- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

AGIS outage
by Jason Taylor 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Does anybody have extended information on the AGIS outage that occurred around 4:00 p.m. EST? They said they had a trunk line down but didn't say anything else.. Thanks.. Jason Taylor Jason(a)aiis.net Network Systems Engineer AIIS

1 0

traceroute to lycos dies at C&W in Cleveland, what's up?
by Steven J. Sobol 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

Anyone know about this? Traceroute goes from here through Verio Mid-America (first to Cleveland, then to Chicago), then to C&W Willow Springs (Chicago), then back here to C&W North Royalton (Cleveland again). Then the traceroute dies.... Did someone pull the plug on a router or something? Packets Pings Hostname %Loss Rcv Snt Best Avg Worst 1. fe0-0.core1.cleveland.nacs.net 0% 8 8 11 14 19 2. serial3-4.csr1.cv.oh.verio.net 0% 8 8 8 12 19 3. fddi9-0.csr0.cv.oh.verio.net 0% 8 8 8 15 27 4. serial1-0.csr8.or.il.verio.net 0% 8 8 21 29 41 5. hssi1-0.csr7.or.il.verio.net 0% 8 8 21 33 46 6. atm8-0.csr6.or.il.verio.net 0% 8 8 21 33 46 7. bordercore3-hssi0-0-0.WillowSprings.cw.net 0% 8 8 21 35 54 8. bordercore2.NorthRoyalton.cw.net 0% 8 8 30 39 56 9. ??? 10. ??? 11. ??? 12. ??? 13. ??? 14. ??? 15. ??? 16. ??? 17. ??? 18. ??? 19. ??? 20. ??? 21. ??? 22. ??? 23. ??? 24. ??? 25. ??? -- Steve Sobol sjsobol(a)nacs.net (AKA support(a)nacs.net and abuse(a)nacs.net) "The world is headed for mutiny/When all we want is unity" --Creed, "One"

2 2

Is there anyone at Netcom with a clue
by Ehud Gavron 02 Mar '99

02 Mar '99

If there's anyone at Netcom who can read English, I'd appreciate a hand. The operational item is that ongoing abuse is being ignored, and shunted into form-letters that look stupid. Ehud

5 4

Traceroute: Now does parallel TTL lookups (much faster)
by Ehud Gavron 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

Traceroute prior to V2.9.0 would sequentially send packets to individual TTLs, wait for replies, and then go on. Traceroute V2.9.1 can send in parallel, and is therefore much quicker. (O(1) instead of O(n) for the math purists.) ftp://ftp.aces.com/pub/software/traceroute/beta/ traceroute.c 0_readme.txt If a gui ftp server gives you troubles, use a real one. As always, if you get it to build and run on a system not listed in the table (in the 0_readme.txt file) let me know the compile arguments and system/compiler versions. Cheers, Ehud

1 0

Re: definition of unattended operation
by Sean Donelan 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

sjsobol(a)nacs.NET (Steven J. Sobol) writes: >So, what do you suggest as an alternative? Other than not having power outages in Herndon, VA? :-) Instead of worrying about passing Cisco's certification test just so I'm allowed to sell more Cisco hardware (as if Cisco really needs the money), I sometimes think I should start an independent certification firm to go around and certify "critical infrastructure" around the net. Hint: Your emergency phone number should not be routed through your main PBX. Anyone care to discuss setting up that emergency phone thing again in case you can't look up other NOC's phone numbers in WHOIS? (Inside joke, I'm just venting this morning...) Back to the subject at hand. I have a concept of Information Entropy. Essentially all information turns into chaos unless a lot of energy is expended to keep it organized. Maybe I just work with too many librarians all day long, but I don't see the value in adding more contacts when the current contact information isn't kept up to date. SRI and even BBN each undertook projects in the past to keep the contact information up to date. But so far the current custodian has indicated they don't believe it was in the job description. Nor do I think setting up yet another directory service is the answer. Look at the phone companies each starting their own directory companies giving out three year old information at $1 a query. Yes, several people have set up contact web pages, and there are several efforts to put contact information in DNS (along with everything else). Peering agreements have language saying each providing will provide contact information. Fact of the matter, there is no penalty or pain for not making up-to-date technical contact information available to other providers. Nor is their any penalty or pain for not maintaining any of the "standard" contact methods. On the other hand, there also doesn't seem to be any penalty or pain for making a false report to an official contact method. So those providers that attempt to do the right thing are quickly overwhelmed by the vigilantes. Suggestions: 1) First figure out why providers don't keep their current contact information up to date. 2) Make it a security and fraud issue. This isn't a legal list, go talk to your lawyer why that is important when competitors decided to do something. 3) Only if the reason is providers will handle the messages differently should additional contacts be listed. If most providers are going to aliases them all to the customer service blackhole, its just a waste of effort, time and space. I would rather spend the effort, time and space keeping one contact up to date. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

