August 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

web CGIs for Bay Networks routers?
by Mark Bixby 06 Aug '97

06 Aug '97

Has anybody written any web CGIs for Bay Networks routers that they'd like to share with me? I'm looking for something that either extracts the data from the SNMP MIB or from the Technician Interface via telnet, simple stuff like displaying the IP routing table, the BGP routes, etc. Site Manager under MS-Windows is just too slow and painful for doing this routine kind of stuff..... Thanks. -- Mark Bixby E-mail: markb(a)cccd.edu Coast Community College Dist. Web: http://www.cccd.edu/~markb/ District Information Services 1370 Adams Ave, Costa Mesa, CA, USA 92626-5429 Technical Support +1 714 438-4647 "You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M)

2 2

Re: Multiple Messages
by Ron Buchalski 06 Aug '97

06 Aug '97

>From: deleski(a)netcom.com (Larry Deleski) >Subject: Multiple Messages >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:52:41 -0700 (PDT) > >I seem to be getting bombarded by multiple (25+) copies of the same >posting to the group. Anyone else seeing this? > >/lad > It's really Jim "broken record" Fleming harping about DNS. Just ignore them. Most others on the list seem to be doing it, unless they are in a flaming mood... -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

UUNET Toughens Anti Spamming Policy (fwd)
by Charles Sprickman 06 Aug '97

06 Aug '97

FYI, as a former customer, we received this today... ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Charles Sprickman Internet Channel INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 spork(a)inch.com access(a)inch.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:36:21 -0400 (EDT) From: UUNET Network Operations <noc(a)UU.NET> Reply-To: help(a)UU.NET To: alter-ops(a)UU.NET Subject: UUNET Toughens Anti Spamming Policy Newsgroups: uunet.status Dear Customer, As a result of the recent increase in spamming activity over the Internet, we have strengthened our anti-spamming policy. Please see the attached press release for details. In addition, as you may know, UUNET has been targeted by a group of newsgroup administrators who have mistakenly accused UUNET of ignoring spamming complaints. This group has taken actions which may impact your ability to use the UUNET news service. The attached release describes our response to these actions. Please note the effect of filtering news postings from sources whose identity cannot be authenticated, as indicated in the press release, will be to block postings from those using UUNET's news servers from a dynamic address pool. There should be no effect on postings by UUNET Internet 9-5 customers or customers of UUNET resellers who post to the reseller's news servers. Single-User Dial-up customers will not be able to post articles to UUNET's news servers. UUNET intends for this measure to be temporary, pending the implementation of user authentication technology. We will keep you advised of further developments. Please do not hesitate to contact customer support with any questions you may have on this matter at 1(800) 900-0241 or at 1(703) 206-5440. Thank You, UUNET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts: UUNET: WorldCom: Media Relations: Investor Relations: Mara Radis Gary Brandt 703-206-5441 601-360-8544 marar(a)uu.net Public Relations: Josh Howell 601-360-8750 UUNET TOUGHENS ANTI-SPAMMING POLICY Largest ISP Re-Affirms Zero-Tolerance Policy Toward Spammers FAIRFAX, Va., August 5, 1997-UUNET Technologies, Inc., the world's largest Internet Service Provider (ISP) and a subsidiary of WorldCom, Inc., today announced it will take additional measures against the growing tide of mail and newsgroup spammers. The new measures will make it much more difficult for spammers to post messages through UUNET, and are designed to enable UUNET to identify the origin of a specific spam. "Spamming" is the sending of unsolicited material to a wide list of recipients, either through the mail or the news systems of the Internet. UUNET has a zero-tolerance policy toward spamming and understands that it is a widespread problem for Internet users. The spamming problem does not originate with UUNET or its resellers, but with a small number of end users, who are typically customers of those resellers. More than 99 percent of the spamming investigations conducted by UUNET involve a reseller. UUNET actively assists in identifying the spammer, and the reseller then follows its own policies, which typically include warnings to its customers and eventual termination. "We've been working behind the scenes, hand-in-glove with our resellers, to stem the flow of spam and we've stopped a lot of offenders," said John Sidgmore, UUNET's CEO. "However, current technology makes spamming easier, so we've found it necessary to strengthen our anti-spamming measures." UUNET's anti-spamming policy includes: - limiting the length of email recipient lists; - blacklisting mail sent from known spamming locations or organizations; - maintaining a mailbox (abuse(a)uu.net) which allows victims to report spam incidents; - providing a dedicated customer service and security staff which investigates spamming incidents; and - enforcing a customer service agreement which provides for service termination in the event of spamming. UUNET is now adding the following measures: - implementing new technology which will identify the source of a spam; - filtering news postings from sources whose identity cannot be authenticated; and - discontinuing the relay of third-party mail messages to non-UUNET destinations (a common technique used by spammers to hide their identity). -more- Spamming Release/page two Misinformed Group Disrupts UUNET News Service Late last week, UUNET was singled out by a group of Internet news administrators who mistakenly accused UUNET of ignoring spamming complaints. The group has taken indiscriminate actions which effectively prohibit newsgroup postings that travel over the UUNET infrastructure, regardless of whether the postings qualify as spam. "These actions are clearly the result of a misunderstanding," said Sidgmore. "The group obviously was not aware of the strong anti-spamming steps we have taken on behalf of our own and our reseller's customers. Nonetheless we deplore these actions, which we believe to be illegal." Today UUNET initiated technical measures to counteract the effects of the group's actions. UUNET said it would turn the matter over to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. About UUNET Technologies Headquartered in Fairfax, Va., UUNET Technologies, Inc. is the world's largest Internet service provider, offering a comprehensive range of access options, World Wide Web hosting services, security products and consulting services to businesses, professionals, and on-line service providers. The company's network is comprised of nearly 1,000 Points of Presence (POPs) throughout the United States and in Canada, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as connections to Internet service providers around the world. Founded in 1987, UUNET is recognized as the first commercial Internet service provider and is a subsidiary of WorldCom, Inc. UUNET's World Wide Web address is http://www.uu.net. About WorldCom WorldCom is a global business telecommunications company. Operating in more than 50 countries, the company is a premier provider of facilities-based and fully integrated local, long distance, international and Internet services. WorldCom's World Wide Web address is http://www.wcom.com. The common and depositary shares of WorldCom trade on the Nasdaq National Market (U.S.) under the symbol WCOM and WCOMP, respectively.

