November 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Chris Mauritz 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

-----Original Message----- From: Karl Denninger [mailto:karl@Denninger.Net] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 10:26 AM To: Chris Mauritz; 'Sheryl Chapin'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users >The problem with this is that someone, sooner or later, is going to >take a run at people trying to set up what amounts to a set of contractual >requirements that exceed legal requirements - and then enforce them network >wide. > >The collusive aspect of this is downright scary, especially when coupled >with threats of depeering, active denial of service attacks, etc. *shrug* If I am an ISP, I'm free to have whatever AUP I want. IF clients don't like the AUP, they are free to shop elsewhere. I don't have the ability to force other ISPs to use my AUP or even a close facsimile...nor is there is a method to enforce your 1984 vision anyway. The net is a loose connection of public and private links. If I own a private link and I decide that I'm going to route you into /dev/null...that's what I'll do. There isn't a thing you can do about it. [snip] >There are a lot of "questionable" things that this industry does, but IMHO >this one is near or at the top of the list of things I'd talk to my counsel >about.... Knock yourself out. Be sure to let us know what your legal eagle has to say on the matter. Chris

11 10

RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Chris Mauritz 03 Dec '98

03 Dec '98

That's a pretty shortsighted view, Sheryl. I suspect you haven't been on the receiving end of some idtiot buying a leased line/virtual web presence from you and then spamming from an AOL/PSI/earhlink/yadda yadda account. It isn't pleasant. Folks aren't stupid. They ignore the fact that the tool used to spam was a throwaway account and go right for the jugular (you). It's better to have a zero tolerance policy and not have to deal with the silliness in the first place. Chris Chris Mauritz Director, Systems Administration Rare Medium, Inc. chrism(a)raremedium.com -----Original Message----- From: Sheryl Chapin [mailto:schapin@ctel.net] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 8:48 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users >That's right. It stops the practice of using a sacrificial account, from >AOL or netcom, to spam for a web-site that is otherwise protected. Does it >make a difference that they didn't spam from their own ISP? That customer >is *still* a spammer whether they did it from your site or not. Maybe >you're of the "It's alright as long as they don't do it here" crowd? Well, >that's one of the things that the RBL was built for. The rest of us don't >have to put up with your negligence. I don't see it as "it's alright as long as they don't do it here". I see it as "I have control over my network, but not over anyone elses". I have an AUP that specifically states spamming is not allowed. I have kicked off users who have spammed. However, I do not have an AUP that says "If you ever spam anyone ever in the world on any network anywhere I will disconnect whatever service you have". I don't control the entire internet, just my little piece of it. :-) Sheryl Chapin Senior Network Engineer CommTel Internet 207.377.3508 Winthrop, Maine schapin(a)ctel.net

19 23

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by Dean Anderson 01 Dec '98

01 Dec '98

BBBZZZTTT yourself. Blocking email is an interception under the ECPA (18 USC 2511 et al). It has been reported here previously that 1) The ECPA was amended to apply to email. 2) A US attorney has stated that ISP's who define their service to include mail filtering for their customers implicitly have their customers permission to do so, as required under the ECPA. Those who don't have permission would be in violation of the ECPA were they to block email. So as twisted as his writing and perhaps his thinking is, Bob is essentially right on that. You, as usual, are unequivocalably wrong. Perhaps you also can quit wasting our bandwidth. --Dean >*BBBZZZZTTT*, wrong answer,thank you for playing. Prevention of email >delivery is not interception. Nor is there reading of your private email, >or any of the other horrible crimes against humanity that so many envision. > Unlike the USPS, if you don't like your ISP's email policies, you are free >to go elsewhere. Your argument has no basis in legal, moral or ethical >theory. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2

Re: AT&T/Sprint problems
by John Fraizer 01 Dec '98

01 Dec '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, I do that all the time. Just throw unknown components into the mix and pray that it works without having tested in a non-production environment. At 01:35 PM 11/30/98 -0800, Jim Dawson wrote: >Thanks to everybody who is sending me either broken or complete >traceroutes to Sprint. Sprint seems to be slowly fixing itself. As I >understand it, they installed three routers that weren't configured >properly -- exactly how, I don't know. > Again, after talking to FNSI, I now know that the Clinton video was released today. As more and more people get it encoded and up on the net, performance of the net overall will go down until people have seen enough testimony about Monica going down. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your *FREE* Parked Domain account at http://www.EZ-Hosting.Com - ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Fraizer | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation PGP Key fingerprint = 7DB6 1CA2 DAA6 43DA 3AAF 44CD 258C 3D7E B425 81A8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNmMcxSWMPX60JYGoEQKDzQCfeO0yriorREtycd7MsOpqQa4qds0An32i AzRv5jEA1G30xclkO0yGAGEg =si5C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Digex Fibrecut?
by Adam Rothschild 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

