- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Converting from telco Major-V, Major-H coordinates to Lat Long
by Pete Templin 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

Very rusty memory cells on this, but I think the mileage is 0.1 * sqrt ((delta-V)^2 + (delta-H)^2)). That's assuming same LATA, IIRC. Pete Templin Senior Staff Engineer TexLink Communications (210) 892-4183 pete.templin(a)texlink.com -----Original Message----- From: network-nanog(a)gwi.net [mailto:network-nanog@gwi.net] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:06 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: fkittred(a)gwi.net Subject: Converting from telco Major-V, Major-H coordinates to Lat Long Any ideas on how to convert from telco "Major-V, Major-H" coordinates to latitude and longitude? Alternately, does anyone have a table of mapping CLLI codes to latitude and longitude? I am trying to programatically figure out the air distance between any two Verizon COs. regards, fletcher -- Fletcher Kittredge Great Works Internet 8 Pomerleau St. Biddeford, ME 04005-9457

1 0

Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please contact me ...)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

>> It reminds me of the Netgear and U of Wisconsin time server SNAFU. >> http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/ >The difference is that Netgear admitted responsibility and worked with >UW to cope with the issue. Further, Netgear has funded UW in it's >cleanup efforts and generally stepped up to the plate. As much as I don't >care for Netgear's products, they did show decent corporate responsibility >when UW was able to escalate to the appropriate management at Netgear. Sounds like a great example to put before the judge when you sue Microsoft. Can anyone say "class action"? --Michael Dillon

4 3

Lucent/Avaya Cajun experiences
by Andy Grosser 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

This request is largely for anecdotal/historical purposes. The recent Foundry/Riverstone posts reminded me of a topic I'd kept meaning to broach. My organization will probably be replacing all of our L2/L3 Lucent/Avaya Cajun switches in the next few months with Catalyst 65XX series boxes. Our experience has largely been disastrous - 3 operational years have been filled with _constant_ HW and SW failures, buggy code (i.e. backplane suddenly stops all traffic forwarding), horrible tech support, lousy online resources (a la SW releases). Their M770 ATM gear hasn't been much better, and their PacketStar media gateways are still, surprisingly, limping along. Anyone care to share their own Lucent/Avaya experiences? Please feel free to reply off-list and I will provide an anonymous summary. Thanks. --- Andy Grosser, CCNP andy(a)meniscus.org ---

2 2

Re: ISPs blocking port 53? (was Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates)
by Paul Vixie 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

> > the whole end-to-end argument depends on uniform clue distribution > > for scale. > ... > Getting vendors to supply more appropriate defaults offers better > scaling possibilities. Your complaint might fix one user's computer, > Microsoft updating the default behaivor would fix tens of millions > of users' computers. Which scales better? you've got a real mad on about software monopolies, and i guess i ought to join you since on any other day i'm just as worried. (the fact that dan geer lost his job over this issue makes it even more painful.) but in this case microsoft's culpability is toward their user, whereas the isp's culpability is toward me, so there are two "culpability segments" in the path, and i can't really complain to microsoft about these updates even if, as you point out, they are the ones who would find fixing it easiest, among all involved parties. > How can a Windows system have a fatal error every hour for days and > months, and the user not be aware of it until someone else calls them? from microsoft's point of view, the failure in that case is that they are not monetizing a condition which is very common amongst their users. MSN has the ability to sell domain names. windows has the ability to tell that a microsoft customer does not have a domain name, or does not own the one they are pretending to be in, or whatever. microsoft should not be waiting on complaints, nor should they have to feel any remorse before they fix this. the verb they should be considering is "monetize". > If Dynamic DNS Update is so critical that Microsoft feels the need to > enable it by default, why doesn't Microsoft pop an error dialog window > on the user's machine every time it fails? Then the user could decide > to fix the problem, or stop doing it. If the user doesn't know there > is a problem, why should he fix it? that's an excellent question, especially since it could have a "click here to send microsoft more of your money" button. but no matter how good an idea it is, my complaint is still that sending e-mail toward the whois contact for a network or AS# should elicit a clueful reply, and if it doesn't, then the key word we're looking for is "cost shifting". (and that, in case y'all wondered, is why this is relevant to nanog@.)

2 1

someone from attbi please contact me regarding host 24.129.84.175
by Paul Vixie 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

noc@ and abuse@ are ignoring me as usual, so i'm spamming nanog@ in hopes of locating attbi clue. i need somebody who can educate one of your customers who is dns-updating me. re: [fh:i386] grep -c 'client 24.129.84.175.*update.*denied' messages 74 [fh:i386] zgrep -c 'client 24.129.84.175.*update.*denied' messages.?.gz messages.0.gz:67 messages.1.gz:43 messages.2.gz:106 messages.3.gz:206 messages.4.gz:215 messages.5.gz:104 PS. why is this so hard?

