September 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls
by Jordan Mendelson 04 Sep '97

04 Sep '97

On Wednesday, September 03, 1997 7:34 PM, Charles Sprickman [SMTP:spork@inch.com] wrote: > > > MR. FREEH: > > We work, as you know, particularly in the > > pedophile cases, with on-line services who give us, > > For God's sake, what is the obsession with pedophiles?? How many > pedophiles pgp encode their porn?? Seriously, they try to grasp at the smallest things. If I lock my porn in a 40 ft thick steel safe, does that mean I have to give uncle sam a key if they ask? US Government restrictions (and a few other anal countries out there), are getting silly. When the law is being made by people who don't understand the problem, people who don't understand the benefits, and people who have no clue what they are making the laws for, then we have a serious issue on our hands and it's time we start thinking about getting some knowledgable people into office. Makes you just want to move to Mars and start all over doesn't it? Jordan -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/ Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com

3 2

! Hello, Internic ?
by Alex Rubenstein 03 Sep '97

03 Sep '97

So I go to check on a domain. [root@tempest not-done]# whois evolving.org [rs.internic.net] fwhois: connect: No route to host HuH! I try it again, to make sure I am not nutz. [root@tempest not-done]# whois evolving.org [rs.internic.net] fwhois: connect: No route to host Hrmph. traceroute to rs.internic.net (198.41.0.12), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 nac-den1-e1-10Mb (207.99.2.251) 3.055 ms 2.994 ms 8.383 ms 2 nac-nyc3-s1-107-768k (207.99.8.121) 21.83 ms 19.578 ms 7.899 ms 3 nac-nyc1-fa0-100Mb (207.99.0.201) 37.015 ms 29.305 ms 23.439 ms 4 nac-nyc1-fa0-100Mb (207.99.0.201) 21.792 ms !H What?! So I nyc1>sho ip bgp 198.41.0.12 BGP routing table entry for 198.41.0.0/22, version 1646816 Paths: (1 available, no best path, advertised over IBGP, EBGP) 3847 701 6245, (aggregated by 6245 207.152.190.10) (history entry) 207.240.48.49 from 207.240.48.49 (207.240.48.1) Origin IGP, external, atomic-aggregate Dampinfo: penalty 1306, flapped 3 times in 00:11:18 Maybe my connection is hosed? Lets look at digex: BGP routing table entry for 198.41.0.0/22, version 3052988 Paths: (3 available, no best path, advertised over IBGP) 3561 6245, (aggregated by 6245 207.152.190.10) (history entry) 192.41.177.181 from 192.41.177.181 (204.70.7.53) Origin IGP, metric 11, localpref 100, external, atomic-aggregate Community: 2548:668 Dampinfo: penalty 561, flapped 1 times in 00:12:29 701 6245, (aggregated by 6245 207.152.190.10) (history entry) 192.41.177.248 from 192.41.177.248 (137.39.3.57) Origin IGP, metric 1, localpref 100, external, atomic-aggregate Community: 2548:668 Dampinfo: penalty 965, flapped 2 times in 00:10:01 1 6245, (aggregated by 6245 198.41.0.1) (history entry) 198.32.186.2 from 198.32.186.2 (4.0.0.10) Origin IGP, metric 180, localpref 100, external, atomic-aggregate Community: 2548:668 Dampinfo: penalty 835, flapped 2 times in 00:12:46 Sheesh.

1 0

Re: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls
by irwin＠niwot.scd.ucar.EDU 03 Sep '97

03 Sep '97

Just remember: "When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."

6 5

Outage of the year
by Bill McCauley 03 Sep '97

03 Sep '97

Hi, The following post has more actual operational content than some recent posts, but mostly this is for general amusement. We had a T1 tail circuit to a customer fail on Tuesday afternoon. The circuit seemed OK, and we were unable to reach the customer by phone. After a 45 minute outage or so, the circuit came back up. Today, the customer called us to explain what had happened. Seems that a homeless person set fire to themselves under overhead wiring. The flames shot up high enough to ignite the overhead wiring, taking power out to a three square block area including our customer. The fire department had to extinguish both the flaming homeless person and the overhead wiring. The customer has been up steadily since. Status of the homeless individual is unknown. Fortunately, the customer called and explained this to our NOC and not the reverse. If we'd had to explain this to them, I'd have told the NOC to make something up. This is my nominee for most unusual outage cause of 1997. Regards, Bill McCauley GeoNet Communications

1 0

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Gary Zimmerman 02 Sep '97

02 Sep '97

Nathan and Rob, We have several of the Ascend routers deployed also. I can tell you from our experience Ascend has improved the boot times, but we need to really discuss what type of customers you have. If you have BGP customers, this takes minutes up to about 8 or 9 with our current load. If you are talking static, 1 to 3 minutes. We watch these figure very close here at SAVVIS. It just takes time to get the cutomers BGP session back active. We are working with Ascend on several issues including BGP sessions and customer load order. More memory and a faster processors do help as we and Ascend continue to work to make it a better product. Gary Zimmerman V.P. Network Engineering SAVVIS Communication Corp. http://www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 ---------- > From: Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> > To: Rob Skrobola <rjs(a)ans.net> > Cc: Jessica Yu <jyy(a)ans.net>; Damon Hammis <damonh(a)netrex.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch? > Date: Tuesday, September 02, 1997 8:58 AM > > > On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote: > > > Believe it. Three words: Per prefix policy.. And yes, it does have a > > signifigant effect on time to full reachability of any router. > > We do prefix policy filtering on all our routers, and yes it will effect > the time to full reachability of ANY router. What we were talking about > was how long did it take for a GRF to boot up. Someone said it took 10 min > or longer from a cold start for the system boot up. I agreed that the GRF > did take a long time to boot, but that ascend had worked on that and it > boots much faster now. > > > Nathan Stratton President, CTO, NetRail,Inc. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. > Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 > WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his > great strength. - Psalm 33:16 >

