- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: BBN Peering issues
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

> Why are you splitting hairs? Never mind my evidence -- are you prepared > to categorically and publically state that there is NO customer relationship > whatsoever between Exodus and UUNET (including indirect payments to > UUNET by Worldcom) and that there is NO customer relationship whatsoever > between Exodus and Sprint? > > I am curious about that. > > Sean. > Due to restrictions by my employer and NDAs I am not prepared to categorically or publicly state anything one way or the other. However, what I am prepared to state publicly or not doesn't make it true or not. Again, I state you have no foundation for believing that Exodus does. If you do, present it. Otherwise, you're simply making unwarranted accusations. Owen

1 0

Fw: open relays at Earthlink
by Adam D. McKenna 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

I received this spam this morning. As of 6:41am, it wasn't fixed. I didn't test it *right* before I sent the e-mail, but I really didn't have a reason to assume it had been fixed between 6:40 and 10am (when I sent my original post..), considering that I have been e-mailing them for over a week now and nothing has been done. Return-Path: big3ld(a)worldnet.att.net Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.85]) by hq.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/TANNHAUSER) with ESMTP id JAA12380 for <adam(a)hq.idt.net>; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.earthlink.net (1Cust162.tnt2.sdg1.da.uu.net [208.250.122.162]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA29453; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808171341.GAA29453(a)gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net> To: big3ld(a)worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 18:49:56 EST From: big3ld(a)worldnet.att.net (8.9 cent flat rate - NO Switching needed) Subject: 8.9 cent/min: Dial 1010948 = FREE Registration Offer. X-UIDL: d60237bbfb9c109a8e74c8de0b9ff145 --Adam --- bash: syntax error near unexpected token `:)' Adam D. McKenna adam(a)flounder.net -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hayes Merritt, III <harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com> To: Adam D. McKenna <adam(a)flounder.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: Re: open relays at Earthlink On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > Earthlink has the following open mail relays: > gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net feeding: {13} rly2 gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net Connecting to gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net ... <<< 220 gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.7/8.8.5; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT) >>> HELO feeding.frenzy.com <<< 250 gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net Hello feeding.frenzy.com [209.198.128.35], pleased to meet you >>> MAIL FROM:<sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com> <<< 250 <sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com>... Sender ok >>> RCPT TO:<harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com> <<< 550 <harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com>... Relaying Denied rly2: relay rejected - final response code 550 > snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net feeding: {17} rly2 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net Connecting to snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net ... <<< 220 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.7/8.8.5; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:00:04 -0700 (PDT) >>> HELO feeding.frenzy.com <<< 250 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net Hello feeding.frenzy.com [209.198.128.35], pleased to meet you >>> MAIL FROM:<sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com> <<< 250 <sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com>... Sender ok >>> RCPT TO:<harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com> <<< 550 <harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com>... Relaying Denied rly2: relay rejected - final response code 550 > I know this because I have been getting spammed by someone using them for > the past week. I have tried e-mailing abuse(a)earthlink.net several times and > have received no response. > I'm hoping a clueful Earthlink admin will see this post and take the > appropriate action. If not, then maybe Earthlink should be "nominated" for > RBL. They must have fixed it (or you didn't test it). Lets not be too hasty. Sam

2 1

Re: BBN Peering issues
by Lawrence A. Deleski 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

> What you're saying above directly contradicts what your VP of Engineering >told me at the time we were considering moving ftp.cdrom.com to Exodus. At >that time they had no peering with Sprint and were paying for route-reflector >service from good.net (which was unacceptable to me). The solution was to buy >DS3 circuits from Sprint - it was definately a for-pay peering arrangement. >After more than 6 months, the circuits eventually got turned up, but I was >concerned that the increased cost of for-pay peering with Sprint would >ultimately be passed on to the customers (us), and I didn't see this as >a scalable solution. > So, either something changed recently, you weren't informed as to the true >nature of the Sprint agreement, or you are lying. Which is it? > >-DG > >David Greenman >Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project > Since you don't let on as to when you were talking to BV Jagadeesh about this, I can't really say. My guess is that was some time ago since the arrangement you describe isn't familiar to me. My information is current and true, to the best of my knowledge. I did disclaim earlier that I do not work there any longer. Whatever the facts are, I'm certainly not lying, since I'm saying only those things of which I have direct knowledge. It has always been the policy of Exodus to not buy transit. That dosen't mean they have resorted to it in the past. When I first arrived there they were getting routes to UUNet via a deal with CRL. Since they now have a PX with UUNet, so they no longer have to do that. I guess the bottom line is you either get peering with all of the places you want your traffic to go or you resort to other measures, temporarily, to get the job done. I do know the true nature of the Sprint agreement, but those details are private to Exodus and Sprint. If you want the details either BV or Rob will have to tell you. Lawrence A. Deleski lad(a)inficad.com

