- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

None
by z9ljj7 26 Nov '97

26 Nov '97

Authenticated sender is <z9ljj7(a)ix.netcom.com> Subject: all the Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit EMAIL MARKETING WORKS!!! It's quick, easy and effective!! Mass email and targeted email marketing works! With our special program we not only provide you with up to 30 MILLION email addresses, we also provide you with a terrific mass emailing software FREE. Imagine reaching 30 MILLION people! With regular advertising it would cost you in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if your response rate was 1 out of 20 thousand you would have many prospects right now. If you are getting this message by email then you do not need any additional hardware or software. We also have TARGETED email software providing you TARGETED email lists! Our Easy Email Business Package includes: 1) 20 or 30 MILLION email addresses 2)Special Mass Email Software that allows you to send upwards of 20 to 100 thousand ads per hour(depending upon ad length, system, traffic etc.) 3) Instruction Guide 4) How to Automate your mailings 5) How to write an effective email-ad...with samples 6) A list of "Friendly" internet service providers that allow you to send mass-email on their systems 7) How to avoid Flames 8) Pages of "HOT" products to sell now...if you do not already have one :) 9) How To Guide... Operate Your Own On-Line Business Part-Time 10) The 10 Secrets Bulk-Emailers do not want you to know 11) Many other valuable tips and tools We cannot promise you success, but we know because WE DO IT, that if you EMAIL consistently, the process works. It' as simple as that... and it pays for itself with just a few orders. Also, If you need targeted email lists call us for information about our NEW Bull's Eye Gold software!! Bull's Eye Gold allows you to AUTOMATICALLY collect targeted email lists using ANY search criteria! CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION!!! (213) 980-7850 CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION!!! (213) 980-7850 -------------------ORDERING INFORMATION------------------- Customer Name... Address City State Zip Phone Fax Email Address Please Check Below: _________ EASY EMAIL BUSINESS PACKAGE for just $259.00 Includes 20 million email addresses on CD, FREE bulk email software, instructions and technical support _________ MEGA-EASY EMAIL PACKAGE for just $359.00 Includes 30 Million email addresses on CD, FREE bulk email software, instructions and technical support _________ Bull's Eye Gold Software for just $259.00 Includes automated email target marketing software on CD or disks, instructions and technical support _________ Shipping & Handling (2-3 Day FedEx) $10.00 (FedEx Overnite) $20.00 __________ TOTAL (CA Residents add applicable sales tax) ******** CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED ******** MASTERCARD - VISA - AMEX PLEASE CALL 213-980-7850 to process your order 8:00 am - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Ckecks or Money Orders send to: WorldTouch Network, Inc. 5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2170 Los Angeles, CA 90036 If you have questions...please call Customer Service at (213)980-7850.

1 0

no more domain talk
by Phil Howard 26 Nov '97

26 Nov '97

It's time to end the domain talk on NANOG. Take it elsewhere, but end it here. If you see something you must reply to, reply to the sender directly, not to the list. Maybe domain-policy(a)internic.net is the right list or maybe not, but NANOG definitely is not.

1 0

Re: Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund
by Bob Allisat 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

John A. Tamplin wrote: >There were customers that asked us to point our DNS servers to Alternic, >but I refused because I didn't want to hand over control to the namespace >to one guy that I didn't know, had no authority to run it, and appeared to >be in it for a profit. > >The InterNIC stunt he pulled entirely justified my refusal. Personally, >I think that was the last thing he should have done if he hoped for any >support, since it gave people who were wanting to show that he couldn't >be trusted ammunition they couldn't get any other way. > >I can understand that he was frustrated because he wasn't getting his way, >but the method he chose to express that frustration violated the trust of >those who (foolishly) pointed their DNS servers at his root. > >I see your posts on the GTLD list as well, and frankly I don't want >non-profit and mom & pop companies running DNS servers that I and my >customers depend on. I want someone who can be trusted to not violate >my trust because they have financial committments to meet to stockholders >etc, and can't afford to make such mistakes. First off Kashpureff and those who backed his original version of Alternic made many mistakes. I witnessed these errors and I opposed the inconsistancies. Second no-one owns the namespace. Not Alternic, not IANA, not CORE not Internic not anyone. Everyone must have equal access to the many resources of the Internet and all these Domain Names are just one. So, anyone who can meet the appropriate technical standards must have their place at the table. Mr. Tamplin's insistance that only corporations are trustworthy is patently absurd. Morality and immorality are no more the preserve of conglomerates than it is of individuals. Finally, while attempting to spark a peace and reconciliation process among the conflicting parties it is necessary to envisage the worse possible result of current internet developments. And that would be the transfer of the existing Internic monopoly to this new CORE monopoly. And the resulting concentration of Internet regulatory powers entirely beyond the control of the general public. And then we must consider appropriate activities. And then we must act instead of talking. Kashpureff pointed the way if failure of peace negotiations is in our future. We will simply have no alternative. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 tor(a)wtv.net (416) 534-1999 http://www.wtv.net/portfolio.html

