- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Address of Westin building in Seattle?
by ALAN DORN HETZEL JR 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

Does anybody have this address and/or prefix handy? Thanks! -Dorn

3 3

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

On Tuesday, February 18, 1997 4:16 AM, Brian Tackett[SMTP:cym@acrux.net] wrote: @ On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ <snip> @ @ I don't see what this "debate" has to do with North American Network @ *Operation*, as opposed to politics :P @ @ Brian, I would think that the members of NANOG would understand that the Root Name Servers they use are critical to their operations. This is especially true if several people on the NANOG list report that they are having operational problems with the Root Name Servers. As a "group", you might want to consider the following questions... 1. Do NANOG members all support one confederation of Root Name Servers ? 2. Have NANOG members converted to the NEW TRUE Root Name Servers ? 3. Are NANOG members mixing legacy Root Name Servers with entries for the NEW TRUE Root Name Servers ? 4. Is NANOG as a group working with the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a transition plan for the NSF/InterNIC now that we are approaching the last 12 months of that contract period ? 5. Does NANOG support any Root Name Servers ? If so, are those TRUE Root Name Servers that meet IETF RFC recommendations ? 6. Do NANOG members use any common network management software to make sure that the Root Name Servers they use are in synch, are checked regularly, are coherent, etc. ? 7. Does NANOG have a transition plan to IPv6 and does it address Root Name Servers using IPv6 addressing ? 8. Does NANOG sponsor any educational programs for any or all of the above ? P.S. NANOG's address is "nanog" not "nanon"... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: Major Global Telecommunications Firm Runs the ALTERNIC root.db!
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 9:20 AM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@Mcs.Net] wrote: @ > @ > Well, folks, in spite of the claim by Perry, Don and crew that Alternic @ > is going nowhere, it seems that GTE (thats correct, the telco giant) @ > has at least a little faith in Alternic root.db! @ > @ @ Confirmed. @ @ Cthulu:${PWD##}> dig ns . @pooh.netops.gtefsd.com @ Yes folks...I think that all of the education that people have been providing is paying off with the "big boys" and I do not mean the large human types. I suggest that everyone continue to focus on the round table. Dot is in the center of the table. The U.S. Government will want (and deserves) a seat (or a couple seats) at the table. There are places for many participants. The IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying to keep up with the pace that you are setting. They have finally deployed some TRUE Root Name Servers. People claim that the NSF should be all about science and research. It is interesting that the leading edge research is now being done in the private sector and the NSF dollars are funding people to be registration bookeepers and clerks. Hopefully, this last situation can be turned around over the next year. As more and more registries are created as clones of the InterNIC the NSF can transition back to the world of science and research. We need to move forward. People need to focus on the issues of IN-ADDR.ARPA and begin moving those delegations to regional registries operated by commercial companies. One of the "big boys" recently told me that they are willing to donate their /8 to the cause of Internet registry progress. If that starts to occur, then we can open up all of these IP address allocation issues and allow ISPs to grow without InterNIC interference. There is much work to do.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

3 2

RE: Major Global Telecommunications Firm Runs the ALTERNIC root.db!
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

> @ > Well, folks, in spite of the claim by Perry, Don and crew that Alternic > @ > is going nowhere, it seems that GTE (thats correct, the telco giant) > @ > has at least a little faith in Alternic root.db! > > Yes folks...I think that all of the education that people > have been providing is paying off with the "big boys" > and I do not mean the large human types. I assume you are referring to these name servers: gtefsd.com. 172800 NS KANGA.NETOPS.gtefsd.com. gtefsd.com. 172800 NS ROO.NETOPS.gtefsd.com. gtefsd.com. 172800 NS WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM. gtefsd.com. 172800 NS POOH.NETOPS.gtefsd.com. It would seem that the GTE folks have changed their mind. All these name servers now report [a-j].root-servers.net as the name servers for ".". Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Re: Unsubstantiated Rumor - this is not simply about RBOC ISP Tariff
by salo＠msc.edu 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

> a) The "free peering" relationship is directly analogous to a "bill & > keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies. I suspect that "directly analogous" is neither a legal nor a regulatory term. > b) Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications > Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to > interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications > carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1) It may be worth your while to learn what a "telecommunications carrier" is. (I rather doubt that you are one. I also rather doubt that the people you want to peer with are either.) The telecomreg mail list might be a useful place for you to explore this topic. -tjs

3 3

Unsubstantiated Rumor
by James R. Fisher 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

What appears below is an unsubstantiated rumor, but some rumors are true... -jrf ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Return-Path: bbb(a)acm.org >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 16:41:22 EST >To: fnc(a)web1.hpc.org, lsn(a)hpcc.gov >From: "Bruce B. Bottomley" <bbb(a)acm.org> >Subject: Fw: Telephone charges for Internet > > >Does anybody know if there's truth in this one? The concept doesn't sound >extraordinarily unlikely given the info we received from the FCC rep at FNC >a few months back about central office loading, allocation of costs and >revenues, etc., but the lack of publicity associated with this--if true--is >a bit surprising. > >>Subject: Fwd: Telephone charges for Internet >> >>>I am writing you this to inform you >>>of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local >>>telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute >>>charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will >>>hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that >>>internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per >>>minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, >>>responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to >>>isp(a)fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is >>>in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for >>>litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to >>>everyone you can think of. >>> >>>isp(a)fcc.gov

