August 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG Registration
by Pam Ciesla 22 Aug '96

22 Aug '96

Please NOTE the only credit cards that we are accepting for NANOG are VISA & MasterCard. We also are accepting checks made out to the Universtiy of Michigan. See the registration form on the Merit Web Page. Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by Vadim Antonov 22 Aug '96

22 Aug '96

On itself, LSRR is a godsend to hackers (i can think of about a dozen of very nasty attacks using general LSRR). The only useful application for it is traceroute. Why don't router vendors provide an option to turn it off for everything but ICMP ECHO? --vadim

4 3

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by John Hawkinson 22 Aug '96

22 Aug '96

> >On itself, LSRR is a godsend to hackers (i can think of about > >a dozen of very nasty attacks using general LSRR). The only > >useful application for it is traceroute. > > > >Why don't router vendors provide an option to turn it > >off for everything but ICMP ECHO? > > Personally I find this an excellent suggestion. So now I need to hack my traceroute to send ICMP_ECHO_REQUESTS instead of high-port udp packets? Oh well, I guess we can put this right next to the patches to have traceroute send TCP SYNs to get through stupid firewalls. --jhawk

1 0

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by Geoff Huston 21 Aug '96

21 Aug '96

The number of transit providers who turn off lsrr is growing daily. Quite frankly turning it off it simply makes everyones life harder. The only justification I hear when I question this is a) "this is some kind of proxy security mechanism for our clients" (really!) or b) "whats loose source routing anyway?" Geoff Huston gih(a)telstra.net >To: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> >cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Access to the Internic Blocked >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:41:50 -0400 >From: "Jeff Young" <young(a)mci.net> > >perhaps if folks would just take the time to loose source route >in both directions instead of only one... > >was the web page in response to complaints to those who turn off lsrr? > >Jeff Young >young(a)mci.net

2 1

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by Geoff Huston 21 Aug '96

21 Aug '96

The number of transit providers who turn off lsrr is growing daily. Quite frankly turning it off it simply makes everyones life harder. The only justification I hear when I question this is a) "this is some kind of proxy security mechanism for our clients" (really!) or b) "whats loose source routing anyway?" Geoff Huston gih(a)telstra.net >To: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> >cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Access to the Internic Blocked >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:41:50 -0400 >From: "Jeff Young" <young(a)mci.net> > >perhaps if folks would just take the time to loose source route >in both directions instead of only one... > >was the web page in response to complaints to those who turn off lsrr? > >Jeff Young >young(a)mci.net

1 0

RE: [NIC-960710.6343] INVOICE (hardcopy) (01-jul-1996 - 07-jul-1996)
by Bill Woodcock 21 Aug '96

21 Aug '96

We haven't seen too many mis-bills, but quite a few uncredited payments... i.e. our customer gets a cancelled check back, but then the InterNIC either cancels the domain or refuses to acknowlege payment, or both. I'd say this is happening in 1%-2% of cases, which seems pretty high. -Bill Woodcock

