- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: DNS Headaches
by max＠inc.net 15 Aug '98

15 Aug '98

Once again there are hundreds of diffrent origin addressess. Most of which appear to be actual name servers. -Max Max Spaulding Internet Connect, INC. max(a)inc.net On 15 Aug, Richard Irving wrote: > What about origin IP, while this may be thousands of domains... > What IP's are the requests originating from....... > > If it is a small block, they could filter it. > > max(a)inc.net wrote: >> >> I have an added note. Someone asked me about what domains are being >> looked up and if it might be something someone registered. I dont >> believe this to be the case. There are literally hundreds of domains >> being looked up to many to have had someone register them all. Also >> many of the domains are actual domains I know to be real such as >> excite.com. >> >> -Max

1 0

SPAM
by Adam D. McKenna 15 Aug '98

15 Aug '98

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: Rah for Patrick.
by Dean Robb 15 Aug '98

15 Aug '98

At 18:25 8/13/98 -0400, you wrote: >> know, nearly impossible. If someone in our collocation facilities could >> keep them up, even sub-optimally, even temporarily, I would greatly >> appreciate it and donate my engineering time to do whatever was necessary >> to get it done. > >Bravo, Patrick. _This_ is how a _man_ dies, to paraphrase Bob >Heinlein. Agreed! (Excellent quotation use, BTW). > >This is a perfect counter-example to what I was bitching about with the >BBN fracas. Serve the customers, _then_ worry about the money. What's horribly sad is that the lesson must be learned over and over: If you serve the customers, you don't *have* to worry about the money. Wabbit season!..duck season!..wabbit season!..duck season!..SPAMMER SEASON! Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]

2 2

Re: AT&T down in St Louis?
by Kevin Brown 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

In keeping with their promise to have the link fixed by 4am this morning..I must say AT&T delivered. The link was shown back around 3:40am and has been stateful all day. I did speak with Mr. Goldstein @ AT&T and an email from an admin @ more.net who both told me it was a scheduled maintenance that this customer in particular (being a new link) was not made aware of. I appreciate the responses. Kevin Brown - Network Engineer Huber & Associates, Inc. - Networking Technologies kbrown(a)teamhuber.com www.teamhuber.com 573.634.5000

1 0

RE: BBN Peering issues (fwd)
by Goldstein_William＠bns.att.com 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

You should be more specific-- After all, there are a lotta species that lay eggs... ;-) (Speaking for myself, not for my employer) Bill Goldstein Senior Internet Specialist AT&T wgoldstein(a)att.com TEL:(412)642-7288 ---------- From: howland Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 5:32 PM To: nanog; SEAN Cc: howland Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues (fwd) >From: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> >Where do you think senior corporate management comes from? Eggs. <<File: Re_ BBN Peering issues (fwd).TXT>>

1 0

RE: BBN Peering issues
by Goldstein_William＠bns.att.com 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

As the Internet grows, particularly in Europe, the EU will probably step in and say, "No peering. Fine. Fill out this rail car load of documents in quadruplet, send them to Brussels, and wait five years for us to decide if we want to let you do business in Europe. Until we do, we won't let your telephone company switch on their voice and data networks that they just built, and we will suspend all their relationships with European PSTNs as well. And, oh yes, once you finally come around, your networks can continue to peer with those in Europe, as long as you pay us a 5 zillion Euro advance (certified check, please)." I am reluctant to predict anything, even what I'm going to have for dinner in the next hour. But I'll go out on a limb to say that the EU will end up causing Microsoft much more trouble than the Justice Department ever will. And maybe then it will become apparent what impact they will have on attempted domination or restriction of the Internet by any large US-based provider, since what they forced UUNet to do to with MCINet seems to have been so quickly forgotten. (Speaking for myself, not for my employer) Bill Goldstein Senior Internet Specialist AT&T wgoldstein(a)att.com TEL:(412)642-7288 ---------- From: pceasy Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 3:45 PM To: nanog Cc: pceasy Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues At 14:20 8/13/98 -0500, you wrote: >That is one thing I don't understand about the aversion to peering. We >peer with anyone who will either pay the line costs or connect to us over >Bell FR, where the costs are negligible. Granted, we are small potatoes in >the ISP field, but to my way of thinking both parties benefit. There is >a customer here communicating with a customer there. Both ISPs are getting >money from their customer to get connectivity to the other ISP's customer. >Dropping the peering connection degrades connectivity for both ISPs' >customers. On the macro, non-technical side of things...this move also degrades the very cooperative nature of the Internet (which is getting less cooperative by the day). It used to be "we're all one big family...c'mon in!" but now it's "you must not only pay your own way, but pay part of our way as well or you can't come in!". Pay per play, all the way. Wanna be on the Internet? Bring your Platinum card. The next step will be "you must pay a hefty price for every packet transitting our pipes", directing transitting (packets only going through specified routes) and strong-arm tactics on the smaller players to sign up with one specific network. Then you'll see regulation akin to what telcos have, with the concommitant expense. Sorry, Pandora...the box is open and Woe is on the loose. Wabbit season!..duck season!..wabbit season!..duck season!..SPAMMER SEASON! Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279] <<File: Re_ BBN Peering issues.TXT>>

