- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:35 AM > To: Roeland Meyer > Cc: 'Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu' > Subject: Re: Inane ... even for NANOG. > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > > > > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:57 AM > > > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:22:52 PST, Roeland Meyer > > > <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com>said: > > > > > 16.1.16.1; I don't > > > > > Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course. > > > > > > > HEX:=="313631313631" > > > > > > I think the intended value was 0x10011001 > > > > And the signifigance of this bit pattern is ...? > > > > [from too many decades doing assembly level communications > drivers to handle > > both ASCII/EIA and EBCDIC. Nothing there is either special > or amusing, > > anymore. Not for decades.] > > > > so ... who is Fifi? > > 15 in hex is x'0f'. 16 is x'1f'. 15.1.15.1 would be fifi. > 16.1.16.1 is > something else. 15 = 0x0f 16 = 0x10 011001011001 it still makes no sense.

1 0

.xxx conflicts - new.net has competition :-)
by Hank Nussbacher 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42373,00.html Hank

2 1

RE: .xxx conflicts - new.net has competition :-)
by Dee McKinney 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Pardon me for being a skeptic but believe it when you see it :) -----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:16 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: .xxx conflicts - new.net has competition :-) http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42373,00.html Hank

1 0

UUNet / ATT peering meltdown?
by Travis Pugh 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Not to open up any potential disputes, but has anyone heard what is going on between UUNet and AT&T on the east coast? We've been seeing this kind of performance for a week ... standard UUNet NOC response was "it's ATT's problem, call them" which doesn't do me a whole lot of good since we're not an ATT customer. UUNet --> ATT 6 POS6-0.BR3.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.24.97) 9.212 ms 9.633 ms 10.363 ms 7 137.39.52.74 (137.39.52.74) 9.642 ms 12.967 ms 12.137 ms 8 gbr3-p50.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.1.122) 418.555 ms 416.419 ms 419.819 ms ATT --> UUNet 8 ggr1-p370.attga.ip.att.net (12.123.20.253) [AS 7018] 20 msec 24 msec 20 msec 9 att-gw.atl.uu.net (192.205.32.130) [AS 7018] 396 msec 396 msec 392 msec 10 179.at-6-0-0.XR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.82.190) [AS 701] 388 msec 388 msec 388 msec Thanks. -travis

3 2

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

No, think of this as a resolution step that happens in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for IP<->IP address translation. At the beginning of a session, a translation request is made to resolve to the logical address (and all IP addresses are considered logical at first, just like all telephone addresses are considered logical until they are resolved). The translation is made, and the physical IP address is cached and used for the session. Obviously, end stations do not request this translation today so it would first require a protocol definition. Then it require changes in edge network infrastructure and/or client software, depending upon where the translation makes the most sense. This change, if ever attempted, would be highly painful, just like LNP was. But if you are forced to go through the pain, might was well try to solve the resulting routing problem too. Prabhu -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:37 AM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:59:53AM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before > > the phone call is connected, a translation is made between > > the logical number and the actual number. The actual > > number is based upon geography, and consists of > > country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then > > physical port number. As a result, the routing tables > > in telephone networks are small. For example, if you > > are in the US and need to call the UK, the network > > only needs one entry for all telephone networks in > > the UK (plus a few more for redundancy). > > This translation/lookup function is only necessary once per call > in a circuit-switched network. > > In a packet-switched network, it's required once per packet. > > For this reason, number portability on the internet and in the > PSTN are quite different problems. > > > Joe >

2 1

Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:57 AM > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:22:52 PST, Roeland Meyer > <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> said: > > > 16.1.16.1; I don't > > > Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course. > > > HEX:=="313631313631" > > I think the intended value was 0x10011001 And the signifigance of this bit pattern is ...? [from too many decades doing assembly level communications drivers to handle both ASCII/EIA and EBCDIC. Nothing there is either special or amusing, anymore. Not for decades.] so ... who is Fifi?

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:21 AM > > So the plug-in does *not* change which dns server you query. > if a query fails against your normal name server it > just appends .newdotnet.net or, if that fails, makes stuff up. > > Of course if your regular resolver server was a UDNS server or > Earthlink or an ISP that adopted the new.net TLD's you > would have found an A record for pie.shop with or without > the plug-in. > > This also means that if your reguler resolver server had > your own private .shop zone (perhaps empty), that would > take precedence for regular and plug-in queries for that TLD. This is cute. It also means that, if your zone server carried the ORSC root-zone, the SHOP TLD, in the ORSC root-zone, would take precedence. Simon, maybe you don't have to talk to them at all <evil grin>. The best defense is for ISPs to start carrying the ORSC zone file.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Ron Snyder [mailto:snyder@roguewave.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:48 AM > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:55:26PM -0600, Edward S. Marshall wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:30:19PM -0500, David Charlap wrote: > > > BUT if representatives from a dozen or a hundred ISPs > meet together and > > > choose to blackhole new.net for the explicit purpose of > running them out > > > of business, and then do so, they would be in violation > of US anti-trust > > > laws. > > > > You mean, like the owners and operators of numerous core US networks > > getting together on an archived mailing list like this one, > and openly > > discussing the idea of putting new.net out of business by > various means > > (blackholing them, legally pressuring them, etc)? > > > > You're right, that might constitute violation of anti-trust > law. :-) But > > what do I know? I'm no lawyer. > > I'm no lawyer either, but it seems that intent is a pretty > hard case to make. This isn't all criminal law. Pls reference the OJ Simpson case where he was acquited in the criminal system yet convicted in the civil system. The Civil system only requires a preponderance of the evidence and other evidence is admissible, that would never pass muster in a criminal case. As MS is also finding out, civil liabilities could have more far-reaching financial effects than criminal liabilities. Even if the criminal law case wins, simply defending against the civil liabilities cases may bankrupt the company (presupposing that you actually win those). It is the corporate equivalent of "death by a thousand cuts". Think of it like a high-stakes poker game; You may have a winning hand, but the guy with the deepest pockets may still "buy the pot". -- IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are encouraged to seek legal advice.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:57 PM > Actually, I'm enamoured of someone's idea to just blackhole > new.net and > let them figure out how to sort that. Saves me a whole lot > of trouble, I > just get to ask the customer where they got the idea that > .xxx was a valid > tld. > > If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+] > fraction of this > group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away > soon. An elegant > fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who > blackholed them... Indeed they would. It is even likely that they'd win. Such action wouldn't win ICANN any favours in Congress either.

6 5

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Greg, There are a number of problems with what you have proposed. For one thing, the tinker-factor is too high for production purposes. I have more, but this day is dedicated to BizDev and I can't spare the time right now.. > -----Original Message----- > From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:25 AM > To: Daniel Senie > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > [ On Tuesday, March 13, 2001 at 19:54:00 (-0500), Daniel > Senie wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > We can't. The point, though, is that the Internet needs to > have a GOOD > > way to support multihoming. We presently DO NOT have a good > mechanism > > for this. The IPv6 approach to this does not appear workable either. > > That's because this is a problem that has never existed, not ever. > > Proper *real* multi-homing has *ALWAYS* worked and it's technically an > excellent way to achieve redundant connectivity for a "small" network. > (other risks related to "all your eggs in one basket" type of physical > infrastructure aside, and they can be put aside for many businesses > because if the bricks&mortar part is destoryed the business can't > survive anyway....) > > Given the various simple little tricks I mentioned you don't even need > to put multiple interfaces in every server. > > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods(a)acm.org> > <robohack!woods> > Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird > <woods(a)weird.com> >

2 1