January 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Policies affecting the Internet as a whole - Hitting where it hurts
by Chris A. Icide 06 Jan '97

06 Jan '97

There is a certain individual at a certain ISP in the .ro domain. I have yet to determine if this user is the owner of said ISP or if they are but a user. As it may be, this person has been responsible for many hacking attempts, including the destruction of several UNIX systems (rm -rf* after gaining root) in other ISP's. The person is also suspected to have been an initiator of Severl damaging SYN attacks, although the only solid proof is of the UNIX hacking. Anyway, to get to the point, I along with several others have been in contact with the ISP, which is aware of the individual's activity and refuses to deal with those activities since "there are no laws affecting his use of our system in this manner, and we have no recourse." So, my question to you folks is, would something like the intentional black holing of the source network for this user (he apparently sources all attacks from one swamp Class C address) be an appropriate incentive to the ISP to deal with the problem? If so, where would be a good place to announce such measures, their goal, evidence, etc? I can see how such a thing could easily get out of hand if it's not taken seriously. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C.

15 23

Sprint Mailbombing Update 3PM EST
by Barry Shein 06 Jan '97

06 Jan '97

3PM EST and that mailbombing from a Sprint customer continues full-blast, well into its third full day, and Sprint continues to refuse to do anything about it. Go ahead, tell me again how this is nothing but a spam whine -- three days, thousands and thousands of messages, all being bounced back, non-stop, and Sprint refuses to lift a finger or acknowledge that this is an operational problem. Sprint should not be allowed to operate on the internet, they're destroying it, they're completely irresponsible. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989

7 6

It Continues...Sprint Is played the fool...
by Barry Shein 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Sorry if some of you are losing patience with this, I'm truly sorry, but this is amazingly evil. I get email from someone in Sprint Security, a new person, I'll be decent enough to leave his name out, around 10:30PM EST. The gist of it is that they've spoken with this guy who has been sending these thousands of msgs, and he's a reasonable fellow, and I'm inflating all this and perhaps even partly to blame, some wild and ridiculous story about how my refusing his mail with a 550 error is making his software do this, ridiculous if you know how mail actually works, that's like getting a User Unknown error, you just throw it on the floor, he runs sendmail 8.7 under Unix, telnet to his SMTP port at iq-internet.com. AT ABOUT 1AM EST THE MAIL LOOPING STARTS AGAIN, AFTER A FEW HOURS HIATUS. HE STARTED IT UP AGAIN! Unbelievable, I'm sorry, but this sort of behavior is going to destroy these networks, and I mean behavior on the part of people like Sprint. Bad people will happen, I know that, we all know that, but the people at Sprint have absolutely no excuse for their behavior other than sheer gullibility or abrogation of any shred responsibility. Is there anyone here, who Sprint will believe, who can tell them that they are dealing with a known evil person who is feeding them complete bull? Obviously they don't believe me and will give this execrable person more than every benefit of the doubt as he disrupts the network for his own vicious purposes, this is going into the third full day of this. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989

5 6

Re: IPv6 Internet
by Vadim Antonov 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Randall Atkinson <rja(a)inet.org> wrote: >There are varying opinions on whether IPv6 will turn out to be the >OSI of the 90s. There are also varying opinions on whether it is desirable >for IPv6 to fly or not. Some believe that for IPv6 to fly operationally, the >"6+2+8" proposal needs to be adopted. Let me put it this way -- IPv6 does not fix _any_ hard problems (routing stability, etc). It is about as useful as IPv4 with a "more address bits" option. --vadim

1 0

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by Paul Ferguson 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

At 02:58 PM 1/3/97 -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > >May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide >scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. The greatly >increased quantity of addresses should have some impact on >this. Granted, for the sake of routing tables, some organization needs >to manage the allocation so we don't end up with piecemeal routing but >the restrictions on how many addresses folks can have should be >lessened in such a circumstance. > What wide-scale implementation? - paul

