- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Fw: Internet email performance study
by aljuhani 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

Hi. Sorry there was a mistake in my previous post the subnet listed is 218.0.0.0/8 is not yours. thanks aljuhani ----- Original Message ----- From: "aljuhani" <info(a)riyadmail.com> To: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 00:53 Subject: Re: Internet email performance study > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 23:42, Robert Beverly" <rbeverly(a)rbeverly.net> > > ......snip > > Yes, our SMTP greetings are valid and up to spec. Again, it's the > > non-deterministic loss that we're most concerned about. If there > > were a problem with the SMTP exchange, we would see our emails > > always rejected (for instance). Our measurement study only includes > > emails that were successfully delivered (indicated by a complete > > series of successful status codes returned during SMTP exchange). > > > > Many thanks, > > > > rob > > Hi, > > Perhaps this explains it. > > http://www.albury.net.au/netstatus/derouted.html > > BTW your subnet (18.0.0.0/8) is listed there as well. > > Regards, > > aljuhani

1 0

Re: BT to offer six classes of service
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

Additionally: BT picks partners for network upgrade http://news.com.com/BT+picks+partners+for+21st+Century+Network/2100-1037_3-… - ferg -- "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: It will be interesting to see how this develops. BT to offer six classes of service http://www.techworld.com/networking/news/index.cfm?newsid=3574 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

BT to offer six classes of service
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

It will be interesting to see how this develops. BT to offer six classes of service http://www.techworld.com/networking/news/index.cfm?newsid=3574 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

using TCP53 for DNS
by Patrick W. Gilmore 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

In the thread about ns*.worldnic.com, many people were complaining about DNS responses/queries on TCP port 53. At least one DoS mitigation box uses TCP53 to "protect" name servers. Personally I thought this was a pretty slick trick, but it appears to have caused a lot of problems. From the thread (certainly not a scientific sampling), many people seem to be filtering port 53 TCP to their name servers. Is this common? Does anyone have stats on this (roots, GTLDs, other big name server farms)? Perhaps people could send what they do personally and I can summarize for this list. (Again, not a scientific sampling method, but better than trying to read into what people imply in a long, and probably not-well-read thread.) -- TTFN, patrick P.S. Sorry to post operational content, I know how everyone hates that. =)

5 9

The "not long discussion" thread....
by Jerry Pasker 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

I posted to NANOG: >Jerry Pasker <info(a)n-connect.net> wrote: > > >> fine. (after a few tries) I'm using BIND 9.2.4 without the eye pee >> vee six stuff compiled in. Because I don't want to start something; >> No discussion about me blocking port 53, ok? I got tired of gobs of >> log files of script kiddies trying to download my domains 5 years >> ago... Steve Sobol replied with: >I'm not going to enter into a long discussion with you. :) > >I'm just curious why you didn't restrict AXFR to certain IPs instead. And I'm posting back to NANOG: I did. And I had router ACLs doing the same thing. Allow to hosts that needed it, deny for everyone else. And I did this to ALL my DNS servers. I was getting DoSed one day, somewhere in the whereabouts of about 2001, and put in the ACLs, immediately expecting it to break things. (truncated responses needing TCP and/or other things that I didn't foresee). Much to my dismay, it broke nothing. Despite me looking for problems, and asking and pleading my techies to find trouble tickets related to this issue, it didn't happen. I revisited the issue periodically. Every time there was an unexplained DNS issue, I would think "it must be the port 53 block!" but alas, I was disappointed each and every time. I've removed and added the ACLs countless times over the years trouble shooting various DNS issues, but this is the first time that removing them actually solved anything. See, I *WANTED* there to be a problem in blocking port 53, I *BELIEVED* all the talk that it would cause problems, but that problem never showed up. Over the years, eventually I just slowly arrived at the conclusion that all the talk were from people who talked, not from people who were brave enough to try it in a production environment. 4 years later, I was proved "inconclusive": Blocking port 53 does break things to servers that are already (apparently?) broken. -Jerry

3 4

Re: Detecting VoIP traffic in ISP network
by Joe Shen 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

No, it's not for legislation. In fact, we're planning to collect information on how people use internet as Voice carrier and the Voice communication quality they got. By this way, it could be evaluated that what's the possible best way of resource provisioning & how NGN voice traffic should be carried at the best performance/cost rate. joe --- Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Local telco concerned about voip eating into their > revenues, and wants > to push through legislation or something? :) > > On 4/27/05, Joe Shen <joe_hznm(a)yahoo.com.sg> wrote: > > > > we want to collect statistics in our backbone > > networks. > > > > Is there any good method to this? is there any > product > > for this ? > > > > Joe > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > ÏÓÓÊÏäÌ«Ð¡£¿ÑÅ»¢µçÓÊ×ÔÖúÀ©ÈÝ£¡ > > > http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/10m/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/10m.… > > > > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Log on to Messenger with your mobile phone! http://sg.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by Bill Stewart 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

On 4/27/05, Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> wrote: > I was referring to the article which contained the schneier quote, not > schneier. The article was written by someone at least pretending to be > a journalist, and, was put out as news, not editorial or advertising. > > As such, it should be held to the standard that should apply to news. > Instead, it was yet another example of advertising disguised as news. The standards of technology journalism involve writing about many different things you don't know much about, and sometimes a few that you do, and getting lots of press releases that were written by PR people who might or might not understand what the companies they're writing for are making, and trying to make it interesting enough that you sell enough advertising while meeting your deadlines. Often it gets better than this, and some journalists are really good, but often it doesn't, and sometimes they're doing well to spell the names right and pick the most relevant couple of sentences to quote. The standards for non-technology journalism are pretty similar - the big differences are that in fields you know something about, you're able to recognize bad fact-checking and lack of insight, and you might know some of the important things that got left out, whereas in non-technical journalism, such as political reporting, you might not know enough about what really occurred or who the people are who are getting quoted/interviewed to recognize bad fact-checking or differentiate between organized propaganda campaigns and naive me-too reporting. So be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what parts of it you actually believe, and try to differentiate between people who have strong opinions vs people who are just being self-serving. I thought the VNUnet article was reasonable for something that short - it hit a couple of issues, and quoted at least one other person who had a somewhat different perspective. On the other hand, most of the other news articles reported on Schneier's criticism of the overuse of terms like "cyber-terrorism" by self-promoting or agency-agenda-promoting people. ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.

1 0

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

That's a good question. - ferg -- Petri Helenius <pete(a)he.iki.fi> wrote: >What I'm saying is that too many providers do nothing, >regardless of whether it is a managed (read: paid) service, >or not. > So why don't the market economy work and solve the problem? Because there is no "tax" on pollution? Pete -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

Of course there are. What I'm saying is that too many providers do nothing, regardless of whether it is a managed (read: paid) service, or not. - ferg -- Petri Helenius <pete(a)he.iki.fi> wrote: >We owe to our customers, and we owe it to ourselves, so let's >just stop finding excise to side-step the issue. > So are you saying that managed security services are not avaialble for paying consumers in USA? Pete -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by W. Mark Herrick, Jr. 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

At Wed Apr 27 15:04:46 2005, Steve Sobol wrote: [1] Soon to be Big Three, but currently Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, and Adelphia. --- Adelphia is #5, you forgot Cox (#3). -MH W. Mark Herrick, Jr. Director - Data and Network Security - Adelphia Communications 5619 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (O) 303-268-6440 (C) 720-252-5929 (F) 303-268-6687 AIM: AdelphiaSecWMH

1 0