- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: root server update
by NSSI_2＠nssi_2.frontier.com 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

The root name servers each take between 500 and 1000 queries per second. So testing them from time to time isn't going to hurt much. However, we don't need to test them from very many places, since we would just overload the trouble reporting system, which tends to be biologically limited. How about if each root name server just implements RFC 2010 and does their own monitoring, and InterNIC does the fallback monitoring, and we stop arguing about global issues on a north american mailing list?

1 0

24.0.0.0 and Sprint/AGIS filters
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

How is @Home managing to pass these nets pass Sprint and AGIS with their prefix filtering rules? *>i24.0.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6172 i *>i24.0.0.0/14 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6172 i *>i24.1.0.0/17 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6172 i *>i24.48.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1673 1677 ? *>i24.64.0.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1794 3602 3602 3602 6327 6327 i *>i24.64.32.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1794 3602 3602 3602 6327 6327 6327 i *>i24.88.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 i *>i24.96.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 6541 i *>i24.108.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 577 852 i *>i24.112.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1793 6463 i *>i24.112.32.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 2493 8 *>i24.113.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6177 i *>i24.113.32.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 2493 812 i *>i24.124.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 i *>i24.128.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 560 7015 i *>i24.129.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 7017 i *>i24.131.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 5638 7016 i *>i24.131.128.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 7756 i *>i24.192.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 1221 i Hank Nussbacher

2 1

Re: root server update
by NSSI_2＠nssi_2.frontier.com 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

The root name servers each take between 500 and 1000 queries per second. So testing them from time to time isn't going to hurt much. However, we don't need to test them from very many places, since we would just overload the trouble reporting system, which tends to be biologically limited. How about if each root name server just implements RFC 2010 and does their own monitoring, and InterNIC does the fallback monitoring, and we stop arguing about global issues on a north american mailing list?

1 0

Re: root server update
by NSSI_2＠nssi_2.frontier.com 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

The root name servers each take between 500 and 1000 queries per second. So testing them from time to time isn't going to hurt much. However, we don't need to test them from very many places, since we would just overload the trouble reporting system, which tends to be biologically limited. How about if each root name server just implements RFC 2010 and does their own monitoring, and InterNIC does the fallback monitoring, and we stop arguing about global issues on a north american mailing list?

1 0

MAE West - Can anyone help
by Paul King ＠work 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Can anyone help me? I'm trying to find out names and contact details for Telco's who can provide me with an incoming only PSTN line into MAE West for dial-up access onto our router there. Any suggestions? Apologies if this is an inappropriate list for this request. Thanks in advance. Paul K... --------- Paul King, Engineering Manager - Network Tel: +44 1483 251 773 Telewest Data Services / Cable Internet Mailto:pking@cableinet.net Fax: +44 1483 251 810

1 0

Re: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble? (fwd)
by Paul A Vixie 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Someone asked me privately: > Hey, in case you /dev/null Karl: The 5ms at 1200 req/s criteria in > RFC2010 refers to the latency of a request from the local network, right? > The RFC doesn't make that clear, and in fact would make it sound like it's > supposed to be able to do 5ms over wider areas. RFC2010 did not intend to amend the universal constant "C".

2 1

Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by Karl Denninger 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Hi folks, Just joined over here.... probably rather belatedly... What's this about root server problems? For what its worth, I haven't seen any. Then again, I don't run here with the IANA roots -- I run eDNS. Perhaps those who are unhappy with the stability of the IANA roots these days should try them... http://www.edns.net has a rather simple way to do this (yeah, it doesn't win any artistic design awards, but the information is there.... the page is brand new, just put up this afternoon) We've been running on eDNS now for something like seven months, and have had ZERO operational incidents recorded by our NOC which have been related to root server failures or problems. Now .COM servers -- that's another story. We had the problem with the bad data a couple of months ago like everyone else. But this wasn't a root server problem (and never was traced to the roots)..... Give it a shot folks. I know lots of you have political dislikes for the eDNS concept and implementation, but if your nameservice is unreliable now, having trouble, and you can *FIX IT* for your customers by using eDNS instead, isn't finding and using a better mousetrap what your customers all pay for you? Think about it! -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info(a)mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

7 14

Re: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by crusso＠alink.net 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

At 5:23 PM 2/18/97, Karl Denninger wrote: [...] >What do you think happens to the nameservers on the net when they're asked >for a domain that doesn't have functional servers, and they sit and churn >trying to resolve the names? > >BTW, churn is the right word. Its taking anywhere from 5-10 *seconds* to >come back as NXDOMAIN on each request for those that fail to resolve, and >this is from the IANA roots. > >This IS a functional problem - and worse, all those non-existant zones and >the VM churn they generate on the COM TLD servers is probably the REASON >that we're looking at this kind of horrid performance! Churn shmurn. Those domains are probably ones that have been paid for (to the InterNIC), but aren't yet being used. Who's accessing those unused domains and doing all this needless churning? We should find 'em and string 'em up. Seems like most of the churning would be caused by spammers and testers like yourself. I'd be interested in seeing actual machine statistics on how much performance degredation can be attributed to lack of responses. Without those statistics, I can't see how the InterNIC fees aren't covering this scenario. As was mentioned before, you shouldn't have to pay an ISP to have a domain name reserved. Chris Russo ------------------------------------------------------------------ A-Link Network Services (408) 720-6161 http://www.alink.net This space for rent. ------------------------------------------------------------------

