July 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

NTIA Domain Name Registry NOI
by Jay R. Ashworth 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

I haven't seen much on this on this list, or dns/bind. Is everyone following this topic, and what do you all think? I've written a second draft of my comments to them which runs about 480 lines; is anyone interested in seeing it/I'd appreciate the opportunity to post it for commentary and peer (?! :-) review, before I send it in. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592

1 0

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by Sean Donelan 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

>I would really like to know how Boardwatch can continually say Savvis is a >national backbone provider when they peer with nobody, and that is part of >their business plan, and only buy transit from the big 5. Then they >neglect to list DRA as a backbone provider, when DRA appears at many major >exchanges and peers with damn near everyone under the sun from what I can Publisher's perogative. I'm always amused when the latest edition of the Boardwatch ISP directory comes out. Fortunately, DRA's target markets are libraries and other information providers, not ISPs, although we have a few ISPs as customers. Even though DRA tried to provide accurate information to Boardwatch, it always seems to get mangled in the Boardwatch editorial process. For example, in the latest issue DRA's listing says we have a 0.099 Mbps connection with Sprint. I don't know how to even order a 0.099 Mbps connection. In a previous issue Boardwatch said DRA sold dialup connections for $19.95/month, even though we had told Boardwatch DRA didn't offer any dialup services. At least Boardwatch no longer lists Sean Doran as the chief engineer for InternetMCI. After awhile one gets tired of trying to correct other people's mistakes over and over again. Maybe I should start following the InternetMCI model, and claim everything is a big secret. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: FW: genieweb.com answering for COM
by Michael 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

>> >BIND 4.9.5-P1 and later (which is 4.9.6 and all versions of 8.*) is not >> >susceptible to this corruption. see ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind/src. >> >> Two of the servers that I maintain were running BIND 4.9.5-P1 (now 8.1.1, >> thanks isc) and were corrupted. > >i have not been able to reproduce this. when reporting bugs, either here >or to the bind-bugs(a)isc.org address, please provide a reproducable example. Paul.. I apologize for this.. I really did want to get a dump of the database, but my priorities lay in making my servers functional as soon as possible. I was merely trying to inform you, as well as the others here who might be interested that I had also seen the problem in 4.9.5-P1. Thanks! Michael

1 0

Re: Internic - NSI
by sob＠academ.com 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

Dave writes: > At 08:43 PM 7/8/97 -0600, Christian Nielsen wrote: > >So, doing some looking around, I think that > >ftp://rs.internic.net/internic/faq/roadmap.faq > >has about as much public information as anyone could find... or where > >to find the info. > > and <http://www.gtld-mou> is also a useful source. Dave, I think it is supposed to be http://www.gtld-mou.org, right? -- 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.

2 1

Re: Aggressive route flap dampening
by Tony Li 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

smd(a)clock.org (Sean M. Doran) writes: > The "N" should be reduced (or the time period lengthened) and the > cost of increasing that ratio should increase with the length of > the prefix, in order to encourage topologically sound aggregation > either through traditional means or through NAT and NAT-like boxes > such as the one described and implemented by Paul Vixie. Here's where we part company. Varying the 'charge', either monetary or in flap penalty creates an incorrect incentive: folks are incented to use a shorter prefix. Note that this is distinct from aggregation in that they may simply use a shorter prefix and not actually use more address space, thus hurting netwide utilization. The 'correct' incentive is a charge for flapping and a charge for announcement. Both have real costs, directly traceable to processor and memory costs. > It fixed two problems simultaneously: firstly, there is lots of flap > and flap is most irritating when relatively unimportant (and statistically > small is likely to be less important than large) NLRI is responsible for > a disproportionally large amount of it. Secondly, there are lots of > networks which really ought to be aggregated. When a single up/down or > up/down/up flap makes the network unusable for an hour or two, people > generally become motivated either to be very very stable or to aggregate > even adjacent aggregatable /24s in order to suffer fewer disconnectivities. Note that both of these are 'fixed' without a length restriction: the per prefix charge incents folks to aggregate. The per flap charge incents them to stability. Direct cause and effect, without harmful side effects. ;-) Tony

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Results
by Tony Li 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com (Jack Rickard) writes: > Again, I think you guys should take a look at this stuff a little more open > mindedly and professionally. It's certainly NOT to scientific laboratory > standards, You'll pardon me, I'm sure, but I must point out that our professional standards _are_ scientific laboratory standards. These appear to be distinct from magazine standards. Tony

1 0

BGP - how to test suggestions
by mfjs＠attmail.com 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

(Point me in the right place if this is an inappropriate place to post this question) Question: I'm looking for some tools on the net to evaluate a vendors implementation of BGP ("stress tests", Route Reflector support,...), any recommendations? Thanks

3 2

Internic - NSI
by Christian Nielsen 08 Jul '97

08 Jul '97

I have been trying to follow all the talk about the Internic and what and what not they were giving... So, doing some looking around, I think that ftp://rs.internic.net/internic/faq/roadmap.faq has about as much public information as anyone could find... or where to find the info. For those of you who might have already seen this, sorry... Christian

2 1

AIA (that's Apology In Advance)
by Peter E. Giza 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

Netizens, I'm eating delicious crow pie. You will see a reply to Vixies' email regarding an alleged corruption bug. Ignore it. I thought (but apparently cannot read) I was replying to a post to "pagan". After getting not less than 100 messages perday just from pagan about "fixated anti-trust lawers using multi-homed IPv8 to promote continental aggrivation (or was that aggregation)" I posted a hasty reply to Paul. Sorry, I hang my head dressed in sackcloth an asses. #%^< -pete

1 1

Re: FW: genieweb.com answering for COM
by Michael 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

>> But it does bring up an interesting point.... is it that easy to create >> chaos? They are so far down the food chain, and yet.... > >BIND 4.9.5-P1 and later (which is 4.9.6 and all versions of 8.*) is not >susceptible to this corruption. see ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind/src. Two of the servers that I maintain were running BIND 4.9.5-P1 (now 8.1.1, thanks isc) and were corrupted. Michael

3 2