- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
by Chris Mauritz 23 Jan '99

23 Jan '99

I've just recently had a case where a speculator charged a gullible client thousands of dollars for a domain and then proceeded to do nothing when it came time to update the records with the Internic. It literally took a MONTH of forwarding notarized documents and then many follow-up calls to get the Internic to update the record. By then, the client's web site had launched....very ugly. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Henry Linneweh <linneweh(a)concentric.net> To: Jamie Norwood <mistwolf(a)ethereal.net> Cc: Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com>; Phil Howard <phil(a)whistler.intur.net>; pete(a)kruckenberg.com <pete(a)kruckenberg.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC >I have personally seen charges as high as $3000.00 to recover a domain >name from a speculator. I believe such prices gouging is a rip-off on the >face value of it, and that it actually is harmful and harassing to a firms >business. > >Henry R. Linneweh > >Jamie Norwood wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: >> > At 02:37 PM 1/22/1999 -0600, Phil Howard wrote: >> > >Since many speculators actually do not pay, the claim can stand up very well. >> > >> > But they do pay. They get money sent to Internic sooner in the case of a >> > lapsed registration. [or they motivate people to pay before they lapse] >> > They get people to purchase domains they might not otherwise purchase, or >> > that they might not otherwise purchase NOW. >> >> I don't see how this is true, unless I am missing something. They register a >> domain, and charge, say, $100 for this. Since, to make a profit, they would >> have to charge more than InterNIC. Now, someone going for a domain held like >> this is likely gone looking for that domain, not the other way around. >> >> So, say we have a domain, scalper.com. We really have 4 scenarios: >> >> 1) Noone ever wants it or buys it. >> >> 2) End-user wants it, registers with Internic. >> >> 3) Speculator puts in a template on it and doesn't pay unless they get a >> buyer. No buyer comes, it is recycled. Cost to speculator: $0. InterNIC >> impact? A server usage that they never get compensated for. >> >> 4) Speculator buys it and sells it to end-user for $100, using part of that >> to pay InterNIC and part as profit. InterNIC gets payed and is happy, >> but end-user pays $30 more than they would have if the speculator >> never found it (scenario 2). >> >> Now, as I see it, there is NO GOOD that comes from the speculator. Since >> in reality they do this for hundreds, if not more, domains, and I am willing >> to bet they sell at most 10% of the domains they register, they are adding >> a high burden to InterNIC's servers, with no return. The domains would >> sell just as easily without the speculator, and InterNIC would not have >> to copensate for hundred of domain creations that they will .never. see >> payment for. The speculator, of course, makes out the best; they have no >> overhead, and make pure profit. Pretty sweet deal, maybe I should try it! >> >> > >> > The costs of the non-completed registrations is trivial. So speculators >> > make a net-profit for NSI. >> >> See above. The net-profit they claim to offer is proft Internic would get >> just as well without them, and without the server overhead of a few hundred >> domains that will never be paid for. >> >> > >> > > But if the crunch of templates is blocking _my_ couple of >> > >templates from getting processed in under a week, then I really do want >> > >them to apply some temporary fix now to _this_ system so that do have the >> > >breathing room to put a better system into place. >> > >> > Except that you (and everyone) get worse service after the proposed >> > changes. It will take everyone longer to get domains registered. And you >> > will have less information that you need to work (like on-hold status). >> > [point gun at foot, pull trigger] >> >> Someone proposed the concept of having accounts with them, where your >> billing info is on file so that you could register, and be billed that >> way, and still keep the benefits of both pre-pay and post-pay systems. >> >> > >> > >This war has probably resulted in "registration spam" where the speculator >> > >submits repeated templates, perhaps once per day, to re-register that domain >> > >hoping to narrow the window in which it is available to others. >> > >> > This makes no sense. I don't believe they re-register the same domain the >> > next day. Once registered, its good for at least 30 days, and the creation >> > date is on the record. Re-registering sooner than creation + 30 wouldn't >> > have any effect unless NSI starts trying to ignore speculator >> > registrations. Then I could see them trying to register it again the next >> > day with a different name. But if that is the case, then NSI caused the >> > flood by their own stupidity. That cannot be blamed on speculators. >> >> Why wouldn't they, if they don't know when a domain will expire? What cost >> is it to them, who likely have nice little scripts that do all the work >> anyway. They have no reason .not. to do so. >> >> > >The costs to speculators is on par with the costs to spammers. Computers >> > make >> > >it easy to do. >> > >> > Actually, all you are saying is that the cost of an email message is on par >> > with the cost of a database transaction. I'll agree, and won't argue spam >> > costs, because a bunch of us promised not to. While the comparision to spam >> > is very obvious in many ways, please don't make spam comparisons. We can >> > argue this without reference to spam. Enough said about that. >> >> Agreed. >> >> > >> > Computers make it easy for NSI, too. $35.00 pays for a lot of computer >> > cycles. There really can be hundreds of thousands of misses per one good >> > registration. >> >> It .could., but does it? >> >> > Not having delayed/canceled payment, immediate registration hurts everyone, >> > including me. When I sell a web-host, they want it up today. I suppose if >> > everyone else has to wait 30 days, it won't be any worse than, say leased >> > line delays, and if everyone has the same constraint, the playing field is >> > level, so it shouldn't cost business. [actually, thats not true, since >> > selling something sooner means more revenue in a year--that's why we have >> > those marketing/sales folks. They get people to buy things now instead of >> > next month. That makes a big difference.] >> >> See above. Give InterNIC a nice deposit to be allowed to pre-pay. No deposit, >> no reg until they have the money. >> >> > And you are complaining about delays. Presumably, everyone experiences the >> > same delays. Yet, you propose increasing the delays, and then that still >> > won't stop speculators. So what is the point? How is the system improved? >> > It isn't. >> >> But I agree, while it won't stop them, it will at least make them contribute. >> I don't consider it contribution when they have extremely little out-of-pocket >> expenses and a high amount of profit. Make them pay for .every. domain they >> register, and I don't care if they resell it. Also, when you think about it, >> niw they can register a few hundred domains at no cost, unless someone buys >> it from them. But if to register those same 300, say, domains, will cost >> them $2100, they will be a lot more hesitant, since it would be very easy >> if you are unlucky to loose a couple thousand dollars. >> >> > >> > But then, speculators are just a scapegoat. By definition, eliminating the >> > scapegoat doesn't fix the problem. It just diverts attention from the more >> > embarrasing, real problem. That's how I conclude they are just a scapegoat. >> >> The best scapegoats are the people who really are problems. But making them >> go away won't clear or hide all the problems, and it will be easier to move >> forward with fixing the other problems when they have one less excuse to >> use on us. >> >> > >It's certainly convenient to pay later. But it's not that great of a >> > >difference to me. >> > >> > Then why are you complaining that it takes weeks to register a domain? >> > Clearly, if these so-called anti-speculation changes are made, it will >> > always takes weeks to register a domain. You are shooting yourself in the >> > foot because you are afraid someone might step on your toe. >> >> Again, combine the two. Any ISP who is that worried should have no trouble >> keeping a $1000 account with Internic for domains. And even that much is >> assuming you sign up bunches of domains every day. Real people should need >> less. There are solutions that will work. I, personally, would rather >> pay by credit card and add a few hours to the time, than keep domain >> scalpers and wait a week or more. >> >> > >> > --Dean >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com >> > LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Jamie >> >> Who likely should have remained lurking, but is tired and cranky. >

