April 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by Dean Robb 02 Apr '98

02 Apr '98

At 00:06 4/1/98 -0800, Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote: >On Tue, Mar 31, 1998 at 11:15:01PM -0500, Dean Robb put this into my mailbox: >> >> BTW: Inter@ctive Week magazine did an article this week on the WhoIs >> problem at InterNIC (with contributions by yours truly). I haven't seen it >> yet (not a commonly-carried magazine 'round here) but it should be good. > >http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/980327e.html > >Score one for the good guys }:> Well, sorta. First, note my sig and then look at the alleged name of my business in the article. The company is PC-Easy...we provide on-site computer services. Randy and I have exchanged several emails and he's called me at least three times...you'd think he'd get the name right. Second, based on the emails I gave him, the article is extremely weak. I haven't seen the print version, perhaps it's better. But a good analogy would be to have presented a reporter gruesome, in-depth details of a messy murder and see the entire story be "Man killed". Third, the information is wrong. I told Randy about the Martianconsulate.com record, I've been tracking them since last September, and to the best of my knowledge they've never listed their address as anything but North Wales, PA. They did, however, use the 555-1212 phone number. Incidently, that number was deleted from the record by NSI...which makes the record even MORE in violation of the Registration Agreement...and it's still an active record. Still....it's better than no publicity at all, I suppose. Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore.... Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]

1 0

Re: kak durak!...Re: Fwd: Quantum device brings end to the "World Wide Wait"
by Vadim Antonov 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

Steve Goldstein wrote: > At 3:49 AM -0500 4/1/98, avg(a)pluris.com wrote: > ?... The invention by Bell Laboratories scientist Dr. Mas Karud Kudos for figuring that out :) I was wondering who'll be the first. --vadim

1 0

Re: Too much time on my hands
by Bill Becker 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Vlad Viladegut wrote: Hello, Vlad. > April fools right? Of course. Anyone can reduce any arbitrary file down to 5 bytes -- You could just truncate it. The hard part is to recreate the original file from the 'compressed' file. > [root@cell /]# nslookup squeeze.iconn.net > Server: ns.servint.com > Address: 209.50.225.13 > > Non-authoritative answer: > Name: squeeze.iconn.net > Address: 127.0.0.1 > > boo. So far six people have complained that they can't reach my site. One said my webserver is down. Another said that traceroute showed 'a routing problem' to squeeze.iconn.net. These are the same people who operate the internet in North America, yes? Oh well. Bill

1 0

RE: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
by Ellis, Stephen C (PTSS-scellis) 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

Hi Dave and Kent, > > High bandwidth-delay product paths on a heavily loaded OC-3 to OC-3 > virtual > > circuit will strain the ATM switch buffers. If you can detect > regularly > > recurring losses on a high BDP path across an all-OC3 virtual > circuit, then > > look for buffer exhaustion on the OC3 interfaces. If no one at Pac > Bell > > knows what to do, tell them to look in the files in Fred Chang's > Network > > Engineering Group for Kent England's ATM NAP switch test plan and go > out and > > get some test gear that will stress an OC3 link in the lab. Mike > Rudik in > > the lab knows what to do to test for this. But my recollection was > that the > > BPX had enough buffers to run UBR over a full OC3. > > Nope. The problem is link congestion between SJC and SFO. Pacbell > was apparently not monitoring this. By rerouting some traffic, they > were able to shift the peers that it affected. It, with 100% > certainty, > is within the cloud that makes up the PB NAP. > > We've identified the facts that occured in this particular situation. The problem was definitely **not** due to link congestion as we have stats on the utilization of the OC3s. The rerouting which occured as a result of this problem has been corrected. We continue to monitor our OC3 links for any further problems. If you identify any additional issues, please feel free to submit a trouble ticket with our Network Data Center at 1-800-870-9007. Thanks, Steve Ellis Pacific Bell/SBC NAP Product Manager (925) 823-2722 (Phone)

