- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? (fwd)
by Brett Hawn 28 May '97

28 May '97

Anyone else have any information on this? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 04:09:32 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone(a)vcn.bc.ca> Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? Spamford appears to be multi-homed, if the research I have done is any indication. I took the novel approach of looking up who owns the IP blocks that his nameservers run on. His nameservers are easily obtainable by a simple whois: Cyber Promotions, Inc (CYBERPROMO-DOM) 8001 Castor Avenue Suite #127 Philadelphia, PA 19152 US Domain Name: CYBERPROMO.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Wallace, Sanford (SW1708) domreg(a)CYBERPROMO.COM 215-628-9780 Billing Contact: Wallace, Sanford (SW1708) domreg(a)CYBERPROMO.COM 215-628-9780 Record last updated on 24-Jan-97. Record created on 26-Apr-96. Database last updated on 25-May-97 04:56:34 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS7.CYBERPROMO.COM 205.199.2.250 NS5.CYBERPROMO.COM 205.199.212.50 NS8.CYBERPROMO.COM 207.124.161.65 NS9.CYBERPROMO.COM 207.124.161.50 Well, starting with ns7.cyberpromo.com, it's no surprise: Whois: net 205.199.2 AGIS/Net99 (NETBLK-NET99-BLK4) NET99-BLK4 205.198.0.0 - 205.199.255.0 Cyber Promotions Inc (NETBLK-CYBERPROMO-205-199B) CYBERPROMO-205-199B 205.199.2.0 - 205.199.2.255 And the same for ns5.cyberpromo.com... Whois: whois net 205.199.212 AGIS/Net99 (NETBLK-NET99-BLK4) NET99-BLK4 205.198.0.0 - 205.199.255.0 Cyber Promotions Inc (NETBLK-CYBERPROMO-205-199) CYBERPROMO-205-199 205.199.212.0 - 205.199.212.255 But wait? Is spamford multihoming? A Cable & Wireless Class C block! Whois: net 207.124.161 Cable & Wireless, Inc. (NETBLK-NET3-CWI-NET) NET3-CWI-NET 207.124.0.0 - 207.124.255.255 IDCI (NETBLK-CWI-IDCI2) CWI-IDCI2 207.124.160.0 - 207.124.164.255 IDCI (NETBLK-IDCI-BLK-11) IDCI-BLK-11 207.124.161.0 - 207.124.162.255 But strangely, it doesn't resolve... 1 2427 ms 2135 ms 2716 ms Max18.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.24] 2 1235 ms 929 ms 477 ms Ar1.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.3] 3 175 ms 167 ms 623 ms Fddi0-0.CR1.SEA1.Alter.Net [137.39.33.41] 4 213 ms 263 ms 265 ms 110.Hssi4-0.CR1.TCO1.Alter.Net [137.39.69.121] 5 271 ms 264 ms 597 ms 313.atm1-0.gw1.tco1.alter.net [137.39.21.153] 6 258 ms 990 ms 244 ms cwix2-gw.customer.ALTER.NET [137.39.184.82] 7 739 ms 482 ms 655 ms nyd-7513-1-h4-0.cwix.net [207.124.104.50] 8 581 ms 257 ms 490 ms ny1-7000-02-f0/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.228] 9 634 ms 1044 ms 1183 ms ny1-7000-01-f4/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.227] 10 580 ms 358 ms 297 ms idci-cwi.cwi.net [205.136.226.210] 11 232 ms 731 ms 302 ms phl-bcn1-client-router.idci.net [205.136.21.3] 12 1267 ms 1197 ms 899 ms 146.145.254.62 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * * Request timed out. And another! Whois: net 207.124.161 Cable & Wireless, Inc. (NETBLK-NET3-CWI-NET) NET3-CWI-NET 207.124.0.0 - 207.124.255.255 IDCI (NETBLK-CWI-IDCI2) CWI-IDCI2 207.124.160.0 - 207.124.164.255 IDCI (NETBLK-IDCI-BLK-11) IDCI-BLK-11 207.124.161.0 - 207.124.162.255 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What is IDCI, I wonder? This one doesn't resolve either. 1 532 ms 188 ms 168 ms Max18.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.24] 2 1284 ms 2128 ms 2321 ms Ar1.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.3] 3 3037 ms 2575 ms 453 ms Fddi0-0.CR1.SEA1.Alter.Net [137.39.33.41] 4 634 ms 475 ms 241 ms 110.Hssi4-0.CR1.TCO1.Alter.Net [137.39.69.121] 5 887 ms 1357 ms 929 ms 313.atm1-0.gw1.tco1.alter.net [137.39.21.153] 6 508 ms 447 ms 260 ms cwix2-gw.customer.ALTER.NET [137.39.184.82] 7 284 ms 275 ms 270 ms nyd-7513-1-h4-0.cwix.net [207.124.104.50] 8 610 ms 495 ms * ny1-7000-02-f0/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.228] 9 300 ms 264 ms 683 ms ny1-7000-01-f4/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.227] 10 621 ms 233 ms 275 ms idci-cwi.cwi.net [205.136.226.210] 11 275 ms 250 ms 767 ms phl-bcn1-client-router.idci.net [205.136.21.3] 12 648 ms 954 ms 647 ms 146.145.254.58 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * * Request timed out. 16 * * * Request timed out. Could Spamford have another provider up his sleeve? I wonder if Cable & Wireless is planning to give him a link when Agis finally bites the bullet and drops him. I could drop a couple of suggestions. Performing traceroutes into random addresses in his class C blocks revealed some very interesting results. And finally, even though he has disabled nslookup on most of his machines, he forgot one ... So here ya go. nslookups on his most infamous domains... answerme.com. SOA answerme.