >> instead of way down. >> Why am I bugging NANOG with this? Well, I'm sure if Googlebot keeps >> ignoring my robots.txt file, thereby hammering the server and >> facilitating s pam, they're doing the same with a google other sites. >> (Well, ok, not a google, but you get my point.) >> >> >> On 11/14/05 2:18 PM, Coyle, Brian sent forth electrons to convey: >>> Just thinking out loud... >>> >>> Have you confirmed the IP addresses of the Googlebot entries in your >>> log >>> actually belong to Google? >>> >>> /paranoia :) >> The google search URL I posted shows that google is hitting the site. >> There are results in there that point to pages that postdate the >> robots.txt that should have blocked 'em. >> (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awiki.fastmail.fm) >> >> >> On 11/14/05 2:09 PM, Jeff Rosowski sent forth electrons to convey: >>> Are you trying to block everything except the main page? I know to >>> block everything ... >> No; me too. See >> http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html >> The above page says that >> User-agent: Googlebot >> Disallow: /*? >> will block all standard-looking dynamic content, i.e. URLs with "?" in >> them. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Matthew Elvey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Doh! I had no idea my thread would require login/be hidden from >>>> general view! (A robots.txt info site had directed me there...) In particular http://www.searchengineworldDOTcom/robots/robots_tutorial.htm >>>> It >>>> seems I fell for an SEO scam... how ironic. I guess that's why I >>>> haven't heard from google... >>>> >>>> Anyway, here's the page content (with some editing and paraphrasing): >>>> >>>> Subject: paging google! robots.txt being ignored! >>>> >>>> Hi. My robots.txt was put in place in August! >>>> But google still has tons of results that violate the file. >>>> >>>> http://www.searchengineworld.com/cgi-bin/robotcheck.cgi >>>> doesn't complain (other than about the use of google's nonstandard >>>> extensions described at >>>> http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html ) >>>> >>>> The above page says that it's OK that >>>> >>>> # per [[AdminRequests]] >>>> User-agent: Googlebot >>>> Disallow: /*?* >>>> >>>> is last (after User-agent: *) >>>> >>>> and seems to suggest that the syntax is OK. >>>> >>>> I also tried >>>> >>>> User-agent: Googlebot >>>> Disallow: /*? >>>> but it hasn't helped. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I asked google to review it via the automatic URL removal system >>>> (http://services.google.com/urlconsole/controller) >>>> Result: >>>> URLs cannot have wild cards in them (e.g. "*"). The following line >>>> contains a wild card: >>>> DISALLOW: /*? >>>> >>>> How insane is that? >>>> >>>> Oh, and while /*?* wasn't per their example, it was legal, per their >>>> syntax, same as /*? ! >>>> >>>> The site as around 35,000 pages, and I don't think a small robots.txt >>>> to do what I want is possible without using the wildcard extension. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its > possessors > into trouble of all kinds." > -- Samuel Butler