1 0

Re: SPAM -- argh
by Adam D. McKenna 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

My apologies again, I posted this message on friday, and apparently it didn't get through until today. I was expecting it to be rejected as the email address it was sent from is not subscribed to nanog-post. --Adam --- bash: syntax error near unexpected token `:)' Adam D. McKenna adam(a)flounder.net -----Original Message----- From: Adam D. McKenna <flounder(a)flounder.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 12:27 PM Subject: SPAM My hosts/customers have been getting repeatedly spammed for the last three days from someone using Earthlink mail relays. The hosts in question: gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (some other prod.itd.earthlink.net hosts, I can't remember the others now.) I have been sending mail repeatedly to abuse(a)earthlink.net but have gotten no response, and the spam hasn't stopped. I'd appreciate if a nice Earthlink admin could step in here and make sure the problem gets fixed. Otherwise, I'd like to "nominate" earthlink.net for RBL. --Adam adam(a)flounder.NO-SPAM.net

1 0

Re: BBN Peering issues
by Bradley Reynolds 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

> Some staffer takes a 30 second look into the problem, and decides > that peering is *so* overwhemed that in order for everyone to reach > everyone else the Government should step in and regulate it. > > The 'Net gives some measure of universal connectivity because it > was driven at its root by engineering. Who on NANOG, with any real > world experience in networking, denies that maximum open peering > benefits everyone? > You are missing the point entirely. We are not in some idyllic r&d environment where j.random hacker gets to play with his new ip router and maybe even connect two computers together. We are motivated by profit. If a certain position can maximize the profits of a company, it will rationally move towards that position. > This decision, and the arguments in favor of pay-per-peer, has > nothing to do with engineering. It has to do with paper-pushers > who wouldn't know the difference between peering and transit if > it were on 500 power-point slides, because they look at MONEY. They > see "bits per second", and who they came from, and conclude that > those packets are not sourced on their network and therefore someone > should be paying for them specifically. > You play engineering and revenue as a dichotomy when in fact it is a duality. In the "real world" that you like to refer to, it is more of a symbiotic relationship. Though it would be nice to be aloof in a lab and be lavishly compensated, I would venture to say that such a situation is not the norm. Let us get one point understood. You deserve nothing more than you pay for. You were not, by merit of your diction, infrastructure, prowess, or mandate from heaven, conferred a right to the resources of another individual or conglomeration of individuals. If you abhor these paper-pushers so, you are more than able to find the capitalisation to finance a global altruistic network where anyone can peer with anyone and we will all get along. It will be akin to the communes of the 60s. We can just hallucinate until the reality evaporates. BR

1 0

apologies
by Adam D. McKenna 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

It appears that I was a little too hasty in declaring earthlink a spam haven. My apologies for littering your mailboxes. --Adam --- bash: syntax error near unexpected token `:)' Adam D. McKenna adam(a)flounder.net

1 0

Re: open relays at Earthlink
by Adam D. McKenna 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

I received this spam this morning. As of 6:41am, it wasn't fixed. I didn't test it *right* before I sent the e-mail, but I really didn't have a reason to assume it had been fixed between 6:40 and 10am (when I sent my original post..), considering that I have been e-mailing them for over a week now and nothing has been done. Return-Path: big3ld(a)worldnet.att.net Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.85]) by hq.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/TANNHAUSER) with ESMTP id JAA12380 for <adam(a)hq.idt.net>; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.earthlink.net (1Cust162.tnt2.sdg1.da.uu.net [208.250.122.162]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA29453; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808171341.GAA29453(a)gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net> To: big3ld(a)worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 18:49:56 EST From: big3ld(a)worldnet.att.net (8.9 cent flat rate - NO Switching needed) Subject: 8.9 cent/min: Dial 1010948 = FREE Registration Offer. X-UIDL: d60237bbfb9c109a8e74c8de0b9ff145 --Adam --- bash: syntax error near unexpected token `:)' Adam D. McKenna adam(a)hq.idt.net -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hayes Merritt, III <harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com> To: Adam D. McKenna <adam(a)flounder.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: Re: open relays at Earthlink On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > Earthlink has the following open mail relays: > gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net feeding: {13} rly2 gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net Connecting to gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net ... <<< 220 gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.7/8.8.5; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT) >>> HELO feeding.frenzy.com <<< 250 gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net Hello feeding.frenzy.com [209.198.128.35], pleased to meet you >>> MAIL FROM:<sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com> <<< 250 <sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com>... Sender ok >>> RCPT TO:<harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com> <<< 550 <harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com>... Relaying Denied rly2: relay rejected - final response code 550 > snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net feeding: {17} rly2 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net Connecting to snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net ... <<< 220 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.7/8.8.5; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:00:04 -0700 (PDT) >>> HELO feeding.frenzy.com <<< 250 snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net Hello feeding.frenzy.com [209.198.128.35], pleased to meet you >>> MAIL FROM:<sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com> <<< 250 <sam_merritt(a)hotmail.com>... Sender ok >>> RCPT TO:<harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com> <<< 550 <harter(a)feeding.frenzy.com>... Relaying Denied rly2: relay rejected - final response code 550 > I know this because I have been getting spammed by someone using them for > the past week. I have tried e-mailing abuse(a)earthlink.net several times and > have received no response. > I'm hoping a clueful Earthlink admin will see this post and take the > appropriate action. If not, then maybe Earthlink should be "nominated" for > RBL. They must have fixed it (or you didn't test it). Lets not be too hasty. Sam