Anyone know anything of a fibrecut in the NYC metro area resulting in Digex connectivity problems (including bacbone latency/scenic tour routing, and downed PX with Exodus NJ)? TIA

1 1

aggregation tool wanted
by Randy Bush 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

i have a perl script which takes in the form 133.10.0.0 133.11.0.0 155.162.0.0/15 155.164.0.0/14 and tells me that i can aggregate the first two into a /15. unfortunately, the actual data as paths can differ 133.10.0.0 2914 2907 133.11.0.0 2914 2907 2501 155.162.0.0/15 2914 155.164.0.0/14 2914 so, what i would like is a tool which takes something like the latter syntax and tells me what the origin ass could aggregate. i.e. i am specifically not inclined to proxy aggregation at this point. Maybe CIDRadvisor does this, but I have been unable to make it do so. randy

2 1

Re: AT&T/Sprint problems
by Jim Dawson 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > I'm on AT&T, and I haven't noticed any unreachable sites... ELI maybe? Nope -- here's another out our other pipe: [ Mon Nov 30 12:40:50 ] [ root@pdx-s01 -> traceroute postoffice.worldnet.att.net traceroute to postoffice.worldnet.att.net (204.127.5.20), 30 hops max, 40 bytes 1 ns.bytes.net (205.147.64.1) 54.959 ms 18.982 ms 19.484 ms 2 cisco1.bytes.net (205.147.64.2) 19.213 ms 18.972 ms 29.649 ms 3 border1-serial3-1.Seattle.cw.net (204.70.52.49) 58.715 ms 29.107 ms 74.8s 4 border1-serial3-1.Seattle.cw.net (204.70.52.49) 33.812 ms !H * 39.391 ms H Jim __________________________________________________________________ Jim Dawson jdawson(a)navi.net GCN Communications, Inc. http://www.navi.net 618 NW Glisan St. Ste. 407 voice: +1.503.641.1449 Portland, Or 97209 USA fax: +1.503.641.3634 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 4

Re: Dents -- Bind alternative?
by Paul Vixie 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

> Just saw an announcement for Dents ( http://www.dents.org/ ) on > comp.os.linux.announce. This is supposedly a (future) replacement for > BIND, as a DNS server. It has some cool ideas (dynamic zones, open storage > interface, control interface, etc), but it looks like it's a work in > progress. let the record show that: 1. the authors attempted to contact me before their release, but i was out of town on a thanksgiving family holiday. they suggested that "some friendly competition" would be good for everybody, and i cannot argue with that! 2. bind 8.1.2++, now in preparation, will have a control interface (like ctlinnd) rather than signals. 3. bind 9.0, also now in preparation but not due 'til next year, will have dynamic zones, an open storage interface, and a lot of other stuff. > Has anyone looked at this? It seems like it could (theoretically) address > several of the DNS issues that have been discussed here and on inet-access > lately. since bind is funded by ISP's, i can only imagine that it is also going to address most of the DNS issues that have been brought up here and elsewhere. > I'm not quite sure I understand why these features weren't just > contributed to BIND, but maybe it is time for a fresh start... perhaps the authors think ISC's source isn't "open" enough, or perhaps they didn't know that ISC was hiring DNS software engineers. or perhaps they just had some ideas they wanted to try out. (bind 9.0 is a fresh start, other than the configuration file parser and some of the underlying libraries.) coming, as it does, on the heels of a recent announcement from philips (.se) of a load balancing web proxying dns serving open source content server, it seems that folks everywhere at once are finding dns service an interesting area to work in. hopefully there will be a lot of code sharing, to the betterment of all. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

6 5

RE: AT&T/Sprint problems
by Dan Rabb 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