1 0

Re: ISP's as Common Carriers?
by bajaj＠bellcore.com 02 Sep '97

02 Sep '97

> > Does anyone have any pointers to information (hopefully FCC > documents) that classify ISP's as Common Carriers? > > Thanks in advance > > --Eric > -- > Eric Wieling (eric(a)ccti.net) Corporate Communications Technology > Sales: 504-585-7303 (sales(a)ccti.net) Support: 504-525-5449 (support(a)ccti.net) > > A BellSouth Communications Specialist. No, I don't work for BellSouth, I'm > just on the phone with them so much that I'm an expert at getting them to do > things. > In regards to access charge reform, the FCC ruled, tentatively, that ISPs would not be subject to local access charges currently being assessed on long-distance carriers. See www.fcc.gov/isp.html Shikhar

1 0

ISP's as Common Carriers?
by Eric Wieling 02 Sep '97

02 Sep '97

Does anyone have any pointers to information (hopefully FCC documents) that classify ISP's as Common Carriers? Thanks in advance --Eric -- Eric Wieling (eric(a)ccti.net) Corporate Communications Technology Sales: 504-585-7303 (sales(a)ccti.net) Support: 504-525-5449 (support(a)ccti.net) A BellSouth Communications Specialist. No, I don't work for BellSouth, I'm just on the phone with them so much that I'm an expert at getting them to do things.

1 0

Huge *nix Ports Archive Now Here
by Derek Reynolds 02 Sep '97

02 Sep '97

Hi there. I have finnaly posted all of the programs i have ported via cygwin. I have also made an archive of other *nix ports to win32 environment. Please check it out: http://www.h0ar.org/myn ^------------- Its a Zero, not an OH.. If there is anything i am missing please let me know. If you have any ported programs that you think should be on here, please email me startnet(a)nation.org with the location to where it can be downloaded (its an archive). Thanks Derek Reynolds

1 0

mail message charging? + nanog digest
by Allan Chong 02 Sep '97

02 Sep '97

After the latest round of spam in my mail box from throwaway accounts plus a spate of damn junk faxes..... Anyone implemented per message limits on SMTP mail? 1) a billing structure that allows say 1000 outgoing mail messages and either charges or shuts off the account beyond that. I wrote a series of scripts that injected each syslog mail entry into a Sybase database in real time at a previous job. 2) filters on dialup accounts that prevent SMTP connections to anything but the local SMTP server (much as there are spoofing filters on most dialup routers nowadays) 3) you'd have to authenticate your SMTP connections, which if they're from your local dialup pool, should be nothing more than checking your real time accounting database. (most ISPs aren't running real time accounting, but probably should be just to prevent multiple account abuse). A feature rich Radius server seems to be sorely lacking. This seems to be one piece of software that many large ISPs are writing on their own. 4) you could always allow "good" customers access through if they really needed SMTP access for some reason or another. The basic idea would be to get rid of the damn $20 dialup accounts most of the spam that is hitting my mailbox seems to be coming from. Anyone see any gaping flaws in this logic? BTW, there is a nanog digest going out twice daily. I'm willing to add any procmail filters for anything that will increase signal to noise. > >nanog-d Mon Sep 1 22:57:01 EDT 1997 > >This unofficial procmail'ed digest sponsored by Allan Chong. >Please mail subscribe/unsubscribe requests to allan(a)alum.mit.edu > >Contents: > > Altavista Hacked ? ("George J. Broadfoot III" <george(a)laserlink.net>) > Re: Altavista Hacked ? (Philip Steffora <steffora(a)av-ops.pa.dec.com>) > Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch? ("Gary E. Miller" <gem(a)rellim.com>) > Digital's Altavista NOT hacked! (Philip Steffora <steffora(a)av-ops.pa.dec.com>) > Re: Altavista Hacked ? (jbodkin(a)attmail.com (Jimmy Bodkin)) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 15:09:29 +0000 >From: "George J. Broadfoot III" <george(a)laserlink.net> >Subject: Altavista Hacked ? > > -- Allan Chong allan(a)alum.mit.edu Eisenhower was very nice, Nixon was his only vice. -- C. Degen

1 0

Altavista Hacked ?
by George J. Broadfoot III 01 Sep '97

01 Sep '97

Anyone confirm that Altavista's home page was hacked today ? About 10:30 am EST I went there and found their "usual home page" included in a page that said hello to some hackers and had some small message about the page being hacked. When I got back to checking it at 15:00 EST that page was gone and the "usual Altavista home page" had returned. George J. Broadfoot III VP of Operations Laser Link Network Services, Inc. 610.566.2993 FAX 610.566.9093

2 2