- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: World Trade Center attack
by Kavi, Prabhu 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

I assume you are talking about the phone system. Not that this is any consolation to you, but the phone system is setup to operate this way during a disaster. When a disaster strikes an area, the phone systems are setup to allow mostly dial-out, rather than dial-in. The reason is that the people in the disaster area who are ok can call family outside the disaster area and get the word out. The family members who receive the call can then inform others outside the disaster area. Otherwise what naturally happens is that a flood of calls come in which ties up all the phone lines. People in the NYC/DC area cannot call out, and then all communications effectively stops. Having explained it, I understand it still doesn't make it better for you. Hope you hear from them soon. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Youse, Chuck [mailto:Chuck.Youse@ebone.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:22 AM > To: 'Nanog@Merit. Edu' > Subject: RE: World Trade Center attack > > > > I'm currently experiencing problems getting through to > friends/family in NYC > from London. > > Anybody else having the same issues ... ? > > Chuck Youse > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Pendergrass [mailto:greg@band-x.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:15 PM > To: 'Nanog@Merit. Edu' > Subject: World Trade Center attack > > > > Both towers of the World Trade Center are burning after > planes flew into > them in an apparent suicide attack. Many people are certainly > dead. I don't > give a damn what network disruption this causes, but please > say a prayer for > those killed. > > Greg Pendergrass > >

1 0

FW: U.S. Attacked
by Robert Boyle 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

This is from another list. I don't know how accurate this is, but it is more info than I have seen before. -R From: okitsme(a)sciencetools.com To: 356talk(a)356registry.org, Subject: FW: U.S. Attacked Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Hi All, Two passenger aircraft were hijacked, 90 people in one of them, 60 on the other, have struck both World Trade Center towers. One of the world trade center towerss has collapsed, the second is burning. The one was flight 11 from Boston to LA, the other was Washington Dulles to LA. Pentagon too has been attacked by an airplane crashing into it... And now we learn that a car bomb just went off outside the state department building Film NOW - turn on your set! Matt To unsubscribe (permanently or for vacations) click on the following http://www.356registry.org/356talk/index.html#Unsubscribe. For help or for comments on 356talk email rhansen(a)cableone.net or rdill(a)cyburban.com

1 0

Allied Riser going out of business?
by John Palmer (NANOG List) 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

One of my clients has Allied Riser as their ISP and has heard rumors that the company is going out of business. I haven't seen any articles to this effect. Anyone know anything about this?

8 7

RE: World Trade Center attack
by Greg Mirsky 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

Please, don't start political debate here. I feel sorry for those innocent victims but will never for terrorists, suicide bombers, kidnappers and alike. Sincerely, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Greg Pendergrass [mailto:greg@band-x.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:30 AM To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: 'Nanog@Merit. Edu' Subject: RE: World Trade Center attack I would if they were killed in front of my face when I was watching. It's nice to know you care, though. -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer@netaktiv.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:28 AM To: Greg Pendergrass Cc: 'Nanog@Merit. Edu' Subject: Re: World Trade Center attack On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 09:14:41AM -0400, Greg Pendergrass <greg(a)band-x.com> wrote a message of 9 lines which said: > Both towers of the World Trade Center are burning after planes flew into > them in an apparent suicide attack. Many people are certainly dead. I don't > give a damn what network disruption this causes, but please say a prayer for > those killed. Will you send a message to that mailing list each time innocent people are killed in Palestine, Chechenia, Macedonia, Afghanistan, etc?

1 0

World Trade Center attack
by Greg Pendergrass 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

Both towers of the World Trade Center are burning after planes flew into them in an apparent suicide attack. Many people are certainly dead. I don't give a damn what network disruption this causes, but please say a prayer for those killed. Greg Pendergrass

1 0

RE: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... )
by Hire, Ejay 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

