November 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Anyone know...
by Steven J. Sobol 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 10:13:17AM -0800, Lee Henrikson wrote: > Steven, > > I am having the same problem (I am not a poster to nanog). Have been > through the update process on one domamin twice. Will be curious if > anyone knows the answer. I have a feeling I'm not the only one they screwed up. Calls to their customer service desk have resulted in "All lines are busy" messages all day long. -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."

1 0

Anyone know...
by Steven J. Sobol 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

why the InterNIC notified me that changes to a domain had been completed on Saturday, and Whois is updated, but the root servers still point to DNS on the old site even though there have been two root server updates since then? Is this related to the problem we were all discussing last week? -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."

1 0

Re: No longer: NSI policy on lame delagations
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

jzp> Have you thought about moving this to a DNS/BIND related list? Much jzp> better than ranting loonies, but strayed far afield of the orginal jzp> marginally-operational thread that NSI is finally enforcing a long- jzp> standing policy. djb>Actually, a discussion of DNS/BIND implementations falls directly under djb>the charter, as described on the MERIT web site. [snip] djb>Now a specific implementation of DNS/BIND to ensure that domains do not go djb>blank during zonefile reloads and such is DEFINITELY something that djb>"ensures the stability of overall service to the network users". Whatever; we disagree and Merit doesn't lord over the list -beyond Craig's remarks at Atlanta- so others will decide if they participate or not. The existing tools "ensure stability"; even more primative implementations can do it provided they are deployed with some thought. Perhaps details related to packing all DNS service into one box are interesting to enough people here to warrant life staying in the thread. djb>My point: If you want to make this a "router-discussion-only" mailing djb>list, the charter on the website needs to be seriously overhauled, since Nowhere did I invoke "how do i configure my router for this". My point was merely that internals (plugs into your-favorite-database, memory mappings, etc) of essential services are rather interesting, but are fodder for existing lists/newsgroups. Joe "not arguing; I gave up being net.cop when usenet went to hell" Provo -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

No longer: NSI policy on lame delagations
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

[snip some thread where a finger was pointed at BIND] [snip paul's good details about BIND internals] [snip other's thought and pointers for alternatives related to BIND internals] >Have you looked at [foo] Have you thought about moving this to a DNS/BIND related list? Much better than ranting loonies, but strayed far afield of the orginal marginally-operational thread that NSI is finally enforcing a long- standing policy. Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Sheryl Chapin 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

>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

3 2

Re: NSI policy on lame delagations
by Paul A Vixie 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

> >That will change in 8.1.2++, btw. "ndc" will use a socket, not signals. > > Will 8.1.2++ allow > - selective reloads? yes. "ndc reload vix.com" > - selective cache cleaning (clean this zone ONLY from my cache)? no. the cache won't have zone boundaries until 9.0. > >I always put a zone up on the master before I send in the registration. > >If the slaves take a day or so to catch up I can live with that. > > Depends on whether whichever NIC in question demands that *all* listed NS > are ready for the domain, or only one, right? that would be bad policy, since it would not reflect operational necessity. i.e., the zone fundamentally "works" if ANY of its nameservers is working. therefore that ought to be the only test done by any NIC.

1 0

Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited
by Dean Anderson 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

At 01:19 PM 11/16/1998 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote: >> I would suggest that they would not be RBLed as >> >> 1] this is a list that can be easily (I assume) opted out of. > >no. there is no way to opt out of it. Not so. You can use another registry. .COM, .NET, and .ORG may be the most popular, but they are not the only ones. When you refuse to do business with NSI, they don't send you email. They don't get lists and send email to random people. If you don't agree to let NSI send you email, they won't do business with you. Everyone agreed to those terms. Can't come back and change them later, because you don't like it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with most of the mail I've gotten from them. Some of it a bit technically insulting, but that doesn't make it totally unreasonable from an email ethics point of view. It certainly doesn't qualify as spam, since it is in fact solicited. You paid $100+ for the privilege. Technically, they aren't broadcasting either. They are sending email to their customers. Not potential future customers. Existing customers. They didn't buy this list from somewhere. They asked for, and required customers to give this information, and to give them permission to send email. You seem to be in a conflict with your own rules, since you have said that you don't RBL companies that are using their own internal lists. As I thought, you aren't operating from some kind of moral or ethical principal, you are just bullying others. I just don't like that, whether you happen to be right or not. >> 2] They are sending to folks that use the service. > >yes. which is: everybody who has a domain in COM, NET, or ORG. Ahh, it has finally come to a confrontation with someone who quite possibly speaks more authoritatively for everyone in those domains than you do. This will be interesting, to say the least. I wonder if RBLing NetSol is cause for them to put vix.com on hold. That would be a hoot. I suppose they actually could call you in breach of contract for refusing to receive email, refund your money, and cancel your domains. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5 4

