- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: question about per. hack
by Francois Beauregard 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

I just got the most stupid idea... Why don't we hack our own DNS servers to force Eugene's box to cache the right information :-) >> faked .per and .nic domains aren't hurting anyone and Eugene >> has stopped knocking legitimate domains down. > >I think he's still at it. I just watched a BIND 4.9.5-P1 server here pick >up an IP address of 207.51.48.15 (one of Eugene's boxes) for the InterNIC >at around 19:50 CDT tonight. > >He also is targeting www.netsol.com. Sincerely ---------------------------------- Francois Beauregard FBorg(a)fbli.com FBLI.COM We love feedbacks and live by them Sales : Sales(a)fbli.com 1 (888) FBLI.COM Tech support : Support(a)fbli.com 1 (514) 349-0455 Internet Web : http://www.fbli.com ICQ : 1907537 Montreal, Canada ----------------------------------

3 4

Terminating many T1's
by Stephen Balbach 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

I am investigating options for terminating many T1's with an objective of high-density and easy scaleability. I am curious how others are approaching this. Possible scenarios: 1. Cisco serial ports and rack CSU/DSU's. Exspensive. Lot of space. 2. MAX TNT for T1's connecting to a backbone Cisco. Theoretically up to 140 T1's in 1 small box with built-in CSU/DSU's. Unproven? 3. Cascade. Similair to TNT approach, very exspensive untill you reach 70+ T1's in a chassis. 4. Chanellized DS3. Don't know anything about it - can MFS provide circuits this way via a DS3 handoff? No CSU/DSU required? Any other costs/issues? Thanks for any ideas and experiences! --stb

8 7

Remote Power Controllers
by Dorn Hetzel 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

I've seen this question asked before, but don't seem to have the responses handy. Can anybody recommend remote power controllers which can control moderately large numbers of devices, preferably with SNMP interface and the ability to deal with multiple power circuits? Thanks in advance for any info... Dorn Hetzel dorn(a)atl.eni.net

2 1

Re: Terminating many T1's
by troberts＠webtv.net 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

Hav you guys heard of the new switch that Cascade is releasing next year which has the same capabilities as the 500 but now has SDH/SONET cards. Prepare to start buying dark fiber. Best Regards, Timothy Roberts President Digital Delivery Network (DDN) L.L.C. Putting the puzzles of the future together.

1 0

cite for article
by Cameo Wood 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5403.html

1 0

Internic takes Alternic to court
by Cameo Wood 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

After nearly a two-week spree, the hijack of the InterNIC Web site ended when a lawyer representing Network Solutions Inc. delivered a civil action lawsuit against Eugene Kashpureff, who is scheduled to appear in court today at 9 a.m. EDT. Kashpureff, operator of the renegade top-level domain registry AlterNIC, fooled most of the Net's nameservers into changing the identity of the www.netsol.com and www.internic.net machines to that of his own. Due to the distributed nature of the network, DNS may still resolve to AlterNIC through some nameservers - even though for Kashpureff, the gig is up. "I turned it off at 12 p.m. yesterday when that lawyer called me," Kashpureff said Tuesday, not sounding as chipper as he did in earlier times. Network Solutions Inc. filed suit in US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, seeking to shut down Kashpureff. Kashpureff denies most of the allegations and accusations. "I haven't had time to get ready [for the hearing], due to the nature and the speed of it," he said. "We do not intend to redirect the domain names of the InterNIC or of Network Solutions any longer and will promise the court not to do that, and hence they don't have any reason to take any immediate action against me." Network Solutions, which is still in its pre-IPO quiet period, refused to confirm or deny anything: "We still have no comment on that situation," a spokesperson said. But apparently, it is swift and vehement action that Network Solutions has called for. "The part I really want you to know, and the part that I want you to care about," Kashpureff explains, is the contents of the 42-page civil action itself - which calls for a complete seizure of all his computer equipment, including any data on magnetic storage. "They're turning me into a child pornographer," he said. "Read just how bad they're trying to rape me and the public - there's some very inflammatory statements about .com, .net, and .org in this document itself." While most network operators do not support Kashpureff's actions, his protest of the InterNIC monopoly strikes a common chord in many, including Aaron Abelard, who cites Network Solutions' unwillingness to work toward a compromise in allowing more top-level domains. Karl Denninger, president of MCS Inc., which also < provides alternative top-level domains, agrees. But he certainly doesn't agree with Kashpureff's tactics. "I do not support this kind of terrorism," he said. "This won't make me very popular with anyone over at the AlterNIC camp, but I hope he does go to jail."

