November 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
by Sean M. Doran 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

"Jay R. Ashworth" <jra(a)scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> writes: > This is a question of _trust_, and if I don't wish to > allow the operator of a NAT box to proxy my trust in a > nameserver operator, there really isn't any good way > around that. You could change your connectivity such that there is no NAT between you and the set of nameservers from which you feel you must have untouched responses. In a "NAT Everywhere" world with a sufficiently large set of such nameservers this may be completely impractical. Given that not trusting the DNS is the default mode of operation for the current Internet, the question is whether the advantages of NAT justify a constraint on DNSSEC or whether the advantages of DNSSEC justify a constraint on NAT. The problem seems simpler with a "NAT in some places" model, especially where "some places" is mostly at the borders of big corporations, however strings of NATs do and will happen, and there will be these trust issues to deal with in some places anyway. I would perfer to avoid constraining the problem just because it makes the NIMBY folks more quiescent, to be honest, since it rankles as much the concept of "only some people have to renumber to conserve address space and preserve the scalable properties of hierarchical routing. we won't, we're privileged (or too big or too understaffed)". Like renumbering, NAT is out there, and making it seamless and easy strikes me as a good and useful goal, even if it complicates other good and useful goals. One of the ways to make it and renumbering seamless is to understand that IP addresses are subject to change over time and topological distance. Sean.

4 4

Re: moving to IPv6
by Sean M. Doran 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

Phil Howard <phil(a)charon.milepost.com> writes: > Test market a dialup service at a reduced rate that gives people a > private space address behind a proxy server. No, implement NAT in such a way that you can roll this service out without anyone noticing, except in the difficult case where an "inside" and "outside" address collision is triggered by using IP addresses rather than DNS names. Then once you've rolled it out, you can assign static IP addresses, large address ranges, and other popular shopping-list items that a number of users seem to want, to the extent that they are a market differentiator that in the absence of NAT favours less-conserving ISPs. Sean.

2 2

Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

> > Security based on IP address. > > Here I disagree, not only for the obvious reason that > forgery is easy, but also because basing anything on IP > address that does not involve looking back up through the > DNS (which is also not yet safe) is incompatible with NAT. ...which brings me to think if it isn't so that Secure DNS (at least as currently specified) and widespread deployment of NAT boxes which fiddle with the contents of DNS reply/request packets isn't exactly a properly working combination. As I understand it you can have NAT or Secure DNS with e.g. signed A records but you can't (easily?) have both. (Which brings us even further afield from the original subject... ;-) Regards, - Håvard

8 12

Re: moving to IPv6
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> there was an increasing sensationalist panic in the half-informed press that the internet was going to run out of address space in the next fifteen minutes. There is a certain amount of evidence that this was fanned, in times prior to IPv6, by people in whose interest it was to promote interest in protocols with a larger address space. So I don't think you lay all the blame on the press. The IPv6 decision immediately solved that problem. Victory over the address space problem was declared. I've heard that rationale from a number of people (incudling some who held it at the time). The only problem with it is that the cost to the IETF community, in a variety of ways, including damaged personal interactions, and diverted energy (the "B Ark" phenomenon notwithstanding) has been very, very high indeed. There were better ways to i) assuage the panic (by doing things that did provide more useable addresses), and ii) did something useful for the future of the Internet, but they didn't get picked. Noel

1 0

Re: moving to IPv6
by Sean M. Doran 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

Alex Bligh <amb(a)gxn.net> writes: > Sean seems to predicts death of end to end > network layer addressing. How about the > death of end to end internet? Instead > run with a core of IPv4 numbered routers > and application layer gateways. Run everything > else in private address space. 10.0.0.0/8 > has pleny of room. Alex has followed things closely and has just moved back into the realm of the smart ALG, which is another of my favourite topics. As his message is something I cannot really improve upon, let me just say that I completely agree that for many protocols, his end is a good one, and has the benefit not only of conserving IP addresses to the point that IPv4ever looks likely but also reducing unecessary duplicate traffic. The one clarification, though, is that running everything in private address space does not imply the end of end-to-end Internetworking; it is dropping in smart ALGs that means the death of the inefficient end-to-end nature of several popular protocols. Sean.

1 0

Re: moving to IPv6
by Sean M. Doran 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

Rodney Joffe <rjoffe(a)genuity.net> writes: > It seems to me that if there is going to be a change in the way that we > look at addresses, routing, and NAT, it would be in everyone's interest > if we were able to build border NAT devices that besides telling an > incoming packet where to go, was also able to tell it what route to take > through the internal network. Not just relying on the internal routing > data, but also making decisions based on the real-time performance > inside the network, and the nature of the traffic (TCP vs. UDP, HTTP vs > FTP vs TELNET vs MAIL). I know it touches on QOS, but QOS is reactive, > this could be proactive. > > Once the box has to do the work, and look at each packet and address, > why not add smarts? Note that with respect to the idea that one can make interesting forwarding decisions across a routing domain based on such things as source address, input interface, packet size, protocol, etc., there is a strong conceptual affinity between NAT and MPLS. Wheras MPLS is a protocol-neutral map-and-encapsulate system, NAT is a protocol-specific translation. There are enormous potential synergies between the two, particularly when, as Rodney suggests, one starts considering policy based on what MPLS calls FECs (Forwarding Equivalency Classes). However, the two are not interchangeable; MPLS should not modify payloads (it should not KNOW what the payload is) and doing lots of packet-munging at the NAT level is a poor (and in some cases extremely difficult) way to propagate policy information from router to router. You are the second sound person recently to suggest routing based on observed load. This sort of thing scares me (cf. Peter Lothberg's 101-is-full-use-280-280-is-full-use-101-repeat San Francisco Bay Area highway analogy in the past, and Radia Perlman's "congestion control is a very difficult problem in a network" et succ., s. 9.12 in _Interconnections_). Frankly I am worried that the amount of control traffic and processing needed to implement fine-grain congestion avoiding forwarding will overwhelm network devices. A better approach is probably to run with Van Jacobson's recent appeals to use intelligence in gateways to make non-high-quality traffic fairer so that for that traffic no congestion-avoiding forwarding needs to be done. High-quality (i.e., extra $) traffic could then be dealt with in a variety of ways ranging from queue manipulation and selective disabling of fairness-enforcement to using MPLS or an equivalent to direct traffic across different infrastructure. Sean.