13 15

OT: co-lo DC Metro area non-rack-mount box?
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

Im posting this for a friend. Looking for a DC Metro area co-lo that will take a non-rack-mountable box for around $150/month or less. :) Looking for unlimted bandwidth. Respond directly to me please. Thanks, BM

1 0

Yet another address harvesting analysis idea
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

>Supposedly if you put a newly installed, unpatched Windows box on the 'net, >with an Outlook address book full of fresh spamtrap addresses, you'll start >getting spam to those addresses in something like 3 hours. And if you buy a recently expired domain name and set up an SMTP server for it, then you will receive incoming email for quite a long period of time. Each one of those messages will have valid From and CC email addresses that you could collect. In order to truly secure the net against spammers we would need to secure both the email system and the DNS system. I use the word "system" in the context of General Systems Theory, to refer to everything connected with the transport of email across the Internet including the users, their interfaces, the MUAs, the MTAs and the protocols. Similarly for DNS, I include things like the domain name registries and registrars and their policies. Bandaid fixes only buy time, they don't fix the problem. --Michael Dillon P.S. ASRG is a good idea because it is systematically collecting and validating a lot of what we know about spam to make it easier for decision makers to understand the issues. http://www.irtf.org/asrg/

2 1

Re: ISPs blocking port 53? (was Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

> but no matter how good an >idea it is, my complaint is still that sending e-mail toward the whois >contact for a network or AS# should elicit a clueful reply, and if it >doesn't, then the key word we're looking for is "cost shifting". (and >that, in case y'all wondered, is why this is relevant to nanog@.) It's also relevant to the upcoming ARIN meeting in Chicago right after NANOG. There is a policy proposal to change the whois directory so that it only contains contact info for people who are ready, willing and able to act as contacts for an address block or AS number. Right now whois is a cesspool with too many people who are unable to do anything about network issues or who don't understand network issues or who have moved on and no longer exist. If we clean this up, then it is entirely reasonable for you to ask the community to give a higher priority to complaints from someone who is also listed as a whois contact. But right now I don't see any good way to systematically identify clueful complainers. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please contact me ...)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

>Unfortunately, telling end users to disable a default setting is >rather difficult these days. Not if it's done the right way using the right language. For instance... ------------ Did you realize that your computer is probably wasting precious bandwidth and slowing down your Internet connection because of the wrong default setting? You can fix this problem and take back control of your connection with this small utility which resets the dynamic DNS settings to stop wasting your bandwidth. Go to http://0xdeadbeef.example.com/noddns.html and start surfing free. And don't forget to tell your friends too! ------------- In other words, Windows users don't typically change settings themselves but they do download small utilities that do nothing other than change one or two registry keys. >Back in beta days, the official explanation given was that the DNS >updating was a "value add" and that it would never be disabled as >a default as a courtesy to corporate customers. Corporate customers are smart enough to tick off a DDNS option during install or to automate the entire install process with a custom install script for their site. But MS is so big that the people making this decision probably had no idea how their product is really used in the real world. > larger ISPs ought >to include this "fix" as an option with their installation CDs. Alas, >we get back to the ongoing debate: adjust user prefs for them, for >their own good... or get the vendor to cooperate? Both. Create and distribute a tool that fixes the problem. Make sure the tool can run windowless as part of an ISP or corporate install script. Then sit back and watch while MS assimilates the functionality of this new tool in a later release. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: ISPs blocking port 53? (was Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates)
by Paul Vixie 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

> whats disturbing is how many contact addresses for both whois and AS#'s > bounce sure, i agree, that's disturbing. however, it's a different problem than having mail get ignored or ignorebotted and then depref'd so low that nobody even bothers to call you or let you know whether a human ever say the message. when it's a spammer then i can understand that there might be money lost if the isp disco's them. that's evil and rude, but i understand it. when it's unwanted packet-level traffic, though, there is no revenue stream to be protected by the simple expedient of ignoring complaints -- ddos'ers do not pay for their outgo. what's happening in this case is simply that there isn't enough staff to deal with every issue that affects outside complainers. it turns out that this lack scales nicely, creating the same lack elsewhere, due to competitive pressure, general apathy toward whole classes of problems, and so forth. branding program. we need a branding program. is there still an isp consortium in existence or did they all just die like cix? we need a "better netkeeping seal of approval" stamp before the worseness goes through its next geometric progression.

2 1