- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

wcom issues in SF Bay area?
by Mark Kent 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

I've got problems with 30 T1 circuits, on two DS3 hubs. All are Worldcom (MFS), all out of S63 (55 So. Market, SanJose), all have Pacbell tail loops. Earlier today a worldcom person said to me: "I tried to get you status from the OSC (Sacramento), but they are really, really busy. I was on hold for 45 minutes before I got disconnected" So, is there a significant Worldcom operational issue that has not yet been reported to nanog? Or, am I alone with these problems? Thanks, -mark

1 1

Verizon Contact
by Erich Kuehn 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Does anyone have a Verzion contact that could help with setting up a 2600 with a DSL wic. Or configs that might work. Thanks Erich

2 1

SWIP weirdness
by matthew zeier 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

The new ARIN SWIP template confuses me. The reassign-simple I sent in lastnight came back with: > Fail to Pass Validation. Error Message: > *PUBLIC COMMENTS can not be removed I had: > 9. Customer Country Code: US > 10. Public Comments: NONE > > END OF TEMPLATE And the docs say: PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION (Optional) 10. If there are any comments that you would like publicly displayed in WHOIS regarding this registration, detail them here. If you wish to remove the publicly displayed comments from WHOIS, enter NONE. Where's the misunderstanding? -- matthew zeier - "Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Leonard Rubenstein

2 1

198.41.0.0/22 ? whois-servers.net
by Mike Tancsa 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Anyone know whats up with 198.41.0.0/22 ? I am seeing all sorts of whois lookup failures as a result. route-views.oregon-ix.net>show ip bgp 198.41.0.0/22 % Network not in table route-views.oregon-ix.net> net.whois-servers.net ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike(a)sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike

1 0

Re: Standalone Stratum 1 NTP Server
by CARL.P.HIRSCH＠sargentlundy.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

If GPS visibility is not an option (GPS can be very finicky about being able to see an open percentage of the sky), then CDMA signals are also an option in the states. Handy if the installation is going to be in a highrise. Prices seem to vary greatly between manufacturers, I've gotten quotes on both of these in the past but I'm not finding the post-it I'd written that info upon. http://www.endruntechnologies.com/ntp-server.htm http://www.datum.com/tt/pages/tymserve/2100.html HTH, -carl Mike Lyon <mlyon@fitzharri To: Mike Leber <mleber(a)he.net> s.com> cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent by: Subject: Re: Standalone Stratum 1 NTP Server owner-nanog@meri t.edu 08/27/02 02:43 AM http://www.truetime.com/index.html Not exactly "stand alone" because you have to place the antenna somwhere where it can see the GPS satellites as is the case with any any Stratum 1 NTP device. Then you have to program the IP into it and plug the ethernet into it. They are really simple to install and configure. They give you a certain amount of Coax (you can order more if need be) and you put the antenna on the roof and run it down to the receiver. Quite simple. They have a couple different models to choose from. -Mike On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Mike Leber wrote: > > > I was wondering if anybody has any suggestions for a low priced, off the > shelf, complete (includes any necessary receivers), standalone (as in you > just plug it in and connect ethernet), stratum 1 NTP server? > > Please also mention where to buy it. > > Mike. > > +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ > | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | > | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | > | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >

1 0

Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)
by michael.dillon＠radianz.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Filters are static things, that have to be updated, and can't see every case that comes thru. It might be possible to make filters that don't need to be updated that often if you apply AI techniques to recognizing SPAM. For instance, check out this new approach: http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/spam.html --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > Well, you might be able to pay your ISP for that kind of service, but > > > not all ISPs need supply such service and certainly not many users > > > really _need_ such a level of service. > > So now I have to justify the kind of services I want to use? What's next, > > me having to register the words I'd like to say over the phone with my > > phone company? > Your analogy is pretty stupid. Thank you for your kind words, but I have to disagree. It is not an ISP's business what's in the packets I send, just like it's not the phone company's business what I say over the phone. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If they get a complaint that holds up to some scruteny, they can start looking at what I'm doing. But filtering beforehand just because I _may_ do something bad sets a big, fat, ugly precedent. > Some lame luser with a set-top box (the majority of all users, lame and > otherwise) never ever needs to send arbitrary IP packets to arbitrary IP > addresses. And east germans have no reason to visit west germany, so that wall was a good think after all. > Are you trying to say that the Internet should be restricted to only > those who can responsibly send arbitrary IP packets to arbitrary IP addresses? People should be able to handle arbitrary incoming IP packets (although not necessarily arbitrary numbers of them). If you don't like receiving something, what is the smart thing to do: ask several hundred million people not to send it, or filter it out yourself? Don't try teaching pigs to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

1 0

Anyone home at swbell.net?
by J.A. Terranson 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON(a)prodigy.net> Received: from pimout5-ext.prodigy.net (pimout5-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.98]) by cliff.mfn.org (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g7R0XNc65241 for <measl(a)mfn.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:33:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from MAILER-DAEMON(a)prodigy.net) Received: from vm1-ext.prodigy.net (vm1-int.prodigy.net [192.168.240.84]) by pimout5-ext.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g7R0XMW72264 for <measl(a)mfn.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:33:22 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by vm1-ext.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g7R0XM970768 for measl(a)mfn.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:33:22 -0400 From: MAILER-DAEMON(a)prodigy.net Message-Id: <200208270033.g7R0XM970768(a)vm1-ext.prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:33:16 -0400 Subject: Returned mail: SPAM: remailer, Increase your breast size. 100% safe! (fwd) To: <measl(a)mfn.org> User's mailbox is full: <postman3(a)swbell.net> Unable to deliver mail.

1 0

Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)
by Scott Gifford 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Brad Knowles <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> writes: [...] > Moreover, even if all servers on the Internet were secured in > this manner and there were no open relays, it would also require > perfect reverse DNS because the MXes are listed by name and not IP > address -- that's assuming you do a reverse lookup on the IP address > and require that the returned name is on the list. The proposal suggests that you get all of the A records for all of the accepted names, then make sure that one of the A records matches the address that the connection came from. See sec. 2.3. Even if it did require good reverse DNS, that would only be needed for domains that chose to implement this, and only for addresses that are allowed to send mail from that domain. ----ScottG.

2 1

Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 26 Aug '02

26 Aug '02

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > As a user, I pay my ISP to forward IP packets. If there happen to be TCP > > segments in those packets, that's something between me and the person the > > packet is addressed to, whether the destination port of those TCP segments > > is 25 or something else. > Well, you might be able to pay your ISP for that kind of service, but > not all ISPs need supply such service and certainly not many users > really _need_ such a level of service. So now I have to justify the kind of services I want to use? What's next, me having to register the words I'd like to say over the phone with my phone company? I'll tell you what. I'll filter port 25 for the entire world on my routers, and you mail guys go back to running UUCP like in the good old nearly-spam-free days.

1 0