Em... I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but I expect the Provider-in-the-middle isn't using NAT, They are probably using RFC 1918 Ip space for Transit links. This does not necessarily imply that they are using Nat. Using RFC 1918 space inside a network on transit segments that will be passing data but not generating it makes sense. No-one really needs to be able to Ping/SNMP-Query/http attack my routers serial links. using RFC 1918 space on these links precludes that possibility because my interfaces are not addressable on the public internet. Comments: -----Original Message----- From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:56 PM To: andy(a)xecu.net Cc: bicknell(a)ufp.org; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) > Can you show damages in the situation of email? Yes. With packets? No. And > before you come back at me with some crazy convoluted contrived scenario, > let's just realize how far off the beaten path we are at this point. If > your ISP is going to force you to use NAT, "against your will", get a new > fricking provider. For that matter, what ISP NATs you against your will? Not quite so friend Andy. Someone in UAE claims that I sent porn to them. And investigation shows that not only is there a NAT one hop away from the purported victim, there is -another- NAT in the path, injected by some intermediate ISP as well as the one injected by my provider. Now I can chage my provider to one w/o NAT. I can even get the PV to change their provider (well maybe, given they are in UAE) But how can we avoid the intermediate ISP that is in the transit path? And can I persuade the judge that since NATs are known to muck about w/ addresses & such that I can construct a case that what was received did not come from me. So the porn came from one of the NAT operators. > > Andy Dills 301-682-9972 > Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access >

6 5

Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
by Scott Gifford 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

miquels(a)cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes: > In article <F5F3FBBFC94DD4118E4500D0B74A095F013E70E1@EMAIL2>, > Hire, Ejay <Ejay.Hire(a)Broadslate.net> wrote: > >Using RFC 1918 space inside a network on transit segments that will be > >passing data but not generating it makes sense. > > Only if the MTUs on all interfaces of the routers are the same. > Otherwise you might generate a ICMP size exceeded message that > will never reach the sender, breaking Path MTU Discovery. Not to get involved in the RFC1918 for routers topic again, but the NAT discussions here got me wondering if much of this could be solved by having an edge router translate all of the internal router-network addresses to some constant, real address. Setting aside opinions about the brokenness of NAT, can anybody think of anything this would break? -----ScottG.

1 0

RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
by Roeland Meyer 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

|> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam-nanog@flounder.net] |> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 5:42 PM |> Unfortunately, I let my urge to smack Meyer down mask the |> original intent of my message. For a young whipper-snapper, you're awfully full of it^H^Hyourself, ain't ya?

3 2

Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
by Scott Gifford 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

Roeland Meyer <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> writes: > |> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.Nether.net] > |> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 2:49 PM > > |> Let me reprhase my inital statement, "In most cases i've seen > |> where someone is using NAT it's part of a security policy and not due > |> to lack of available address space". > > Jared, those whom depend on an accident, for security, deserve what happens > when the accident undoes itself. I was just over on www.netcraft.com, > checking out their stats for the CodeRed worm. I was amazed at how fast IIS > admins responded by applying the patches. If NAT were suddenly "fixed", any > incidental security is toast. NAT was never designed for, and was never > intended as, a security method. Any current protection is strictly the > result of a side-effect. The side-effect that breaks the internet > connection. It's a result of the connection being broken. A properly built > firewall is much more effective and definitely more deterministic. Neither > is it vulnerable to a "fix patch". I don't understand what kind of "fix patch" you're talking about here...NAT uses the same techniques that a stateful firewall uses; if you can find some kind of "fix patch" to bypass NAT, chances are excellent it will work on a stateful firewally, too. I've actually seen the question of how NAT breaks the Internet more than a good stateful firewall come up more than once, and haven't really seen a satisfactory answer. Where does a stateful firewall configured to only allow outgoing connections work that NAT doesn't? I ask not to drag this discussion on, but because I use NAT for address conservation and security on a couple networks that I operate, and am curious if I'd be much better off with something different... -----ScottG.

6 6

Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
by Scott Gifford 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

Roeland Meyer <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> writes: [...] > Firewalls aren't accidents. NAT address propogation failures are, > they are not consistent, and can't be relied upon to continue. Who > knows, some genius, somewhere, may fix it tomorrow. Lord knows, > there is sufficient incentive to do so. If that happens, your > security is toast, if all you are relying on is NAT, rather than > putting up a real firewall. The rest of what you're saying makes sense, but I just don't buy this... A clever design might allow NAT to work with all protocols and in both directions, which would have increased connectivity but decreased security. But how would it get onto my network without me putting it there, and presumably configuring it securely? The box doing NAT is under my control... ----ScottG.

1 0