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (1 17 172800 3600 1728000 172800) answerme.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com answerme.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com answerme.com. MX 5 answerme.com answerme.com. A 205.199.212.8 localhost A 127.0.0.1 ftp CNAME answerme.com news CNAME answerme.com www CNAME cybermirror1.com answerme.com. SOA answerme.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (1 17 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cybermirror1.com. SOA cybermirror1.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com . (117 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cybermirror1.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com cybermirror1.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com cybermirror1.com. MX 5 cybermirror1.com cybermirror1.com. A 205.199.2.248 answerme A 205.199.212.8 news CNAME cybermirror1.com localhost A 127.0.0.1 www CNAME cybermirror1.com auto1 A 205.199.212.36 auto2 A 207.124.161.91 auto3 A 207.124.161.78 ftp CNAME cybermirror1.com cybermirror1.com. SOA cybermirror1.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com . (117 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cyberpromo.com. SOA cyberpromo.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (126 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cyberpromo.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. MX 5 cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. MX 10 cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. A 205.199.212.36 news CNAME cyberpromo.com ns5 A 205.199.212.50 ns5 MX 10 ns5.cyberpromo.com ns7 MX 10 cyberpromo.com ns7 A 205.199.2.250 ns8 A 207.124.161.65 ns8 MX 10 ns8.cyberpromo.com localhost A 127.0.0.1 localhost A 205.199.212.36 localhost MX 10 cyberpromo.com ns9 A 207.124.161.51 ns9 MX 10 ns9.cyberpromo.com www A 205.199.2.247 ftp CNAME cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. SOA cyberpromo.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (126 172800 3600 1728000 172800) ispam.net. SOA ispam.net hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (113 172800 3600 1728000 172800) ispam.net. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com ispam.net. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com ispam.net. A 205.199.212.34 ispam.net. MX 5 ispam.net localhost A 127.0.0.1 ftp CNAME ispam.net news CNAME ispam.net www CNAME cyberpromo.com ispam.net. SOA ispam.net hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (113 172800 3600 1728000 172800) keepmailing.com. SOA keepmailing.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (111 172800 3600 1728000 172800) keepmailing.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com keepmailing.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com keepmailing.com. MX 5 keepmailing.com keepmailing.com. A 205.199.212.30 localhost A 127.0.0.1 ftp CNAME keepmailing.com news CNAME keepmailing.com www CNAME keepmailing.com keepmailing.com. SOA keepmailing.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (111 172800 3600 1728000 172800) Happy umm ... exploring. Of course, I would NEVER want ANYONE to even THINK of doing anything malicious with this information. HACKING IS ILLEGAL! I love Jeff Slaton. I love Spamford. They help the economy. AGIS is our friend. . /|\ //|\\ Welcome to the rainforest... ///|\\\ dialtone(a)vcn.bc.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for passing that information along. Anyone from Cable & Wireless want to look into things from that side and give us a followup? PAT] -----End of forwarded message----- -- Carpe Dieum: Seize the Day! Carpe Beerum: Seize the Beer! Beerum Carpe: Get the fish drunk!

