August 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Is this just a rumor?
by sob＠academ.com 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Network Solutions' presentations at NANOG have stated that there is a "limiting" agent in the whois server to prevent wholesale dumping of the database. -- 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: Is this just a rumor?
by Dan Grillo 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Stan Barber writes: > Network Solutions' presentations at NANOG have stated that there is a > "limiting" agent in the whois server to prevent wholesale dumping of the > database. That's true, but it's not very "limiting". I just wrote something to list all class-Bs and their owners. --Dan -- Dan Grillo dan_grillo(a)280.com 415 575-4020 fax 415 703-7220

1 0

Re: Multiple fiber carriers (was Re: Netrail woes)
by Sean Donelan 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

>It's one of the questions we ask prior to purchasing service. Just has >MFS install a new ring and put in physically seperate paths to one of our >facilities for just that reason. We made sure the paths were physically >seperate when they did the install. We waited for them to bring fiber up Never underestimate Mr. Murphy's ingenuity. At DRA's main data center in St. Louis we have three seperate entrance facilities seperated by a mininum of 50 feet from three seperate carriers. While I was away in Munich, an unsupervised MFS tech managed to take down both halves of one of the self-healing SONET rings. Gosh, that didn't work, why don't I do the same thing to the backup ring. Duh! I assume if DRA had a fifty-foot crater in front of the building, I'd likely have other, more pressing problems to worry about. Unfortunately, an unsupervised tech can easily, and silently take out multiple diverse facilities. Imagine what he could have done with malice and planning. We try to keep the techs isolated from other carriers equipment, but techs can be an ingenious bunch when doing dumb things. Backhoes and other physical disruptions usually have a nice random distribution modulo the fact that backhoes are often used in right-of-ways. With the right statistical model, and enough money most folks can come up with a survivable plan for typical physical disruptions. On the other hand, Tech errors are more worrisome, mainly because techs tend to be working near your most vulnerable points, the nodes that handle failover. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Network MOO?
by Eric Osborne 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

I saw a pointer to the IPNmoo off of www.nanog.com, and this got me thinking - how many other people would be interested in a Nanog-flavor MOO? IPNmoo doesn't seem to be running (www.nlanr.net:4766) I've had a bit of experience running a MOO, and it seems like it might be a useful thing to have. I may even be able to provider server space, if there's enough interest. Comments? eric

2 1

Re: Network MOO?
by Bill Woodcock 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

There are terms of use for the IPNmoo, basically that your marketing folks won't run around badmouthing other people when you find out about other people's outages through it. So you need to get an account to log in. Mail kc(a)nlanr.net or labovit(a)merit.edu to find out more about it. It's very useful, but like the infamous outage-discussion mailing lists, two is not better. :-) -Bill Woodcock

2 1

Netrail woes (was Re: Atlanta-NAP down (fwd))
by Sean M. Doran 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

I just read this after clearing out old NANOG mail... Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)inorganic5.fdt.net> writes: > The Atlanta NAP (www.atlanta-nap.net run by Nathan Stratton) is down, > probably for good. We're a customer (luckily a multihomed one!), and > the word is WORLDCOM pulled all their circuits due to debts. So all the > netrail.net mailing lists and stuff will be down too. 8 mae-east2-nap.Washington.mci.net (204.70.1.222) 107.596 ms 195.051 ms 90.187 ms 9 mae-east.netrail.net (192.41.177.228) 97.759 ms 128.468 ms 108.682 ms 10 mae-east.netrail.net (192.41.177.228) 121.353 ms !H 92.724 ms !H 92.384 ms !H 23 144.228.10.42 (144.228.10.42) 178.501 ms 181.052 ms * 24 mae-east.netrail.net (192.41.177.228) 204.067 ms 206.366 ms * 25 mae-east.netrail.net (192.41.177.228) 208.59 ms !H 197.928 ms !H 207.262 ms !H You know, although I do feel bad for Netrail and its customers, I did read this with a keen appreciation for the irony, given Mr Stratton's public comments about how badly BBN's power system was misdesigned for allowing them to take multi-hour outages, particularly in light of the fact that the outage in question was beyond BBN's immediate ability to fix, and not BBN's fault. It didn't have the personal tastiness of Mr Bass's unfortunate encounter with bad weather a year or so ago, but frankly, I can't help but engage in schadenfreude anyway. I also wonder how the millions of GRFs and the billions of other high-tech expensive pieces of equipment in Netrail's large network Mr Stratton often commented upon are coping right now. One final extract, from <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970716143738.3017A-100000(a)netrail.net> posted to NANOG during the recent backhoe season: "Ya, we are going to kill worldcom for this [outage caused by a fibre-cut]". No tickee, no complainee? The moral of this story: bad things happen to everyone. But when it happens to braggarts who seem to specialize in doing things better than people who are trying their best, it's terribly, terribly cool. --:) Take note, please, Mr Fleming (inventor and super genius). Sean.

