October 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Rwhois and SWIP
by Joe Provo - Network Architect 28 Oct '97

28 Oct '97

> Does anyone know if we have our own rwhois server up and running >then we don't need to send SWIP changes to reassign(a)internic.net >any more? Yes. Rwhois lets you not outsource the data tracking, is less cumbersome, and allows you to integrate NIC-acceptable db presentation into your existing systems. We've been using it for ...two years? or so, now. Cheers, -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 800.763.8111 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc. <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Rwhois and SWIP
by Wilson Chu 28 Oct '97

28 Oct '97

Does anyone know if we have our own rwhois server up and running then we don't need to send SWIP changes to reassign(a)internic.net any more? I appreciate for any information. Thanks! ------------------ Wilson Chu : wilson(a)above.net : +1-408-367-6674 : http://www.above.net

1 0

Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
by Bill Hogan 28 Oct '97

28 Oct '97

> One idea would be to set up a "working group" to develop subscribed to > operations guidelines and principals for ISPs. The group could have a > charter and systems for addressing issues like this now and in future. > They could have built in review mechanisms and audit systems. Police > ourselves or be policed! The frontier work Paul and company have done > is great but needs to be formalized. A very good idea! Please also consider that the best cops are your customers. Do what you do - publicly. Inform your customers of your policies, what you block and explain why. You have a control loop as a built-in mechanism. Drop out rates and objections from potential customers will tell you if you are out of sync with your customers desires. If the Internet becomes the possession of a few large Mega-Corps any of these control ideas become a politically (and economically) "Bad Thing". If the Internet continues to be composed of many, smaller and competitive entities, that operate in a public manner, many customers will be well served and that is a "Good Thing". Most of the Spam problem comes down to DOS. It won't take any great leap of logic for a working group to tie DOS to the fairly cross-cultural legal principle of theft and fraud. An RFC gives us all a good starting point. Operating in the full glare of publicity will keep many people honest. The ultimate rule must come from the users. Democracy is messy and control freaks abound. If DOS is equated with theft in users expectations, we can politically battle the groups that would impose outside controls by feeding the snake it's own tail. If you would control my content, other than as directed or delegated by me, for my own good and sufficient reasons, you are engaged in theft. The more users that operate on this paradigm the harder it will be for censors to control. Remember: Educate, Educate, Educate. -- Bill Hogan http://www.titania.net E-mail: Bill Hogan <bhogan(a)titania.net> Sent: 10/28/97 CDT/CST 11:57:10 "They will pry my encryption algorithms from my cold, dead fingers." --

1 0

Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
by Chris MacFarlane 28 Oct '97

28 Oct '97

The Moral Majority and The Promise Keepers and other fundamentalist groups sit on white horses waiting to ride in and save us from ourselves. What is being said below needs to be considered. Firstly, Paul mentioned the need to have strong checks and balances. What does that mean and how do we keep him honest and ensure "we are using our powers for good"? It's well and fine to say that "the Nanog Group" is watching but in reality is there any bite in that statement. Do we have an audit and appeal system to ensure rules are applied equally and fairly? Next once the bulk mail protocol is in an RFC I would expect the RBL to be disbanded certainly. What worries me is that some other moral content issue is sitting on the fire and we are fanning the flame by providing method to the madness. As easily this started out on spam, spam and spam we could see a rise in some other groups interest in deciding "content issues" for others. Some thought needs to go into how to limit some of this vary type of methodology. One idea would be to set up a "working group" to develop subscribed to operations guidelines and principals for ISPs. The group could have a charter and systems for addressing issues like this now and in future. They could have built in review mechanisms and audit systems. Police ourselves or be policed! The frontier work Paul and company have done is great but needs to be formalized. Chris MacFarlane Manager, Data Operations ACC Telenterprises Canada 4162132023 cmacfarlane(a)acc.ca cjm(a)ican.net -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 6:41 AM Subject: Spam Control Considered Harmful > > >I am worried about the tools we are developing and deploying to control >spam. > >Some of them are esentially centralsied methods of controlling Internet >content. Paul's anti-spam feed for instance prevents users of some >providers from seeing spam. The user has no choice; they cannot opt to >receive spam other than by switching to another provider. Even worse: >they may not even be aware that they are "missing" some content. > >Combatting spam is considered a Good Thing(TM) by almost everybody here, >including myself. However the same technology could just as easily be >used to do Bad Things(TM). Even worse: if it works it demonstrates that >*centralised control* of the content of Internet services like e-mail is >*feasible*. This will give some people ideas we may not like, and >sometime in the future we may ask ourselves why we have done this. The >end does not always justify the means. I hope that methods like the >anti-spam feed will not be taken up widely. Please consider the >consequences before you use them. > >I stress that I do not question the morality or good intentions of those >involved. I am just concerned about the almost ubiquitous and >apparently unreflected zeal that spam seems to evoke and the danger of >it making us accept methods we would otherwise despise. I would prefer >to see more work in technology that is less centralised and gives the >users a choice of the content they wish to see. Yes this may be harder >to do, but the consequences of deploying the easier methods may be just >too severe. > >Waehret den Anfaengen (beware of the beginnings) > >Daniel > >PS: I hope this is more coherent than my contribution at the meeting >yesterday when my brain failed due to jet-lag while my mouth was still >working perfectly ;-). >

