- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Court Rules Domain Names Are Property--March 24, 1999
by Henry Linneweh 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

This has some serious implications for speculators of domain names that infringe on someone's business http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_85661,00.html Henry

1 0

Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by Jeff Weisberg 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

| Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know | how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the In theory, or in practice? in theory, anyone running BGP ought understand the RADB, understand BGP (and routing in general), and be able to spell their own name. in practice, the customer hires a consultant who is sufficiently skilled to cobble together a working BGP config from docs on the cisco website, at which point it is turned over to Mr. Pointy Hair. neither Pointy Hair nor the consultant can even spell RADB let alone ever heard of it. Pointy Hair can spell his own name. usually. --jeff

1 0

Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by prue＠ISI.EDU 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Jeremiah, We don't require a written note from the other ISP. We do however require the customer to get the other ISP to send us E-mail saying it is OK. We won't route the prefixes unless we get this. I trust that e-mail won't be forged. If the customer does manage to forge it and I get a subsequent complaint from the ISP, who then asserts they never gave permission, I can always disable the routes and deal with the dishonest customer. You are doing just about the right thing. I think getting written permission is a bit too officious. Walt Los Nettos

1 0

route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by Jeremiah Kristal 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Our present BGP policy states that if a customer has non-portable address space from another upstream ISP, the customer must provide us with an official letter from the owner of the IP address space which authorizes us to re-announce those routes. I feel that this is a reasonable and just policy, but we've been getting quite a bit of flack from customers who claim that nobody else is requiring this. Are other backbone providers really just announcing whatever their customers ask them to announce? Are we unreasonable in requiring permission to re-announce foreign netblocks? Is there any documentation that sets this down as policy or at least a BCP? Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the instructions? I'm getting the feeling that the latest tech briefings for executives are touting the wonders of BGP, 'cause I'm seeing a lot of pointy-haired bosses demanding it. ObNetops: router bgp xxxx neighbor 192.168.100.2 remote-as 64666 neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map cust-do-not-readvertise in neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map out-customer out Jeremiah Kristal Qwest Internet Solutions Manager, Network Services 201-319-5764 x284 internal

3 5

[newsletter@news.internetwk.com: InternetWeek Newsletter - March 24, 1999]
by Jay R. Ashworth 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Oh christ. It's getting worse. You thought "get your .net and .org here" was bad? Read this moron's approach to good network engineering. -----Forwarded message from Internetwk Newsletter <newsletter(a)news.internetwk.com>----- From: Internetwk Newsletter <newsletter(a)news.internetwk.com> Subject: InternetWeek Newsletter - March 24, 1999 [ ... ] Column: Choose Domain Names For Global Business Domain names, as we all know, are the new real estate of the information economy. Your company's domain name and trademarks play a critical role in building brand equity and increasing e-business. Domain-name registration has grown exponentially: By the end of last year, Network Solutions Inc. had registered 3.4 million domain names. On March 9, it passed 4 million with the registration of riedelglass.com. With more than 80 billion possible permutations, there are plenty of domain names left for everyone. Nevertheless, thinking globally in your selection of domain names and trademarks can keep your business on top. At a minimum, get the prospective domain name registered in all the countries in which you wish to do business. Globally, there are 191 countries that accept country-code domain registrations (also called International Web Addresses) and each has different registration requirements. In at least 80 country-code registries, there are no rules about who can register--it's first come, first served. If you want to protect your brand or company name from infringement or customer confusion worldwide, Network Solutions has a service called idNames (www.idnames.com) that can register a domain name associated with a company's product, brand or name with 80 of these countries at once. If you have one .com address that handles global traffic, you can have the country-specific domain names redirected to the .com site. If the name is critically important, such as a new firm name after a merger, be sure to register as many permutations as possible even before you know the final name and definitely before the news of the merger reaches the speculators. One company registered more than 70 domain names and still had some permutations taken by speculators. -- Nick Evans Evans is technical director of PricewaterhouseCoopers' national Internet practice. He can be reached at nick.evans(a)us.pwcglobal.com. ======================================================== -----End of forwarded message----- Might I suggest that each and every engineer here jot down your top three reasons why this will make the Internet useless, look up this guy's number, and politely tell him about them? Remember, 2 flames will have more effect than 10 nice letters... but the wrong way. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary. The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends. Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592