1 0

Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?"
by J. Oquendo 17 Nov '05

17 Nov '05

To : David Barak <thegameiam(a)yahoo.com> Cc : nanog(a)merit.edu Attchmnt: Subject : Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" ----- Message Text ----- On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, David Barak wrote: > Windows * prices -> $??? Slackware in 98 -> A few hours downloading. > The problems most people have with microsoft's > monopoly status have nothing whatsoever to do with the > price of the software which forms the basis of their > monopoly (windows + office), but rather their > willingness to use the profits from them to subsidize > other losing ventures to drive out other competitors. My qualm with Microsoft's software scheme is just that the pricing breakdown on a business level coupled with the fact that I still can't get over an MS salesgoon telling me that if I purchased exchange I would have to purchase "additional space to use it". Additional space? "But I have a 1/2 tb array?"... "Well" (said the salesgoon) "Doesn't matter how big your drive is you're only allocated X amount of space..." Thankfully I was able to use great stuff like Dot Project and a slew of other OpenSource products to get things running without having to sell my soul for broken windows. > Assertions that "monopolies do X and they're bad, and > we know that Y will eventually do bad because they're > a monopoly" are circular. Studies have already shown the evil that m(en)onopolies do: // QUOTED FROM A SAVED ARTICLE I READ The standard economic case against monopoly is that, with the same cost structure, a monopoly supplier will produce at a lower output and charge a higher price than a competitive industry. This leads to a net loss of economic welfare and efficiency because price is driven above marginal cost - leading to allocative inefficiency. // Outside of that, most people as history has also show have the tendency to only stay kicked for so long before something kicks them out of their rut leading into some form of "revolt" (for lack of a better word on 3 hours sleep). I'm more concerned with Oligopolies creeping up slowly than I am with MS nowadays (Yahoo+eBay+Google+INSERT_BANK_HERE). Oligopolies go unnoticed for quite a while until damage is far more heavier than anything I can envision MS doing. Level3 + Cogento + Focal + TimeWarner + Cox = Nightmare That would be a A bigger nightmare than anything MS would be able to spit out of their Redmond stable. What ILEC's and CLEC's have to offer cannot be replaced by screaming geeks hooked on too many Starbuck's Grande Black Eyes, writing code for free under INSERT_YOUR_LICENSE_HERE. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://mo.fscker.com :: Obscurity through Insecurity "I know what I have given you. I do not know what you have received" -- Antonio Porchia

1 0

Someone from nic.net registrar please contact me off-list
by Evaldo Gardenali 17 Nov '05

17 Nov '05

Thanks Evaldo Gardenali

1 0

Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved
by Alain Hebert 17 Nov '05

17 Nov '05

Hi, I know somebody that is experiencing route flapping for more than a day now and we found out 10h ago that it was due to the announcement of his subnet by a major TelCO. Once that telco contacted, we got the run around for 10h now and no willingness from their part to fix the problem immediately. We're wondering what is the proper process to make the TelCo correct their behavior and cooperate? (ARIN Conflict Resolution Process, etc ... We found nothing about this situation) Thanks. ( For fun go take a look with http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/ ) ----- Subnet: 209.222.224.0/20 Assign to: 14102 Valid announcers: 13768, 7271, 21548 -----

3 5

RE: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved
by Bora Akyol 16 Nov '05

16 Nov '05

Maybe they should? Or at least provide a database that is signed so that people can check what is getting announced vs what was really allocated at least off line. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Gucker Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:06 PM To: Alain Hebert Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved <snip> ..... ARIN will not step in here. They allocate resources, they do not police or enforce those resources. charles

1 0

Re: a record?
by Patrick Lynchehaun 16 Nov '05

16 Nov '05

> In Iptables you can keep port 22 closed until needed, opening it first by telneting to a higher port say 5500 and Iptables just giving access to this ip. If you want to close it again you can telnet back in on another assigned port say 5501, thus closing ssh port to that ip. > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -m recent --rcheck --name SSH -j ACCEPT > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 5500 -m recent --name SSH --set -j DROP > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 5501 -m recent --name SSH --remove -j DROP > > Thanks, > Patrick. > > >> Moving sshd from port 22 to port 137, 138 or 139. Nasty eh? > > > >don't do that! Lots of (access) isps around the world (esp here in > >Europe) block those ports > > If you're going to move sshd somewhere else, port 443 is a fine > choice. Rarely blocked, rarely probed by ssh kiddies. It's probed > all the time by malicious web spiders, but since you're not a web > server, you don't care. > > R's, > John This e-mail contains confidential information or information belonging to Servecentric Ltd and is intended solely for the addressee(s). The unauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination or copy (either in whole or in part) of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Servecentric Ltd. E-mails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Servecentric shall not be liable for the contents of this e-mail if modified or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender of the wrong delivery and of the email's deletion.