13 14

Re: ICMP Attacks???????
by Paul G. Donner 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

At 03:26 PM 8/21/97 -0500, Jon Green wrote: >On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:18:34 -0700, fair(a)clock.org writes: >> >>There is another mitigation: everyone here should commit to filtering >>customer packets at the customer premesis router (or at the dial in for >>PPP/SLIP) such that it is not possible for a customer to send a packet into >>the network that has an IP source address on it that is not assigned to >>that customer. That is, no more lying about source addresses. > >Every time I show a customer of mine how to configure a router, I >try to educate them on this. We need some kind of massive marketing >effort to get this out to people though. People would do it, but nobody >knows about it. Why not include it as part of "their" contractual obligations by placing it in the text of the contract as well as by including an instructional whitepaper. You can't really enforce it but at least you get the coverage you want. Besides, if the customer is as clueless as most (and I say that in a benign way) they may not know that you can't or wouldn't really enforce it. > >Maybe we should get CyberPromo to spam all the technical contacts >in Internic's database to tell them how to do filtering. :) > >-Jon > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > * Jon Green * "Life's a dance * > * jcgreen(a)netINS.net * you learn as you go" * > * Finger for Geek Code/PGP * * > * #include "std_disclaimer.h" * http://www.netins.net/showcase/jcgreen * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >

1 0

Re: Idea... [was Re: Netrail woes]
by Brian Horvitz 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Didn't we talk about this in Tampa? It seems to me that the slacker in all of us doesn't want to be bothered with multiple lists any more than we want to be bothered with a bunch of messages that we don't read. This will also give rise to more "don't post that here" messages. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Ed Morin <edm(a)nwnexus.wa.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 11:52 AM Subject: Idea... [was Re: Netrail woes] >Since this seems to be an on-going problem... > >How about creating a _new_ list called nanog-chat which can be used >for this sort of purpose. This way, when somebody feels like chatting >_AND HAS THE TIME_, they can skip over to the list, scan for a thread >that looks interesting and participate. The regular nanog list can >then be kept free of this clutter that many of us do not have time >for. (My current inbox of nanog stuff is over 3,000 messages and it's >a loosing battle. Doing _something_ to help the signal-to-chat ratio >would be most helpful.) > >Ed > >On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Joe McGuckin wrote: > >> >> >> ----- Begin Included Message ----- >> >> >> Vary much not correct. All of our WORLDCOM circuits have been paid, and >> never were late. Worldcom terminated our service because NetRail refused >> to pay over 300K in circuits that NetRail never ordered. We have paid >> them this amount to get our network back up. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> We've had this problem with MFS in the past. Although it wasn't 300K! >> >> After they threatened to pull the plug on all our circuits, we got >> MFS corporate accounts receivable on a conference call with our (then) >> weasley sales rep. After the AR manager learned that there was not a signed >> sales order for the circuits, he told the sales guy that the local office >> would have to eat the unpaid bill. >> >> joe >> > >___________________________________________________________________________ > Ed Morin edm(a)nwnexus.com > Northwest Nexus - Professional Internet Services Bellevue, WA USA > Voice: 425 455-3505 Web: http://www.nwnexus.com Info: info(a)nwnexus.com > >

1 0

Re: Netrail woes (was Re: Atlanta-NAP down (fwd))
by Joe McGuckin 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

----- Begin Included Message ----- Vary much not correct. All of our WORLDCOM circuits have been paid, and never were late. Worldcom terminated our service because NetRail refused to pay over 300K in circuits that NetRail never ordered. We have paid them this amount to get our network back up. ------------------------------------------------------- We've had this problem with MFS in the past. Although it wasn't 300K! After they threatened to pull the plug on all our circuits, we got MFS corporate accounts receivable on a conference call with our (then) weasley sales rep. After the AR manager learned that there was not a signed sales order for the circuits, he told the sales guy that the local office would have to eat the unpaid bill. joe

2 1

Re: Broadcast ICMP's at Mae East from Nacamar / Nacamar Contact
by Sean M. Doran 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

>(On more than one occasion I have wondered why there is so much >non-NA activity on an ostensibly NA specific list.) I am one of those pests you just can't get rid of, Bill. However, to be a sophist for a moment, "North American Network Operators' Group" can still include me, since, while the network here isn't North American, there is technically a North American involved in operating it. (Heck, a colleague of mine is *in* North America richt now, even) Besides, you never know when or if we will expand into North America, like several other European-based colleagues here who have equipment and infrastructure in the U.S. and elsewhere in North America. (Quick quiz: where does schnell.ebone.net live?) I note that part of EUNET's network is North American, so this also covers Per Bilse. I note that Per even made a _operationally relevant_ announcement here yesterday, so like don't knock the people providing actual content on this list. --:) Sean.

2 1