- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Attack targets .info domain system
by John Payne 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

--On Monday, November 25, 2002 05:11:43 PM -0500 Todd Mitchell <tmitchell(a)pronicsolutions.com> wrote: > http://www.ultradns.com/news/021028.html That doesn't come into effect until next year.

1 0

Attack targets .info domain system
by Richard Forno 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

Attack targets .info domain system By Robert Lemos Staff Writer, CNET News.com November 25, 2002, 1:12 PM PT http://news.com.com/2100-1001-971178.html?tag=fd_top An Internet attack flooded domain name manager UltraDNS with a deluge of data late last week, causing administrators to scramble to keep up and running the servers that host .info and other domains. The assault sent nearly 2 million requests per second to each device connecting the network to the Internet--many times greater than normal--during the four hours of peak activity that hit the company early Thursday morning, said Ben Petro, CEO of UltraDNS. "This is the largest attack that we've seen," Petro said. He stressed that it didn't affect the company's core domain name system (DNS) services, but administrators had to work fast to get the attack blocked by the backbone Internet companies from which UltraDNS gets its connectivity. "From a network management perspective, it certainly kept us on our toes," he said. <snip> UltraDNS, a member of the Internet Society, serves as the primary DNS provider for the .org domain. In addition, UltraDNS acts as the primary provider for .info and for the top-level domains of Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and nine other domains. "The reality is that the attacks keep getting bigger, stronger and faster," Petro said. "Like terrorism, you don't know when they are going to strike and how they are going to strike. Until we are able to dedicate attention to these attacks, until we can follow these attacks to their end, we are all vulnerable." http://news.com.com/2100-1001-971178.html?tag=fd_top

2 1

RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8
by Leslie Nobile 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

Subject: RIPE NCC to allocate from 82.0.0.0/8 As of Nov 23, 2002, 82.0.0.0/8 has been allocated to RIPE NCC by the IANA. In the near future, the RIPE NCC will begin making allocations from this /8. A master list of IANA IPv4 allocations can be found at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered blocks is listed below. Further information on ARIN's /8s and minimum allocation size can be found at http://www.arin.net/statistics ARIN CIDR BLOCKS CIDR Block Smallest Allocation 24.0.0.0/8 /20 63.0.0.0/8 /19 64.0.0.0/8 /20 65.0.0.0/8 /20 66.0.0.0/8 /20 67.0.0.0/8 /20 68.0.0.0/8 /20 69.0.0.0/8 /20 196.0.0.0/8 /24 198.0.0.0/8 /24 199.0.0.0/8 /24 200.0.0.0/8 /24 204.0.0.0/8 /24 205.0.0.0/8 /24 206.0.0.0/8 /24 207.0.0.0/8 /24 208.0.0.0/8 /20 209.0.0.0/8 /20 216.0.0.0/8 /20 Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this?
by variable＠ednet.co.uk 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Roberts wrote: > Yer, some dial providers that I've seen do it to make use of these > addresses, as x.x.x.0/32 is a perfectly valid host address. I've seen this too. Dialup boxes that use dynamic pools prefer them to start on a subnet boundry so that they can announce a single aggregate route for the whole pool. However we ran into problems with using x.x.x.0 before (think it was a broken TCP/IP from some vendor or another) and so we moved the dynamic pools further up the subnet. Rich

1 0

Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this?
by Stephen J. Wilcox 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

> > Can anyone think of a reason why this sort of traffic should be routed at > > all? Does anyone actually drop hosts on to addresses ending in x.x.x.0? > > > > Yer, some dial providers that I've seen do it to make use of these > addresses, as x.x.x.0/32 is a perfectly valid host address. Interestingly we used to use /22s on our dial boxes and as a result of users with .0 or .255 addresses finding access problems to some areas of the Internet we stopped assigning them. Its curious just how many systems on the Internet are misconfigured or run software created by folks without proper understanding of the network protocols (M$). I wonder to what extent this poor engineering is detrimental to the ever changing Internet and if we'll hit a point where theres so many workarounds it becomes unmanageable.. (hmm, we might be pretty close from some of the things I've seen ;) </rant></troll> <meta content="dont bother replying, its too much like hard work">

1 0

FTTx mailing lists
by Thomas Kernen 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

I'm trying to locate technical FTTx (Fibre to the home/business/curb) related mailing lists. Pointers appreciated. Thomas

1 0

Re: PAIX
by Stephen Sprunk 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

Thus spake "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> > At 2:45 PM -0600 2002/11/24, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > None of these applications have any requirement for peering every 100km2. > > I'd expect my refrigerator, oven, light switches, etc. to be behind my > > house's firewall and only talk using link-local addresses anyways. > > Using Rendezvous and multicast DNS? What happens when you bring > in the rogue appliance that decides to start spoofing answers from > other equipment, or maybe you contract a computer virus that does so? That's a potentially interesting discussion, but it has nothing to do with requiring peering in every 100km2. > I think the real risk is VoIP and mobile phones used as Internet > video phones with H.323 or other protocols that require high > bandwidth and low latency. Imagine doing this for tens of millions > of people in a large city. And the half-dozen carriers who operate those tens of millions of phones will have private peering in place if it makes technical sense -- just like they do for TDM phones. That doesn't mean those carriers will want to peer publicly in every city, nor does it necessarily mean that private peering in every city makes economic or technical sense. As I previously asserted, every point in the US is within 20ms RTT of a major exchange today, and 20ms latency is irrelevant in the VoIP arena. Try again. S

1 0

CW?
by Alex Rubenstein 24 Nov '02

24 Nov '02

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021113/0217000178_2.html -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

14 30

82/8 allocated to RIPE
by Rob Thomas 23 Nov '02

23 Nov '02

Hi, NANOGers. 82/8, formerly IANA - Reserved, has been allocated to RIPE as of 23 NOV 2002. Please take the time to adjust your filters accordingly. I have updated my documents and monitoring for the new allocation. Master list of IANA IPv4 allocations http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Bogon List http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-list.html Bogon Monitoring http://www.cymru.com/BGP/robbgp-bogon.html Secure IOS Template (ported to Juniper by Steve Gill) http://www.cymru.com/Documents/secure-ios-template.html http://www.qorbit.net/documents/junos-template.pdf Secure BGP Template (ported to Juniper by Steve Gill) http://www.cymru.com/Documents/secure-bgp-template.html http://www.qorbit.net/documents/junos-bgp-template.pdf Secure BIND Template http://www.cymru.com/Documents/secure-bind-template.html Thanks! Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);

1 0

Re: PAIX
by Paul Vixie 23 Nov '02

23 Nov '02

> | What application will require this dense peering? > > To power the IPv6 networks of refridgerators, ovens, and light switches, > as well as your 3G video conferencing phone i think we're going to need peering this dense to carry all of the nanog traffic between and among people who say we don't need it. if i ever needed clear evidence that the people who operate networks don't necessarily know who uses them or for what, or clear evidence that the most powerful force on the internet is a single voice claiming that something cannot be done, then the last week of this thread would be it.

1 0