- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Verislime NSI details
by David Lesher 20 Oct '03

20 Oct '03

FWIW: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38293-2003Oct16.html .... VeriSign Inc. announced yesterday that it will sell Network Solutions, the Herndon-based registrar of Internet addresses, for $100 million in a deal that will allow VeriSign to retain exclusive control of the valuable .com and .net database. VeriSign, which acquired Network Solutions in 2000 for $15 billion in stock, said it agreed with Pivotal Private Equity, an Arizona-based investment firm, to sell the unit by the end of the year. VeriSign will keep a 15 percent stake. .... {Me thinks Verislime paid SAIC way too much....} -- 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

2 1

Green peering stickers
by Dan Lockwood 20 Oct '03

20 Oct '03

Although I fail to have one of the stickers, if there is anyone at the meeting that is operating in the northern California area and would like to discuss peering please send me a message off-list. I'm interested to learn what other operations are in the area. Thanks! Dan Lockwood

3 3

Paging Jim McBurnett
by Dr. Jeffrey Race 20 Oct '03

20 Oct '03

On 13 Oct 2003 20:15:22 +0700, MAILER-DAEMON(a)asianet.co.th wrote: >Hi. This is the qmail-send program at asianet.co.th. >I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. >This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > ><jmcburnett(a)msmgmt.com>: I have mail for you (being bounced as above). Please advise me a fax # or better e-mail address Jeffrey Race

1 0

bad link to real stream
by Mark Radabaugh 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/network.html has "To watch the meeting live, check the links on the main conference page. " - the link is bad. The real real feed is at ??? Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 720-3635

2 2

Use squid cache at NANOG29
by John Kristoff 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

NANOG29 attendees, Help make my SSH sessions more responsive, use the squid cache. :-) <http://www.nanog.org/squid.html> John

1 0

Upcoming change of source AS for i.root-servers.net
by Johan Ihren 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

Friends, As part of the long term ambition to provide the Internet root nameservers with extremely stable homes in all possible respects we plan to change the source autonomous system for i.root-servers.net from AS8674 (NETNOD INTERNET EXCHANGE) to AS29216 (dedicated as I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) We hope that after this change i.root-servers.net will never have to change source AS again. We intend to implement this change next week during the NANOG29 conference. Please note: a) This is a planned operation, not an emergency. b) We will not change the IP adress of the i.root-servers.net service, only the source AS. c) We will not change any of the several servers providing the i.root-servers.net service in any way. It will be the same servers at the same locations providing exactly the same service as usual. Regards, Johan Ihrén Autonomica

1 0

Verio outage
by Alex Yuriev 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

There is a aparently a major outage in Verio-land between Boston and Baltiore, touch as far away as Pitts. Alex

1 0

Re: IAB concerns against permanent deployment of edge-based filtering
by bmanning＠karoshi.com 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

> On 18 okt 2003, at 23.28, bmanning(a)karoshi.com wrote: > > and if they are useful to the folks on my network, the ports > > will be opened up. > > This is where we are disagreeing. > > Remember: > > - The Robustness Principle: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal > in what you accept from others." [Jon Postel, RFC 793] > - The Principle Of Least Astonishment: A program should always respond > in the way that is least likely to astonish the user. [Traditional, > original source unknown] yup. remember those. > Because of this, if not the overall explicit stated (by IETF) goal is > that filtering should NOT happen, it will happen. its happend for years and is implicitly allowed. > Yes, it is an ISP, regardless of transit or edge, which is responsible > for their network. thank you. > It is my belief that statements like this from the IAB will help, as > ISP's and customers of ISP's both can see what the IAB think the goal > of operations is. Customers can say "hey, IAB says this, why don't you > run your network that way". The ISP can then explain (and in some cases > it of course makes sense what the ISP say). Such a statement from the IAB might be construed improperly, in much the same way as you claim RFCs are "improperly" interpreted by various and sundry ISP/commercial folks. If I get a customer who says "hey, IAB says this, why don't you run your network that way" and my response will be someing along the lines "vendors bugs e.g. the cisco IOS attacks via chargen, daytime et.al. or Microsoft RCP weaknesses - FIRST/CERT/SANS recommendations to mitigate DDOS. We can have a working, productive network or we can have an IAB compliant network." Now its not the IAB's fault that implementations make local optimizations or overlook coding weaknesses. The IAB should provide a sound architectural framwork and direct the IESG/IETF to advance robust, well defined protocols done the standards track (they should also encourage publication and development of novel ideas, via experimental/informational RFCs, but that is another topic). However, in the absence of the network police, (you know, the interoperability squad) it is impossible for me to put a whole lot of credence on the IAB telling me that it would be best if I would ensure that filters are only transitory. Thats nearly the same a telling me that being healthy is good. That said, no filters are permenant, some just last longer than others, depending on when problems are fixed. Cast in a different light, let me ask you this, is it better to ship products with "security" turned off or turned on? > paf >