1 0

Re: more Internic nightmare
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Then you agree with Randy in that, there is no way to prevent whois contact mining if the data is out there. So it now becomes a question of what do we want more, contact info for tech use, or privacy from spam. That's some choice. <sigh> I always thought the role accounts were a good partial answer (especially where the EU privacy issue is concerned), Pre-pay is another. Note that hostmaster addresses do not get spammed much anymore (it's a sure fire way to get the account nuked). Another restriction could be to throttle whois to *only* tech contact info, without a court order. At 04:59 PM 3/23/99 -0800, Derek Balling wrote: >On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > >> Yes, this can be circumvented, but it would cost a lot more than the $70 >> for a domain registration. In addition, the whois server would know exactly >> who is mining the data and would be able to track them, even if they spread >> it out over months. > >Unless you're planning on enforcing passwords for contacts then I don't >think it'd take all that much to SIMULATE a client, choosing random people >from the whois database, and blaming other people for your whois queries. >An even more intelligent system would use the tech contact for the LAST >result as the requestor for the current one so that there would be no >visible pattern. > >The source code for the client is going to be out there, so people will >figure out how it works, reverse engineer a version that uses a forged, >but existing, tech contact, and go on with their day. > >D > >====================================================================== >Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white >dredd(a)megacity.org | fluffy cat from being a villain in the >http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller >====================================================================== ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer - e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com ___________________________________________________ KISS ... gotta love it!

2 1

more Internic nightmare
by Jeremiah Kristal 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

Has Internic officially announced that they are only allowing 10 registrations per customer per day or is this another arbitrary change? ObNetops: ip route 198.41.0.0 255.255.255.0 null0 Jeremiah

6 8

FIBER CUT: Denver and Salt Lake City
by Sean Donelan 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

USWEST has reported a fiber cut between Denver and Salt Lake City, there is no ETR, no count of the number of circuits affected as of yet. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

UUnet - San Diego/LA Outage
by Kit Knox 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

FYI: UUnet has been experiencing large latency and packet loss in San Diego since Friday Mar 10th at about 10:30 AM. Service at one point degraded to the point that UUnet had routed all traffic originating in San Diego through a single DS1 while they sat and rebooted their ATM gear for a few hours. It appears that his problem has also spread to the Los Angeles area including their LAX1 and LAX2 routers. Of course, http://www.noc.uu.net/ states that everything is normal and there are no known outages. [ UUnet master ticket #1399 of course states otherwise. ] I'd like to hear from anyone that knows what is really going on. Despite my 100+ phone calls I cannot get a real answer. -- Kit Knox <kit(a)connectnet.com> Senior System Administrator - CONNECTnet INS, Inc.

2 1

heads up: internic changes
by Marc Slemko 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

Just FYI, if your company relies on any service that the internic provides WRT domain registrations to help your own customers in registering domain names, you should check to make sure everything still works. You also probably want to be sure you don't let your customers anywhere near the InterNIC's web site, since they have gone even further in their attempts to confuse and trick people into paying for extra NSI services. http://www.internic.net/ now redirects you to http://www.networksolutions.com/ with many or most of the old URLs invalid. Things like web based whois, access to forms, etc. are now entirely different and it doesn't appear any attempt has been made at not breaking sites that link to them. In fact, the opposite seems true. Also, their finger-based frontend to their tracking system is coincidentally broken. Also, they conveniently don't have a ftp server accessible at ftp://ftp.internic.net/ but only on rs.internic.net. In addition, the templates that used to be easily accessible from their website aren't any more, and you are now almost forced to go through their web based registration system which tries to lead you astray to their extra "value added services" at every step, unless you know you can get the templates via ftp at rs.internic.net. Also, they have deliberately obscured the line between their extra money-grubbing services and a basic domain registration even more. Also, their telnet based whois is no longer available, and with it goes the last hope for getting info of if a domain is on hold or not or of accessing whois during their frequent outages. Unfortunately, none of this has helped their online payment system which is still horribly slow or down most of the time. It is quite obvious they are running scared for their future. Unfortunately, they still don't realize that providing good customer service is their best way to ensure a future.

5 4