GATED q?
by alex＠nac.net 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

I have machines that have several /32's on the backen loopback for a variety of reasons. I am trying to get a Cisco to learn that via OSPF (running gated on the unix host). Anyone got a quick gated.conf they could shoot me that runs OSPF on an ethernet and tells others about it's directly connected interfaces? Thanks in advance. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex(a)nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 0

Re: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd)
by Dean Robb 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

At 06:48 2/27/99 -0500, Special FX Communications wrote: I do not choose to engage in private communciations with you on this matter. As you mailed me without prior contact, I feel fully justified in publicizing this email AND hope that others will take note of the relevant law when the next jerk threatens them. >The information on that page is inaccurate because the is no reason or >proof why it is there. Any one can put out a list but with out anything to >back the information the list is just garbage... There is no examples or >proof that there was any e-mail bombing from our serers. Without proof >that page is just hearsay, slander and libel. Show us the proof... If you >people weren't so narrow minded you would see the point and remove or >modify the page. If you can't show the proof then remove the page... The page in question is an archive of a post. You cannot hold the archivist responsible for the contents of the archive. This was explicitly placed into law in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The relevant portion of § 230 states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This section of the law was upheld by the 4th Circuit Court in ZERAN v AMERICA ONLINE INC (Case No. 97-1523) November 12, 1997, affirming upon appeal a decision of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As long as the website owner merely posted what someone else had said, you have no recourse against the website owner. In short, go piss up a rope and learn the law before you start threatening people with it. > >On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dean Robb wrote: > >> At 07:12 2/24/99 -0800, Eric Germann wrote: >> > >> >Dear NANOG readers, should I edit the archives and the search engine? >> >Should I become an "offensive material editor" for any and all parties >> > >> >Eric >> > >> >> Uh, no. They're full of male bovine fecal matter. IF they could convince >> some shyster to file a suit, it'd never make it...archivists are >> well-protected under US law. >> >> Ignore them. Nobody probably would have looked at the allegedly offensive >> page if they weren't making a production number of it. "Small minds can only contemplate small ideas".....Unknown Dean Robb Owner, PC-EASY (757) 495-EASY [3279] On-site computer repair, upgrades and consultations Read my game reviews/columns in SimOps on WWW.TheGamers.Net

1 0

Re: Why don't people learn...?
by Jay R. Ashworth 28 Feb '99

28 Feb '99

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 02:32:29PM -0800, Mikey Wilsker wrote: > >"Warever Corp. this week released Legion, an Internet utility that > >looks up IP addresses, puts them in a hosts file, and categorizes them." > >http://www.internetnews.com/prod-news/article/0,1087,9_74021,00.html > > Its for the end user. The utility basically eliminates the need for the > general user to ever have to look up 'cnn.com' again. Its nothing more > than a caching DNS for Win95, etc. > I didn't see anything about expiring the cache, though, so one can only > wonder about the new wave of tech support calls because sites change > ip's/names. Precisely my point. This is going to hose operators who make use of the technologies I mentioned failry badly. "The general user" never needs to "look up cnn.com", anyway. That's what DNS is for. :-} And, based on what the story said, no I didn't get the impression it was merely "a caching DNS". It seemed much more unintelligently malevolent than that. 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

