February 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: F means filtered ?
by Justin W. Newton 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

At 11:35 PM 2/19/97 -0600, Edward Henigin wrote: > > Look, I think y'all are morons. Thank you :) > > 1) if someone floods Paul's network, does that not make the >F root server unusuable to *everyone* ? why doesn't anyone pat him on >the back for taking defensive measures to protect a public resource? >Oh yeah, you know, your public library has locks on the doors, right? >Oh shit, better go take the locks off, the books are public resources, >everyone is supposed to have access! Paul is blocking people who he considers to be spammers from one of the root name servers. He is thus making a decision as to who can and cannot connect to a public resource, which was funded, at least in part, by the internet community (I believe via the DNR infrastructure improvement fund). I repsect Paul immensly, and he has contributed a lot to the community. This does not, however, make it all better that he is deciding who can and cannot connect to the root name server that he runs. This is the last post I am sending on this matter as its only tangentially a NANOG issue I suppose. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services

2 1

FNC Meeting
by Jim Fleming 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

No matter which side of the Root Name Server debates you are on, as members of NANOG, it is important that your views are heard by people who make the "real" decisions. Whether you are heard as a group or as individuals your views should be heard. I am sure that people in the U.S. Government and specifically the National Science Foundation will be "doing the right thing" and addressing some of the major issues. Fortunately, there are many checks and balances in the U.S. Government to prevent one person from being the judge, jury, and... There is a Federal Networking Council meeting planned for February 27, 1997. As noted, it is apparently for members only. This should not stop people from "networking" with the people who influence When "networking" is allowed to be redefined as "spam", the entire Internet community is in trouble. This is no different from a sheriff in rural America redefining speeding on a car by car basis, with no judge or jury present and no record of the "fine" that was collected. @@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/calendar.html Feb. 27, 1997 FNC* 1:00-3:00 NSF (* = restricted to members) @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html Federal Networking Council George Strawn - Chairman GSTRAWN(a)NSF.GOV Walter Wiebe - Executive Director WWIEBE(a)NSF.GOV Bruce Almich ALMICH.BRUCE(a)EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Bruce Bottomley BBB(a)ROMULUS.NCSC.MIL Dick desJardins DESJARDI(a)EOS.NASA.GOV Frank Hartel HARTEL(a)BOX-H.NIH.GOV Craig Hunt CHUNT(a)NIST.GOV Pamela G. Kruzic PJK(a)NRC.GOV Henry Lai HENRY.LAI(a)GSA.GOV Fred Lee FLEE(a)NSF.GOV Fred Long FLONG(a)SUN1.WWB.NOAA.GOV Hilarie Orman HORMAN(a)DARPA.MIL Camillo J. Pasquariello PASQUARC(a)NCR.DISA.MIL Alexis Poliakoff ALEX_POLIAKOFF(a)ED.GOV Ken Roko KROKO(a)USAID.GOV Elaine Stout ESTOUT(a)USGS.GOV @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC.html The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) is chartered by the National Science Foundation to provide the FNC with technical, tactical, and strategic advice from the constituencies involved in the NREN Program..." FNCAC Members Dr. Sidney Karin KARIN(a)SDSC.EDU Dr. George Brandenburg BRANDENBURG(a)HUHEPL.HARVARD.EDU Dr. Henriette Avram AVRAM(a)IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU Mr. Jim Beall, Jr. BEALL(a)VNET.IBM.COM Mr. Alan Blatecky ALANB(a)MCNC.ORG Mr. Matt Blaze MAB(a)RESEARCH.ATT.COM Ms. Susan Estrada SESTRADA(a)ALDEA.COM Dr. Kenneth S. Flamm FLAMM(a)BROOK.EDU Dr. John Gage JOHN.GAGE(a)ENG.SUN.COM Ms. Carol Henderson CCH(a)ALAWASH.ORG Dr. Kenneth J. Klingenstein KJK(a)SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Mr. Richard Liebhaber 2714743(a)MCIMAIL.COM Mr. Stu Loken SCLOKEN(a)LBL.GOV Dr. Paul Mockapetris PVM(a)SOFTWARE.COM Mr. Robert G. Moskowitz RGM3(a)IS.CHRYSLER.COM Dr. Ike Nassi NASSI(a)SCRUZNET.COM Mr. Carl Edward Oliver OLIVERCE(a)ORNL.GOV Dr. Stewart Personick SDP(a)BELLCORE.COM Mr. Thomas C. Rindfleisch THOMAS_RINDFLEISCH(a)MEDMAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Mr. Mike Roberts ROBERTS(a)EDUCOM.EDU Ms. Connie D. Stout CSTOUT(a)TENET.EDU Brigadier General Harold Thompson THOMPSON(a)ICN.STATE.IA.US Dr. Stephen Wolff SWOLFF(a)CISCO.COM @@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

