May 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG 13 REMINDER
by Pam Ciesla 13 May '98

13 May '98

The attendee list has been updated. If you are not on it, but should be or if you have any other questions please contact. The room block at the Hyatt ends Friday, 5/15. Be sure to reserve your room. All information is available on the NANOG webpage http://www.nanog.org. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 734-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 734-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Re: Authoratative Nameserver Info
by Jon Lewis 13 May '98

13 May '98

On Wed, 13 May 1998, Raymond Curci wrote: > I recently migrated a DNS server with many domains and found > out an undocumented command. If you first find out the NIC handle > for your DNS server, use the whois interface's server command to > locate domains with NS records pointing to your server. > Here is an example to locate domains with NS records pointing at > my server, CNTFL.COM: I've been doing that for some time...trouble is, we're listed as authoratative for probably a thousand domains or more. yoda:~$ whois "server KASHM-HST" [rs.internic.net] Aborting search 256 records found ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)fdt.net> | I guess only the first 256 are Network Administrator | important :) Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____

1 0

1.1.1.0/24
by SASAKI Kazuyoshi 13 May '98

13 May '98

who's living here? -sasaki -------------------------------------------------- SJS1>sh ip bgp BGP table version is 15571821, local router ID is 158.205.224.4 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 1.1.1.0/24 204.70.158.109 80 0 3561 174 i * i 137.39.136.73 80 0 701 174 i *> 137.39.252.17 80 0 701 174 i ...snip... SJS1>ping 1.1.1.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echoes to 1.1.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 96/208/396 ms SJS1> --------------------------------------------------

1 0

Digex in Houston?
by Louis Destree 12 May '98

12 May '98

Can someone clueful from Digex fill me in on what's going on in Houston right now? Your NOC wouldn't say much, and had no ETA. Thanks, Louis -- Louis A. Destree Senior Network Engineer FlashNet Communications destree(a)flash.net

3 2

Re: Possible login/password grabbing ploy
by Vadim Antonov 12 May '98

12 May '98

Actually,if they are after stealing passwords, they can just as easily allow these domains to expire because of non-payment. --vadim From: John Butler <fez(a)mindspring.net> OB >Someone out there has money to blow. Expect to see forthcoming spam about the >vast moneymaking potential of misspelled donaims.

1 0

Re: Core router bakeoff?
by Harold Willison 12 May '98

12 May '98

At 03:39 PM 5/12/98 +0100, you wrote: >On Mon, 11 May 1998 12:13:27 +0200 > GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS <<herve.guesdon(a)cnet.francetelecom.fr> wrote: > >> I use both CISCO GRF400 and GateD. I think that GateD is the best >> easy to use and develop public routing software. But even if the GRF400 >> runs GateD, it's not as reliable as a CISCO 7500 per example. >> The GRF400 has to much bugs to be an operational backbone router. >> For example when you redistribute static routes via BGP, the GRF ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> redistributes the adress IP of the non telecommunication port to. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is rubbish and sounds like you haven't RTFMed. I redistribute >static routes throughout with the GRF and it works fine. We have no problem regarding the redistribution of statics routes on the GRF. I would address the issue exactly as hr brought up but I really do not understand what it is he was trying to say. >> The Ascend technical center is not helpful nor the documentation. >> And the performance are limited to an average of 50k pps per card. >I agree that the TAC is as good as useless the manuals of the GRF are >toilet paper, fortuently I've used BSD/OS and gated for a while so I >know my way around. > >I've seen a GRF tested to more than 50000 pps so I'd like to hear how >you came to that conclusion. The manual does suck. But, we have had pretty good tech support from ASCEND since the day they were installed. It really depends on who you speak to and how competent your sales engineer is. I guess we got lucky. > >> But with the time i think that the GRF could be a good alternative >> towards CISCO. > >Its already is a good alternative. We have repllaced all core routers with GRF's and working on the customer attached routers. The only real problem we have is that reconfiguring gateD takes down OSPF.. oh.. and that you have to slow down the GRF to keep it from killing Cisco's with BGP updates. > >Regards, >Neil. >-- >Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. >neil(a)DOMINO.ORG NetBSD-1.3 released! ftp://ftp.uk.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD > Free the daemon in your <<A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!<</A> > > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Harold Willison AGIS Network Engineering | * Network Engineer 313-730-5151 * | noc(a)agis.net 313-730-1130 | | harold(a)agis.net 24 hours a day, 7 days a week | | <bold><italic> <underline>http://www.agis.net</underline></italic></bold> |<bold><italic> </italic></bold>\*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*/

1 0

RE: Core router bakeoff?
by GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS 12 May '98

