November 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

MCI WorldCom Inc.
by Paul Ferguson 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

See: http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/news/1110/10awcom.html - paul

2 1

MCI Accepts Worldcom's Bid?
by Kevin Houle 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

Heard on the radio this morning that MCI accepted Worldcom's latest bid of ~$36 billion. MCI's website confirms. http://www.mci.com/aboutus/company/news/wcom/index.shtml Kevin

1 0

take a look at this
by Shaun S. Amini 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

============== Begin part 2 ========================== I don't know if this is true. I received it from the network administrator here at Nestor ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: FW: take a look at this Author: Paul Kluk at Nestor-PC Date: 11/7/97 11:03 AM >From a former AOL employee: I'll try and cut through the crap, and try to get to the point of this letter. I used to work for America Online, and would like to remain anonymous for that reason. I was laid off in early September, but I know exactly why I was laid off, which I will now explain: Since last December, I had been one of the many people assigned to design AOL 4.0 for Windows (AOL 4.0 beta, codenamed Casablanca). In the beginning, I was very proud of this task, until I found out the true cost of it. Things were going fine until about mid-February, when me and 2 of my colleagues started to suspect a problem, an unexplainable 'Privacy Invasion', with the new version. One of them, who is a master programmer, copied the finished portion of the new version (Then 'Build 52'), and took it home, and we spent nearly 2 weeks of sleepless nights examining and debugging the program, flipping it inside-out, and here is what we found. Unlike all previous versions of America Online, version 4.0 puts something in your hard drive called a 'cookie'. (AOL members click <A HREF="a ol://4344:1047.g334.8411481.532897009">here</A> for a definition). However, the cookie we found on Version 4.0 was far more treacherous than the simple internet cookie. How would you like somebody looking at your entire hard drive, snooping through any (yes, any) piece of information on your hard drive. It could also read your password and log in information and store it deep in the program code. Well, all previous versions, whether you like it or not, have done this to a certain extent, but only with files you downloaded. As me and my colleagues discovered, with the new version, anytime you are signed on to AOL, any top aol executive, any aol worker, who has been sworn to secrecy regarding this feature, can go into your hard drive and retrieve any piece of information that they so desire. Billing, download records, e-mail, directories, personal documents, programs, financial information, scanned images, etc ... Better start keeping all those pictures on a floppy disk! This is a totally disgusting violation of our rights, and your right to know as well. Since this is undoubtably 'Top Secret' information that I am revealing, my life at AOL is pretty much over. After discovering this information, we started to inform a few other workers at America Online, so that we could get a large enough crew to stop this from happening to the millions of unfortunate and unsuspecting America Online members. This was in early August. One month later, all three of us were unemployed. We got together, and figured there was something we had to do to let the public know. Unemployed, with one of us going through a divorce (me) and another who is about to undergo treatment for Cancer, our combined financial situation is not currently enough to release any sort or article. We attepted to create a web page on three different servers containing in-depth information on AOL 4.0, but all three were taken down within 2 days. We were running very low on time (4.0 is released early this winter), so we figured our last hope to reveal this madness before it effects the people was starting something similar to a chain letter, this letter you are reading. Please do the following, to help us expose AOL for who they really are, and to help us and yourself recieve personal gratification for taking a stand for our freedom: 1. Forward this letter to as many people as you can (not just friends and family, as many as you can!) 2. Tell people who aren't on America Online in person, especially important people (Private Investigators, Government workers, City Council) 3. If the information about the new version isn't exposed by the time aol is released early this winter, for your own protection, DON'T DOWNLOAD AOL 4.0 UNDER ANY CONDITION !!! Thank you for reading and examining this information. Me and my colleagues hope that you will help us do the right thing in this situation. Enjoy America Online (just kidding!). Regards, A former AOL employee ----- End Included Message ----- ============== End part 2 ============================ Shaun shaun(a)amini.net

3 2

How to use Cisco's NAT
by Marcos Della 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

Does anyone know where there are some pointers on using the 11.2 NAT stuff with Cisco? Also if it works worth anything? I've been searching cio for some info, but so far no examples... Also, does it work with 2501? Specifically I am working on setting up part of my BGP space with very small IP blocks for customers but with a NAT on the front end (if it works worth anything) so that I don't have to play the "I need more address space" game with customers. Also the problems associated with customers changing IP providers is starting to go up as well... Marcos ''' (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo--------------------------------mdella @ cstone.com----- Marcos R. Della http://www.cstone.com/~mdella

3 2

RE: How to use Cisco's NAT
by Steve Waddington 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

Try http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/701/60.html It should work with a 2501. Cheers, Steve Waddington -----Original Message----- From: Marcos Della [SMTP:mdella@cstone.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 9:51 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: How to use Cisco's NAT Does anyone know where there are some pointers on using the 11.2 NAT stuff with Cisco? Also if it works worth anything? I've been searching cio for some info, but so far no examples... Also, does it work with 2501? Specifically I am working on setting up part of my BGP space with very small IP blocks for customers but with a NAT on the front end (if it works worth anything) so that I don't have to play the "I need more address space" game with customers. Also the problems associated with customers changing IP providers is starting to go up as well... Marcos ''' (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo--------------------------------mdella @ cstone.com----- Marcos R. Della http://www.cstone.com/~mdella

1 0

Re: How to use Cisco's NAT
by Robert Bays 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