Re: while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers
by salo＠msc.edu 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:55:23 -0800 > From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > [...] > I will not have network resources I pay for, used to spam me, or to spam > others. I have the right of use and/or disposal of my own property. People > who spam are committing "theft of service" and my Ip reachability matrix is > better off without such people in it. > [...] Oh, great. Next, the abortion foes will try to deny the advocates access. Then, the gays versus the straights. The Jews and the Gentiles. ... -tjs

3 3

Re: while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers
by Brett D. Watson 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

> > No, it isn't. You have guests and other users. If you have IP customers, > > then they have guests and other online users. By accepting spam you allow > > your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a > > noncooperative way. If you have downstream customers you are subjecting > > them to the same abuse. > > We offer our customers Internet access, and when they complain about > spammers we do something about it. However, what we do affects only our > network and our customers. It does not affect the world as a whole? why does everyone keep insinuating that paul is blocking root level name service from the whole world? that's essentially the argument and it's completely off base. i can admit that *maybe* it's not even reasonable (even after my last post) to block *any* entity from reaching a single root name server but this is turning into a tar and feathering of paul for "affecting the world as a whole" which is way out of proportion. > > connections. > > Again, you can't block everyone. Why you feel it necessary to impose your > social mores on the net as a whole is beyond me. sigh. when has he imposed his social mores on anyone here? paul blackholes spam sites *within* his own network which he pays for. he happens to run a public root name server (one of many) and the spam sites are denied access to part of the public resource (root name service). you can *actively* (as opposed to passively or without your permission) take this list of networks from paul via a bgp peering session and block access from spammers within your own network. so where in that scenario is paul forcing morals on anyone? or blocking the "whole world" from reaching a root name server in his network? -brett

1 0

Re: karl and paul, expostulating
by Brett D. Watson 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

> > I operate a cooperative resource. I will not have it used against me. > > This is not negotiable. I pay for my part of the Internet and anyone > > who wants their traffic to traverse it has to make sure that I derive > > similar value, in the aggregate, to theirs when they send me traffic. > > No argument -- as long as a public root server isn't there. If it wasn't > I'd be SUPPORTING your black-hole list. But it is, and as such I'm not. for the record, i believe in what paul is doing as i am one of the people taking the black-hole feed from him. that said, this seems to be the primary arguement that people are using against paul black-holing spammers. it makes no sense to me. you are saying paul is blocking access to a public service ( a single root name server) but *you* and 99.9% of the rest of the internet are not being blocked. on the other hand, people that are *stealing* (and yes, i agree with paul that it's theft) resources from his network are being blocked. that is, their access to *one* of 15, or whatever the number is now, public root nameservers is blocked. i would understand this argument if the server paul ran were the *only* publicly available root name server on the internet but there are many more. so it's likely that name service for the spammer is not affected in *any* way due to redundancy. and the rest of you merrily go on resolving "." queries with no trouble. so i guess you are advocating that it's ok if a spammer decides to mail bomb paul, clogging up his network with bogus mail, and slowing down access to a root name server, possibly denying valid queries to that root name server at all? that's ok with you, but blocking the very small percentage of thieves from accessing one root nameserver is a bad thing. > > same protection I work so hard to give myself, and I am donating that > > protection to anyone who wants it. > > The point is, you can do that, hurt the spammers even more, and still find > ways to distribute the file (it IS only a flat file Paul) on an automated > basis, rapidly, if you want. > > AND, you don't cut off a non-related resource (a root nameserver) in the > process. the *resource* (root name service) is *not* being cut off. even to the spammer. one server i that provides redundancy *for* the resource happens to be. something i'd think most are willing to live with to stop theft of resources on their networks and to/from their customers. i certainly am. -brett

1 0

Re: F means filtered ?
by Justin W. Newton 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

At 07:48 PM 2/16/97 -0500, Avi Freedman wrote: >It seems to me, Jim, that a reasonable person would assume that he allows >access to the services that it's supposed to provide (DNS), but reserves >the right to 'F'ilter services that are immaterial to the DNS functionality. I think actually the question that Jim was asking is whether Paul filters access to the root name server he runs based on his Spam Blacklist. It seems to be a valid question. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services

