November 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: What's wrong with Exodus?
by TTSG 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

> > Actualy they sent you mail on monday and cc'd the NANOG list. > Yes, I did receive that. I guess I just thought I would have gotten more direct contact than something broadcast to NANOG. Ok, I retract my statement. Tuc/TTSG > Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:40:51 -0800 > From: Janis Purl <Janis.Purl(a)exodus.net> > Subject: clue phone > To: TTSG <ttsg(a)ttsg.com> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 01:52:16PM -0500, TTSG wrote: > > BTW: As originator of the first email begging for clueful contact > > at Exodus......And after sending requested information.............. > > > > I've yet to see an email from them even saying "We got your logs, > > thanks". > > > > Tuc/TTSG > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > : Steven Noble / Network Janitor / Be free my soul and leave this world alone : > : My views = My views != The views of any of my past or present employers : > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Re: luser of the day award!
by Mike Reno 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Robbie, >From the way this guy is spouting off, I doubt he has an attorney ... unless it's one that specializes in bovine birth certificates. How he has survived this long is a wonder. Any good attorney would have provided a use policy that would have addressed spam. Definitely a man or boy of 1000 contradictions. -=Mike=- At 02:06 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Robbie Honerkamp wrote: >On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 01:04:34PM -0500, Christopher Neill wrote: >> Anyone else get mail from this idiot? > >Yep. He even replied to my response: > > >His original message is really amusing. It makes me think back to >Robert McElwaine. If only he had added "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and >DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY >to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS." to the end. > >Guess I'll see everyone in court! It should be one heck of a party! :-) > >Robbie > >-- >Robbie Honerkamp >ISP Consulting, System Administration >robbie(a)shorty.com http://www.shorty.com/ > > /=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\ ! Mike Reno ! EarthLink Network ! ! Hostmaster ! 3100 New York Drive ! ! email: mreno(a)earthlink.net ! Pasadena CA 91107 ! !. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .! ! Voice 626-296-5072 ! FAX 626-296-5113 ! \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ Earthlink -- The High Fiber Decongestant for the Internet

1 0

Re: Exodus / Clue problems
by Steve Noble 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Naw.. letting the Conspiracy Theory run rampant is more fun. I would be hard pressed to think that anyone really thought that Exodus was not doing anything. Just because they arn't posting to NANOG does not mean that work was/is not being done on the issue. Once Exodus spent the time assembling and presenting the information to the customer, their job was done. It is now up to the customer to speak (or not speak) about the issue. But anyways .. Anyone have any information about the other 33842 sites that are being used to do this? Maybe we can turn this into a operational speak like "How ISP's deal with complaints about their Customers attacking other sites" And find out exactly how successful or not successful people were with getting these other sites secured and the problem stopped. On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 1998 at 06:25:42PM -0500, Steven J. Sobol wrote: > > It's interesting that the people who normally post here from Exodus have > > not said a word or offered any help at all. > > Yeah. > > Ain't lawyers great? > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Steven Noble / Network Janitor / Be free my soul and leave this world alone : : My views = My views != The views of any of my past or present employers : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: Exodus: this is bad
by Adam Rothschild 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Brian wrote: > > No, but I see stuff from this: > > Nov 16 15:14:34 venus in.telnetd[17889]: connect from 209.119.115.65 > Nov 16 15:14:35 venus in.telnetd[17890]: connect from 209.119.115.65 Hrrrm, so far I'm routing the following to Null0: 38.29.63.0/24 207.104.58.0/24 209.67.50.0/24 209.119.115.0/24 And blocking/logging all inbound telnet connections (besides, real men use SSH 8-)... Am I forgetting anything?

16 18

Re: Strange BGP announcement
by Tony Li 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

patrick(a)ianai.net (I Am Not An Isp) writes: > You said you wanted routers that followed the RFC. The RFC does not > mention list AS_PATH length as a route selection criteria. I have been > told that the draft for the next rev specifically prohibits using AS_PATH > length as a route selection criteria. Patently false. In particular, the spec allows an implementation to invoke local policy when computing the local preference of a route. An implementation can reasonably incorporate the AS path length in its local preference calculations as part of its policy. Tony

3 3

Re: Exodus Customer Security
by David Lesher 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Unnamed Administration sources reported that Bret McDanel said: > If you make a policy where you dont give out customer information, when do > you break that policy? After 2 complaints? 5? Whatever the number, > there is always someone out there who can and will abuse that, for > whatever reason.. Don't need to. Offer to set up a three-way call. Then {Sprint} and alleged victim can both talk to alleged source. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Re: Journal of Internet Disasters
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

At 11:22 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 10:20:30AM -0500, Deborah Ann Smith wrote: >> Even the FAA recognizes no matter how good a flight crew, if they get >> incorrect information from the Tower, any problems that occur are the >> Tower's fault! > >You know; would that this were true. > >If the tower gives you instructions that you _know_ will endanger your >flight, the final responsibility for avoid that danger lies with you as >pilot in command. You have to tell them you're ignoring them, but you >have to ignore them. > >Not that this will help you a damn when FAA decides to suspend your >ticket for ignoring ATC... Yes, but that's done, pending review and investigation. If you can document properly you will be exonerated. I happen to know of one instance where this actually happened and both the pilot and the ATC guy were suspended, pending review. Both were exonerated because the problem was equipment failure. Otherwise one of those suspensions might have become permanent. In the air-space, the FAA tends to err on the side of safety, rather than justice. If there is a doubt, everyone involved gets grounded until the doubt is removed. It sounds harsh, but that is a main reason that the air-space has the safety-record that it has. An aircraft's main function is to get you high enough off the ground such that the fall will kill you. - Pilot's credo. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer(a)mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ Who is John Galt? "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand

1 0

National Infrastructure Protection Center
by Sean Donelan 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

After Scott Larson was so kind to come the the Dearborn NANOG and tells us all about the FBI's new cyber-security program, has anyone bothered to call the NIPC about any of these events? http://www.nipc.gov/ I leave it as an exrcise for the reader to try to figure out the correct phone number to call. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

6 6

Re: InternetWeek Article on UUnet: question
by Erik Muller 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Sean Donelan wrote: > http://www.internetwk.com/news1198/news111398-2.htm > > Was NETCOM identified as the source? Why was the NETCOM NOC difficult > for UUNET to reach on Sunday? Was it a 'customer configuration error' > or a router vendor(s) software bug? If UUNET had identified the correct > customer router to block, why did the route return? I'm more than a little curious about those comments as well. Noone from UUNet, to my knowledge, has informed us of any involvement from Netcom in this situation. If we were involved, I would greatly appreciate any information as to how... as we all know, we can't fix the problems that nobody tells us about. If there were problems contacting us, again, I'd like to know. Our contact information is readily available, and as far as I know, accurate - http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.html is up to date for us, anyway. Of course, I'm taking those comments with a pretty large grain of salt as well, considering that the same sentence implies that we're a UUNet customer. Uh, no, I think not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Muller, Network Engineer emuller(a)noc.netcom.net NETCOM Network Services Support NETCOM On-Line Communication Services

1 0

Cache-as-cache-can
by Michael Haba 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

To cut a long story short, I was just wondering if people could extrapolate their feelings regarding commerical Web Cache solutions. In terms of the good, the bad and the ugly. At the moment I'm left with 'two goods' Network Appliance's NetCache and Inktomi's Traffic Server and would appreciate some input to sort them out. -Michael -- Michael Haba <m.haba(a)magnet.at> Telenor Magnet - Internet at Work

9 11