2 1

Re: Fwd: Quantum device brings end to the "World Wide Wait"
by Chris Parker 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

At 09:31 AM 4/1/98 -0500, Alex \"Mr. Worf\" Yuriev wrote: > >On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 avg(a)pluris.com wrote: > >Happy fools day :) Well actually, this is not all a hoax. The method described in the message is known as Quantum Teleportation. It is being seriously researched and has been demonstrated in controlled experiments. The following links will take you to sites that describe the theory better than I ever could. I only study Quantum Physics for fun. :) It is a real effect, and while the story is based in reality, the announcement that Lucent has succesfully built a device that uses this method of communication is quite doubtful though. The following links are however, not hoaxes. We have nothing to fear, as this technology is still quite a ways from actual commercial use. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ http://www.sciam.com/explorations/122297teleport/index.html >Alex -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ Chris Parker: Systems Administration and Development \ ~ ~ / \ cparker(a)starnetusa.net \ cparker(a)megapop.net | @ @ | \ www.starnetusa.net \ www.megapop.net oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Without C we would have 'obol', 'basi', and 'pasal'

2 1

FWD: Quantum computer cracks crypto keys quickly
by Dave Bartlett 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

Does Zimmerman know about this?! ;-) Begin forwarded message: RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Wednesday 1 April 1998 Volume 19 : Issue 64 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 -05:00:00 -0500 From: andrew(a)greenehouse.com Subject: Quantum computer cracks crypto keys quickly A small team of researchers has succeeded in building a prototype of the so-called "quantum computer" that can factor large numbers quickly and defeat public-key cryptosystems. The researchers cracked the DES-IV-1 challenge, revealing the message "Can't anyone around here keep a secret?" Since the new computer is based on superconducting quantum interference devices, it is not bound by conventional temporal limits on computation. In fact, the researchers were able to use their system to crack challenges that had not yet been created. These future secret messages included, "God in Heaven, what have we done?" and the cryptic "tsopyadslooflirpanasisihtsey" -- which clearly shows that future challenges are going to use multiple layers of encryption. President Clinton congratulated the researchers, but said that he was considering a proposal to ban the export of quarks from the United States until the NSA could implement a quark escrow system, by which each quark in the universe would be uniquely numbered. When asked if their invention would enable scientists to foretell the future, the researchers pointed out that they can only decrypt messages that are encrypted using certain methods that are known today. Furthermore, there is no way for them to determine if the messages that they receive are authentic or if unknown people are sending false messages to confuse us. "If only there were a reliable way to digitally sign a transmission," bemoaned one of the researchers. ------------------------------

1 0

Re: Fwd: Quantum device brings end to the "World Wide Wait"
by Andrew Staples 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

> Time to close the shop? > > --vadim Cisco is missing the big picture (pun intended)- Selectively dampen only the quantum carrier waves from the present, keep the ones eminating from the future and the past, and put all the gamblers, fortune-tellers, and wall-street types out of business. Half duplex rules! Stock market picks to follow...now registering omniscient.com Andrew "more worried about schroedinger's kittens....."

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by Dean Robb 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

