- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

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

18 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 2:27 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] 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 "Root nameserver F is not reachable from my network." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:47:28 -0800 (PST) From: matthew(a)scruz.net (Matthew Kaufman) Message-Id: <199702140347.TAA02409(a)scruz.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: root servers more debug data Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Status: O At present I am able to reach root nameservers A, B, C, D, E, G, I and receive valid replies to a name request. Root nameserver F is not reachable from my network. Root nameserver H is responding to all my requests with the 4-bit Response Code field set to the value 0x03 ("Name error") This is confusing a fair number of things. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net ps. this is clearly the wrong list for this, but the only one I am on and successfully receiving mail from. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The rest of your message has been deleted and noted for future reference. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: Major Global Telecommunications Firm Runs the ALTERNIC root.db!
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 9:32 AM, Jim Radford[SMTP:jradford@lightrealm.com] wrote: @ On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ Jim, did you forget to take your prescription today? @ @ > There is much work to do.... @ > Have you ever considered helping the IAHC ? http://www.iahc.org is an excellent starting point. Check back when you have something to report. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 4:41 PM, Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net] wrote: @ On Monday, February 17, 1997 4:04 PM, George Herbert[SMTP:gherbert@crl.com] wrote: @ @ @ @ @ @ >Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG @ @ >people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers @ @ >is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root @ @ >Name Servers ? @ @ @ @ If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it @ @ for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net @ @ and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network @ @ and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated @ @ that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do @ @ something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will @ @ likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes. @ @ @ @ You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a @ @ few days ago. I would hope this is the case. @ @ @ @ @ @ -george william herbert @ @ gherbert(a)crl.com @ @ @ @ It's time for another run of my occational disclaimer: @ @ I have not been a CRL employee for over 2 years now and in no way @ @ am associated with it at this time except as a end-user of shell @ @ account services. @ @ @ @ @ @ George...this may help... Do you want Jon Postel to "cease and desist"...? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: two new root only servers From: postel(a)ISI.EDU Date: 1997/01/22 Message-Id: <199701230146.AA05565(a)zen.isi.edu> Sender: owner-Namedroppers(a)internic.net X-To: NameDroppers(a)lists.Internic.net X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set sender to owner-Namedroppers(a)internic.net using -F X-Cc: iana(a)ISI.EDU X-Received: by rip.psg.com Precedence: bulk Organization: none Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dns.std Hello: We are exploring the possible evolution of the root servers to machines independent of and separate from the servers for any particular TLD. As a first step, a new version of the root zone is now available with two additional servers. --jon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are now two more root servers root servers serving ".". The names of these two machines are: j.root-servers.net 198.41.0.10 k.root-servers.net 198.41.0.11 The latest root servers list will be found at: ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.ca Checksum: MD5 (named.ca) fca1cea22445a95ac66c50d58d345d35 These machines are temporarily housed at NSI till their suitable home is found. Two additional machines will placed temporarily at ISI in the very near future. All four will eventually be moved to various international locations that are "close" to the center of the internet. All four new machines (j, k, l, and m) will only run "." in a non-recursive mode. This is being done as an experiment with running "." on separate machines from the existing iTLD's. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Postel Internet Assigned Numbers Authority c/o USC - ISI, Suite 1001 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 Talk: +1-310-822-1511 Fax: +1-310-823-6714 EMail: IANA(a)ISI.EDU @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 4:04 PM, George Herbert[SMTP:gherbert@crl.com] wrote: @ @ @ >Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG @ >people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers @ >is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root @ >Name Servers ? @ @ If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it @ for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net @ and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network @ and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated @ that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do @ something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will @ likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes. @ @ You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a @ few days ago. I would hope this is the case. @ @ @ -george william herbert @ gherbert(a)crl.com @ @ It's time for another run of my occational disclaimer: @ I have not been a CRL employee for over 2 years now and in no way @ am associated with it at this time except as a end-user of shell @ account services. @ @ @ This is very interesting.... The activities that I have been referring to are being coordinated by Mr. Jon Postel (IANA) and Network Solutions, Inc. I guess you need to check with Mr. Postel if you want to accuse people of being a "menace to the network".... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: F means filtered ? (fwd)
by Bradley E. Reynolds 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