6 5

RE: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by Jim Fleming 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

On Tuesday, February 18, 1997 11:18 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @ On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: @ @ > Folks, we run the network (this *IS* NANOG, right? :-) Let's start actually @ > running it for a change... DNS is one of those things that we ought to be @ > able to do right, and do in an open and competitive format. @ @ Seems to me that we on NANOG are concerned with mostly issues that fall at @ layers 2-4. You are talking about things like competition that really are @ only marginally related to most people on NANOG. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com @ @ @ I can not wait until the day comes when we see our friend from Canada, Mr. Michael Dillon, trying to invade the floor of the United States Senate or the House of Representatives to tell those folks what they are allowed to discuss. Something tells me that they will not really care that you are on the Board of Directors of the ISP/C Mr. Dillon. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: F means filtered ?
by Jim Fleming 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 6:50 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote: @ > From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming(a)unety.net> @ > Subject: RE: F means filtered ? @ > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:58:07 -0600 @ > [...] <snip> @ @ In my opinion, the U.S. Government and the NSF have far more important @ things to do. Many of these more important things will continue to @ develop and strengthen the Internet infrastructure. @ @ It is also worth noting that every U.S. Government or NSF research contract @ I have read contains explicit language about the ideas generated through @ the grant are not endorsed by the funding agency. @ @ -tjs @ @ Tim, You may have missed the following.... The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government, the large number of Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar) Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation (NSF). <http://www.nsf.gov> The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the clout for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. The InterNIC was originally made up of three companies, General Atomics, AT&T, and Network Solutions, Inc. These three companies were supposed to work together in various capacities to provide a variety of services including the important clerical duties commonly called "registrations". In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF was supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, many NICs would have been developed through education programs and the Internet Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State of Virginia and the few companies originally contracted to be part of the cooperative agreement. That has not occurred. The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, Network Solutions, Inc. suggested that they should do the entire job. Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds of the IANA, are listed on the original Network Solutions, Inc. bid as subcontractors to Network Solutions, Inc. As history has shown, the IANA, working in conjunction with the "InterNIC" (Network Solutions, Inc.) has helped to continue to promote Network Solutions, Inc. to a point where most people consider NSI to be the InterNIC. Throughout the evolution of the InterNIC from a three-company cooperative to a one company monopoly, the NSF has apparently been caught like a deer in the headlights of a car, frozen in indecision but providing mass when needed to allow a few individuals and companies to leverage themselves into positions of great wealth. The NSF has been skillfully used to provide the U.S. Government seal of approval, while policies are enacted by private parties who openly claim that the NSF is "backing" their agendas. Many companies operating within the United States under Federal and State laws, have been shocked over the past few years at how their tax dollars are used to fund the NSF which in turn funds Internet infrastructure with apparently no control over the outcome. Furthermore, despite repeated efforts by other companies to participate in and make investments in the Internet infrastructure, the NSF has stood by and allowed plans and systems to be developed which lock certain companies out while others are given a free pass and in some cases millions of dollars to jump start their business. The recent IAHC <http://www.iahc.org> activity is an excellent example of how a private company (ISOC) <http://www.isoc.org>, with less members than many ISPs, is provided an NSF representative, Dr. George Strawn, <http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ncri/Georgehome.html> for credibility, while they develop a plan to sell what amounts to Internet Domain Registration Franchises to companies willing to pay large fees to fund the private ISOC. Another example is the recently proposed ARIN <http://www.arin.net> organization which claims to have strong support from the NSF to charge fees for IP addresses. The proposed Board of Direcors of ARIN are mostly people funded directly, or indirectly, by the National Science Foundation. <http://www.arin.net/arin_board.html> @@@@@ <http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html> @@@@@@@@@ "Network Solutions is leading the ARIN proposal based on a mandate from the Internet community reached in rough consensus with strong support from the National Science Foundation and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Fortunately, the U.S. Government had the wisdom to set up an agency within the NSF to provide some of the checks and balances needed to regulate the NSF. That agency is the Office of Inspector General (OIG) <http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm>. OIG is headed by the Inspector General (IG), who reports directly to the President (via the NSB) and to Congress. ---- Inspector General ------- name: Sundro, Linda G. email: lsundro(a)nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2100 office_phone: (703) fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 -------------------------------------- In a recent discussion with Ms. Sundro, she indicated that the NSF Office of Inspector General has been investigating the matters surrounding the InterNIC and a Report to the Deputy Director is about to be published. Ms. Sundro indicated that Ms. Clara Kuehn, a physicist AND ATTORNEY, has been assigned to handle the investigations and can provide information on the status of the report. -------------------------------------- name: Kuehn, Clara email: ckuehn(a)nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2001 office_phone: (703)306-2001 x 1505 fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 ------------------------------------------ Ms. Sundro also noted that the e-mail address (oig(a)nsf.gov) listed on the Office of Inspector General web site as an "Electonic Mail Hotline" is not useful in contacting her office. She indicated that Ms. Kuehn will welcome input from people on all topics related to these matters and that the above e-mail address (ckuehn(a)nsf.gov) should be used. In summary, I think that U.S. citizens should be proud that their great country developed much of the technology and infrastructure for the Internet. I also think that the world population should be aware that the hundreds of years of government development in the U.S. has resulted in a system that has the proper agencies to not only help to foster increased growth of the Internet but also to help ensure that citizens around the world are able to compete in this marvelous advancement on a playing field that is fair and level. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1