- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of > the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership > of the whois database; > >o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk > about the ownership rights of government contractors; and > >o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still be) Perhaps that is true. But where the NSF says the database is created by NSI I think is factually incorrect. "The so-called domain name database to which you refer consists of information collected, maintained and used by NSI pursuant to that cooperative.." NSI did not collect or create the database. It was transferred to them from the NSF, which formerly maintained the database. According the NSF letter, there apparently weren't any domain registrations prior to the formation of NSI, which we know is incorrect. Indeed, as the NSF states "the FOIA applies to records which have been in fact obtained...". The database, having been created by the NSF, was "in fact obtained" by the NSF. Perhaps what Karl should do is write another letter to ask if on say, December 1st, 1989, did the NSF maintain such a database, and did his name appear in it. I suspect the answer to that question would be in the affirmative, or at least to the effect that "NSF did maintain such a database at that time, but we can't determine if your name appeared..." Then he should ask NSI the same question, since while the FOIA and privacy act wouldn't apply to databases CREATED by NSI, it would apply to databases RECEIVED from the NSF, and subsequently maintained by NSI. And see what their answer is. I think he could also point out that the database would be given back to the NSF in the event of contract termination, or to another subcontractor if the contract were re-assigned to someone else, so the database is really "materials belonging the the NSF", and subject to the Privacy and FOIA Acts. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: Crazy flying netbios packets
by Paul Thornton 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Pete Ashdown wrote: > Has anyone done any estimates on how much net-wide traffic is useless > netbios udp? Are there any suggestions for cutting large chunks of this > out of my network without punishing SAMBA and other users who need it? On the subject of Windows generated useless traffic, I have been woking with RIPE to look at how many queries to k.root-servers.net are for dud TLDs - the majority of which are caused by Windows using the DNS to look up the local NT domain name - requests of the form "FOO." The results are somewhat scary - it seems that around 20% of all queries are generated by this behaviour. I can't give you any more info at present, as we are still working on the data - it is literally something I am in the middle of doing at the moment, but wanted to give a quick heads up to folks in the light of this thread. Paul -- Paul Thornton Office Tel: +44 1733 705000 London Internet Exchange www.linx.net Mobile: +44 467 372205

2 1

b.root-servers
by jamie＠dilbert.ais.net 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Is it me, or does b.root-servers.net look hosered? Since about 6:45 am (cdt) ? -jamie -- jamie rishaw (efnet:gavroche) American Information Systems, Inc. Tel:312.425.7140, FAX:312.425.7240 Help stop spam! router(config)#no ip routing thirty thousand feet above the earth..youre a beautiful thing..

3 2

Re: Crazy flying netbios packets
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

[snip] > My fear (uneducated on the matter) is that it is not WebTrends but > Microsoft's gethostbyaddr() call which would mean that this type of > crazy 137/udp WINS resolution traffic is more commonly mis-used than > we think. There's probably something to this; since the advent of '95, I've seen windoze users trying to hit the classful broadcast of the netblock of their IP address. using /16s across sites makes this sort of stuff obvious. I've taken to squashing it at PoP-egress, and not trying to change the customers, as it is undoubtably just some as-shipped default. Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

> > And, what makes you think that NSI doesn't have intellectual property > rights to the whois database. Again, please frame your answer in the > context of the applicable Federal law and regulations, probably the > FARs and the contract or cooperative agreement between NSI and the NSF. > Under both common law and various federal regulations, NSI has posession of that data because of a federal contract supported and (previously) paid for by taxpayers. As such, at least that much of the data is, by law, in the public domain. Additionally, it is not hard to draw a parallel between NSI using that data for competitive advantage or marketing purposes and the DMV selling off the information on drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. At least in most state with which I am familiar, this is not permitted. In fact, worst case, it would be like the DMV simply using the database as a contact list for a mail-order or other business. This, too, is not permitted under law in most states. > And, even if NSI doesn't "own" rights (either copyright or trade secret) to > the whois database, what makes you think that NSI must provide the > database to anyone else? And, if NSI is obligated to provide the database > to another party, (e.g., the U.S. Government), what makes you think that > that party is permitted or obligated to provide it to another party? > Not having read the particular cooperative agreement, and not knowing what the current agreement between NSI and the IANA/IAB/IETF/whoever is, I don't know what obligations are actually spelled out. What I do know is this: If the people who contracted with NSI had half a clue, the document should have been written such that all DNS and WHOIS information was to be treated as a work for hire, and that copyright and title should rest with the public trust of the internet, either in the form of the IANA/IAB/IETF/... or in the public domain. > I don't know that the answers are to these questions, but I haven't met > anyone who I thought had a clue either. > I welcome your judgements. > -tjs > Owen