1 0

Re: IAB concerns against permanent deployment of edge-based filtering
by bmanning＠karoshi.com 18 Oct '03

18 Oct '03

> >> why the heck does the IAB think they should tell me how to run my > >> network? > > > > ... part of the INTERnet, and we > > would like it all to interoperate end to end. that must be the royal "we"... > > you have been here > > long enough to remember when the internet was a cooperation between > > operators, yes? Sure. and why the ARPAnet evolved into MILnet/CSnet/BITnet, the NSF regionals, NSI et.al. That whole "trust but verify" threat model. And then the "evolution" into more specialized architectures, w/ folk focusing on edge & core - content and eyeballs etc. > Absolutely correct. What I personally am afraid of is if we get a > network where we by choice (yes, your choice as the operator) get > vertically oriented services instead of horisontal. Where you only can > connect to a service if you get IP packets of a specific flavor from a > specific ISP. here in is the nut. Internet Protocols should, by design, presume a fully end2end, always on model. Packets should be emitted w/ the presumption that they can reach their target. If not, its not reachable. period. If my node is in a MANET, then I should be able to reach all the nodes in that MANET. If its on Mars, then DTN should take care of packet delivery. If the transit ISP filters my prefix and throws the bits on the floor, I should complain. If the transit ISP filters the port and throws the bits on the floor, I should complain. But that is the transit ISP choice. Local Optimizations - trying to be smart about what is reachable over what transport by some "middle-box" - that is harmful. Operationally, I may chose to take links down, filter out some traffic, groom for specific network performance -over infrastructure i pay for- the whole "middle-box, firewall, NAT, or generic tunneling techniques are in play to allow end-users to circumvent network policy ... and that is bad. if there is really a concern that port filtering is inherently bad and should only be exercised as a temporary expediant, then why not open up all ports on the end systems? blocking ports 5, 7, 9, 11 and 19 are fairly common these days. is the IAB seriously suggesting that ISPs remove the filters on/for these ports? I'll stand by this mantra for -EDGE- networks: "allow what you use, block what you don't." when new, inovative applications evolve, I expect they should have thier own port(s) assigned, just like has occured in the Internet over the last 25 years. and if they are useful to the folks on my network, the ports will be opened up. stuff that tunnels w/o authorization, will be found and squashed. > The INETRnet works because as soon as you get IP packets from The > INTERnet somewhere, you can access any service which runs on top of IP > because of the transparent peering/transit agreements which exists. But where is the presumption made that -operationally- all transport substrates are interconnected? > Because of this, it is a bad thing, and really the start of a very > slippery slope, if AS:es start filtering at their edges. It can be done > for various practical reasons in short term (as you say, you are > responsible for YOUR network, YOUR part of The INTERnet), but as a long > term thing, nope. You might want to consider why EGP protocols were built in the first place... :) EGP/BGP have -policy- constraints designed in to restrict traffic. > paf -- speaking personally, but member of the IAB --bill -- speaking as devils advocate and w/o having taken my meds today. ... granted it is nice to see the IAB take an interest and take a stance. I'm more afraid that such a document will aquire the patina of "gospel" by ISPs who won't think for themselves as to why some choices should be made.

2 1

AOL E.mail issues..
by Robert Mathews 18 Oct '03

18 Oct '03

Is anyone experiencing E.mail weirdness, specifically bounces from AOL today at all? I have spoken to a number of others from various parts of CONUS, who seem to have a similar issue.. Regards.

4 4