1 0

Etiquette, et.al.
by Eric Germann 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

Before you engage in DNS ramblings or any of the other myriad off topic subjects, look at this (print it out and tape it to your wall if you have to) and see if you fit the bill. Noise dies down if no one responds to it! It is just so true, and we need to laugh at ourselves more. Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversey. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it here. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. Please no flames on the list. If you must, do it privately.

1 0

RE: Public Relations
by Jacques Vidrine 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

Wait, the only noise I'm interested in is personal attacks. The more ridiculous the better. I still chuckle about the pink bunny rabbit thing. Of course, I'd prefer no noise, but if we have some non-operational content, I vote that it be made up of absurd personal attacks as much as possible. Oh, and "administrivia" such as this note. :-) Jacques Vidrine <nectar(a)staff.communique.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodney Joffe [SMTP:rjoffe@genuity.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 7:54 AM > To: 'NANOG' > Subject: Public Relations > > People...... > > [JV] <snip> > > I would humbly and respectfully suggest at this stage that you rethink > your use of this forum to engage in personal comments and attacks (as > inviting as they may be :-) because these things may come back to > haunt > you/us. > [JV] <snip> >

1 0

Re: Quote from Kashpureff / Re: question about per. hack
by smd＠clock.org 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

alan(a)mindvision.com (Alan Hannan) writes: > 'man procmail' or http://www.gnus.org/manual/gnus_7.html#SEC164 which has changed my life. Sean.

1 0

Re: DC fiber cut: field report
by smd＠clock.org 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

Vadim Antonov <avg(a)pluris.com> writes: > Yep. I would say that telcos have rather strong incentive to > keep PDH in place. It may actually be a good deal for IP people -- > you can get more capacity at a lower price, and handle redundancy > at level 3 (hey, interior re-routing is fast). You've been retired for too long when you start believing that telco price == good deal for any package at all. Fortunately, traditional PNOs are facing real competition in various parts of the world already, with all hell breaking loose in these parts Real Soon Now. > Of course, to get advantage of that practice one may want to > work closely with telco to understand their modes of failure, > and write a language protecting topology of his network > overlay. Well, maybe if you *were* the telco this *might* work a la FMS. :) In practice, though, I would want to have redundancy there in a simple way, namely through SDH or SONET. I believe this is what lots of carriers are negotiating amongst themselves (each not trusting the others to actually provide real PDH protection redundancy properly), which may be of some follow-on benefit to the retail market. Also, I think you will find plenty of people here who are so fed up with backhoe fade and broken PDH protection switching that they will pay good money for capacity provisioned over SONET rings. Ironically, facilities-wise, SONET is much cheaper than PDH support for protection-switching. > >You don't need an additional MUX, you don't need extra DAXCs, > >and you don't need to scurry around reprogramming lots of equipment > >when someone wrecks your fibre. > > It's technical staff who's doing all the scurrying. Sales people > already got their comission and are quite happy. While this is healthy cynicism about PNOs, there is the potential pain of heavy downtime penalty clauses that I hope all major ISPs and other purchasers have started getting written into their capacity contracts when they're paying anything close to normal prices. > My prediction is that redundancy of telco data services won't improve > at all until they find a way to reconcile need for redundancy and > desire to sell all the capacity they got. I don't agree. In fact, there are extant counterexamples. Unreliable service costs business, and SONET/SDH rings elminate most of the most common causes of unreliable transmissions facilities. I would hope that Worldcom's PNO side will lose alot of revenues, in the face of the recent cuts, which amply demonstrated their non-deployment of SONET rings along the fibre paths in question. They deserve it, too. Shame on them. Sean.

1 0