3 2

SMDS info
by Brian Horvitz 28 May '97

28 May '97

Can anyone direct me to a good resource for info on configuring an ADC SMDSU plugged into a HSSI port on my Cisco router? I've never had the pleasure of working with SMDS before and I don't like guessing when it needs to work before I ship it. Thanks. Brian Horvitz

2 1

Re: QoS/CoS interest
by Mike Trest 28 May '97

28 May '97

At 09:46 AM 5/22/97 -0500, bill.st.arnaud(a)canarie.ca wrote: > There still exists major problems with bandwidth in an around > major metropolitan areas like Chicago and NY In our attempts to secure fiber we are quite often frustrated by local availability problems. But it is not restricted to local. There are still inter-city problem areas too. >In Canada, we have been very fortunate in having excess fibre capacity in and >around our major metropolitan areas, with more coming on line every day. The >problem has become so acute, that in Toronto we probably have the lowest ATM >circuit prices anywhere in North America. I could *really* like Toronto :-) [if I can live in San Diego in Winter] >In Montreal the local university >GigaPOP consortium is pulling their own 40 strand fibre through the city >ducts at a cost less than one year's tariff that the carrier wanted for a DS3 >connection between these same institutions. In my town, a major manufacturer put in their own SONET rings. They hired the same construction companies who put it in the ground for the TELCOs and CABLE companies. >The question in my mind is how long will it take to get QoS/CoS working >effectively over heterogenous networks with all the related business issues >of settlements, etc versus how long it will take for the facilities providers >to plow new fibre into the ground? Private discussions of this topic abound. We always come to these observations. My discsusions with others in research and network planning has yeilded similar concerns. I really wonder if anyone really cares about this enough to propose a preliminary service model with the corresponding business Ts & Cs. My belief is that if a wide spread agreement can be reached on the business issues, then the technology-builders will respond rapidly. In the meantime, we will continue to see differentiated quality of service only in: 1. Private network segements (Intranets) 2. L2 supported VPN with ATM QoS 3. Virtual QoS [i.e. over public networks with your fingers crossed] >If the fibre shortage is resolved quickly and all these promised WDM and >optical technologies come to pass than the QoS/CoS business issues may prove >to be an interesting technical challenge but never get wide commercial >deployment. > >Bill I hope that Paul's collections of comments (public and private) will be summarized for this community. However, it would be interesting to see the discussion broadly published in Internet trade press with a clear statement of the issues with a WWW mechanism to reply with a yes-mabey-no statement of interest. I encourage this consumer polling because I do not assume opinions of NANOG readers are representative of opinions in the business market. ..mike.. Mike Trest EMAIL: trest(a)atmnet.net ATMnet VOICE: 619 643 1805 5440 Morehouse Drive #3700 FAX: 619 643 1801 San Diego, CA USA 92121 BEEP: 619 960 9070

2 3

Reward
by Sharif Torpis 28 May '97

28 May '97

...someone was asking for more specifics on recent agis network attack...i don't think there is more information or at least not public information...see http://www.agis.net/reward.htm for the latest... -- Sharif Torpis (storpis(a)pbi.net) Network Engineering Pacific Bell Internet PGP Key at http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html

1 0

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by jmbrown＠ihighway.net 28 May '97

28 May '97

Yes that would be a cinical view :) One thing that I like is it requires the sender to use their REAL address, and flag the message as a SPAM. It would also need to cover the unauthorized use of MY mail relay server. Thus the SPAMMER would have to use there server and NOT bounce off of me. To do so would be considered a theft of service. jmbrown >Seems to me it's even worse than this. Seems to me that the bill, while >well intentioned, could be used by Spammers to say "See, it's OK to SPAM, >it says so here. We put the word advertisement on the subject line. See, >if people don't want to see it, the law says their ISP filters it. We're >doing exactly what the law says we should. It condones SPAM." > >Or did I miss something about this law? > >Owen > >

