March 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

PC Magazine on Internet logjams
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1607/pcmg0165.htm Breaking Up the Internet Logjam (04/08/97) Hank

2 1

RE: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
by Dave O'Shea 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

The original message confused me a little. I could (mis?)interpret it to say that mail that has been given to them, by some outside party, to be relayed to another outside party - since spammers typically attack a mail server outside their (registered via credit card) home provider, who might just whack them with an arbitrary "high message traffic" charge. In this case, so long as AT&T made the policy clear up front (perhaps by having sendmail reference it in it's greeting) I think they would be in the clear. I've been tempted to put a "$1000 per non-local origin/destination" charge message on my sendmail banner, and then have my legal department whack Krazy Kevin with a seven-digit default judgement next time he tries a spam run. Let's see ya get a mortgage with that one on your TRW, pal. Dave O'Shea Manager, Network Operations 713-307-6760 Wiltel Communications Systems Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:sob@newdev.harvard.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:32 PM To: jhc(a)lynxhub.att.com; lon(a)moonstar.com Cc: Brian_Murrell(a)bctel.net; kevin(a)ascend.com; nanog(a)merit.edu; spam-list(a)psc.edu; spam(a)zorch.sf-bay.org Subject: Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet -- Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to screw around with mail that you have accepted for delivery. -- spammers bill of rights? kinda don't think that would have been the aim. Scott

1 0

NAPs - Temperature vs Packet loss
by Alex.Bligh 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

We've noticed an interesting phenomenon with MAE-East. Packet loss corelates nicely to temperature. At first I assumed the relationship was Busy Network => Hot routers and also Busy Network => Packet Loss. But this is not the case. It appears to be Hot Routers => Packet Loss. Boone Boulevard MAE-East is currently running very hot. Intake temp on our router has been up to 40 degrees today, and output at 70. Under these conditions, the router (a 7010) starts dropping a pile of packets occassionally. Mostly these seem to be through the AIP and a clear int a0/0 fixes it. The time it stays fixed for is heavilly corelated with temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter it stays fixed for. Eventually MFS put a fan on the router and it seems a lot better now, intake temperature being down to 36/37 degrees. 40 degrees is Cisco's default "warning" threshold. One would have thought boxes should work OK at 40 degrees. On the other hand one might also have thought a 18-22 degree aircon environment was a prerequisite of running a decent IXP. Is anyone else seeing high temperature and otherwise inexplicable packet loss at MAE-East? Or does anyone else have data to corelate? Alex Bligh Xara Networks

5 4

RE: ARIN is A Good Thing
by Jim Browning 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

AFAIK, SAIC does not publish financial results for its subsidiaries, nor do those subsidiaries publish breakdowns of the finances of specific projects. It is possible to determine the rough amount of revenues received for domain registrations by looking at the number of new domains registered and total domains being administered, and also by looking at was been accrued into the infrastructure account. The last semingly credible number I read put the DNS *revenues* at less than half what has been quoted as *profits*. -- Jim Browning ---------- From: Dirk Harms-Merbitz[SMTP:dirk@power.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 2:08 PM To: Jim Browning Cc: 'Ehud Gavron'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: ARIN is A Good Thing What are the actual numbers? Dirk On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim Browning wrote: > >From: Ehud Gavron[SMTP:GAVRON@ACES.COM] > >Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 1:11 AM > > > > IF DNS pays for IP and the InterNIC made $60M profit DESPITE > > also doing IP, then clearly DNS fees are too high. > > > > IF ARIN means that IP pays for IP and the DNS funds are unfettered, > > then that $60M profit (in one year) would be much more than $60M. > > As has been pointed out, the numbers you are quoting are fictitious.. > -- > Jim Browning >

1 0

RE: ARINANOG
by Jim Fleming 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