2 1

STILL Paging Google...
by Matthew Elvey 16 Nov '05

16 Nov '05

Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, instead of way down. Why am I bugging NANOG with this? Well, I'm sure if Googlebot keeps ignoring my robots.txt file, thereby hammering the server and facilitating s pam, they're doing the same with a google other sites. (Well, ok, not a google, but you get my point.) On 11/14/05 2:18 PM, Coyle, Brian sent forth electrons to convey: > Just thinking out loud... > > Have you confirmed the IP addresses of the Googlebot entries in your log > actually belong to Google? > > /paranoia :) The google search URL I posted shows that google is hitting the site. There are results in there that point to pages that postdate the robots.txt that should have blocked 'em. (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awiki.fastmail.fm) On 11/14/05 2:09 PM, Jeff Rosowski sent forth electrons to convey: > Are you trying to block everything except the main page? I know to > block everything ... No; me too. See http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html The above page says that User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: /*? will block all standard-looking dynamic content, i.e. URLs with "?" in them. > > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Matthew Elvey wrote: > >> >> Doh! I had no idea my thread would require login/be hidden from >> general view! (A robots.txt info site had directed me there...) It >> seems I fell for an SEO scam... how ironic. I guess that's why I >> haven't heard from google... >> >> Anyway, here's the page content (with some editing and paraphrasing): >> >> Subject: paging google! robots.txt being ignored! >> >> Hi. My robots.txt was put in place in August! >> But google still has tons of results that violate the file. >> >> http://www.searchengineworld.com/cgi-bin/robotcheck.cgi >> doesn't complain (other than about the use of google's nonstandard >> extensions described at >> http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html ) >> >> The above page says that it's OK that >> >> #per [[AdminRequests]] >> User-agent: Googlebot >> Disallow: /*?* >> >> is last (after User-agent: *) >> >> and seems to suggest that the syntax is OK. >> >> I also tried >> >> User-agent: Googlebot >> Disallow: /*? >> but it hasn't helped. >> >> >> >> I asked google to review it via the automatic URL removal system >> (http://services.google.com/urlconsole/controller) >> Result: >> URLs cannot have wild cards in them (e.g. "*"). The following line >> contains a wild card: >> DISALLOW: /*? >> >> How insane is that? >> >> Oh, and while /*?* wasn't per their example, it was legal, per their >> syntax, same as /*? ! >> >> The site as around 35,000 pages, and I don't think a small robots.txt >> to do what I want is possible without using the wildcard extension. >> >> >> >> >> >> >

7 6

espanix.net gone
by Fredy Kuenzler 16 Nov '05

16 Nov '05

I can't reach http://www.espanix.net/ for a while now. And I guess that the espanix.net range accidentally has been removed from advertising ... show ip bgp 193.149.1.201 % Network not in table No one seems to transit AS6895 volounterly anymore. Maybe someone can point the espanix guys that they only see themselves these days. F.

1 1

RE: paypal down!
by Hannigan, Martin 16 Nov '05

16 Nov '05

> > > On Nov 15, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > >>> www.paypal.com > >>> > >>> Internal Server Error > >>> > >>> The server encountered an internal error or > misconfiguration and was > >>> unable to complete your request. > >>> > >>> Please contact the server administrator, > >> webmaster(a)paypal.com and inform > >>> them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might > >> have done > >>> that may have caused the error. > >>> > >>> More information about this error may be available in the > >> server error > >>> log. > >> > >> Works for me. Same BS splash advertising that always comes > >> up. Damn that > >> is annoying. > >> > > > > Yes, but it *is* up. Same here. Probably one of the rotation web > > servers had > > an issue or something minor. > > > > > Or there's a chance that you've got a trojan/malware install on the > computer. No chance. Do you have the attributions wrong here? Even your own website says that 404's are 70% burp-factor - which I would tend to agree with for the most part. Not enough httpd spurned, reloads, bad pages, etc. http://www.404lab.com/404/yikes.asp And oddly enough, no mention of the possibility of malware. Time to update. :-) -M<

2 1