Here's another one to sprintlink... this one looks good too. traceroute to 199.0.232.90 (199.0.232.90), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 sl-gw5-nyc-5-1-1-6M.sprintlink.net (144.232.171.93) 1.435 ms 1.245 ms 1.18 ms 2 sl-bb10-nyc-2-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.7.53) 1.229 ms 1.254 ms 1.143 ms 3 sl-bb10-chi-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.202) 23.64 ms 23.673 ms 23.656 ms 4 sl-bb4-chi-4-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.0.166) 24.333 ms 24.155 ms 24.177 ms 5 144.228.252.13 (144.228.252.13) 25.052 ms 26.468 ms 25.29 ms 6 144.228.158.202 (144.228.158.202) 67.511 ms 73.599 ms 80.131 ms 7 tiny.sprintlink.net (199.0.232.90) 87.195 ms * 63.64 ms Dan Rabb digital broadcast network dan(a)dbn.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Jim Dawson Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 2:56 PM To: Chris Cappuccio Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T/Sprint problems On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > I'm on AT&T, and I haven't noticed any unreachable sites... ELI maybe? Nope -- here's another out our other pipe: [ Mon Nov 30 12:40:50 ] [ root@pdx-s01 -> traceroute postoffice.worldnet.att.net traceroute to postoffice.worldnet.att.net (204.127.5.20), 30 hops max, 40 bytes 1 ns.bytes.net (205.147.64.1) 54.959 ms 18.982 ms 19.484 ms 2 cisco1.bytes.net (205.147.64.2) 19.213 ms 18.972 ms 29.649 ms 3 border1-serial3-1.Seattle.cw.net (204.70.52.49) 58.715 ms 29.107 ms 74.8s 4 border1-serial3-1.Seattle.cw.net (204.70.52.49) 33.812 ms !H * 39.391 ms H Jim __________________________________________________________________ Jim Dawson jdawson(a)navi.net GCN Communications, Inc. http://www.navi.net 618 NW Glisan St. Ste. 407 voice: +1.503.641.1449 Portland, Or 97209 USA fax: +1.503.641.3634 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

RE: AT&T/Sprint problems
by Dan Rabb 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

Traceroutes to sprintlink.net seem fine here... Tracing route to sprintlink.net [199.0.232.90] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms vlan2-lr1.stl1.dbn.net [209.251.166.1] 2 <10 ms * <10 ms lilublue.stl1.dbn.net [209.251.163.50] 3 <10 ms * <10 ms ge033-gr1.stl1.dbn.net [209.251.163.53] 4 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms ga090-gr1.stl2.dbn.net [209.251.164.2] 5 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms sl-gw5-kc-5-0-1-6M.sprintlink.net [144.232.132.5] 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms sl-bb10-kc-1-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.2.61] 7 31 ms 30 ms 40 ms sl-bb10-chi-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.117] 8 30 ms 40 ms 30 ms 144.232.0.138 9 30 ms 40 ms 30 ms 144.228.252.13 10 60 ms 60 ms 70 ms 144.228.158.202 11 60 ms 60 ms 70 ms tiny.sprintlink.net [199.0.232.90] Trace complete. Dan Rabb digital broadcast network (314) 733-3127 dan(a)dbn.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Jim Dawson Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 2:34 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: AT&T/Sprint problems AT&T seems to be completely gone, and Sprint connectivity is getting progressively worse. Anyone know what's going on? For instance: [ Mon Nov 30 12:24:21 ] [ root@pdx-s02 -> traceroute sprintlink.net traceroute to sprintlink.net (199.0.232.90), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 pdx-pm01 (209.188.52.11) 1.055 ms 0.801 ms 0.774 ms 2 209.104.198.73 (209.104.198.73) 3.968 ms 4.637 ms 4.334 ms 3 a0-0-17.edge0.pao.priori.net (209.104.192.77) 111.857 ms 50.848 ms 40.709 ms 4 f0-0-0.plalic01.eli.net (207.173.115.249) 40.981 ms 40.323 ms 40.550 ms 5 a0-0--5.scrlic01.eli.net (207.173.113.141) 45.199 ms 48.857 ms 48.961 ms 6 sl-gw8-stk-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.107.17) 46.588 ms 276.005 ms 277. 638 ms 7 * * * etc. Jim __________________________________________________________________ Jim Dawson jdawson(a)navi.net GCN Communications, Inc. http://www.navi.net 618 NW Glisan St. Ste. 407 voice: +1.503.641.1449 Portland, Or 97209 USA fax: +1.503.641.3634 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0