- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

InterNIC whois not answering?
by Joseph McDonald 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Is anyone else out there having trouble doing a whois to rs.internic.net? I've tried from 3 diff networks and can't get an answer. This has been going on for at least 2 hours. Most frustrating. -joe

10 9

NANOG AUP
by William B. Norton 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Hi - As promised, here is the NANOG mailing list that was agreed to at the Tampa NANOG. This AUP is also up on the web: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html We have set up a nanog-announce mailing list under majordomo. If you are on the nanog mailing list there is no need to subscribe; you will get the announcements. The nanog-announce mailing list is for those of you who ONLY want to get the nanog meeting annoucements. So, you do not need to be on both lists. To subscribe to the nanog-announce list, send a message to majordomo(a)merit.edu and follow the directions. Cheers - Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NANOG Mailing List Charter The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, the list will now be governed by the following guidelines: Acceptable Use Policy 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as described in the charter of NANOG. 2. Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. 3. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. 5. Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted personally and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual persists in violating the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, Merit Network, Inc., will take action to filter the offender's messages to the list. If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that are outside the charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a request to the entire mailing list requesting adherence to the guidelines. If the discussion continues unabated, the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic. -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 764-9430

1 0

Re: Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Danny McPherson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

> > Yes, but these only affect _all_ bgp neighbors. > I have several other peers on regular low-latency circuits which would > be affected by this. I can't seem to find the way to adjust this on > a per neighbor basis. bgp will negotiate/agree on a holdtime interval for each peer when the session is being established (lowest holdtime wins, i believe). if these two routers are the only bgp speakers with the specified interval, then that session will be the only one to use the value. with cisco's current implementation, the specified keepalive interval will be used for all peers on the router. i don't believe there's a way to define the keepalive interval on a per-peer basis. -danny

1 0

Re: InterNIC whois not answering?
by Joseph McDonald 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

It is working now (although slowly). Thanks for all the replies. I also got a private note that said: ----------- Internic is moving to a larger facility over the next few days.... may be down for periods during conversion... ----------- So I guess we may expect some bumps over the next few days. regards, -joe

1 0

Re: Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Danny McPherson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

router bgp <as> timers bgp <keepalive> <holdtime> -danny > > > > Is there a way to adjust BGP keepalive timers on a per neighbor basis? > > Haven't been able to figure out a way under any of CISCO's IOS's version > > (we're running IOS 11.x on our boxes). > > > > TIA > > > > --curtis > > -- > > Curtis Generous > > generous(a)uucom.com > >

2 1

Re: Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Barry A. Dykes 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

neighbor *.*.*.* advertisement-interval (0-600 seconds) External peers are already 30 seconds and internal I beleive is 5 sec. Anyway I hope that this is what you are looking for. Barry > We're running into a problem getting an iBGP session to remain active > with a remote site connected via a high latency link (VSAT T1). The router > at this end of the link (cisco 7513) also eBGP peers with a couple of > upstream ISP's. > > Is there a way to adjust BGP keepalive timers on a per neighbor basis? > Haven't been able to figure out a way under any of CISCO's IOS's version > (we're running IOS 11.x on our boxes). > > TIA > > --curtis > -- > Curtis Generous > generous(a)uucom.com

1 0

Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Curtis Generous 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

We're running into a problem getting an iBGP session to remain active with a remote site connected via a high latency link (VSAT T1). The router at this end of the link (cisco 7513) also eBGP peers with a couple of upstream ISP's. Is there a way to adjust BGP keepalive timers on a per neighbor basis? Haven't been able to figure out a way under any of CISCO's IOS's version (we're running IOS 11.x on our boxes). TIA --curtis -- Curtis Generous generous(a)uucom.com

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by William Allen Simpson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

> From: Eric Kozowski <kozowski(a)structured.net> > I received the following from Jon Postel. Posted with his permission. > > >The USDNS organization is esentially a broker for domain names in the > >US (and maybe other) domains. > >... > >In the world there are many such services, we all make tradeoffs every > >day between doing something ourselves vs using a service to do it for > >us. We all trade money vs time and/or knowledge and/or skill. > >... > >The US Domain Administration does not make any recommendations positive > >or negative about such services. > > > Great. Just wanted to be clear on this official policy. We can still register ourselves without paying any service, anywhere in the US domain. And any "service", fee or no fee, can update the _same_ subdomains. There is no subdomain "ownership". Also, there was another posting saying that IANA had made a limitation last year for each "service" only serving 50 US sub-domains. I didn't see any such announcement. Could you update the US domain RFC accordingly? WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Mark Borchers 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

> My suggestion to ISI at this point would be to distinguish between > "community" registrars and "commercial" registrars. A community registrar > must have a reasonable relation to the place for which it's a registry, > e.g. live or have an office within 20 miles of it, and handle registrations > at no charge. Commercial registries have no such restrictions. In case of > conflicting requests between community and commercial registrars, the > community registrar wins. > This seems like the seed of a great idea, although the 20-mile restriction may be too tight. I'm thinking specifically of a regional ISP from the NSFNet days which... - Provided US domain registration services in a very professional manner for roughly an entire state. - Never charged for registration (still doesn't as far as I know) - Did a lot to promote use of the US domain within its region On a related note, last year ISI, evidently in response to the problem you describe, announced that US subregistries would be limited to 50 delegations apiece. I don't know if this limit was applied retroactively to subregistries that were already handling a larger number of subdomains or not.

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

I received the following from Jon Postel. Posted with his permission. >Eric: > >Thanks for asking. > >The USDNS organization is esentially a broker for domain names in the >US (and maybe other) domains. > >The idea seems to be that if a customer wants a domain name and does >not know how to get it he can go to the broker and ask for what he >wants. The broker then does the work by contacting the appropriate >domain manager and getting the name registered and paying any fees due >to the domain manager. The broker adds on his own fee and bills the >customer. > >There seem to be several such services in operation. > >Some people seem to be glad to find such helpful services, other people >seem to think that since these services charge you for something you >could do directly yourself for less there is something wrong about >their existance. > >In the world there are many such services, we all make tradeoffs every >day between doing something ourselves vs using a service to do it for >us. We all trade money vs time and/or knowledge and/or skill. > >The US Domain Administration does not make any recommendations positive >or negative about such services. > >--jon. > -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

1 0