1 0

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Tim Salo 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:57:57 -0700 (PDT) > From: Patrick Greenwell <patrick(a)namesecure.com> > To: Tim Salo <salo(a)networkcs.com> > cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5 > > On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Tim Salo wrote: > > > > Did the idiots at SAIC forget that they don't *own* the domain information > > > again? > > > > And, what makes you think that NSI doesn't have intellectual property > > rights to the whois database. Again, please frame your answer in the > > context of the applicable Federal law and regulations, probably the > > FARs and the contract or cooperative agreement between NSI and the NSF. > > > > And, even if NSI doesn't "own" rights (either copyright or trade secret) to > > the whois database, what makes you think that NSI must provide the > > database to anyone else? And, if NSI is obligated to provide the database > > to another party, (e.g., the U.S. Government), what makes you think that > > that party is permitted or obligated to provide it to another party? > > > > I don't know that the answers are to these questions, but I haven't met > > anyone who I thought had a clue either. > > Take a look at http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ for some answers (or more > questions depending on your POV.) Note that Karl's document: o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership of the whois database; o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk about the ownership rights of government contractors; and o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. -tjs

2 1

Installation Services for MAE-EAST / WEST ?
by Jan Czmok 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Does anybody of you offer installation services at MAE - EAST and MAE-WEST. Specifically, we would like to install our new B-STDXes there and switch some lines from T1 to DS3 (simply re-wiring and also new-connecting). Ascend is offering that service, but the $$$ is much too high. (Otherwise i have to travel to the states from germany) Timeframe: within next 4 Weeks Please respond via email to: czmok(a)ipf.de Jan -- Jan Czmok, IPF.NET Senior Network Engineer email: czmok(a)ipf.de, Phone +49 69 17084-52

1 0

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Tim Salo 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:48:52 -0400 > From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol(a)nacs.net> > To: Kate Lance <clance(a)connect.com.au> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu, cgomes(a)internic.net > Subject: Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5 > > On Thu, Sep 03, 1998 at 10:18:20AM +1000, Kate Lance wrote: > > And here is the breathtaking job description: > > > > Director Database Marketing > > Job Description: > > Senior professional responsible for devising and executing programs in > > direct Marketing customer intimacy, and new product development using > > the date and information assets of NSI. At heart of the Internet & > > registration of nearly 2 million .com, .org, .net addresses, NSI is > > positioned to assist its customers by introducing products and services > > designed to suit their needs. Director will "own" the information > > assets of the company and employ them to drive revenue. > > Did the idiots at SAIC forget that they don't *own* the domain information > again? And, what makes you think that NSI doesn't have intellectual property rights to the whois database. Again, please frame your answer in the context of the applicable Federal law and regulations, probably the FARs and the contract or cooperative agreement between NSI and the NSF. And, even if NSI doesn't "own" rights (either copyright or trade secret) to the whois database, what makes you think that NSI must provide the database to anyone else? And, if NSI is obligated to provide the database to another party, (e.g., the U.S. Government), what makes you think that that party is permitted or obligated to provide it to another party? I don't know that the answers are to these questions, but I haven't met anyone who I thought had a clue either. -tjs

2 1

Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Alan Sullivan - VoTiV Systems 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

FYI, Sorry for those who cannot read HTML attachments, ignore last message.... Interesting web link... Anybody want a job to market whois? http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c53a.html

3 2

Re: FR Tidbit [was: 56k modems/frame/ptp revisited (LONG)]
by Dan Jones 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Scott, I'm curious. Is your assertion that "CIR is guaranteed only under "normal" conditions" based on the Frame Relay spec or a paticular vendor(s) implementation? I ask because I have been in that very debate for some time (usually with a FR vendor justifying lousey performance). My tendancy is to take the "Comitted" in CIR literally. It's my understanding that the FR congestion management routines (at least the Stratacom one - Foresight?) will only back off bursty PVC to the point where it's <= CIR. The implication then is that you'll always get at least CIR - which makes sense since that's what you're paying for. Dan At 08:45 AM 9/1/98 -1000, scott w wrote: > > > >On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Scott, Dan wrote: > >[snip] >> line and port, but the important parameter is the committed information rate >> you purchase from the carrier. Most of Sprint's frame relay business may >[snip] >>from 0-56kbps. Can purchase 56kbps CIR, but it costs extra, would need >[snip] > >CIR is guaranteed only under "normal" conditions. You won't get it under >heavy congestion. Find out the MIR configured for your PVC. I don't know >if they will tell you though... > >scott > > >

3 2