1 0

Re: Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund
by Bob Allisat 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

> It is exactly this type of confrontational, paranoia-inducing > approach to the problem that has caused most of the problems > with working towards real netwide consensus. It's not suprising > you can't see it, but it's blindingly clear to me... I put > work into some back channel discussions that you bozos > managed to kill dead. You are not productive of solutions, > you are counterproductive, actively damaging to progress. > The "protest" created an environment where compromise became > harder and in fact did not happen. We all lost. > The only winners were a few people's egos, and one > of those people is now going to go to jail for it. > Trading ego boosts for real progress on the issues > is not my idea of problem solving, and until you stop > making that mistake you are a roadblock. > > -george william herbert Except for the fact that we requested IETF host a peace meeting for CORE, Internic, Alternic, the US Government and all other interested parties George's analysis would be correct. Except for the fact that we've been trying to weld some sort of consensus via many articles, private e-mail among all of these parties Mr. Herbert would be absolutely bang on. But he's off target. Instead of criticizing Postel, Crocker, Vixie, Metzger and all these incompetants driving this mess Mr. Hebert is attacking those few people actually willing to put their necks on the line to force change. I still believe peace is possible and that IETF is the perfect place for discussions to begin. If this does not happen, if the mono-maniacs behind CORE are not replaced, if the monopolies are not broken there will be an escalation of protest actions and interventions. It will be the only alternative left to those who want justice, value liberty and cherish freedom. It's that important. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 tor(a)wtv.net (416) 534-1999 http://www.wtv.net/portfolio.html

1 0

Re: Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund
by John J. Buxbaum 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

If nothing else, this provides comedic entertainment. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Allisat <tor(a)wtv.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Cc: newdom(a)ar.com <newdom(a)ar.com>; caipcom(a)vrx.net <caipcom(a)vrx.net>; iwar(a)iwar.org <iwar(a)iwar.org>; gtld-discuss(a)gtld-mou.org <gtld-discuss(a)gtld-mou.org> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund On Mon, Nov 24, 1997 Paul A Vixie wrote: >>> How much do I have to pay to keep him in jail forever? On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: >> That was MY question :-) At 11:14 PM, Marc Hurst wrote: >As much as we all know the guy is not going to get a fair trial, the >concept of an anti-defence fund is a novel one. Let's not forget that everyone attempted to profit in their own way from Eugene's devil dare and gutsy Alternic pioneering. And, all joking aside, understand that if things do not go "our" way, CORE is successfully rammed down our throats and none of the schemes to counteract IANA pan out there will be a lot more people in jail with Eugene. And it is up to those with similar views and the resources to assist others who actually do the fighting. That's how revolutions worked in history as in our times. Support your local DNS Freedom fighter or there won't be any more. Or was all those past words just hot air and bullship? TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 tor(a)wtv.net (416) 534-1999 http://www.wtv.net/portfolio.html

1 0

Advisory - tunneling of IP at exchange points.
by Paul Thornton 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

-- PLEASE NOTE: If you are replying to this, consider pruning the list -- of cc's rather than crossposting replies wildly! Thanks. The LINX and several of its members have recently had to take action against an ISP that was using GRE tunneling between exchange points to appropriate the capacity of other ISPs. Although the offending party is now unlikely to repeat this abuse, we feel that this is an important vulnerabilty which could potentially be newly exploited by others elsewhere. We have created an advisory which describes details of the vulnerability, and how to detect and prevent it. This advisory can be found at http://www.linx.net/tunnel-advisory.txt Any questions are best referred to the authors listed in the advisory text. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Lyndon Levesley and Alex Bligh at GX Networks among others in tracking down the abuse and creating this document. Keith Mitchell Chairman London InterNet Exchange keith(a)linx.org Geneva House, 3 Park Road Peterborough PE1 2UX United Kingdom Phone: +44 1733 705000 (fax 353929) Paul -- Paul Thornton, Network Engineer, London Internet Exchange Ltd. Tel: 07000 783797 Mobile: +44 467 372205