On Saturday, March 29, 1997 9:34 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders @ > quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and @ > U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what @ > other people do when they want to start a business. @ @ (a) Some of the proposed founders *WILL* be quitting their comfortable @ jobs to go work at ARIN. @ Who ? When ? Those questions were never answered ? @ (b) "venture capital". Almost nobody (except for very small mom&pop @ operations on the low end) starts a business totally on their own funds. @ Why should this be any different? @ Venture capitalists are going to look for a 10x return in a 12 month period. ARIN proposes to be cost based and non-profit. VCs might not be interested in that. Again, why don't all the people that want to see ARIN happen fund the thing and then ARIN can line up for one /8 and if they make that work, they can get another. Why does ARIN "assume" that the InterNIC's resources are its resources ? Air Force pilots do not take their jets with them when they leave the military. Also, these concerns about ARIN helping to safeguard against lawsuits brought against the InterNIC for domain names are pure FUD. In fact, just the opposite situation exists. I would be MORE concerned about ARIN getting shut down by the DOJ or the IRS than about the InterNIC being shut down because the InterNIC is the NSF + AT&T + NSI. I think that I would trust that AT&T's lawyers, NSI's lawyers and the NSF's lawyers could keep the InterNIC going much longer than ARIN could withstand a challenge. Besides, if ARIN is cost-based and the "members" pay the costs then a loawsuit or charges brought against ARIN could become very expensive for the members. Special fees or taxes might be needed to keep ARIN solvent through a challenge. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

1 0

ARINANOG
by Jim Fleming 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

[1] As a reminder, there is an ARIN mailing list available from http://www.arin.net. [2] I hope that this NANOG discussion gets reflected on the ARIN mailing list because some people may be following that list and may falsely conclude that the "Internet community" supports ARIN with "broad consensus" when in fact they have not really seen the discussions about ARIN which are held on other lists, in other meetings, in Hong Kong, etc. [3] The reasons for creating ARIN have nothing to do with the words reflected in the ARIN proposal. This nonsense about DNS funding IP and vice versa are not the core issues any more than an ISP debating how dial-up subsidizes leased lines or vice versa. [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what other people do when they want to start a business. Before doing that, why don't the founders get ISPs to sign subscription agreements agreeing to fund the enterprise and therefore money will not be an issue because the companies that sign up will fund the effort. In fact, some of the people on NANOG claim that people are always throwing money at them. Why don't those people step forward to bank-roll ARIN ? [5] Once ARIN is launched, why doesn't ARIN petition the NSF/InterNIC/IANA for a /8 to manage ? Given that some people think that ARIN is such a great idea, this should not take long, especially if the "right" people are on the ARIN board of directors. [6] If NANOG members think that ARIN is such a great idea why not just pull the activity into NANOG and call the thing ARINANOG and get on with it ? @@@@ http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02405.html Re: ARIN is A Good Thing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .To: "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)MERIT.EDU> .Subject: Re: ARIN is A Good Thing .From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> .Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:54:54 -0800 .In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:11:16 MST." <01IH23Y6AYGG8WW0FK(a)ACES.COM> .Sender: owner-nanog(a)MERIT.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ehud wrote: > With no offense to Internic, IANA, Jon, or Jbb. If I have to pay the > Internic (and I do) [1] and they can also support IP (and they do) [2] > and come out $60M black (they do!) then they can damn well fund their [3] > own damn program to assign the [4] goddamned addresses without billing me. I added the [#] notations above so I could comment in detail. [1] you do not have to pay the InterNIC -- there's always .US, and once IAHC's proposal gets going, you will be able to select among other alternatives as well (and my expectation is that .COM et al will become a shared gTLD in 1998). [2] you're right that they support IP, but remember the golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules. Leaving InterNIC to support this means that they (InterNIC rather than Kim personally or any ISP) get to decide _how_ they support it. They don't presently have to do anything you agree with. [3] it's not their program, it was NSF's program most recently, and believe me when I tell you that you don't WANT it to be "InterNIC's program". Finally, [4] to assign is to assert some form of ownership. I'd much rather see the ISP's, with Kim continuing as coordinator reporting a board of ISP "regents", assign and therefore assert ownership of, the address pool. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ As for the rest of the Registry Industry, there is a lot of work still to be done. As companies develop Internet Infrastructure and Registry Industry Infrastructure some of them will become likely candidates to take over parts of the IPv4 address space for management purposes. This will help to spread some of the administrative costs around and will ensure more fair and equitable policies. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