1 0

Re: OFF TOPIC: Pre-NANOG Activities
by Tim Salo 23 Jan '99

23 Jan '99

> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:59:40 -0500 > From: David Diaz <davediaz(a)netrail.net> > Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Pre-NANOG Activities > [...] > Some people will test their new knees (crazy wabik) snowboarding while > others will just use sticks to go down the mountain. > [...] You should seem him in a car at the state fair... -tjs

1 0

OFF TOPIC: Pre-NANOG Activities
by Derek Elder 23 Jan '99

23 Jan '99

Are there any groups getting together on Saturday to do anything interesting such as going skiing? D E R E K E L D E R Associate Partner, CCIE# 4048 __________________________________________ USWeb/CKS http://www.uswebcks.com/ 120 Wood Ave, Suite 300 Iselin, NJ 08830 ph: 732-632-2778 fax: 732-321-3809

2 1

FW: Concert Network Scheduled Maintenance - UK (Subnet 4)
by Regan, Sharon 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

-----Original Message----- From: BrownLJ(a)stentor.ca [mailto:BrownLJ@stentor.ca] Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 4:03 PM To: Regan, Sharon Cc: GreenKB(a)stentor.ca; GodardD(a)stentor.ca; WongR(a)stentor.ca; SavardCR(a)stentor.ca; MenardPA(a)stentor.ca; McfetridgeM(a)stentor.ca; FournierLC(a)stentor.ca; SchroederJP(a)stentor.ca; ShurtliffMJ(a)stentor.ca; LockeMW(a)stentor.ca; WarrenGA(a)stentor.ca; PackmanJ(a)stentor.ca; ReilleyJA(a)stentor.ca; RochfordM(a)stentor.ca; GirardLP(a)stentor.ca; BirdBR(a)stentor.ca; WarrenL(a)stentor.ca Subject: Concert Network Scheduled Maintenance - UK (Subnet 4) Ms. Regan; On Saturday, February 6th as well as Sunday, February 7th, there will be maintenance performed in the UK (Subnet 4) to upgrade the Firmware on the trunk cards. The maintenance is a prerequisite for the 8.5 upgrade that is scheduled for February 12th . A separate notification will be sent outlining the specific details of the 8.5 upgrade as well as the corresponding impact statement . This notification is to advise you that the service impact ,relating to the trunk maintenance, will result in pvc's rerouting on both nights between 01:00 and 06:00 GMT. Any unexpected outages can be reported to 1-888-977-6678. Regards, Linda J. Brown CCSC - Concert Canada Service Center Concert Change Management 613-781-9382