Marcos, Try...... NAT Configuration: http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/701/60.html NAT FAQ: http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/458/41.html#Q2 Rob. > Does anyone know where there are some pointers on using the 11.2 NAT stuff > with Cisco? Also if it works worth anything? I've been searching cio for > some info, but so far no examples... _______________________________________________________________________ Robert Bays robert(a)ironlight.com Ironlight Digital phone: (415) 646-7000 222 Sutter Street Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 _______________________________________________________________________

2 1

Re: How to use Cisco's NAT
by Ron Buchalski 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:51:17 Marcos Della wrote: >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:51:17 -0800 >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >From: "Marcos Della" <mdella(a)cstone.com> >Subject: How to use Cisco's NAT > >Does anyone know where there are some pointers on using the 11.2 NAT stuff >with Cisco? Also if it works worth anything? I've been searching cio for >some info, but so far no examples... Marcos, Check out: 11.2 Configuration Guide for NAT: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/data/doc/software/11_2/cnp1/5cip.htm#REF30065 11.2 Command Reference: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/data/doc/software/11_2/rnp1/5rip.htm General Information and FAQ on NAT: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/458/41.html > >Also, does it work with 2501? Specifically I am working on setting up Yes, NAT works on the 2501. Regards, Ron Buchalski Ron Buchalski SE, Cisco Systems ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: moving to IPv6
by Sean M. Doran 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

Karl Denninger <karl(a)Mcs.Net> writes: > IPng needs to have enough *prefix* length that every autonomous system > currently in existance or which will come into existance during its lifetime > can have a *unique*, *single* prefix. This has the advantage of maximizing site aggregation, however it has the disadvantage of scaling badly with respect to the number of sites. > Then the whole address ownership issue becomes moot - each ASN becomes a > prefix (heh, now that's novel - why not just use the ASN > - duh!) Sure, but the problem is not now who deserves a /19 but who deserves an ASN. Moreover, there is no plan in place for a hierarchical distribution of AS numbers, and ASes are not laid out very hierarchically (or in any kind of useful order) right now. If a very strict limit were placed on the number of ASes in this type of Internet, then distributing connectivity maps likely would be tractable; this leads into discussions about a global link-state routing protocol, some of which happen from time to time for other reasons. However, if you are not prepared to refuse to give out AS numbers to anyone who wants one, you will run into the same political problems as refusing to give out provider-independent addresses to anyone who wants some. Alternatively, if you provide a mechanism for aggregation of ASes (and don't go mad in the process), thus implying hierarchical routing, then your idea is workable, except that suddenly there is no difference between the semantics of your ASN+IPADDR and the IPv6 provider-based addressing scheme. The big difference would be in the requirement that only a fixed-size field be routed upon, which is very much like imposing prefix-length filtering on IPv6 addresses. The only known means for any IP-like protocol to scale to complex topologies is hierarchical routing. This imposes constraints on address assignment. There is no way around these constraints other than abandoning topological complexity or routing efficiency. I believe that the functionality you are trying to achieve is having a system in which renumbering is unnecessary when a change is made in the physical topology, or where address uniqueness is not guaranteed. NAT is currently the appropriate technology to be used in both cases, and has the advantage that no NAT-friendly deployed software needs to be changed to talk a new protocol. > This kind of logical design, of course, cannot be allowed to happen within > the realm of the Internet, which is why we'll never see it in our lifetime. Why not? NATs delineate two addressing scopes, and protocol translating NATs are an extension of this. Pablo Bevilacqua has already pointed out an existing implementation from OFRV. There is no reason why a series of NATs which each border on different IPv4 addressing scopes cannot share a common protocol and addressing region on the "outside" of each of these IPv4 addressing scopes. That is, among a group of NATs there is no strict need to run IPv4, so long as straightforward translations into and out of the local IPv4 addressing scopes are possible. Consequently, there is no reason why some part of the Internet cannot test or even deploy your hypothetical protocol. Personally I encourage you to go for it; there is alot we need to learn about what ought to be "in the middle" to keep the Internet permanently scalable, and the concept of protocol translating NATs needs some thorough deployment experience. Sean.

8 8

Re: Hello? This one is wierd.
by Danny McPherson 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

> Is this legal? Assuming you're referring to these: > 7 columb-sc-1-a12-0.acsi.net (206.222.97.1) 20.543 ms 22.417 ms 18.487 ms > 8 greenv-sc-1-a12-0.acsi.net (206.222.97.5) 27.777 ms 27.418 ms28.025 ms > 9 little-ar-1-a12-0-1.acsi.net (206.222.97.2) 60.061 ms 54.746 ms 55.946 ms > 10 fortwo-tx-1-a12-0.acsi.net (206.222.97.6) 55.008 ms 61.942 ms 63.695 ms I'd guess they're using "ip unnumbered [some_interface (which is a /32)]". I don't see a problem with it. -danny

2 1

RE: BGP4 code source
by Jamie Scheinblum 09 Nov '97

09 Nov '97

I think the newest versions are kept at: ftp://ftp.merit.edu/net-research/gated/ > ---------- > From: salnot patrice[SMTP:cortex@easynet.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 1995 2:19 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: BGP4 code source > > Hello, > > Can someone tell me where i can retrieve the source code of > BGP4 for freebsd or linux. > Thanks > > > ------- > The Only Stupid Question Is The Unasked One > ------- >

1 0