7 8

RFC1918 conformance
by Pierre Thibaudeau 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

As specified in RFC1918 (ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1918.txt) the netblocks 10.0.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16 have been allocated for "Private Internets". Consequently, these netblocks should not be routed over the Internet. As shown below, they are currently advertised from AS6848 and these advertisements are carried to us (AS6453) through various AS's of the SprintLink system. >sh ip bgp reg _6846$ BGP table version is 9335417, local router ID is 207.45.201.5 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 10.0.0.0 144.228.164.57 0 90 0 1794 1239 1790 6846 ? *> 172.16.0.0/12 144.228.164.57 0 90 0 1794 1239 1790 6846 ? *> 192.168.0.0/16 144.228.164.57 0 90 0 1794 1239 1790 6846 ? [...] AS6846 responsibles should take immediate action to remove these announcements. SprintLink, as any conscientious operator, should take action to filter out these announcements from any of its peers. Regards. __ Pierre Thibaudeau | e-mail: <prt(a)Teleglobe.CA> TELEGLOBE CANADA | 1000, rue de La Gauchetiere ouest | Tel: +1-514-868-7257 Montreal, QC H3B 4X5 | Canada | fax: +1-514-868-8446

8 14

RE: F means filtered ?
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 6:02 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ > On Monday, February 17, 1997 2:27 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.co @ m] wrote: @ > @ @ > @ Jim Fleming writes: @ > @ > Someone claimed that they could not access the public @ > @ > Root Name Server operated by Paul Vixie and supported @ > @ > by the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation @ > @ @ > @ No one claimed that but you. @ > @ > Here is the original mail....from matthew kaufman @ @ Creative editing of your original claim that Paul Vixie was @ "filtering" access to the name servers. @ @ Of course there are times where you can't reach one nameserver or @ another. Connections between any two points on the network are not @ 100% reliable. How you could twist this into the notion that @ Paul Vixie was filtering connections in the network is probably a @ question more for your psychiatrist than for you. @ @ Perry @ @ Per the following Paul has admitted that he does a small amount of filtering...he has not said why. @@@@@@@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] Sent: Monday, February 17, 1997 12:02 PM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Re: F means filtered ? > If someone was to attempt a denial of service attact against > F.root-servers.net I certainly hope Paul would filter the originating > network to protect nameservice for the other 99.5% of the Internet. Actually it would be 99.95% not 99.5%. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I think the main issue is if ISPs and network operators are going to rely on TRUE Root Name Servers for a reliable Internet then those servers should probably be handled by people who are not just volunteers. The Internet has grown from the days when people installed modems in their basements and waited for the phones to ring. The U.S. Government via the NSF/InterNIC is helping to back a serious telecommunications network. I think that most people on the NANOG mailing list understand these issues. They are more than capable of judging which Root Name Servers they use for their operations. In fact, many serious shops now run their own TRUE Root Name Servers to provide better service and better stability. The IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying to move to the TRUE Root Name Server configuration that others have proven works and some experts claimed would fail. I am somewhat surprised that more NANOG members are not at the leading edge of these developments. Such is life. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

3 2

Sprint traffic
by Richard Newcomb 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

If I may intrude... (I'm not a member of NANOG, just an evesdropper..) Does anyone have the email for the NOC @ sprint(link). There seems to be "som'in screwwy" with traffic about their system at Cheyenne. (But I'm no techie) 11:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 610 msec. 12:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 278 msec. 13:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 2644 msec. (WOW!) 14:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 312 msec. 15:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 288 msec. 16:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 397 msec. 17:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 455 msec. 18:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 320 msec. 19:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 296 msec. 20:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 363 msec. 21:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 298 mse Thanks in advance! Richard Newcomb NAMSS, Inc. rnewcomb(a)namss.com

4 3

NANOG Summary
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

Here is a summary of recent events on NANOG regarding Root Name Server problems. 1. People are complaining about Root Name Server corruption, etc. 2. Some people hypothesize that people unhappy with the IAHC outcome are causing trouble. 3. During that discussion, someone noted they could not get to the server run by Paul Vixie. 4. I asked if Paul "filters" traffic to that server. No answer. 5. A few people tried to twist that and to take a simple question regarding filtering and make more out of it. Paul finally sort of admitted that he filters a small percentage. 6. I summarized the situation and noted that the IANA and Network Solutions were making changes to the Root Name Server arrangements and suggested, that could be the cause of the problems noted in #1 above. 7. George Herbert claimed these changes have corrupted the H root server and that these changes should cease and desist. 8. I pointed out that Jon Postel (the IANA) is making those changes.... ...now there is silence at NANOG...I guess all of the Root Name Server problems have either disappeared or have been solved.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1