Why don't people learn...?
by Jay R. Ashworth 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Here we go again. If you get reports of problems that appear to be DNS weirdness, _this_ could be the reason why: "Warever Corp. this week released Legion, an Internet utility that looks up IP addresses, puts them in a hosts file, and categorizes them." http://www.internetnews.com/prod-news/article/0,1087,9_74021,00.html Round robin? Load balancing? Provider replacement(!)? Why would anyone want to do _those_ things...? Cheers, -- jr '204.198.80.3' a -- 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: Suggestion: Add contact entry to whois
by Pat Myrto 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Lon R. Stockton, Jr. has declared that: > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Pat Myrto wrote: > > > In terms of the larger number of issues we see these days, the contact > > info from whois tends to be woefully inadequate (and often out-of-date) at > > times. > > [...] > > The added contact info I suspect would be quite a timesaver once in place. > > Riiiight....it'll be a timesaver because unlike the rest of the > contact records, the Abuse contact will always be complete and up-to-date. They would be if some real requirements were in place. The effort required should be small (just a couple of added fields), and especially if the template made the requirements of the entries clear, I fail to see how it could hurt. > And unlike the Tech contacts which aren't technically literate, the Abuse > contact will of course always have the power and the technical ability > to assist. Last time I looked (been awhile), the templates give no real clear indication as to what the contact(s) are supposed to be able to handle - just that a kinda vague something is in the space (except for the billing contact, thats gotta be valid of course or the domain goes away at billing time)... :-) > I do believe that an Abuse contact may very well be a good idea...on > paper. I also believe that in the real world, it'll be a waste of time. > Most sites (at least at provider level) have an abuse contact (sorta for some that remain nameless). Usually its either abuse(a)spam.com, or postmaster(a)spew.com. Its working contacts for real technical issues that I find appealing - routing issues, bad announcements leaking out, broken DNS entries, and the like. One will never know if people dont even want to bother to give it a try, but give up on it right out the chute, unless of course, someone has a better idea to achieve the desired result. Lacking that, perhaps its worth a try. Bemoaning lousy contact info w/o being willing to try some remendy seems kinda pointless. Hell, if even a few more sites just provided honest tech contact info in good faith, it would be helpful. Even more so if the template instructions would spell out some _requirements_ about contacts, such as making _working_ contacts as one of the conditions to get the domain or IP space allocated, whatever the case might be. ISPs requiring good contact info for their customers domains would help, too. If contacts later turn out to have bogus or /dev/null type entries, perhaps it could result in suspension of the domain involved (removal of NS entry from root servers till its fixed, etc. would get the admin's attention I bet). Perhaps thats too extreme, but I'm sure someone could think of an appropriate remedy to accomplish the desired end. Role type entries would be fine for those who dont want to give up a real name/email, as long as it reachs _somebody_ that can deal with the issues in a timely manner. If such a scheme or requirement or something similar were in place, I am sure the number of bogus/useless entries would have a sharp decline. How does one tell if the contact is bogus? Well, if you send mail to the contact, and it bounces, and the phone contact comes back with an intercept msg, or the party at the other end has no idea what a domain or route is, for example, its probably not a valid/useful contact... :-) Also, while I am thinking about it, an automated response w/o a real followup in short order is not a valid contact, either, IMO. Some seem to spit out an automated response while routing the actual message to /dev/null. Might as well be a bounce, at least thats more honest. Pat M > -- #include <std.disclaimer> Pat Myrto (pat at rwing dot ORG) Seattle WA What the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms really is: Our Freedom Insurance. Don't let the Statists or 'Those Who Know Best' elitists succeed in continuing attempts at diluting or nullifying it with claims that 'people' really means 'state', or that "You don't need it".

1 0