At 15:08 3/30/98 -0800, you wrote: >On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Deepak Jain wrote: > >NSI contends that the court has not found it to be an illegal tax yet, and >that they (the courts) simply have issued an injunction to stop NSI from >collecting it. This statement was in a reply to me when I inquired about >the domain fee for domains registered prior to 4/1/98; apparently, those >domains will still be $50 per year. It will be interesting to see how >that extra $15 will be accounted for--since it can no longer go into the >infrastructure fund (via court ruling), where will it go? > >(I had also heard that the final ruling was that it indeed was an illegal >tax...) There is no "final ruling", just an opinion and temporary injunction. NSI is technically correct, however: "C. Conclusion Therefore, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of eventual success on the merits of these claims. They have made a significant showing that the Preservation Assessment is an illegal tax. Furthermore, they have shown that Congress has not yet ratified that assessment. Therefore, plaintiffs have made a substantial showing that defendants may have collected, and may currently be collecting, the assessment illegally." ----"Memorandum of Opinion" issued in conjuction with Temporary Injunction; full text at http://WWW.bode.com/nsi/jh1.html. It should also be noted on this issue, though that: "In contrast, defendants face no harm whatsoever. Defendant NSI is merely the caretaker for the Preservation Assessment Fund, therefore, it has no interest in what happens to the money. Defendant NSF also has no tangible interest in the money; it may only spend the funds at the direction of Congress, for purposes specified by Congress. Therefore, NSF is not harmed by a delay in the expenditure of these funds." ---ibid I'm not known to be a big fan of NSI, but on this issue, it's not THEIR money. Therefore, they should not be liable for refunds. They just collected the bucks and held it in trust; even the interest earned went back into the funds. Of course, it's not like NSI NEEDS the money, they made net profit of over $45 million in 1997 (http://www.netsol.com/news/pr_19980210.html) Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore.... Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]

1 0

Re: Root name server
by shields＠crosslink.net 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

In article <E0yK4f3-0000Kd-00@rhenium>, "Dave Haywood" <D.Haywood(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > I need to setup an internal root name server in my private network. Maybe you should ask on a DNS list. NANOG is about the Internet and you are asking about a private network. I think this is covered in Cheswick and Bellovin anyway, but I haven't looked in a long time. -- Shields, CrossLink.

2 1

RE: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
by Goldstein_William＠bns.att.com 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

TO ALL NANOG PROPELLERHEAD TYPES MAKIN' REMARKS ON ATM: Da switch makers, ya know, dese guys had a problem. No matter how good business was, da stock keeps goin' down. Wid MPOA solvin' alla da problems, dey figured dis was unfair, dat dey should be solid, steadily growing stocks now dat dey no longer had to live life in da fast LANE. So, da ATM Forum has decided to sorta upgrade da public relations approach. Please be advised dat all youse geniusues makin' skeptical an' udderwise unsundry remarks on ATM is now subject to a personal interview from a special representative udda ATM Forum. On da boat. On a nice, long ocean voyage... (And alla youse gigabit ethernet wanks--ya know what we can do wid a little ether, heh, heh, heh!) Bill "The Mangler" Goldstein Chief Crusher and Mixer Dept. of Concrete Overshoes Enforcement Division The ATM Forum ;-) ---------- From: dlr Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 6:41 PM To: nanog Cc: dlr Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP Received: from wayne1.bns.att.com (wayne1.bns.att.com [135.170.166.240]) by pawayn01.bns.att.com (8.8.6/1.3) with ESMTP id SAA13273 for <Goldstein_William/bcs_pawayn01(a)pawayn01.bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from caig1.att.att.com (caig1.att.att.com [192.128.52.73]) by wayne1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with ESMTP id TAA19164 for <goldstein_william(a)bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from nuucp@localhost) by caig1.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id SAA11015; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:21 -0500 (EST) >Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998 Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24784; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:07 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA24671 for nanog-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from daver.bungi.com (daver.bungi.com [207.126.97.2]) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24666 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by daver.bungi.com via sendmail with stdio id <m0yJoAm-0000DnC(a)daver.bungi.com> for nanog(a)merit.edu; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.94 1997-Apr-22 #8 built 1997-Jun-19) Message-Id: <m0yJoAm-0000DnC(a)daver.bungi.com> From: dlr(a)bungi.com (Dave Rand) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 PST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Content-Type: text -------------------------------------------------- Several of my peers at PB NAP are reporting significant loss (>10%) over the PB NAP. All are OC3 connected, and it seems that PB doesn't have the ability to look too closely at OC3 connections. Death of the 'net predicted: film at 11. So, does this mean that ATM NAPs also have problems with high traffic load? -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

2 1