May 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Kudos to Internic
by Matt Bush 07 May '97

07 May '97

Hola, All. After scanning through some spew from one of our nameservers, I noticed a _lot_ of these: -- May 7 17:05:06 ns1 named[4332]: bad referral (net !< wow.net) May 7 17:05:06 ns1 last message repeated 8 times May 7 17:05:06 ns1 named[4332]: unrelated additional info 'a.root-servers.net' type A from [196.3.138.30].53 May 7 17:05:06 ns1 named[4332]: unrelated additional info 'b.root-servers.net' type A from [196.3.138.30].53 [ ...[b-h]... ] -- So, I decide to do a whois... -- $ whois wow.net [No name] (ID?) ³ D The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information [ ... ] -- Odd. I decide to see if the database is working at all. -- $ whois eden.net Sorry, you shouldn't see this record. -- Shouldn't I? Hrm.. -- $ whois internic.net 260 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 US (ID?) -- Good to know they are on the ball in this time of potential competition. Cheers, -Matt

1 0

Re: IAHC Backtracks on Registrar Lottery
by Stephen Sprunk 07 May '97

07 May '97

The IAHC's proposal can be found at "http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html". Any cutomers (including yourself) will need to contact one of the new registrars to get a domain registered (similar to how you go to InteRNIC for .com domains.) unless you are a registrar yourself. The requirements for becoming elligible to be a registrar are also listed in that document. Please note that the domains are not scheduled to be available for over a year from now. Information about the IAHC, its procedures, and its recommendations, as well as endorsing parties can be found at "http://www.iahc.org/". Stephen At 08:34 07 05 97 -0700, Geoff White wrote: >> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote: >> > Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any >> > service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible >> > to become a registrar. No lottery will be held. >Are these requirements listed anywhere? >I've got customers chomping at the bit to get at these new domains. >I just need to know how to register these domains.

4 5

Re: Coincidence...
by sob＠academ.com 07 May '97

07 May '97

Vadim wrote: > Five years ago, the idea of a telco doing Internet was so ridiculous that > my friends laughed at me. Now, try to find telco which doesn't have an > Internet service. It's easy if you look at telephone cooperatives and other small telcos. In any case, there are alot of things that looked ridiculous to the telcos five years ago. Such things as selling customers dedicated DS-3s looked ridiculous to many of them (even today, some telcos can't/won't do this). xDSL and ISDN were (and still are) pretty funny to some telcos. -- 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

NIC DB IS HOSED
by Janet Pippin 07 May '97

07 May '97

ALL: WHOIS 'YOUR IP HERE' DB IS BROKEN!! -JANET -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020

1 0

Re: Coincidence...
by Vadim Antonov 07 May '97

07 May '97

Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> wrote: > I'd rather avoid Mr. Doran's > vision of which provider can out last their screaming customers longer. I'd rather too. Unfortunately that is always the nature of business: increasing profitanility can be achieved by charging more or by reducing value provided to the customer. If customers are unwilling to pay more for the current maoist (let all flowers bloom, that's it) Internet, it'll die, exactly like small groceries. >At least when ANS tried this last time, they offered to compensate >some of the mid-level networks for some of the investment made in >local and regional networks. That was different. ANS then was the only game in that forest, and they were quite unwilling to look monopolistic. Now if you don't like Sprint you can go to MCI and vice versa. >The Internet seems to have been incredibly successful by not following >the traditional telco way of doing business. I don't know why the >facilities based telecom companies model would produce a more useful, >solid or sustainable business model just because it is being thought up >by a manager at a facilities based telecom company. They can do things right. Telephone service is ubiquotus, cheap and dependable. Compare to Internet. The problem with telcos is that changes in their thinking are inevitably linked to changes in management. There's a lot of high-level managers who put their reputations on Internet being nothing more than an academical toy. Some of them will go away. Some will join the cheering crowd and try to do damage control. Five years ago, the idea of a telco doing Internet was so ridiculous that my friends laughed at me. Now try to find telco which doesn't have an Internet service. >How is that marketing plan for ISDN coming along? ISDN was broken as designed from the very beginning. I understand telcos unwillingness to deploy it quite well. But this tells more of design by standards commitees than of telco managers. >Billion dollar companies can have bad ideas too. They can afford it. --vadim