3 2

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

> Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> writes: > > >>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide > >>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. > > >What wide-scale implementation? > > Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing" > IPv6? Be sure to check: > > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html > http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/ > > Thomas > Wide scale IMPLEMENTATION is different from VENDOR DEVELOPMENT. I think the statement was more of "What wide-scale DEPLOYMENT" than saying that major vendors were not implementing. Owen

1 0

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by Paul Ferguson 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

I'm quite aware of v6 implementation efforts; my point was that the *scale* at which v6 is actually being implemented is by no means, 'wide'. I suppose, however, that this is quite a subjective statement from both perspectives. I also hesitate to mention that there is a significant part of the industry that still questions the immediate need for IPv6, or perhaps has not been convinced that IPv6 actually fixes any existing problems, but that is another can of worms altogether and is better discussed in another venue. - paul (not representative of cisco Systems, Inc.) At 08:57 AM 1/4/97 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: >>>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide >>>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. > >>What wide-scale implementation? > >Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing" >IPv6? Be sure to check: > > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html > http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/ > >Thomas >

1 0

Re: Film at 11:00
by Tony Li 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Looks like the 45k mark was reached: Folks with 7000's and SSE's should start monitoring their memory utilization via "show sse summary". Tony

7 17

BGP and memory size
by Hank Nussbacher 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory: ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process. Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem. Hank

4 5

NO silly Non-profit IP Registry please
by Matthew E. Pearson 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

At 09:57 PM 1/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should >be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether >those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they >should all play a role. > Sounds logical..... >To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund >a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry >for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to manage the IP address space for the >territories it currently administers, similar to the APNIC and RIPE >regional IP registries. This organization will be a non-profit >spin-off of the current InterNIC IP group. > Ok... now how does this put control of IP space in the hands of users? NSI is just another bunch of suits and engineers... NOT end users...... interesting concept here.. I completly fail to see the logic. I DO however agree with the non-profit seperate entitly idea... I would hate to wake up and read the news to find that Network Solutions Inc. was bought up by some Telco or ISP who now has complete control over address space!! YIKES! >Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed >and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable, >self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership >dues, registration and maintenance fees. > Now here is a plan.... but I see a few flaws... Firstly, does this mean that we can simply throw $100k at Internet and buy op several "B" blocks (or CIDR) even though we only need a class C?? Or does it mean we pay HUGE ammounts of money to STILL deal with the fascist IP space assignment policy that InterNIc has currently? (ie you have to give a persons name, address, and home phone to just if every host on your network). Either way... this is TOTALLY unaccpetable and if IANA allow it.. IANA should be disbanded as well... So here are the ways this could work.... 1. You can simply buy up unused address space by lobbing cash at these guys, meaning some ISP will lob a few million at it, but EVERY available address and resell it at even HIGHER rates than these folks... 2. You pay LARGE ammounts of money for the continuation of the great service we all know and love. Meaning you have to justify practically down to the end user to get address space assigned in any reasonable size block. 3. You pay LARGE ammounts of money and have these folks lighten up the rules on assigning addresses and LOTS of address space is wasted because larger than nescessary blocks are assigned simply because the user had the cash for a larger block... (ex: a /16 instead of a /18 because they had a few extra grand and the restrictions have been lightened up a bit) This is a LOSE LOSE LOSE situation.... I am not saying I have the solution.... but I do know that this seems ridiculous.. Remember what happened with the promises from the NIC that once they charged for domain name registrations, they could 1/2 the registration time, and add real customer service... still 4 weeks... still 30 min on hold and when you get someone they cant help you unless they get a supervisor to call you back in 5 days... Given the choice of evils... I would prefer to continue with the current plan.... at least NOBODY is getting ripped off for money and getting a lack of service.... and the ip assignment restrictions are tight... but that is needed until we somehow impliment IPv6 addressing (now who is administering that one!)on the net. ------------------------------------------------- Matthew E. Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com

2 1