1 0

Multiple Messages
by deleski＠netcom.com 06 Aug '97

06 Aug '97

I seem to be getting bombarded by multiple (25+) copies of the same posting to the group. Anyone else seeing this? /lad

1 0

RE: Internet Building topology
by Chris MacFarlane 05 Aug '97

05 Aug '97

With the information provided it seems the you should concentrate on logical connections first then work out the physical location of the equipment as a secondary matter. For all you know you may end up have one central equipment room on one floor. Anyway from what you have said you currently have the need for two subnets. Your first consideration should be future flexibility. To maximize this you need to determine how many addresses (hosts) are needed in each subnet. Make your subnets fit the largest number of machines in the largest segment (make sure you look at near future needs). For example if you need 26 hosts use a /27 not a /26 Next is do you require a dynamic routing protocol (in you example it would seem you do not - only one router)? Assuming you need less then 62 hosts in each subnet and have no need to use dynamic routing (RIP, OSPF or ISIS) you should subnet with /26. Don't assign the first and second subnet (eg .0/26 and .64/26). Use the fist and third subnets (eg .0/26 and .128/26) This way you can move the netmask if required. Next you need to determine a host number policy (something simple) - host start at the bottom - servers start from the end - always avoid logical network and broadcast addresses I have assumed that you have two ethernet ports on the router (or you would have less reason to subnet at all) |---------------------| .0/26 | .1/26 | R--------------> to ISP .129/26 | | |--------------------| .128/26 If you would like further assistance e-mail me directly Hope this is a helps, with the info provided this is all the help I can be Rgds Cjm -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 1997 5:08 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Internet Building topology Hi, I am designing an "Internet Building" concept using ethernet. Below is a model using 2 cisco Catalyst 1912's (12 port ethernet switch) and a cisco 2501. Switch 2 is on the 2nd floor and Switch 1 is in 1st floor. Does this look like a viable topology? Are there other/better ways to approach this for scaleability? Thanks for any ideas/experiences. x.x.x.0 /26 (Customer 2nd floor) | | x.x.x.64 /26 (Customer 2nd floor) | | | | Switch 2 (2nd floor) A | B | C VLAN 1 = A+C | VLAN 2 = B+C | | | (cable drop between 1st and 2nd floor) | | | Switch 1 (first floor) A | B | C VLAN 1 = B + C | | cisco (first floor) ip secondary x.x.x.0 /26 ip secondary x.x.x.64 /26 | | | T1 to Internet | |

1 0

a couple more that slipped through the cracks
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 05 Aug '97

05 Aug '97

Indonesia IP CapeTown ZA Western Australia The AUIX nodes scattered about in OZ (should I keep pestering you folks with this stuff?) -- --bill

1 0

Los Angeles on Cutting Edge of Public Telecom
by jamie＠comet.net 05 Aug '97

05 Aug '97

The fiber cuts bring new meaning to articles like this.... jd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:25:06 PDT Subject: Los Angeles on Cutting Edge of Public Telecom INNOVATION L.A. is on cutting edge of public telecom systems BY JONATHAN WEBER Los Angeles Times The notion that government needs to be more entrepreneurial is a popular one in this age of triumphant high-tech capitalism, but the proponents of this idea may not have figured on a little-known agency in the city of Los Angeles bureaucracy taking them quite so seriously. <...snippage...>

1 0

Re: Transit over the MFS meet points as a product?
by Barry A. Dykes 05 Aug '97

05 Aug '97

Of course this doesn't help when someone points default at you :( Barry > > If this happens I'd suggest everyone at the NAPs deploy some type of MAC-layer > > filtering. It's far to easy (and seemingly common) for providers to forget to > > set "next-hop-self" on NAP routes .. so what I foresee is providers selling > > transit via the exchanges ...and then never seeing the traffic bound to > > *their* unsuspecting peers. > > Or: > 'sho ip bgp neigh 192.41.177.x adv' and look at the next-hops. > > I know that some providers have been doing it for years, probably > with automated expect-grep-type scripts.. > > > -danny > > Avi >

2 1

.COM on the move...
by Jim Fleming 05 Aug '97

05 Aug '97

Just in case people have not noticed... ---------- From: Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard@sexton.org] Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM To: edns-discuss(a)MCS.Net; gtld-discuss(a)gtld-mou.org; newdom(a)ar.com; edns-discuss(a)MCS.Net; DOMAIN-POLICY(a)LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Part of the open process? I'm curious about this: ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: COM. 518400 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. COM. 518400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET. <------------------------ COM. 518400 NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. -- richard(a)sexton.org Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0 +1 (613) 473 1719 ===========

5 4

Wcom Fiber Cut Again
by Eric D. Madison 05 Aug '97

05 Aug '97

Looks like there is another large fiber cut in the LA area today.. we are on reroute at the moment.. only 1 DS3 today. Year of the Backhoe continues! Anyone out there using the Wcom ATM backbone for transport? If so, how many outages have there been in the last month??? 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

2 1