November 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Watch found at NANOG 14
by Pam Ciesla 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

There was a watch found at the NANOG 14 Meeting in the Imperial Ballroom. If you have lost a watch and think this might be yours please e-mail me with description and mailing address. Thanks Pam Pam Ciesla Merit Network,Inc. 734-936-0172 - phone 4251 Plymouth Road 734-647-3185 Bldg.I, Suite C pam(a)merit.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48107

1 0

logical subnet overlaying...
by Kyle D. Smith 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

hello. I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list to ask, but I hope that someone could possiably help.. I have a network with a cisco 2501 router running IOS 10.2(9), and we have a block of addresses from our internet service provider (60 addresses, 206.206.162.128, start. with 1 for network, and 1 for brodcast) we recently requested another block of 32 from our ISP, and they gave us the following: 207.66.81.96, start...with 1 for network/1 for brodcast. I asked a similar question on a mailing list before (not sure if it was this one) and was told to login to the router, then: router> en pass:..... router# conf term router <conf> int e 0 router <subif> ip address existing_ip existing_subnetmask secondary crtl-z write i tryed this, but it did not work. I also tryed replacing the exiting ip/subnet with the new one... but that did not work either... am i doing something wrong? or do i just need a 11.xx(xx) IOS ? Any help would be greatly apreciated. thanks. =-=-=-=-=-= -Kyle Donald Smith -Systems Administrator -Community Internet Access, Inc. -peaches(a)cia-g.com

2 1

Re: gotta love those internic boyz (fwd)
by Paul Vixie 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

At 12:05 13/11/98 +1100, somebody whose name wasn't quoted wrote: >Oh boy, seems Vixie shoudl join IRSC, we don't have these kinds of problems. > >Perhaps it's time the various parties that wish to stand by the history >realised that cooperation on a wider scale might help? Cooperation occurred and is occurring. "IRSC" is semantic line noise. at(a)ah.net (Adam Todd Snr) added: > Hey Paul Vixie! Attention Paul Vixie! Yo. > Now that there have been a few too many stuff ups with the old legacy Root > Servers, and especially as you've copped the heat this time, why not offer > the option and ship bind with an IRSC section! Because DNS was designed to replace HOSTS.TXT, and BIND is a DNS implementation. If you want every site's "view of the naming universe" to depend on the politics of that site's owners, then you should avoid DNS and use something which will more reliably suit your private naming purposes, such as HOSTS.TXT. The 4BSD tapes have a useful utility which can transform files in HOSTS.TXT format into /etc/hosts format. Go to it! > Then let the consumers choose! See above. DNS is a distributed, reliable, coherent, autonomous database. You mess with any of those things and you have something which isn't DNS or which is a horrid example of DNS. Specifically, please stop pretending that coherence is optional. > Wouldn't it bet better they had the choice to accept a service, then be > DENIED the knowledge and option of selecting a service. Seems like a lot of folks keep blathering the same old crap about how the proletariat ought to control the naming system, by chaos if nothing else, and that your views are adequately represented. BIND, being a DNS implementation, takes no notice of your activities, which are not DNS at all. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: gotta love those internic boyz (fwd)
by Adam Todd Snr 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

At 12:05 13/11/98 +1100, you wrote: >Oh boy, seems Vixie shoudl join IRSC, we don't have these kinds of problems. > >Perhaps it's time the various parties that wish to stand by the history >realised that cooperation on a wider scale might help? Hey Paul Vixie! Attention Paul Vixie! Now that there have been a few too many stuff ups with the old legacy Root Servers, and especially as you've copped the heat this time, why not offer the option and ship bind with an IRSC section! Then let the consumers choose! Wouldn't it bet better they had the choice to accept a service, then be DENIED the knowledge and option of selecting a service. THEY STOLE OUR BABY AJ WITHOUT TELLING US WHY http://www.aj.inau.com/docs -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Todd http://adamtodd.ah.net Business Development, Technology, Domain Registration and Network Advisory Phone +61 2 9729 0565 - Todd Corporation http://www.todd.inoz.com Fax +61 2 4659 6786 - AHNET http://www.ah.net - AURSC http://www.aursc.ah.net Telstra Reseller and Telstra Convey Member (Not an Employee of Telstra) Get the DOMAIN NAME HANDBOOK NOW http://www.domainhandbook.com

1 0

Internic, et al.
by Tim Wolfe 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

Just a thought. The next time gtld servers start puking and Nic starts playing "we'll get around to fixing it in the next server update" why don't all the ISPs start having their users send all of their complaints to complaints(a)internic.net Won't help much but it sure would feel good... Tim ---------------------------------------------------- Timothy M. Wolfe | Why surf when you can Sail? tim(a)clipper.net | Join Oregon's Premier Sr. Network Engineer | Wireless Internet Provider! ClipperNet Corporation | http://www.clipper.net/ ----------------------------------------------------

