- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: no whois info ?
by Hannigan, Martin 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:mike@sentex.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:00 PM > To: Hannigan, Martin; nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: RE: no whois info ? > > > At 02:44 PM 09/12/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > [SNIP] > There has to be a balance between expectations to privacy when > participating in a public space (the internet). Putting your > name and > address behind a domain is not unreasonable in my mind. You > are afterall > publishing DNS info, so its not a case of total privacy. > > I use RBLs to score messages, not reject them. I don't think privacy should be compromised for scoring. I'd rather cripple the RBL. That's just a personal opinion. -M<

1 0

RE: no whois info ?
by Mike Tancsa 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

At 02:44 PM 09/12/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >Perhaps 100% of spammers hide their registration data when possible, >but I wouldn't say that 100% of hidden registrations are spammers. > >An RBL option of this type of data would probably mean forced >elimination of a benefit to the public - privacy. There has to be a balance between expectations to privacy when participating in a public space (the internet). Putting your name and address behind a domain is not unreasonable in my mind. You are afterall publishing DNS info, so its not a case of total privacy. I use RBLs to score messages, not reject them. ---Mike

1 0

Service Contracts
by Sam (Walter) Gailey 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Hi all, Hopefully this is not too off-topic; I'm looking for guidance in penalty clauses in service contract agreements. I run a small WAN for a town. We have an internet T-1, an internal frame T-1, five point-to-point T-1's and a small smattering of PVC's and low-bandwidth frame lines. I know we're small change, but I've had lines down for as long as four days and gotten little more than an apology from our current provider. Our contract expires soon and I'd like the next one to have a few more teeth, as in "if you're down for X hours you owe the customer a credit of X dollars." Is this common practice? What are typical penalty clauses like? Any guidance would be welcome, off-list is fine, I will summarize if people are interested. ---Walter

3 2

RE: no whois info ?
by Hannigan, Martin 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:33 PM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: no whois info ? > > > > At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote: > >>>shell1% whois vestigial3had.com > >>... > >>>No match for "VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM". > >>>What gives ? How can there be no whois info anywhere ? > > > >You can also make whois information private, usually for an > additional fee. > > I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info hidden > or "private" > are throwaway spam domains... Some number approaching 100% I would > bet. It would be nice to somehow incorporate this into a > SpamAssassin > check somehow. Perhaps 100% of spammers hide their registration data when possible, but I wouldn't say that 100% of hidden registrations are spammers. An RBL option of this type of data would probably mean forced elimination of a benefit to the public - privacy. -M<

1 0

Little brother of sitefinder
by Christopher X. Candreva 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

It has just come to my attention that NetSol is now assigning a CNAME record of resalehost.networksolutions.com to all expired domains. This is so the web site will come up with a "This domain expired on this data, click here to renew." page. resalehost.networksolutions.com has IP 216.168.224.53, doesn't listen on port 25, and has no MX record. The upshot is, mail to expired domains, instead of being rejected outright in the SMTP dialog, sits in our queue for 5 days. Users don't know right away that mail isn't getting through. This isn't quite on the same level as Sitefinder, but it's the same mindset, make a change without examining the impact. The operational impact has been support time spent finding out why mail has supposedly disappeared, and/or is sitting in our queue. Is this new, or have I had my head in the sand ? ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris(a)westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/

3 4

Re: tli back at cisco
by jgraun＠comcast.net 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

That is huge! I guess Cisco delivered a dump trunk full of hundos to Tony's house. :) -------------- Original message -------------- > > > http://www.nwfusion.com/edge/news/2004/1209li.html > > - ferg >

3 2

tli back at cisco
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

http://www.nwfusion.com/edge/news/2004/1209li.html - ferg

1 0

tli back at cisco
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

http://www.nwfusion.com/edge/news/2004/1209li.html - ferg

1 0

Peering best practices advice needed.
by Rolo Tomassi 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Hi all, Please forgive the simplistic nature of the query.. Basically my company is multi-homed with 2 different providers in the UK, and advertising a /18. Now some colleaguges in another part of the world want to break that /18 into two /19's and advertise one /19 and we advertise the other. This is fine, however we are NOT running IBGP in the core, therefore the UK customers in the /19 will not be able to reach the other /19 as there would be a loop detected through EBGP. Now someone mentioned that we could use AS-LOOP-IN feature which will overcome this problem and allow us to route to each other via EBGP. I really think this is a bad idea but until we get an internal link - I dont see a way forward. So... anyone doing this currently in their network or have any "best practices" way round this. I want our company to be good Netizens but still be able to pass traffic between the 2 /19's. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Rolo ! _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

7 7

ASN and Peering Problem
by Adi Linden 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

We currently have two /19 that we advertise on a single ASN. A client would like to obtain /23 or /22 from us. This is not a problem, except that their primary internet provider is someone else, other than us. I think that they would need to have their own ASN to advertise their portion of our ip space to their peers. My question is, should we provide the ASN or should they apply for an ASN? What is the minimum block considered routable, is it reasaonable to advertise a /23 on its own ASN? Are there any other solutions I haven't thought of? Thanks, Adi

4 3