2 1

Access to the Internic Blocked
by Golan Ben-Oni 21 Aug '96

21 Aug '96

Network Solutions has decided to filter our CIDR addr, 169.132 / 16 since about 5 PM yesterday from reaching the internic. Below is a forwarded copy of email exchange between myself, and MCI -- It appears that there is no backup routing engineer at the Internic which troubles me greatly. MCI has been attempting to contact them every 30 minutes since yesterday to no avail. This is the second time in a month or so that this has happened. Since I was unable to contact Mark Kosters, I felt it might be helpful to contact Kim Hubbard - To my dismay, she refused to acknowledge our problem and hung up on me with an attitude. <sigh> Of course, this pleases me to no end. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:11:32 -0400 From: Nour Elouali <nour(a)mci.net> To: markk(a)netsole.com, allwync(a)rs.internic.net Cc: bnite(a)tremere.ios.com, trouble(a)mci.net Subject: Access Denied Hi there, One of our peers _idt.net_ cannot reach your site, see the forwarded traceroute.. They cannot route to you from any IP Address within their CIDR Block 169.132.0.0/16. According to my traceroute, I see that they get filtered out at network-solutions which is your provider. Will you be able to assist? Thanks... -Nour Elouali MCI NOC ****** border7.wtn#tr 198.41.0.6 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to rs1.internic.net (198.41.0.6) 1 network-solutions.Washington.mci.net (204.70.77.42) 8 msec 8 msec 4 msec 2 rs1.internic.net (198.41.0.6) [AS 6245] 8 msec 4 msec 4 msec ****** ------- Forwarded Message Delivery-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:27:36 -0500 Received: from postoffice.Reston.mci.net by carbon.cary.mci.net (8.6.12/kaw-mci.net/feb95) id NAA02326; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:27:24 -0400 Received: from tremere.ios.com (tremere.ios.com [169.132.32.250]) by postoffice.Reston.mci.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA28560 for <trouble(a)mci.net>; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bnite@localhost) by tremere.ios.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) id NAA08739 for trouble(a)mci.net; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:27:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Golan Ben-Oni <bnite(a)tremere.ios.com> Message-Id: <199608191727.NAA08739(a)tremere.ios.com> To: trouble(a)mci.net Subject: Traceroute to Internic traceroute rs.internic.net traceroute to rs.internic.net (198.41.0.6), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 eth-3.gw-4.hck.idt.net (169.132.32.254) 2.907 ms 2.026 ms 3.068 ms 2 eth-0.gw-1.hck.idt.net (169.132.34.250) 107.054 ms 121.335 ms 77.012 ms 3 10.255.255.1 (10.255.255.1) 82.342 ms 70.764 ms * 4 192.41.177.181 (192.41.177.181) 55.270 ms 48.858 ms 42.972 ms 5 core2-hssi2-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.1.213) 40.422 ms 40.915 ms 43.822 ms 6 border7-fddi-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.74.51) 33.906 ms 78.689 ms 75.278 ms 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * ------- End of Forwarded Message

10 13

How connect to a NAP ?
by James R. Fisher 703-648-7026 20 Aug '96

20 Aug '96

Quick question from a lurker: If a Federal Agency wanted to connect directly to a NAP (e.g., MAE-East, MAE-West), how would they start the process, who are the contacts ? P.S. Does FIX still exist ? Thanks. -jrf

3 2

Re: Customer AS
by Justin W. Newton 20 Aug '96

20 Aug '96

At 11:41 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >Sean Doran writes: >> | We can't pretend to be able to replace the phone networks until we can >> | achieve similar reliability. Phone networks typically are spec'ed to >> | two minutes a year downtime. >> >> Uh huh, while I agree with you that the Internet is not >> remotely as stable as voice networks are, I think that >> this has a great deal to do with the revenue difference. > >I strongly disagree. It has far more to do with the primitive >engineering methods we are employing. > >The mere fact that I've actually seen networks built in the real world >that simply never go down and that don't cost an order of magnitude >more leads me to believe that it can be done. I must admit that these >networks are much smaller than the national networks a large provider >tends to build -- on the order of twelve cities, fifteen or sixteen >sites, and a hundred or two hundred ethernets. On the other hand, such >a network is more than large enough that a "normal" network of this >sort will experience substantial downtime in some of its links. The >networks I've been involved with, though, go down orders of magnitude >less frequently than you normally expect. Why is that? > >1) redundancy in all components and links. >2) No "cowboy"ism. 3) These sites aren't turning up /hundreds/ of T-1's and other links on a given week. 4) Points of entry into these networks are very limited, and therefore the network manager has much more control over what comes into and out of his network as far as both data and routing advertisements. 5) These networks are not nearly large enough at this point in time to seriously push hardware to/beyond its design specifications. 6) Traffic patterns are relativelty predictable, you don't suddenly have triple the traffic over one link that you didn't have yesterday. Anyone care to add to the list? Justin Newton Internet Architect Erol's Internet Services

2 1

Re: Customer AS
by Dave Morton 20 Aug '96

20 Aug '96

>Sean - not picking nits but should that not be 28 T1s i.e. 24 * 28 >giving 672 DS0s ? > >Given the cost of even the cheapest voice tariff from DE to the US >as another example I get an annual worth of 311 million dollars >for the same DS2 circuit. Given that a leased transatlantic DS3 costs DS3... >between 6.5-7 million dollars p.a. this again reinforces your point below. > >Dave

1 0