1 0

Re: Communities
by Sean M. Doran 03 Nov '97

03 Nov '97

The route object found via 'whois -h whois.ripe.net AS1755' may serve as a useful case study for people interested in using communities to influence routing policy. Sean. P.S.: whois.ra.net will work too for those of you with poor connectivity to Europe or scratching your heads about why whois.ripe.net doesn't seem to work right now...

1 0

Hello, mci?
by Alex Rubenstein 02 Nov '97

02 Nov '97

http://www.security.mci.net/dostrack Not Found The requested object was not found on this server. Hrmph. Where?

4 3

Re: Notes from the October 1997 meeting
by sob＠academ.com 02 Nov '97

02 Nov '97

I can convert them. I will be happy to return the converted slide to you once they are done. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Did I really get spammed from this mailing list?
by des 02 Nov '97

02 Nov '97

Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) by ns1.syix.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA09239; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00343; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:12:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:09:24 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id WAA00264 for nanog-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from kevin.citywan.net (kevin.citywan.net [209.50.166.1]) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA00260 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:09:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:09:19 -0500 (EST) From: loans(a)xitau.de Message-Id: <199711020309.WAA00260(a)merit.edu> Received: from xitau.de ([208.136.108.56]) by kevin.citywan.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA24152; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:37:33 -0800 To: loans(a)xitau.de Subject: Business Loans For You Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Do you need to increase profits in your business? Do you need venture capital to get you there? Are you frustrated with your bank turning you down for the capital your business needs to grow? Be frustrated no more. Zion Worldwide can put you in touch with hundreds of offshore investors waiting to invest in a viable business just like yours. What Is An Offshore Investor? An offshore investor may be an offshore bank or a group of offshore lenders looking to invest in and to lend money to viable business enterprises both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Why Not My Own Bank? U.S. federal banking law permits American banks to tie up a lot of their money in overhead expenses and advertising costs. Which means that American banks have less money to lend out to their customers (the ones who gave the banks their money in the first place!). Offshore banks, on the other hand, are required by offshore banking rules and regulations to lend more of their customer's money to, you guessed it, their customers. And groups of offshore lenders (often referred to as 'conglomerates'), are not necessarily restricted to the number or type of businesses that they can invest in, as long as these businesses are viable and show potential for future growth and profit. How Do I Take Advantage Of These Offshore Lending Opportunities? Zion Worldwide works with literally dozens and dozens of offshore banks and conglomerates across the world to put American businesses in touch with reputable offshore lenders. By submitting an offshore loan application to Zion Worldwide, your businesss automatically becomes eligible for the following types of offshore funding: Venture Capital Loans, Signature Loans, Equipment Leasing, Cash Grants, Self Liquidating Loans and a $25,000 Line of Offshore Credit, as well as offshore corporate credit cards. How Do I Apply And How Much Does It Cost? To apply simply write to: Zion Worldwide 5015 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 125, Las Vegas, NV, 89102. ..and ask for an offshore loan application. There is a non-refundable application fee of $200US payable to Zion Worldwide via money order, cashier's check, Visa or Mastercard. Why The $200 Fee? When you make application for offshore lending opportunities, Zion Worldwide literally sends your company's loan application to several major funding institutions around the globe. The $200US application fee assists our organization to cover the costs of shipping your loan application documents around the world. How Does Zion Worldwide Make Its Money? When your company's loan application arrives back to our office, Zion Worldwide receives a brokerage fee from our offshore lenders for finding them viable businesses to invest in. Can I Apply? Any viable business in the US or abroad may make application to Zion Worldwide in order to receive serious consideration from Zion's offshore lenders. Is It Hard To Apply? Absolutely not. Simply prepare to provide your company's past earnings as well as future earnings potential, as well as some documented business plan and, of course, some basic business details (e.g. your company's name, address, phone, fax etc.) and you're set. In fact, we want you to succeed in securing your loan, because when you succeed, we succeed. Why Is Zion Worldwide Located In Las Vegas? Nevada is America's last haven for judgment proof corporations (better than Delaware, better than Wyoming). Zion Worldwide strives to take full advantage of all of the incorporation benefits that the State of Nevada provides. What's The Catch? Sometimes interest rates on offshore loans are higher than interests rates on similar loans in the United States. However, apply for an offshore loan, then immediately turn around and expand your business with it, and of course, enjoy the increased profits your business generates, repay your offshore loan early, and the interest charged to you on your offshore loan will total no more than the interest on a loan you can (or can't) get in the US. AnyThing Else? Nope, except 'Apply Today'

3 3