- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

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

16 Nov '05

> > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Steven Kalcevich 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. -M<

4 3

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

16 Nov '05

> Or there's a chance that you've got a trojan/malware install on the > computer. > Slight correction to my earlier post - just to be clear. Not just 404's, failed pages in general. My failure scenarios were wider than 404. -M<

1 0

RE: STILL Paging Google...
by Hannigan, Martin 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.) Why would they read/respond on NANOG to an application problem? (seriously) -M<

2 1

Anyone with clue @ Godaddy.com please hit me off-list.
by Drew Weaver 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

Thanks. -Drew

1 0

the iab simplifies internet architecture!
by Randy Bush 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

reported from tonight's iitf iab (internet archetecture board) plenary. proclaimed by an esteemed iab member from the podium: "it is bad in the long term to add hierarchy to routing" this will save a lot of work. whew! randy

13 28

Cisco locksmith [OT]
by Eric Germann 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

Dear Cisco, Since your postmaster account doesn't answer (probably for good reason) and no one has noticed internally, your locksmith thingy is broke. "|/opt/httpd/root/data/mmbprod/post/locksmith" (expanded from: <cco-locksmith(a)www.cisco.com>) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- Could not open file /opt/httpd/httpd-ent/logs/locksmith 554 5.3.0 unknown mailer error 13 If anyone from Cisco is listening ....

1 0

IX.PR Launch & Meeting Information
by Mehmet Akcin 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

Hi Folks, I would like to keep you guys informed, The IX.PR, formerly known as PRIX [what made us famous!] is going to be operational very soon , we will be holding a launching fest & meeting related IX.PR , Benefits and BOF Session at 22nd of November 2005, if you are near PR by any chance and interested in coming to the meeting, please register yourself http://www.ix.pr. The meeting is free and it'll start with a continental breakfast at 9:00 and continue at 9:30 with several presentations and research results about IX.PR , and after a bof session nic.pr will be sponsoring a lunch for the attendees . There will be probably a more technical section afternoon which will include BGP peering + IpV6 Workshops. http://www.ix.pr/mtg-01/ Thank you for interest. Mehmet Akcin - mehmet(a)ix.pr IX.PR Project Coordinator PS: I know they are many people (from ISPs/Govt/Universities and Banks) from PR subscribed to NANOG, hopefully we will have them attend to the meeting and peer with the IX.

1 0

Re: IAB and "private" numbering
by Christopher L. Morrow 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote: > > > > > > The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just > > > that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions. > > > I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used > > > advisedly if not deprecated outright. > > > > RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations > > that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why > > i rant, yet again. > doh! > what is this "the" public routing table? where does one > get it? in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it. > i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet. > or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered > imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent > than the H5N1 strain. Note that it affects normally sane engineers > who KNOW better. > 'public routing table' == Internet nothing more, nothing less. this is distinct from SIPRnet and some portions of NIPRnet, or other 'private' networks out there. > back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected" > databases. ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet > and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and > enterprise networks. Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space > is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space > that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real > reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering) I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :) > > IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP > protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing > is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements > into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results. agreed

6 7

Sorry! Here's the URL content (re. Paging Google...)
by Matthew Elvey 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

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.

1 0

Paging Google's Googlebot developers re. bugs
by Matthew Elvey 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

Googlebot keeps ignoring my robots.txt file, thereby hammering the server and facilitating spam. I think I found at least 2 bugs; see this thread in the robots.txt forum thread: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum93/782.htm I've used Google's direct contact form last Wednesday; still no ack or response. Please don't reply w/o reading the above thread, to avoid repetition. I'm looking for a fix, not a workaround (such as a temporary total Googlebot ban).

5 5