Re: NSI policy on lame delegations
by John Fraizer 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

At 10:17 AM 11/21/98 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >> Remember these aren't nameservers that serve 5 domains, figure tens of >> thousands. > >On the other hand, maybe there is another solution. Don't put all your >eggs in one basket. Run at least two nameservers. Add all new domains to a >nameserver that has a small enough number of zones that it can easily >handle being reloaded every hour. Then every week, transfer them all to >your HUMUNGO server. If I'm not mistaken, most ALL of us are running multiple name servers. Two at the very least. The above has no positive effect since it will require that you submit a domain modify to point the domain at HUMUNGO server once you load the zone to it. Even if "small" name server has the real record and is live with it, if humungo is the primary server listed in the NIC record, it is going to end up as a lame delegation until the zone loads. At the MOST, it is going to take 24 hours for the server to load the zone with a simple HUP from cron every 24 hours. Register a domain and get confirmation on it, put the zone entry in named.conf/named.boot on your primary and secondary servers. The next HUP, the server loads the zone. It has worked for us thus far. It also prevents you from poisoning your name servers, unintentional as it may be, by telling them they are authoritative for a zone before it is confirmed by NSI. Remember people, sending in the template does NOT mean that the domain registration will go through. If it doesn't and the domain is awarded to some other individual, your servers will certainly NOT have the proper information for A records in the zone. I hardly think that NSI,or any other NIC wants us speculating on whether or not we will be awarded the domain, no matter how good the odds are. Your servers aren't authoritative until you get the confirmation email. That still gives you generally 8-10 hours before the root zone is updated and any lame delegations would cause any confusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

1 0

A Real Technical Question (RAdB)
by John M. Brown 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Well I have a real operational / technical question for this list. I hope it will keep a few people from crying! :) We are needing some help and advise on route-registery stuff. Background: It looks like we will be adding customers to our network that have legacy (read pre-arin, circa '89-'93) address space. They do not wish to renumber and would like us to advertise their routes via BGP v4. What I know: Getting the routes to be announced via BGP v4 is not a big deal. We can add the correct statements to our IOS routers and bounce the session. To get these routes excepted by other providers, I need to register them with a route registery. I have choosen Merit's radb. I have created a MAINT, AS and Route, object. What I dont know(and need help with): Have I done this correctly? Can I add routes to this single location and have all (ANS, CW, et al) pick them up and add them to their configs, etc. Or, do I have to register with each registery, which would sorta defeat the purpose of a registery.??? Can anyone give me a quick Route Object / Policy 101, or point me to something for the slightly less clued :) I want to get this right and make sure I don't FUBAR things... Any sushi eating people that help will be compensated in sushi, the next time I see you (NANOG or ARIN meetings) Thanks Back to your regularly scheduled BA or is that BS ?? jmbrown(a)ihighway.net AS 7850

2 2

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by Bob Allisat 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Larry writes: > You say that with a little too much chutzpah. I think you may be > jumping the gun a bit. As long as your Bill of Rights includes > provisions that allows the privacy of innocent netizens to be invaded > there *will* be no Bill of Rights, IMHO. > > I'm betting on Paul :). If you will carefully examine the Digital Bill of Rights it garuantees the privacy and security of citizens. I quote: + The right to security and protection from forged + messages, covert message deletions and other illicit + obstructions. + + The right to protection, should we so choose, from + mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested + file or data transfers and similar harassments. *If* and only *if* the person (as in the individual) chooses to protect themselves. To do so without the knowledge or consent of the person is illegitimate. I understand some system which impliment RBL allow their clients to choose setting the defaul to OFF. That is completely reasonable. However I understand that most systems install RBL as the default. This is unethical and unacceptable in my opinion. As for whether or not this matter effects network operations I suspect anyone unfairly placed on the RBL list may argue otherwise. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

2 1