> 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> > > 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. > Hmm, I am not sure how on-topic this is. (because it is more an opinion than a statement). It is true that the internet was developed in large part by the government..There is not refuting those facts. But as anyone who has had experience with any government agency or division knows, they are nowhere near the level of efficiency found in the private sector. The internet has also been moving towards the private sector because the private sector is better structured to handle its exponential growth (irregardless of what direction that growth is in). It is time to move away from the anachronistic "governmental control" view of the internet and into today. Mr. Vixie has come under fire for what he is doing. I personally think that he is right in his measures (i.e. to educate more than regulate) but that has no influence on the point that we have no need to invite the government back into this arena in any fashion. Let the industry decide. The rationing power of that aforementioned almighty dollar has a lot of influence in the internet of today. I think that Mr. Vixie will continue doing what he is doing irregardless of what anyone has to say about it. Don't let the government restrict his opinion on this matter. If the people that are affected by his actions have enough power, they will fix matters for themselves. -Bradley Reynolds Harbor Communications breynolds(a)harborcom.net ... ber(a)cwru.edu

1 0

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 8:56 AM, Robert E. Seastrom[SMTP:rs@bifrost.seastrom.com] wrote: @ @ I have J and K in my named.ca file, but not L and M. It is reasonable @ to assume that they are not available for public use yet, as they are @ not listed in the currently-available named.root file available from @ the InterNIC. @ @ ---Rob @ @ PS: No, I was referring to the incorrect root name servers which you @ promulgate. @ I see that you are falling into line and following the orders of the U.S. Government and the NSF/InterNIC. That seems to be the way most network administrators choose to go. It is interesting that the IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. have been working hard to keep up with the leading edge Internet research that has been pioneered by people who advocated changes to the Top Level Domains. Once the IANA was able to establish the IAHC to provide adult supervision to keep a lot of people busy, they were able to roll up their sleeves and to get something done. Everyone has a lot of work to do in the next year. Hopefully, the IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. will be able to keep pace with the changes on behalf of the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation. After all, that is what they are contracted and paid to do. I am sure that they will keep you posted of those changes as they occur and it is good to see that you are falling in line as those changes happen. Keep up the good work... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: F means filtered ?
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 12:02 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin@erols.com] wrote: @ At 07:48 PM 2/16/97 -0500, Avi Freedman wrote: @ >It seems to me, Jim, that a reasonable person would assume that he allows @ >access to the services that it's supposed to provide (DNS), but reserves @ >the right to 'F'ilter services that are immaterial to the DNS functionality. @ @ I think actually the question that Jim was asking is whether Paul filters @ access to the root name server he runs based on his Spam Blacklist. It @ seems to be a valid question. @ @ Justin Newton @ Network Architect @ Erol's Internet Services @ @ Justin, Since everyone has chosen to delete the context let's summarize: 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 via the InterNIC by the inclusion of the address of that server in the root.cache file provided by the NSF/InterNIC. Paul Vixie, the sys admin, for that server replied that he could not see why this would be the case. I asked Paul if he ever filters people's traffic to that public Root Name Server. There has been no answer. In my opinion, the U.S. Government and the NSF need to investigate these matters. If that Root Name Server is no longer valid, the U.S. Government and the NSF should not be endorsing it. ISPs rely on the reliable, stable, secure Root Name Servers and they rely on the U.S. Government to provide them with information on which servers are reliable. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 8:36 AM, Robert E. Seastrom[SMTP:rs@bifrost.seastrom.com] wrote: @ @ From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming(a)unety.net> @ @ Many people are in the process of deploying TRUE Root Name Servers. @ @ TRUE = Totally Ridiculous, Unnecessary Effort? @ (or They're Running Unety's Excrement) @ @ ---Rob @ Are you referring to these NEW TRUE Root Name Servers ? Name: j.root-servers.net Address: 198.41.0.10 Name: k.root-servers.net Address: 198.41.0.11 Name: l.root-servers.net Address: 198.32.64.12 Name: m.root-servers.net Address: 198.32.65.12 Do you have these in your root.cache file ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: Sprint Traffic
by Richard Newcomb 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

Thanks ALL! I'm very grateful for the address! (noc@sprintlink) Richard

1 0

Re: Sprint traffic
by Josh Hall 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

Sprintlink's noc. noc(a)sprintlink.net Josh

1 0