2 1

summary: gateway failover.
by foo 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

first of all, sorry for the duplicate message. i originally sent it without my proper from address to avoid having my primary mailbox spammed, but thought it wouldnt go through because the from address wasnt on nanog-post... second, i incorrectly referred to the rfc for IRDP as 1285, when it is 1256. re: IRDP support. the following os's/routing daemons have support: gated (version ?) Solaris (in.rdisc(1)) Windows NT (with sp3) Windows 95 (with Sockets 2) a couple of useful urls were sent my way, the most interesting being: http://www.eddieware.org which details an Open Source HA project by Ericsson (very cool), which is unfortunately only supported under Linux for the time being, though Solaris/FreeBSD support is slated for December. another from a usenix/lisa presentation with some good info is here: http://dilbert.dcs.it.mtu.edu/failover/ also, many suggestions were given for ways to accomplish this goal with network layer stuff (ospf, rip, interface aliases, proxy arp, etc.), though i was looking for an application layer solution, primarily. if you'd like details on the various suggestions, email me privately. -foo

1 0

Re: Is it time for an disruption analysis working group for the Internet?
by Sean Donelan 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

pete(a)kruckenberg.COM (Pete Kruckenberg) writes: >How is this handled in other networked industries? I'm sure that the same >issues of proprietary information and public humliation exist there; how >do they deal with it? Other industries, e.g. electric, airline, nuclear, telephone, railroad, banking, etc, tend to have two different reporting regimes. One for 'major events,' and one for 'near misses.' For major events, the issues of proprietary information and public humiliation tend to be less. Mainly because everyone already knows you had a major event (e.g. three-mile island, at&t nationwide failure) and the company's and industry's goals tends to focus on restoring public confidence. This seems to be true no matter what the root cause of the problem. After a major event, company records tend to get opened either voluntarily or involuntarily anyway. So most companies prefer the P.R. of saying they are cooperating fully with investigators. Although as NASA found out, sometimes you get a Richard P. Feynman on the board, who doesn't always follow the company line. I think, for some definition of major events, it should be possible to get cooperation from a large number of service providers. Once the event has happend, it is usually in their self-interest to participate in the process. Of course, there will be a few service providers who won't participate on principle or because of internal disorganization. But that's what the press is for.... For near-misses, the reporting parties tend to be individuals (a.k.a. whistleblowers) and confidentiality is more important due to the retribution even accurate information receives. And in general, 'near misses' don't attract much attention because by definition, the crisis didn't happen. I think any type of near miss reporting and analysis will be very difficult. I could rant about the U.S. Government's plans in this area are, but that is a different mailing list. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: ARIN?
by Andrea Di Lecce 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

At 10:40 11/5/98 -0500, Brandon Ross wrote: >> Looks alot like /14 & change. That would be 256K plus delegated - 210K users >> Hey, your right, not a bad packing ratio. Hows yours? :) > >How's 2 /16's & change, 128k addresses - 455k users. I think I win. (In >an effort to fully disclose, about 20% of those users are on wholesale >dialup providers). Cable modem subscribers normally are not dynamically assigned IPs like dialups. Besides, they are advertised as a constant connection, and a lot of people use it as such. ************************************************** Andrea Di Lecce (416) 935-5700 Rogers@Home Network Operations 1 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto, M4Y 2Y5 **************************************************

26 39

gtld failure
by Randy Bush 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

[ apologies if this message is our of time sync due to my travels making net access sporadic ] i think the net would appreciate (some might say deserves) a technical (not political) post mortem by a neutral party. like could we get sean donelan to sort out what actually happened and report? randy

1 0

gotta love those internic boyz
by Paul A Vixie 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

the facts are, internic's own servers (f.gtld-server.net etc) were sending back NOERROR/NOANSWER whereas my server was sending back a lame delegation. that means clients would try other servers to gain the right final answer if they got a bad answer from my server, but they would just report a fatal application error ("host not found") if they contacted an internic gtld server. the other fact of note is that the reason my server was lame had to do with some kind of provisioning problem inside internic or its isp. my own mrtg graphs are clean for this period, and internic was the only site i couldn't reach at high bandwidth. f.root-servers.net was lame for two days because it could not fetch COM from NSI. yet NSI, in its statements to reporters and to users, are of the following form. it is REALLY DAMNED HARD to not get pissed off at this kind of BS. *MY* server was not sending fatally bad answers, *THEIRS* were. i've been in touch with wired news and have been queried about this from CNN and i'll be telling the whole story to every reporter who can reach me. i've seen holtzman's comments about "unreliable volunteer servers" in the WSJ in the past and i'm no longer willing to sit by and be slandered when it was NSI's problem all along. (tcpdump doesn't lie.) (a total of five servers were having trouble, of two different kinds, so this was a complex failure situation.) ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:18:45 -0800 (PST) To: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> Subject: Re: FYI F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET In-Reply-To: <199811120201.SAA09783(a)bb.rc.vix.com> Oops! Sorry to bug you. When I called them their folks told me "That server isn't run by Internic so you'll have to contact them about the fact that they run an unreliable server..." What a bunch of dweebs. Take care, > network solutions (the current internic contractor) was having connectivity > problems that made it impossible for us to fetch the zone. all is now well. > > > Just an FYI, but I don't think your root server is properly configured. > > Internic thinks it should be authoritative for .com. Maybe they have their > > SOA wrong? ------- End of Forwarded Message

3 2