3 2

Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by John R Levine 28 May '97

28 May '97

No, this isn't a rant about spam. It's about a misguided anti-spam bill that puts potentially onerous rules on every ISP in the country. Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska filed a bill earlier this week that's intended to solve the spam problem. His intentions are clearly good, and based on his press release, he seems to understand many of the issues, but his bill is very unfortunate. It says: * Commercial e-mail must be tagged with "advertisement" * All ISPs must provide tag filtering on inbound mail * Commercial e-mail must provide a real return address, and accept remove requests. They have 48 hours to act on a remove request. * The FTC can discipline misbehaving ISPs. * Various penalties for unsigned ads, for ISPs that don't provide filtering, for spammers who continue to send ads after receiving a remove. There's a press release and a full copy of the bill on the senator's web site at http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/press/EMail052197.html Seems to me that if this were enacted into law, it'd be bad news for ISPs, since the volume of spam would increase (since it'd be officially legal) and ISPs would have to provide filtering on mountains of inbound spam. And, of course, opt-out lists don't work. There's a separate bill proposed by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey which extends the junk fax ban to unsolicited commercial e-mail and says nothing about ISPs. The ISP/C endorses the Smith bill in principle. People say they've been talking to Murkowski, he's amenable to argument and will probably revise his bill next week. If you think this bill would affect your business (he's a pro-business conservative Republican, after all), it's worth a phone call. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47

9 12

RE: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jim Fleming 28 May '97

28 May '97

On Wednesday, May 28, 1997 12:15 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] wrote: @ Karl and Eugene, @ @ While I personally find this *tremendously* amusing, almost as funny @ as the Flemmaster trying to spin damage control on nanog, I'm just @ guessing but I suspect few people on newdom(a)ar.com are particularly @ interested in participating in your little spat. However, it is @ perhaps instructive on how the "alternative DNS effort" or whatever @ you all are calling yourselves these days can be expected to @ operate... @ @ Have a nice day, @ -drc David, Some folks from Japan once suggested that Japan have their own Root Name Server Confederation. Has any more progress been made on Root Name Server Confederations in the Asia/Pacific region ? While it might be true that North America has its share of Root Name Server Confederations, I am not sure there can be too many. With more Root Name Server Confederations we are able to learn more about the technical, human and market dynamics. Hopefully this research will be useful in other parts of the world. If I recall, you once said that the Asia/Pacific region would likely result in each country wanting their own confederation. Has any progress been made on which countries would be the most likely candidates ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

2 1

RE: DNS Evolution Alert
by Jim Fleming 28 May '97

28 May '97

On Tuesday, May 27, 1997 5:36 PM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote: @ > Since this research is not funded by the U.S. Government's @ > National Science Foundation (NSF) it may not be considered @ > by some to be valid or of any value. No matter where you @ > stand on that issue, you should at least know that it @ > exists. @ @ The NSF has funded a lot of good network research. However, you @ might want to look at some of the research funded by some other @ organizations as well. Perhaps, DARPA. Hint: think "ARPANET." @ Yes, the U.S. Government has funded its share of "network research". Some people have learned to "steer" (manipulate?) the U.S. Government agencies in a direction that suits their personal and corporate needs. This ensures their success because most people follow the U.S. Government's lead no matter how good or bad the technology or decision making. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

San Diego ISP Hack
by rbenn＠clark.net 28 May '97

28 May '97

Anybody know who the "unidentified" San Diego ISP is that got hacked by a 15-year-old last week? Randy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Randall S. Benn http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn Internetworking Consultant rbenn(a)clark.net CCIE #1637 Reston, VA USA -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: the original thirteen NSFNET regionals
by Frank Sayre 28 May '97

28 May '97

At 05:57 PM 5/27/97 -0700, Kent W. England wrote: > [...] > THEnet Texas U Texas still independent Still operated by the University of Texas. A relic ... but still healthy. -- Frank Sayre +1 (512) 471-2488 +1 (512) 471-2449 fax -- Office of Telecommunication Services - THEnet University of Texas System -- Academic Computing and IT Services University of Texas at Austin -- 304 East 24th Street Service Building 319 Austin, Tx 78705

1 0