February 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Sprint traffic
by Josh Hall 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

Sprintlink's noc. noc(a)sprintlink.net Josh

1 0

New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

Issues involving the legacy Root Name Servers will likely become a moot point. Many people are in the process of deploying TRUE Root Name Servers. As I am sure people noted, while people were distracted with the IAHC process, the IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. deployed new TRUE Root Name Servers. I believe they started with 2 new servers and now have 4 that are operational. They do not respond the same, but I am sure they will get the operational kinks worked out soon. They are "TRUE" because they do not also provide Top Level Domain services for .COM, .NET, etc. The legacy Root Name Servers are a hodge podge in this regard because they are largely run by volunteers. The legacy Root Name Servers appear to be evolving to become TLD-only servers for the various TLDs handled by the NSF/InterNIC. Fortunately, the U.S. Government is taking the advice of the various groups advocating new Top Level Domains and they are helping to deploy TRUE Root Name Servers. Part of this is being funded by the InterNIC domain taxes. Therefore, some of the issues surrounding legacy Root Name Servers will likely be moot... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: F means filtered ?
by salo＠msc.edu 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming(a)unety.net> > Subject: RE: F means filtered ? > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:58:07 -0600 > [...] > Someone claimed that they could not access the public > Root Name Server operated by Paul Vixie and supported > by the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation > via the InterNIC by the inclusion of the address of that server > in the root.cache file provided by the NSF/InterNIC. > > Paul Vixie, the sys admin, for that server replied that > he could not see why this would be the case. > > I asked Paul if he ever filters people's traffic to that > public Root Name Server. There has been no answer. > > In my opinion, the U.S. Government and the NSF need > to investigate these matters. If that Root Name Server > is no longer valid, the U.S. Government and the NSF > should not be endorsing it. ISPs rely on the reliable, > stable, secure Root Name Servers and they rely on > the U.S. Government to provide them with information > on which servers are reliable. In my opinion, the U.S. Government and the NSF have far more important things to do. Many of these more important things will continue to develop and strengthen the Internet infrastructure. It is also worth noting that every U.S. Government or NSF research contract I have read contains explicit language about the ideas generated through the grant are not endorsed by the funding agency. -tjs

1 0

F means filtered ?
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

@@@@ http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg01537.html Re: root servers more debug data ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .To: nanog(a)merit.edu .Subject: Re: root servers more debug data .From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> .Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:41:28 -0800 .Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Btw, > Root nameserver F is not reachable from my network. I can't imagine why that would be so. Against my better judgement, I permit both traceroute and ping to this host. @@@@@@@@@@@ Paul, Are you saying that you never "filter" packets from selected networks...?...thus, denying service to people trying to access the "public" Root Name Server that you operate... ...and also denying access to http://www.cix.org Does the F stand for "Filtered"...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

4 3

Peering Agreement Difficulties
by Rolf Medal 15 Feb '97

15 Feb '97

To: Internet Access Providers: February 14, 1997 From: Internet Express 2350 Mission College Blvd., Suite 250 Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 982-8242 fax (408) 982-8249 Dear Provider: Internet express has experienced great difficulty in establishing peering agreements with MCI, Sprint & PPN. If you have also experienced problems in this regard, we encourage you to inform us ASAP. There currently is a class action suit in progress. Please respond to rolf(a)ie-corp.net.

7 6

RE: CASCADE IN BED WITH THE COMMIES!
by Danny Stroud 14 Feb '97

14 Feb '97

Actually I grow tired of this (even joking) phobia. des ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Jon Green Sent: Friday, February 07, 1997 8:32 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: CASCADE IN BED WITH THE COMMIES! What do you think? Now we better boycott BOTH Bay and Cascade. ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- People's Republic of China Builds First Nationwide ATM Network Based on Cascade CBX 500 ATM Switches Major Chinese Win Underscores Growing Acceptance of Cascade ATM Solutions Westford, Mass. -- February 4, 1997 -- Cascade Communications Corp. (NASDAQ: CSCC) today announced it will provide the Chinese government with switches that will be used to build the country's first nationwide broadband digital network. [snip] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: root server update
by matthew＠scruz.net 14 Feb '97