1 0

Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
by Dean Anderson 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

Once again, we have a tempest in a teapot. And once again this "tempest" is just a means of obscuring the real problem. Speculators aren't the problem. They are just a scapegoat. I'm probably going about this the wrong way by arguing the details of speculation, instead of getting people to focus on the real problems of performance and management. But Internic isn't very forthcoming in how they manage their systems. Even so, I think I could run an automated database service for very little cost per transaction. On the order of hundreths of a cent per transaction. Charging $35 means means that one can make many, many thousands of non-revenue transactions per revenue generating transaction. So I'll make the claim that if Internic can't do it for a comparable cost, that isn't justification for restrictions on the user community. You all remember when Internic was formed, and registrations were going to cost money, that many people thought $50.00 a year was outrageously high, right? At 01:55 PM 1/20/1999 -0700, Pete Kruckenberg wrote: >There is a key difference, and that is that stock speculators pay for the >right to speculate, so the system can afford to scale to meet the >increased volume. Actually, quite a few stock speculators don't pay for the privilege. Many speculators are stock brokers or floor traders who speculate cost free (other than the cost of the stocks they buy). And you should note that now that the stock exchanges are now nearly fully automated (though much less so than Internic), discount brokerages now charge less than Internic. Trading never stops now. Again, I think a first class, high availability, high security database service can be operated without significant per transaction costs. Indeed, it is a damning indictment of Internic that stock brokerages charge less, yet provide more secure, and more highly available computer services. You also assume that domain speculators are the only ones who register more domains than they pay for. They aren't. I'll bet many here have registered domains that they later didn't want and didn't pay for. Further, speculators ultimately pay for the domains they sell. What you are really complaining about is that they register some domains they don't pay for. The only reason you are complaining about that is because someone pinned the blame for Internic problems on speculators. The claim that "speculators don't pay" doesn't stand up. Neither does the claim that speculators cause Internic problems. They don't. I think Internic can afford to scale with the volume regardless of speculation. Internic is a nearly fully automated process which charges 35.00 for a completed registration. I am going to go out on a limb that a single database transaction costs very nearly nothing. So without doing the math for a single registration, I think Internic *afford* a large number of non-completed transactions for each completed transaction. Speculators that actively try to sell their domains quite likely cause more domains to be registered, and so they increase the Internic sales revenue. I haven't seen any evidence that the costs of their non-completed transactions are more than cost of their completed transactions. It costs them much more to fill out the registration template and scan the news than it does for Internic to (automatically) process the registration. If they don't sell more than their time is worth, they won't be able to afford to keep doing it. So it doesn't make any sense that they register to many hundreds of thousands of domains per successful registration. And if they generate a net-gain for Internic, thats a good thing. The only speculators that might be able to register thousands of domains with little effort are the ones who register on-hold domains. But they are doing a favor for Internic, because they are collecting fees. More importantly, they will ultimately encourage people to make their payments on time. Thats a good thing for Internic. Quite possibly, Internic can improve its efficiency with regard to domain expirations and re-registrations. But that doesn't mean that one should go though contortions to stop speculators. I certainly don't want to give up the current system that allows one to register domains with delayed or canceled payment and immediate duplicate notification. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5 4

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jan 22 12:00:00 PST 1999 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 22Jan99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 150199 55155 160199 55240 170199 55247 180199 55241 190199 55868 200199 55938 210199 55534 220199 55393 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 4442 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 2186 (1168 cidr, 1018 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 355 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 1012 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 22Jan99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 387 143 244 63.0% UNKNOWN AS701 1012 859 153 15.1% UNKNOWN AS2493 319 173 146 45.8% UNKNOWN AS174 655 541 114 17.4% UNKNOWN AS11305 115 7 108 93.9% UNKNOWN AS4200 189 97 92 48.7% UNKNOWN AS3749 158 66 92 58.2% UNKNOWN AS1267 111 30 81 73.0% UNKNOWN AS4755 147 72 75 51.0% UNKNOWN AS4293 208 137 71 34.1% UNKNOWN AS549 218 152 66 30.3% UNKNOWN AS4740 387 325 62 16.0% UNKNOWN AS1221 399 339 60 15.0% UNKNOWN AS7046 253 196 57 22.5% UNKNOWN AS1239 540 486 54 10.0% UNKNOWN AS72 89 37 52 58.4% UNKNOWN AS7657 140 89 51 36.4% UNKNOWN AS7545 110 59 51 46.4% UNKNOWN AS577 221 172 49 22.2% UNKNOWN AS10928 98 49 49 50.0% UNKNOWN AS7496 76 28 48 63.2% UNKNOWN AS852 177 134 43 24.3% UNKNOWN AS719 452 409 43 9.5% UNKNOWN AS3221 84 42 42 50.0% UNKNOWN AS803 72 36 36 50.0% UNKNOWN AS6897 64 28 36 56.2% UNKNOWN AS3561 723 687 36 5.0% UNKNOWN AS7122 110 76 34 30.9% UNKNOWN AS2764 324 291 33 10.2% UNKNOWN AS6332 101 70 31 30.7% UNKNOWN For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Re: Who uses RADB/IRR?
by Gerald Andrew Winters 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