1 0

Re: BBN Peering issues
by Sean Donelan 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

>The next step will be "you must pay a hefty price for every packet >transitting our pipes", directing transitting (packets only going through >specified routes) and strong-arm tactics on the smaller players to sign up >with one specific network. Then you'll see regulation akin to what telcos >have, with the concommitant expense. Who remembers TELENET? Formerly owned by GTE, then SPRINT. Where do you think senior corporate management comes from? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

BBN/Exodus & Transit
by steve＠altrina.exodus.net 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

Since I'm unable to get messages to nanog(a)merit.edu posted in a timely fashion, I'm using Steve's account with hopefully more success. Exodus has purchased transit services in the past, which included other networks advertising our routes to other providers. This is not the case today. Our newest 10Q that was just filed for last quarter reflects such changes, and also notes the current BBN situation. In any regards, the question isn't whether Exodus purchases transit. Let me explain: I could easily get another network, within 24hours, to give us transit services. I have plenty of capacity to do such things, and have good relationships with folks that provide such services, whom we currently privately peer with. BBN also has that ability. They currently have backup-capacity through UUNET (2 DS3s as of 6 months ago) in Cambridge. Although these UUNET non-traditional DS3s don't advertise BBN routes, they were/are being used to get output from their Cambridge facility. I'm sure it would only be a matter of BBN calling UUNET to turn on such services. The fact is, I doubt BBN would do that. I also know that Exodus wouldn't do the same on our side. Don't ask me to prove the BBN UUNET situation, as I have no concrete proof. This was discovered via one source (a BBN engineer having a conversation with an Exodus engineer about why www.bbnplanet.com was not having packetloss, while a lot of other BBN sites were--it was noted verbally by them that the return path was going through a UUNET transit DS3). The fact is, BBN is disconnecting the Exodus private interconnects. Exodus, under normal properly operating circumstances, does not advertise it's networks to BBN through other providers. We would have to pay for that service, and will NOT do so. The same is vice versa for BBN. Given this, upon disconnecting, there will be no communication between the networks. I don't see any point on continuing this thread on NANOG. Anyone interested in continuing the transit discussion can certainly mail me directly at rob(a)exodus.net. If something interesting comes out of it, certainly it can be mailed to NANOG. Once again--** The position stated is that of Exodus Communications Inc. and not that of BBNPlanet/GTE or that of it's CTO John Curran. The statement of BBN purchasing services from UUNET is not a proven fact and should be considered an opinion of Exodus ** Rob Director Engineering Exodus

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Aug 14 12:00:01 PDT 1998 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 14Aug98 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 060898 52871 070898 52903 080898 52795 090898 52792 100898 52923 110898 52706 120898 52799 130898 52878 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 13Aug98 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS3602 554 322 232 41.9% Sprint Canada Inc. AS701 1133 933 200 17.7% Alternet AS271 336 145 191 56.8% BCnet Backbone AS4293 442 255 187 42.3% IMCI AS2493 391 231 160 40.9% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS3749 207 69 138 66.7% TECNET AS174 719 584 135 18.8% Performance Systems International AS4200 192 100 92 47.9% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS2685 238 153 85 35.7% IBM Global Network - US AS5668 130 46 84 64.6% Century Telephone Inc. AS4755 121 43 78 64.5% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS4740 418 343 75 17.9% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS3221 112 42 70 62.5% EENet Autonomous System AS7046 229 163 66 28.8% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS3804 214 156 58 27.1% Bell Solutions AS3403 181 127 54 29.8% TIAC AS8517 123 71 52 42.3% ULAKNET-ASN AS549 204 153 51 25.0% ONet Backbone AS6335 69 20 49 71.0% NTRNET AS72 87 39 48 55.2% Schlumberger Information Network AS719 460 412 48 10.4% LANLINK autonomous system AS1239 535 487 48 9.0% SprintLink Backbone AS10928 95 49 46 48.4% UNKNOWN AS1785 300 256 44 14.7% NYSERNet Backbone AS4539 71 28 43 60.6% NETROPOLIS AS852 157 117 40 25.5% AGT Advance Communication AS6181 66 26 40 60.6% FUSE-NET AS7122 120 82 38 31.7% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS762 118 81 37 31.4% WELLFLEET-AS AS10459 47 10 37 78.7% WANSASN 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: AT&T down in St Louis?
by Sean Donelan 14 Aug '98

14 Aug '98

>I have been working with an AT&T packaged internet service customer on a >downed link most of the day. The link died @ around 2:30am CST and has >been down ever since. Over the past day of chasing people down, we finally >received a call that AT&T is experiencing a hardware failure in or near >Saint Louis. Can anyone else confirm this? Sean... your close...what's >the word? Sorry, N.D.A. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0