2 1

let's just have one mailing list
by Paul A Vixie 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy to: nobody(a)vix.com reply-to: nobody(a)vix.com Subject: let's just have one mailing list Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:14:17 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <vixie(a)wisdom.home.vix.com> why on earth do we have a nanog list that's separate from spam-list that's separate from spam-list? clearly all discussions on any topic belong on all three lists -- otherwise why would we consistently see: cc: spam-list(a)psc.edu, nanog(a)merit.edu, spam(a)zorch.sf-bay.org i'm receiving multiple copies of this stuff since i'm on all three lists. can't we just coalesce all three lists, and the other 20,000 mailing lists on the internet, onto one? we could call it net.general(a)ihnp4.uucp and just put everybody on the internet onto it. then noone would ever miss out on an interesting discussion that takes place on a list that they are not on. not being on a mailing list is clearly an error, and if someone happens to prefer not being on a list since they don't want to hear about the topic of that list, they are clearly confused since lists don't have topics, right? i'm especially worried about the fact that there is a NAIPR list for ARIN discussions and that not all NANOG messages are -- yet -- automatically CC'd to it. can the postmaster(a)merit.edu please automatically CC all NANOG messages to all known mailing lists to correct this obvious problem? (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.) ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

1 0

Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet (fwd)
by Jim Carroll 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:08:44 -0500 > From: Jonathan Clark <jhc(a)lynxhub.att.com> > To: spam-list(a)psc.edu, nanog(a)merit.edu, spam(a)zorch.sf-bay.org > Subject: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet > > AT&T Worldnet announces that starting Monday, March 31 1997, > it will be taking action to stop email from non-AT&T Worldnet > account holders being relayed through its servers. > > We have reserved the right to treat such mail any way we deem appropriate, > which may include deleting it without notification to the originator. > > Please address any questions about this policy to abuse(a)worldnet.att.net. This should really be treated as a warning message to mail administrators everywhere. If you have not already implemented mail-relay blocking, you should think seriously about adding it now. When AT&T starts the filtering, those senders "hijacking" AT&T mail servers will go searching for alterate servers; sort of like rats fleeing an abandoned warehouse that is now being renovated. --- Jim C., President | C A R R O L L - N E T, Inc. 201-488-1332 voice | New Jersey's Premier Internet Service Provider 201-487-5717 dialup | http://www.carroll.com | Ask about our Business Web Services

1 0

ARIN mail
by Jonathan Heiliger 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

i apologize for further increasing the S/N of this list.. but I believe the 'naipr(a)arin.net' list was created to focus on ARIN discussions, among other things. as we all know, NANOG's charter is defined in murky terms, but why continue a retorical debate on two lists? thanks. -jh- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 14:12 PST From: Michael Gersten <michael(a)stb.info.com> To: JimFleming(a)unety.net, naipr(a)arin.net Cc: ckuehn(a)NSF.GOV, gstrawn(a)NSF.GOV, lsundro(a)NSF.GOV, nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: ARINANOG Jim raises an extremely good point. Why not start ARIN off by giving it a /8 to work with and see how well it will actually work? Lets face it, there is only ONE /0, and giving that to ARIN might not be a good idea if it doesn't work right. By giving them a /8, they will have to compete with other ways of assigning IP addresses, and demonstrate that they actually can work. Just like a would-be ISP has to start with a /24 and work up... Michael

1 0

Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
by Scott Bradner 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

-- Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to screw around with mail that you have accepted for delivery. -- spammers bill of rights? kinda don't think that would have been the aim. Scott

2 1