1 0

RE: We've been hit by the spammers, please have mercy
by James D. Wilson 07 May '97

07 May '97

I'm posing this question on this list as it is about policies and routing at the NAP level (and is not asking if it is technically possible). With providers such as AGIS who refuse to address the issue (spam) with their customers it is clear that leaving it up to the provider to squelch spamming doesn't always work. I just read an article about bulk mailing where Cyberpromo has tools and access to allow sending approx. 100 messages per second with spoofing etc. so we know that the bulk mailers are continuing to work on new and better tools for their "service". Routing by TCP domain or host doesn't work because the spammers hijack other sites sendmail resulting in constantly changing source hops, plus the spammers spoof sender domain IDs in the mail headers. The IP addresses change less frequently and would seem a little more difficult to fake. During the NSF days there were acceptable use policies that governed activities that were considered inappropriate to NSF and which could result in denial of access across their wires. Since that seemed to hold up over the years, would it be possible (or legal) for the NAPs etc. to have similar policies about SPAM which could result in traffic from non-compliant sites not being routed? - James Wilson (NetSurfer) http://www.pixi.com/~netsurf/ http://www.sersol.com/

4 3

POC FAKED BY SPRINTMAIL ��0
by Janet Pippin 07 May '97

07 May '97

YOUR POC CONTACT IS INVALID. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, AND NOTE GOOD NETOWRK POLICY, OR NETWORK MANAGEMENT!!!! PLEASE FIX YOUR ADMIN ALIAS!! THIS IS ALSO REGARDING NETWORK ABUSE, AND THE POC PHONE NUMBERS ARE FAKED. PLEASE RESPOND. Sprint Multimedia Internet Division (SPRINTMAIL-DOM) 1KC Place, 1200 Main Street MS MOKCMT1103 Kansas City, MO 64105 Domain Name: SPRINTMAIL.COM Administrative Contact: manager services operations (MSO-ORG) nicadmin(a)CORP.SPRINTMAIL.COM 123-456-7890 ----- Forwarded message from Mailer-Daemon(a)sprintmail.com ----- A message could not be delivered for the following reason: Recipient nicadmin is not authorized user The undeliverable message was as follows: Received: from mailhost.cyberramp.net(207.158.64.11) by mailgate32-hme2 via smap (KC5.24) id Q_10.1.1.26/Q_23627_1_3370f986; Wed May 7 14:52:06 1997 Received: (from jdp@localhost) by mailhost.cyberramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5/jdp-0507-1540-NR) id QAA03397; Wed, 7 May 1997 16:50:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Janet Pippin <jdp(a)cyberramp.net> Message-Id: <199705072150.QAA03397(a)mailhost.cyberramp.net> Subject: Spam From/Thru Your Site To: abuse(a)ee.net, postmaster(a)ee.net, postmaster(a)1st.net, postmaster(a)sprintmail.com, abuse(a)sprintmail.com, levie(a)sprintmail.com Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:50:37 -0500 (CDT) Cc: copy(a)cyberramp.net, staff(a)cyberramp.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL19 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Sir/Madam: This email/post is in violation of our AUP, as I trust it is in violation of yours as well. Email to a private party that is non-solicited, is spam and abuse of Internet resources. Please advise us as to your plans for handling this matter. This is the only notice you will receive. If we do not hear from you regarding this matter, we will have to assume that you condone/approve abuse of Internet resources. That being the case, we will have to take measures to prevent your site from spamming our users. This spam came to a wholly inappropriate address: our sysadmin. Please handle as Network Abuse. Regards, System Administration Cyberramp Internet Services Received: from mailgate22 (mailgate22-hme0.a001.sprintmail.com [205.137.196.54]) by mailhost.cyberramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5/jdp-0506-1640-NR) with SMTP id LAA15883 for <admin(a)cyberramp.net>; Wed, 7 May 1997 11:52:22 -0500 (CDT) From: source(a)1st.net Received: by mailgate22 (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10454; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:51:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:51:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199705071651.JAA10454@mailgate22> Received: from sdn-ts-001mabostp16.dialsprint.net(206.133.32.35) by mailfep3-hme1 via smap (KC5.24) id Q_10.1.1.8/Q_935_397_3370b330; Wed May 7 09:52:01 1997 To: admin(a)cyberramp.net Subject: LAST CHANCE-USR $304/Port Digital Promotion Status: RO This memo is intended to reach the person responsible for maintaining and purchasing communications products. If it has not, could you kindly forward it to the appropriate person. I am contacting you from Source Technology. We are a National reseller for US Robotics. I again urge you to consider USR's limited time offer for a 48 port ISP T1/PRI Bundle with FREE X2 software, FREE Total Control Management Software, FREE Radius Security software, and a FREE additional Fan Tray, priced at an amazing $14,602 or $304 per port!!! These units are fully digital and provide all the latest technology available from USR. You must remember that these units must be configured with an additional Fan Tray or the unit will run too hot. WE HAVE ONLY 9 MORE OF THESE UNITS IN STOCK. You MUST act quickly if would like to take advantage of this rare opportunity. This offering continues only WHILE SUPPLIES LAST. We also have aggressive special LEASE approval for ISPs in business less than two years. Most LEASES are approved within 48 hours. Now you can lease a USR 48 port PRI or T1 Total Control Chassis for $15.11 per port per month and provide your customers with 56K X2 capability. If you are considering purchasing US Robotics products anytime soon or if you are interested in pricing, LEASING, or the X2 transmission technology, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Gary Dunn source(a)1st.net (617) 890-4455 -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020 ----- End of forwarded message from Mailer-Daemon(a)sprintmail.com ----- -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020

