July 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Non-ISP companies multi-homing?
by jrg＠blodwen.demon.co.uk 24 Jul '97

24 Jul '97

netops(a)flycast.com (netops) writes: > Does anyone know of any non-ISP companies that have decided to > multi-home? Is this a major trend for non-ISP companies running > mission-critical applications on the Internet? Yes. I know some people in the UK that are multi-homed, too (though there's probably not too many over here.) James.

1 0

NANOG mailing list
by Jason Storm 24 Jul '97

24 Jul '97

Hi! Im currently employed as technical support for hooked.net/well.com, and I am in training for systems admin. I am hoping to be included in the NANOG mailing list, as it often seems to address issues that affect the performance of these ISP's long before I am able to get the scoop, basically. For myself and for the 15,000 customers I offer my services to, please tell me what information is needed to gain access to this list. I have several references available on request. Hope to hear from you soon, Jason Storm Tech Support Hooked.net/Well.com staffjs(a)hooked.net, jms(a)well.com

3 2

Re: Kashpureff Black List (REALLY AN OPERATIONAL QUESTION)
by Eric Germann 24 Jul '97

24 Jul '97

However, a coordinated effort to block them all could, correct? Kind of like the sanity filters at customer borders. Don't allow traffic into your network that doesn't originate from their assigned network numbers. If everyone were to block the ranges no one would get polluted... So is it my understanding that it is technically possible, but logistically impossible to coordinate? If we were to block them, then we wouldn't have to worry about every idiosyncracy of BIND, both known and yet to be found. At 09:13 AM 7/23/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: >On Wed, Jul 23, 1997 at 09:53:42AM -0400, Eric Germann wrote: >> would an anti-kashpureff bgp feed fix the dns pollution problems similar to >> the anti spam black list. If yes, is it collusion which would be >> prosecutable? If no, what are the TECHNICAL reasons it wouldn't work. >> >> Eric > >No, because *ANY* nameserver which gets the pollution can then pollute you. > >Since you can't cut off EVERY nameserver with such a feed, it is pointless >to attempt it. > >-- >-- >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity >http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ >Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! >Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > >

2 1

Re: Non-ISP companies multi-homing?
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

netops writes: > > Does anyone know of any non-ISP companies that have decided to > multi-home? Is this a major trend for non-ISP companies running > mission-critical applications on the Internet? Yes, several. As far as I can see, yes. The question I'd ask would be why does it matter if an AS is "ISP" or "non-ISP"? The domain of clueful people is far and away NOT limited to the domain of ISP networkers. If an organization is sizeable enough and knows what it is doing, or can hire or rent someone who does, more power to them. Cheers, Joe (affiliation for identification, not endorsement; disclaim, disclaim) -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 800.763.8111 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc. <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: Quote from Kashpureff / Re: question about per. hack
by Mathias K. 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

I don't think that some kind of knee jerk reaction like blocking all addresses that have ever been associated with alternic is in order. Certainly Kashpureff has gone off the deep end, but am I the only one here who thinks that he is essentially fighting the good fight? I'm sick of paying the internic every year just for the privilege of participating in their name service. The centralized nature of the system is a real drag, and I'm hoping that some genius out there is working on the next generation that will allow anyone to associate their ip address with anything they want. I believe that the capitalist aspect of what the internic is doing; taking money for an essential service and trying to make a profit, is PURE EVIL and goes against everything that I belive "the net" should be. So although I don't particularly like they way that Kashpureff is staging his rebellion, I do believe in his cause. -mat ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mathias kolehmainen + ripper(a)dataway.com (ripper(a)secretagent.bob) ninewood http://www.roomfullaspies.com/9wood public key http://www.roomfullaspies.com/pgpkey.asc

11 17

Re:Non-ISP companies multi-homing?
by Steve_Mays＠broder.com 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

This seems easy, so my answer is probably going to be lame. If by "multi-home" you mean 2 connects, 2 providers, 2 POPs, then I can tell you that Broderbund is doing this with out 2 DS-3s and 2 T1s. We are still layer 1 "Pac Bell Backhoe" fault intolerant, however (one fiber bundle to 1 Pac Bell CO). --->Steve ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Non-ISP companies multi-homing? Author: netops <netops(a)flycast.com> Date: 7/23/97 4:09 PM Does anyone know of any non-ISP companies that have decided to multi-home? Is this a major trend for non-ISP companies running mission-critical applications on the Internet? So far, I only know of a couple, with PointCast being one of them. Thanks, Lincoln Silver FlyCast Communications

1 0

Sprint Flapping?
by Eric D. Madison 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

Anyone else seeing a large amount of flapping from Sprint today.. I have over 7000 dampened paths from them??? Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net

6 5

Kashpureff Black List (REALLY AN OPERATIONAL QUESTION)
by Eric Germann 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

would an anti-kashpureff bgp feed fix the dns pollution problems similar to the anti spam black list. If yes, is it collusion which would be prosecutable? If no, what are the TECHNICAL reasons it wouldn't work. Eric

3 2

Re: question about per. hack
by Francois Beauregard 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

I just got the most stupid idea... Why don't we hack our own DNS servers to force Eugene's box to cache the right information :-) >> faked .per and .nic domains aren't hurting anyone and Eugene >> has stopped knocking legitimate domains down. > >I think he's still at it. I just watched a BIND 4.9.5-P1 server here pick >up an IP address of 207.51.48.15 (one of Eugene's boxes) for the InterNIC >at around 19:50 CDT tonight. > >He also is targeting www.netsol.com. Sincerely ---------------------------------- Francois Beauregard FBorg(a)fbli.com FBLI.COM We love feedbacks and live by them Sales : Sales(a)fbli.com 1 (888) FBLI.COM Tech support : Support(a)fbli.com 1 (514) 349-0455 Internet Web : http://www.fbli.com ICQ : 1907537 Montreal, Canada ----------------------------------

3 4

Terminating many T1's
by Stephen Balbach 23 Jul '97

23 Jul '97

I am investigating options for terminating many T1's with an objective of high-density and easy scaleability. I am curious how others are approaching this. Possible scenarios: 1. Cisco serial ports and rack CSU/DSU's. Exspensive. Lot of space. 2. MAX TNT for T1's connecting to a backbone Cisco. Theoretically up to 140 T1's in 1 small box with built-in CSU/DSU's. Unproven? 3. Cascade. Similair to TNT approach, very exspensive untill you reach 70+ T1's in a chassis. 4. Chanellized DS3. Don't know anything about it - can MFS provide circuits this way via a DS3 handoff? No CSU/DSU required? Any other costs/issues? Thanks for any ideas and experiences! --stb

8 7