Dan, Heh-heh. Most people want me to register a maintainer ... ;) The problem with your request is there is no standard method of making routing table globally accessable. The best I can do for you is to give you a pointer to our IPMA pages which has lots of excellent infomation, including our route server routing tables at all of the exchanged points. So you can see the routing tables of those who peer with our route servers. Go to www.merit.edu and click on 'Research projects', 'Internet Performance, Measurement & Analysis (IPMA)', 'Statistics and Daily Reports', and 'Internet Routing Table'. >From there you can navigate the various exchange points you are interested in. good luck. --jerry From: Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:39:47 -0500 Subject: Who uses RADB/IRR? Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Message-ID: <36A80113.53178B82(a)senie.com> Organization: Amaranth Networks, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Status: RO I'd like to find out which networks use the RADB or IRR databases to build their routing policies, and how to look at their current databases or access looking glass or equivalent systems. It's becoming difficult to take a network multihomed without having parts of the net appear to be black holed in other parts of the world. It appears difficult to ascertain which networks are doing what with policies. So far I am aware of CW.NET and ANS.NET using the routing databases to build their policies, but am not aware of a way to look at their tables. If anyone has pointers to their resources, or those of other nets using the routing registries, please let me know. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts(a)senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranthnetworks.com

1 0

Change in InterNIC Tracking Numbers (fwd)
by Patrick Greenwell 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

Fyi.... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:52:50 -0500 From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)internic.net> Reply-To: cgomes(a)NETSOL.COM To: DOMAIN-POLICY(a)LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Change in InterNIC Tracking Numbers Effective Thursday, January 21, 1999, tracking numbers have a new look. To be able to accommodate the large numbers of requests being received, we had to change the sequential number (to the right of the decimal point) to a hexadecimal number. Tracking numbers will look like this: NIC980121.1a3e9. There will still be 5 characters to the right of the decimal point but there will 16 possible digits instead of 10: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f. [a=10, b=11, c=12, d=13, e=14 and f=15]. A tracking number such as NIC980121.58123 would no longer mean that it was request number fifty eight thousand one hundred twenty three. The number would actually be 5x(16x16x16x16)+8x(16x16x16)+1x(16x16)+2x16+3 which would be equal to 360,739 as a decimal number. NOTE: tracking numbers assigned prior to January 21st will be in the old (decimal) format. Tracking numbers assigned on January 21st and forward will be in the new (hexadecimal) format. The date portion of the number will not change. Chuck Gomes Vice President, Customer Programs Network Solutions, Inc. -- DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv(a)lists.internic.net> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

1 0

Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
by John Fraizer 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

Now, isn't this special? ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to rs.internic.net.: >>> DATA <<< 451 qq write error or disk full (#4.3.0) <hostmaster(a)internic.net>... Deferred: 451 qq write error or disk full (#4.3.0) Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours Will keep trying until message is 5 days old Just what does our $35/yr per domain go towards? I would venture to guess that drive space costs a whole shit load less that all the damned InterNIC commercials I've been seeing on T.V.! Does anyone know just who we need to bitch very loudly to? ------------------------------------------------------------------ ML.ORG is gone. Check out http://www.EZ-IP.Net - It's *FREE* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your *FREE* Parked Domain account at http://www.EZ-Hosting.Com ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Fraizer | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation PGP Key fingerprint = 7DB6 1CA2 DAA6 43DA 3AAF 44CD 258C 3D7E B425 81A8

9 15

Who uses RADB/IRR?
by Daniel Senie 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

I'd like to find out which networks use the RADB or IRR databases to build their routing policies, and how to look at their current databases or access looking glass or equivalent systems. It's becoming difficult to take a network multihomed without having parts of the net appear to be black holed in other parts of the world. It appears difficult to ascertain which networks are doing what with policies. So far I am aware of CW.NET and ANS.NET using the routing databases to build their policies, but am not aware of a way to look at their tables. If anyone has pointers to their resources, or those of other nets using the routing registries, please let me know. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts(a)senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranthnetworks.com

1 0