1 0

Re: Coincidence...
by Sean Donelan 07 May '97

07 May '97

>Boasting is fine until economic realities start to affect your >bottom line. I always held to the opinion that stratification of >Internet is inevitable. I agree one way to improve the bottom line is one-way settlements. But, if you want to charge to use your facilities, don't be surprised to see a toll booth when you try to use my facilities. On the other hand, if you want free access to my network, I expect a reciprocal agreement for access to your network. I'd rather avoid Mr. Doran's vision of which provider can out last their screaming customers longer. At least when ANS tried this last time, they offered to compensate some of the mid-level networks for some of the investment made in local and regional networks. >Neither it is a bad phenomenon per se -- it reflect shifing of Internet >being add-on service to being a core business of facilities based >telecom companies. The ultimate win will be a network which is a lot >more useful, with solid and sustainable business model. The Internet seems to have been incredibly successful by not following the traditional telco way of doing business. I don't know why the facilities based telecom companies model would produce a more useful, solid or sustainable business model just because it is being thought up by a manager at a facilities based telecom company. How is that marketing plan for ISDN coming along? Billion dollar companies can have bad ideas too. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: Coincidence...
by Vadim Antonov 07 May '97

07 May '97

Bill Manning wrote: >If they do, and no alternatives, then a terabit router is worthless. >I can't get the infrastructure to support it. If the PSTN is the >only game in town, then its ATM or nothing.. and ATM won't cut it >at those rates. I'd say telcos have some intelligent people working for them. And then, there are new players in the long-distance fiber game: watch for those who acquire big ISPs, or people from big ISPs :) --vadim

1 0

Re: Coincidence...
by Vadim Antonov 07 May '97

07 May '97

Bill Manning <bmanning(a)ISI.EDU> wrote: >Of course there are those that simply see the PSTN as just one more way to >move IP packets about. Lets see; radio, wireless, sat-link, cable, lans, >PSTN, avian-carrier, seismic-wave... lots of ways to move IP packets about. Yep. So far the only realistic way to move massive amounts of long-distance traffic is fiber. >the PSTN is one, but not the only one. And its not clear there is enough >capacity in the PSTN to carry all the bits about. Its not clear to me that >ATM will continue to work at terabit rates.. It won't. So what. If you want to purchase a terabit router, write a conditional purchase order -- you'll get it pretty soon. I'm serious. >SAR may be a bit tough to do at OC768-ish rates. "Doctor, it hurts when i do that." "Don't do it, then". >And then there is all that PSTN infrastructure that will >have to be replaced... Yep. It's only money. They already have rights of way. >push all that back on the rate payers? you bet. There's a lot of money to be made off Internet (i do not mean browsers and search engines). I'd rather think that capital is quite interested in the opportunity. --vadim

2 1