1 0

DNS Headaches
by max＠inc.net 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

Well looks like it was a problem with internic and a.root-servers.net. The offending name servers were torgo.webteam.net and panic.webteam.net. I got ahold of internic and unfortunatly the night help doesnt seem to be able to page someone. They are going to have someone call me first thing in the morning. A recent dig shows that the record has been corrected so it should be a matter of time before it works itself out. I would like to thank everyone on the list who helped me track this down. -Max

2 1

Re: DNS Headaches.
by max＠inc.net 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

Does anyone know when this was first noticed in a.root-servers.net? I sent my orginal post late friday night and I got replies back that torgo.webteam.net and panic.webteam.net were in the soa the previous morning. Was that Thursday or Friday morning. I would like to know if this mistake was on Wednesday nights update or Thursday nights. I have tried getting this information from Internic all weekend but all they do is promise callbacks they never make. -Max Max Spaulding Internet Connect, INC. max(a)inc.net

1 0

Re: BBN Peering issues
by Lawrence A. Deleski 17 Aug '98

17 Aug '98

Sean, I'm not sure what the traceroutes prove, but there are at least 50 other reasonable, logical explanations that can cause the traffic to exit at different points. I was a Director at Exodus and I happen to know factually that it is the policy of Exodus engineering to not buy transit. The peering arrangement with Sprint is transit-free, and fee-free. It is a true PX. The disclaimer, of course, is that I don't work there anymore, but logically it wouldn't make too much sense to trade-in a fee-free PX with Sprint for a for-fee transit arrangement. This also assumes, of course, that Sprint didn't pull a "BBN" in complete secrecy and forced all of their private exchanges to buy transit. If they did, they should have told BBN how to keep the whole thing quiet. Is it more fun to presume that Exodus is buying transit and therefore easier to poke at in public? I'm not sure what constructive purpose this thread addresses. The larger issue is that BBN is trying to screw around with free exchange of traffic on the Internet, just like UUNet tried to do last year. This will only hurt BBN's customers, and subsequently BBN, as their customers bail in droves from their narrow-minded and self-serving moves. --- Lawrence A. Deleski lad(a)inficad.com ---------- >From: "Sean M. Doran" <smd(a)clock.org> >To: asr(a)millburn.net, dorian(a)blackrose.org, owen(a)DeLong.SJ.CA.US, smd(a)clock.org >Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues >Date: Fri, Aug 14, 1998, 4:38 PM > > >| Private Exchange. It is a private exchange between SPRINT and Exodus. > >I see. And is it your assertion that Exodus does not pay for this >peering, and that, moreover, the payment does not include transit >services? > >One of the reasons I wonder, of course, is that it is pretty >apparent from traceroutes that Sprint is not routing towards >Exodus uniformly (see below, note different exits). Not apparent at all. Can you explain further? > >Now why would Sprint do that on a settlement-free basis? Because that's what peering is all about? > >I'm also curious about the assertion that you have no transit >at all. Not even from Worldcom, maybe? > >I'm sure a public reassertion that there Exodus has NO >paid-for transit from ANYONE would be interesting to everyone. See above. > > Sean. > >... > 8 mlm1-core.hssi0-0.swip.net (130.244.194.145) 72.640 ms 79.000 ms 6.226 ms >17 scca-12-p1-0-0.core.exodus.net (209.185.9.29) 188.063 ms 183.958 ms >231.547 ms

1 0