7 9

Important: NANOG List Changes
by William B. Norton 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

Hi Guys - Glad to see that many of you have subscribed to the new nanog-post(a)merit.edu mailing list. We've now decided to wait until Monday, December 1, to switch over to the new posting process. After that date, you'll need to also be subscribed to nanog-post(a)merit.edu in order to post to the nanog(a)merit.edu list. (You'll still post your messages to nanog(a)merit.edu, but unless you've subscribed to nanog-post, your messages will rejected.) To subscribe, send e-mail to majordomo(a)merit.edu with 'subscribe nanog-post' (without the quotes) as the text of the message. You will receive a confirmation request, and once answered, you will be able to post to the nanog mailing list. Bill

1 0

Re: Land and Cisco question
by Hank Nussbacher 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

At 10:58 AM 11/22/97 -0800, John Bashinski wrote: I was *extremely* unclear in what I sent since I was running out the door. Most cisco routers run by ISPs (here on NANOG) have at least 50 interfaces (subinterfaces) and usually average 100. Each and every interface/subinterface has to be blocked. So it is either create an extended access list with all 100 individual interface addresses blocked (and update it as new customers get connected) or block by subnet, i.e if all interfaces come from a 255.255.255.252 (/30) subnetted block, then block the whole /24. But then the problem I discussed below creeps up. Any recommendations on how to block this by subnet (assuming the router side always has the same bit position in the subnet)? -Hank >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Does BGP use TCP or UDP? > >TCP. > >> If TCP then we are in trouble. > >I don't think so. > >> Almost everyone >> has access to the Internet via BGP. The line IP address is usually made up >> of a pair of addresses in the same subnet. You can IP spoof block all your >> internal IP addresses but if you block the IP address of your BGP connection >> to your BGP peer and BGP uses TCP, then the examples jbash gave out will >> stop BGP updates as well. > >This was my example: > > interface ethernet 0 > ip address 1.2.3.4 255.255.255.0 > ip access-group 101 in > ! > interface ethernet 1 > ip address 5.6.7.8 > ip access-group 101 in > ! > access-list 101 deny tcp 1.2.3.4 0.0.0.0 1.2.3.4 0.0.0.0 > access-list 101 deny tcp 5.6.7.8 0.0.0.0 5.6.7.8 0.0.0.0 > access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 > >That only blocks the router talking to itself, not talking to any other >host, whether on the same subnet or not. As far as I know, you don't have >to have a TCP connection to yourself to run BGP, just to your neighbors. > > -- John B. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: None of your beeswax > >iQCVAwUBNHcrO3emvD4nAHb9AQHpsAP+OV+xm3uQ+N1Xoc6auDyKfM/j0L9JPqvL >n1pKNh73jqZz8vMzMWOkm8wcnGkW9u+JFQ0tSlkEtpkWrAG96f0kmSpXyfC6BRYo >RvpkXL4hHT0A+1HSbVNmOjGjfThdEyWOdhcE9jJc35PxzErzarsyFTPnjK6Fl5Rl >8wVsoHAPNYU= >=cAK5 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >

12 15

Re: Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund
by Tim Salo 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

> From: Marc Hurst <mhurst(a)fastlane.ca> > On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 24, 1997 at 06:42:35PM -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote: > > > How much do I have to pay to keep him in jail forever? > > That was MY question :-) > > As much as we all know the guy is not going to get a fair trial, the > concept of an anti-defence fund is a novel one. It may be called a "friend of the court" brief, (only probably in Latin). Some well-written papers (briefs) about the dangers posed by those who threaten the Internet infrastructure may be useful in this case. -tjs

3 2

Netflow IP accounting and IP protocol numbers
by steven hessing 25 Nov '97

25 Nov '97

The other day we started using Cisco netflow accounting software together with IP flow export feature of recent Cisco IOS versions. What we found was that although we put a lot of protocols in the nfknown.protocols file of the accounting software (everywthing we could find in the /etc/services file of Solaris and Linux), there is still a lot of traffic under TCP-Other and UDP-Other. This indicated that traffic is going over our network using ports that the software doesn't know about. This could for example be Real-audio, Cuseeme, Pointcast, Backweb etc traffic. Unfortunately, I don't have a list of these newer protocols together with their port numbers. Has anyone compiled such a list? There's the Assigned numbers RFC but the last version of it is RFC 1700 of October 1994. -- Steven

5 4