14 Feb '97

Randy, I suspect it would help some of us small incompetent ISPs if you could provide a pointer to where *you* would have successfully found the NOC phone number. That way we could all deal with problems right away without adding more traffic to this list, and we could add this to one of these "how to be an ISP" FAQs, too. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net Original message <m0vvShi-0007zZC(a)rip.psg.com> From: randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Feb 14, 10:49 Subject: Re: root server update > > > So now everyone will start sending test DNS requests to the servers > > and overload them even further. > > What do you expect for folk who call people at home because they can't > figure out how to call a NOC? > > Welcome to the new "I am sooooo important that thinking is not required" > internet. > > randy >-- End of excerpt from Randy Bush

2 1

Re: Peering Agreement Difficulties
by Eric D. Madison 14 Feb '97

14 Feb '97

Please don't post stuff like this on NANOG. This is not the place to publish such things. And to add my two cents, a lawsuit will not cure your peering problems. It will only cause more companies to deny you peering. Eric At 01:45 PM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: > >To: Internet Access Providers: February 14, 1997 >From: Internet Express > 2350 Mission College Blvd., Suite 250 > Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 982-8242 fax (408) 982-8249 > > >Dear Provider: > > Internet express has experienced great difficulty in establishing >peering agreements with MCI, Sprint & PPN. > > If you have also experienced problems in this regard, we encourage >you to inform us ASAP. There currently is a class action suit in progress. > > Please respond to rolf(a)ie-corp.net. >

1 0

Re: Peering Agreement Difficulties
by Sean Doran 14 Feb '97

14 Feb '97

Rolf Medal <rolf(a)ie-corp.net> writes: > Internet express has experienced great difficulty in establishing > peering agreements with MCI, Sprint & PPN. > > If you have also experienced problems in this regard, we encourage > you to inform us ASAP. There currently is a class action suit in progress. Wah wah wah wah. We can't get the multibillion-dollar corporations to treat us as business equals, such that we can get unpaid-for customer connectivity. Wah wah wah wah. I guess it's fortunate that in the land of the U.S.A., the people who aren't intelligent enough to do the very simple things necessary to make themselves MORE effective competitors for Internet services revenue than the multibillion-dollar corporations can vent their rage in frivolous class-action lawsuits. The funny thing is that existence proof of this can be found among several of the formerly small-fry providers which are now among the big N "tier one" providers. The funnier thing is that the same thing that made a couple of them competitive with ANS CO+RE's allegedly unfair marketplace tactics trivially could be successfully repeated. It'll be amusing to see if these people who are ill-equipped to make their fortunes without direct subsidy by their bigger competitors are successful in court, particularly against MCI, which has spent the last decade and change suing itself into existence, and is no stranger to aggressive, expensive, time-consuming litigation. (Frankly, I wonder if the lawsuit will end before everyone involve has died of old-age, or technology has advanced enough to make the whole lawsuit completely irrelevant.) Meanwhile, kindly direct this to com-priv. It has NO relevance whatsoever to NANOG, even in the new NANOG which is all noise and no signal. Sean.

1 0

root server update
by matthew＠scruz.net 14 Feb '97

14 Feb '97

After verifying that the only problem server remaining was H, we managed to track down the keeper of H around 20:15 PST, he had nameservice down at 20:39 PST and back running with correct results now at 20:47 PST. Thanks to: altavista.digital.com - quick RFC reference to verify error code - found http://homepage.arl.mil/~jamesf/dns.html which verified who was responsible for the server (just confirmed the 'whois' data) www.switchboard.com - found his likely home phone number www.mapquest.com - verified that his home is just down the highway from where he works, confirming which home phone number was most likely jamesf(a)ARL.MIL - got the thing fixed well after working hours ought to be over and everyone on this list who sent me private mail confirming that the problem was global, not local. even if this isn't really the right list for DNS issues. now, to add an infrequent check of the root nameservers to our homebrew NMS, so our NOC operators can see these things happen as they happen, not after the fact. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1