3 2

OFF TOPIC: where are spam control lists?
by Phil Howard 28 Oct '97

28 Oct '97

I'm looking for mailing lists specifically related to various methods of spam control procedures, technology, and legal issues. I know that this is not the right list unless it is related to network operational issues. I just figured at least one of you guys would know where. Please mail to me direct with what you know to find such lists and I'll summarize if there is interest in the summary. Construct my e-mail address from the signature. -- Phil Howard +-------------------------------------------------------------+ KA9WGN | House committee changes freedom bill to privacy invasion !! | phil at | more info: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14180,00.html | milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

LATE NOTICE: NANOG MBONE BROADCAST SET UP AND NOW BEING BROADCAST
by k claffy 27 Oct '97

27 Oct '97

sorry folks, we know nanog announced last week it would be able to make it, but thanks to the noble dedication of Jeff Rizzo from Digital Internet Exchange and Rodney Joffe at Genuity (NANOG host this time) (and of course to the vivid complaints from those nanog devotees that couldn't be here in person) we've got Mbone broadcasting of nanog as of 5 minutes ago -- audio and video, and i'll set up a whiteboard for feedback now -- (early reports indicate that audio is 'uh, about as good as usual') fwiw k

1 0

FCC proposes V-Chip for computers, from Time/Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 27 Oct '97

27 Oct '97

THE V CHIP, COMING TO A COMPUTER NEAR YOU Time Magazine November 3, 1997 Page 36 If you hated the idea of a V chip in your television, wait until you hear that the government wants to install one in your computer. TIME has learned that the FCC has proposed that new PCs be outfitted with a V chip to filter out video violence and sex. Still unclear is what Net broadcasts could be affected. The idea alarms free-speech advocates, who wonder why Americans need a Net-nanny. "What you get is a devolution of the First Amendment," argues lawyer Bob Corn-Revere. FCC chairman REED HUNDT says the high-tech industry can "be part of the process" as the agency sets rules. There's a low-tech alternative: the off switch. --By Declan McCullagh/Washington ********** For details check out the Netly News (netlynews.com) at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1528,00.html -Declan

1 0

Agenda for Interprovider Ops BOF at NANOG 11
by Jake Khuon 27 Oct '97

27 Oct '97

It just occurred to me that an agenda was never published for the BOF. Sorry for the late announcement. Hope to see some of you there. Interprovider Operations BOF - NANOG 11 Agenda I. Introduction (Jake Khuon) A. Participant's List and Survey Form B. Notetaking Volunteer C. Agenda Bashing II. "Smurfing" - The Latest Denial of Service Attack and How to Minimize Its Effects (Craig Huegen) III. PAIR - Policy Analysis of Internet Routing A. Introduction and Overview (Jake Khuon) B. PAIR In Use (Abha Ahuja) IV. New Route Server Developments A. RS Autoreconfiguration (Jake Khuon) B. RADB Extensions to Support RS Peering (Abha Ahuja) V. NANOG OPS WG discussion (Jake Khuon) A. Do we need one? B. Publications series? C. Charter? VI. Other Discussions (open) -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon(a)Merit.Net> ]=====================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | Vox: (313) 763-4907 Fax: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/

1 0

cisco rsh enable
by Steve Lalonde 27 Oct '97

27 Oct '97

try this in conf mode ip rcmd rsh-enable ip rcmd remote-host username ip username where username is username on the looking glass box and ip is the looking glass ip address. Steve Lalonde Systems Manager ENTANET International Ltd The answer's YES what's the question? -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Porter <leigh(a)wisper.net> To: Alex Rubenstein <alex(a)nac.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: 27 October 1997 09:16 Subject: Re: OK. >Alex Rubenstein wrote: > >> I am a moron; I can't figure it out. >> >> How do you make a cisco so that you can rsh into it (to use Mr. Kerns >> looking glass)? >> >> TIA> > >Lets create a moron's mailing list, I cannot find it either.. >-- > >Leigh Porter - Wisper Bandwidth Plc - http://www.wisper.net >GeekCode - http://saratoga.wisper.net:9999/~leigh/ >Set UR PC 3 - http://www.linux.org > > >

1 0

Mbone help at NANOG 11.
by Rodney Joffe 27 Oct '97

27 Oct '97

OK. We have a Sun Sparc with a S Video card, and camera. We need a volunteer to help us configure it for the MBone feed first thing on Monday... Any takers? Thanks Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net

1 0