- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

let the lawsuits begin
by Alan Hannan 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Let the lawsuits begin. " KNOXVILLE, Tenn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 18, 2003--Popular Enterprises LLC, the parent company of Netster.com, has filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against VeriSign, Inc. The Complaint alleges antitrust violations, unfair competition and violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act based upon VeriSign's release of the http://sitefinder.verisign.com product. " http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?epi-content=GENER… http://search.netster.com/about/lawsuit.asp

1 0

ISC Patches
by Peter Losher 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

The official announcements are going out via the bind-announce(a)isc.org list, but just in case: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/delegation-only.html Best Wishes - Peter Losher -- Peter_Losher(a)isc.org | ISC | OpenPGP 0xE8048D08 | "The bits must flow"

6 6

Re: .ORG problems this evening
by Todd Vierling 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, John Fraizer wrote: : As has been stated by others, UltraDNS, like the roots and other TLD hosts : is under nearly constant attack. Perhaps your local nodes were effected : by an attack. IE; the pipe was full but the service was still alive so the : anycast prefix wasn't retracted. Bummer. Sucks to be you. Sucks to be anyone trying to use the service whose routers pick those nodes as the only ones available. That's the fault of the implementor, not the client. The major issue here is that no *gTLD*, particularly one of the Big Three, should be subject to a SPOF -- even if it's only a regionally visible SPOF due to anycast selection. It should *always* be possible to attempt queries to more than one physical location's servers for a gTLD. Yet last night, I could not query .ORG from several different locations in the continental US, even though there were perfectly functional servers available (in the same country, no less). BGP errors happen (everyone here should be able to attest to that readily), and they did. What's to stop some other boneheaded DoS or oversight from causing this again? And again? This particular outage was in the late evening in what appeared to be the affected area from my probing, which is why people like you don't appear to care; it "didn't affect you". What about when it happens in the middle of the day in your neck of the woods? : Doesn't really matter to me though. Bitch and moan all you like. : Demonstrate your lack of experience and understanding. Uh-huh. Quite a few people here know better; they also know I am surrounded by <cloak/> on this list and others. If my public resume were up to date and filled in more detail, you'd know otherwise. Don't try to speak for my experience from your pedestal when you don't have the information to make that kind of baseless judgment. On the other hand, if you can't see the fatal flaw in a major Internet infrastructure service depending on a single point of failure, I can point you at a few books that could enlighten you. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

3 3

Re: Worst design decisions?
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

In article <cistron.Pine.NEB.4.58.0309181101380.8936(a)server.duh.org>, Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> wrote: > >On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 up(a)3.am wrote: > >: Without a question: PS/2 style keyboard and mouse connectors. Impossible >: to tell from each other, > >And this part is somewhat funny, too, because the PS/2 connector layout is >capable of having both devices share the same bus (there's two unconnected >pins, which some laptops use to provide alternate CLK/DATA signals). > >If PS/2 mice used the unconnected pins rather than the same CLK/DATA pins as >the keyboard, all machines could simply have two connectors using all six >pins and you'd be able to plug either device into either socket. Actually a PC can detect if a mouse or keyboard is plugged in and behave appropiately - there were PCs (I forget which) on which it didn't matter what port you used for kbd or mouse, it all just worked. In fact 2 kbds is quite possible as well. So that is basically a software problem. Mike.

1 0

Rogers Cable Contact
by Alexander Kiwerski 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Can someone from the Rogers Cable NOC (Tier-III) contact me off-list? Thanks, Alexander Kiwerski Senior Network Engineer Winstar-IDT Network Operations & Security Desk: +1 206 574 3121 Mobile: +1 206 571 0274

1 0

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Ejay Hire 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Who needs a console port on a Bay? Site angler will save the day! ... Err, sorry, coming off of a power outage with nothing to do but drink coffee. -e -----Original Message----- From: Peter E. Fry [mailto:pfry@swbell.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:02 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Worst design decisions? David Barak wrote: > Personally my issues are console-cable related: is > there a benefit to the HUGE variety of console pinouts > used by the various hardware vendors? Just look at > vendor C as an example [...] Is that the best example you can come up with? Ever use any Bay equipment...? Heh. Makes me want to add "I hate it when that happens", as in "Ever put your head in a vise and crank it down real tight...?" Peter E. Fry

2 1

Re: DNS anycast considered harmful (was: .ORG problems this evening)
by Todd Vierling 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: : > Still doesn't help .ORG, which is 100% anycast and thus has no DNS-based : > redundancy : : Wrong since there are two IP addresses. They may fail at the same time : (which apparently happened to you) but there is a least an element of : non-BGP redundancy (I'm not aware of any TLD running with only one : anycasted name server, although it would still have some redundancy). Okay, let me qualify then: "...no DNS-based redundancy when both routes point to the same place and that particular place goes off the air while its BGP advertisements stay up and running..." DNS-based redundancy typically implies going to different servers at different locations, regardless of what BGP says. The fact that anycast took me to the same place for both IPs, and that same place went down all at once, means that I was effectively looking at a single point of failure with no way for DNS to pick another place to look. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

5 7

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Daryl G. Jurbala 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

* How about the plastic stand-offs that hold the AIM-VPN cards in the 2600 and 1700 series. Yeah...the ones that DON'T come with your SmartNet replacement chassis and that you have the pull the entire board to release. * And how about this: Cisco: PICK A BUSINESS END ON YOUR SMALL OFFICE ROUTING EQUIPMENT. Most of my less clued customer like to "help out" and rack the equipment ahead of time. And it always gets done pretty side out. Yeah..the side with a Cisco logo and three lights. It sure does look like it should be the front, but it's useless that way. Maybe putting the power on that side would clue people in to the fact that it's basically useless to point that at the easy-access side of the rack. * PCs with built in Ethernet that is so close to a lip on the case, with the release pointed down, that you need to use a screwdriver/knife/whatever to release the cable. * Lack of proper SPAN support on 29xx/35xx series switches. Read only? I can live with it. No inter-vlan? Very bad. Does that make my worse design decision using Cisco CPE at my small customer/remote office sites? Hmmmm.... Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp

10 10

Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by George William Herbert 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Michael Dillon wrote: >Complaining on this mailing list achieves very little but [...] It did one useful thing; it gave a wide number of operators across the ISP and infrastructure industries a chance to see what was happening and put in their two cents. My initial impression was that the wildcard was amazingly bad for a number of reasons, but based on my own impression alone I am unlikely to launch complaints to a wide range of regulators and congresspeople. It is now quite clear that nobody in the industry has seen fit to respond to the Verisign actions as anything defensible at the technical or policy levels. So my opinion goes from being my two cents to a consensus; and I will act in those external arenas based on what I see as a sufficiently wide consensus... -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

1 0

consider fewer posts, more substance please...
by ren 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

To all parties who have posted to NANOG a dozen times or more in the past 24 hours... For a good time please check out: http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html#topics * Think Before You Post * When you send mail to the NANOG list, it will be received by thousands of current and potential peers, employers, suppliers and customers. It will be archived in many places, and will be easily found and retrieved by anybody with access to a browser and a search engine for many years to come. * People will form opinions on you based on the way you conduct yourself on the list. Think before you post to avoid acting foolish in front of people you might someday have to ask for a job, an emergency response to a customer problem, rackspace, or peering. NANOG Committee Members, perhaps the addition of a per-day posting limit should be considered in the next round of FAQ updates? -ren

1 0