9 9

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 9:51 AM, Todd Graham Lewis[SMTP:lists@reflections.mindspring.com] wrote: @ Jim, I really have to ask. @ @ Doesn't acknowledging them as TRUE root name servers serve as little more @ than fodder for The Man's giant propoganda machine? By referring to them @ as TRUE nameservers, aren't you just lending those bastards at the IANA et @ al. more credibility? After all, a noted net.koo^H^H^Hpersonality such as @ yourself must be careful which labels he gives institutions on the @ network. Others are surely likely to modify their estimation thereof in @ light of your opinions, are they not? I know I sure have been. @ @ __ @ Todd Graham Lewis Mindspring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com @ @ @ The people on the NANOG list seem to have missed much of the action for the past few months. I am not sure that can be quickly solved. TRUE Root Name Servers are Root Name Servers that do not also do double-duty as TLD Name Servers. The AlterNIC, Root 64, Root 128 and other movements pioneered the notion of TRUE Root Name Servers. The IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying to play catch up. The U.S. Government via their NSF/InterNIC has been actively blocking the development of competing TLD registries by preventing companies from having entries in the Root Name Servers they operate. There is now a process in place to make sure this changes. I am sure you are going to see a lot of press about it starting tomorrow. (Today is a government holiday) As shown here on the NANOG list, people falll in line behind the U.S. Government and do what they tell them to do. Some people at the NSF would like people to think they are not involved. That is clearly not the case, Dr. George Strawn of the NSF is chair of the FNC and he was also a member of the IAHC. For companies that need to clearly show that the U.S. Government is standing in the way of progress, it is important to establish that an important group like NANOG follows the orders of the U.S. Government via the NSF/InterNIC. That was recently confirmed. If you like, you can probably do a survey. There is a little more than one year left on the InterNIC contracts with AT&T and Network Solutions, Inc. There is a lot of work to be done. Clearly, the next steps are to get IN-ADDR.ARPA in order. It is currently a mess. That would be a good challenge for NANOG to address. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

5 4

RE: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by Jim Fleming 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

On Tuesday, February 18, 1997 12:05 PM, Brett L. Hawn[SMTP:blh@nol.net] wrote: @ On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Matt Ranney wrote: <snip> @ @ Or better yet, to teach the idiots at NSI how to maintain a database. @ @ @ [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] @ [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] @ [-] 713-467-7100 [-] @ @ @ Wait a minute....please completely read the following before you start calling people idiots.... @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/feb97/registry.html "What It Means To Be a Registry" ... @@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

3 2

ANS nad RADB updates ?
by Javier Gonzalez 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Hello all, I'm sorry if this is a too stupid question, or if this is not the appropiate forum to ask these kind of questions, but I'm a beginner on that and still have a great lack of knowledge. I would like to know what are the days and hours that ANS, RADB or other american organizations choose to update their database information from RIPE Database. I need to know that in order to minimize the effect of a BGP configuration change that also means a change in the RIPE Database. I'd highly appreciate any information on this point. Thanks a lot ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nombre/Name: Javier Gonzalez Vela. Empresa/Company: Telefonica Transmision de Datos // IBERNET E-mail: jgonz(a)ibernet.es Telefono/Phone: + 34 1 584 08 18 Fax: + 34 1 523 44 99 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

> You hear that right folks. About 30% of the nameservers which supposedly > are authoritative for .COM domains are either: > 1) Non-existant (they don't resolve to an IP address) > 2) Unreachable > or 3) Don't know what "." is (!) > > Now, if it turns out that the number of so-called delegations which aren't > really backed by authority records is also 30% of the listing, then that > means that of the 790,000+ domains in the COM zone, only about 265,000 are > "real", in that they have both a nameserver online AND a proper authority > record on that nameserver. > > This is a direct result of NSI accepting applications for domains, and > listing them, without checking for authoritative SOA records before issuing > the records in the COM zone! > > I'm apalled at these numbers. For once we agree. NSI should have stopped this practice long ago. You'll be pleased to hear that there are other name registries (for instance the one serving the "no" (Norway) TLD that actually perform this check. Note that checking when an application is received isn't really enough. In Norway we run regular (monthly) checks of all the second-level domains under "no", and we always find a number of name servers which have ceased being authoritative in the time since last check. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

7 13