12 May '98

I use both CISCO GRF400 and GateD. I think that GateD is the best easy to use and develop public routing software. But even if the GRF400 runs GateD, it's not as reliable as a CISCO 7500 per example. The GRF400 has to much bugs to be an operational backbone router. For example when you redistribute static routes via BGP, the GRF redistributes the adress IP of the non telecommunication port to. The Ascend technical center is not helpful nor the documentation. And the performance are limited to an average of 50k pps per card. But with the time i think that the GRF could be a good alternative towards CISCO. hervé ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Hervé Guesdon CNET/DSE/SDL/LIR Tel : 01 45 29 43 74 e-mail herve.guesdon(a)cnet.francetelecom.fr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- what does a grape say when you step on it ? nothing just a little wine > ---------- > De : Andrew Bangs[SMTP:andrewb@demon.net] > Date : vendredi 8 mai 1998 03:10 > A : perry(a)piermont.com > Cc : jcgreen(a)netins.net; nanog(a)merit.edu > Objet : Re: Core router bakeoff? > > Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > Jon Green writes: > > > > but you are recommending a PC running GateD over a Bay router? > > > > At the low end, sure. They're cheap as all hell, easy to remote > > manage, easy to expand, and very efficient. With the right software, > > they are pretty damn nice. Lots of NSPs use the things these days -- > > Daemon in the U.K. used to do nothing but BSD boxes last time I > > checked. > > You mean Demon Internet ? > > We've branched out into Ascend GRFs too now ... couldn't find a > HSSI card for a PC that we were happy with, and the BSD-like > feel of the GRF appealed to us (it's nice to be able to run your > own binaries on your routers, like sshd). > > Still have lots of PCs. Typical spec would be something like: > P Pro 200, 128MB ram, OpenBSD 2.2, GateD 4.x, 4 Intel (or Digital) > fast ethernet cards. > > We're also having reasonable success with some of the 4-port ZNYX > ethernet cards. > > It's a solution that works so long as you don't want/need all the > ethernets running at wire speed, and you're prepared to learn how > GateD works. :) > > > Regards, > Andrew > -- > Andrew Bangs, Network Engineering Manager, Demon Internet Ltd > andrewb(a)demon.net http://www.demon.net/ http://www.demon.nl/ >

2 1

Re: Re (2): Core router bakeoff?
by shields＠crosslink.net 12 May '98

12 May '98

In article <199805081541.LAA00096(a)cctvw02.cctec.com>, Eric Germann <ekgermann(a)CCTEC.COM> wrote: > BTW, saw a great ad the other day from Nortel on y2k compliance on T1 > concentrators. Anyone have any idea why it matters in a mux, if it isn't > managed? Probably for the same reason Tripp-Lite UPSes are "Internet Ready" -- marketing buzzword completeness. -- Shields, CrossLink.

5 4

Re: Spam .. Find the sender !
by Jay Stewart 12 May '98

12 May '98

Jan, 153.35.0.0/16, 153.36.0.0/16, 153.37.0.0/16 *all* belong to UU.NET and are used for multiple nationwide ISP dialups. Send mail to abuse(a)uu.net, and consider blocking these prefixes from connecting to your SMTP servers. Jay Stewart Vice President Olympia Networking Services - "Olympia's Premier ISP" Phone (360) 753.3636 Fax (360) 357.6160 http://www.olywa.net --------------------- C:\>whois -h whois.arin.net 153.37.0.0 UUNET Technologies, Inc. (NET-UUNETCUSTB37) 3060 Williams Drive Fairfax, VA 22031 Netname: UUNETCUSTB37 Netnumber: 153.37.0.0 Coordinator: Uunet, AlterNet - Technical Support (OA12-ARIN) help(a)UUNET.UU.NET +1 (800) 900-0241 Alternate Contact: UUNET Postmaster (UUPM-ARIN) postmaster(a)uunet.uu.net 703-206-5440 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: HUGIN.UU.NET 153.39.242.112 MUNIN.UU.NET 153.39.242.113 AUTH60.NS.UU.NET 198.6.2.181 Record last updated on 21-May-97. Database last updated on 8-May-98 16:08:58 EDT. The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's. Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related Information and nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. -----Original Message----- From: Jan Czmok <czmok(a)ipf.de> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 9:19 AM Subject: Spam .. Find the sender ! >Hi! > >We got some spam mail from >> Received: from 1cust151.tnt1.tampa.fl.da.uu.net (HELO byte007) >(153.37.184.151) >> by relay.ipf.net with SMTP; 10 May 1998 04:47:58 -0000 > >and i cannot query the database (arin , ripe or radb) for the owner of >this network. >Any hints ? > >If we can find the sender, then we go for a hunt against this spammers. > >So far... > >Greetings > > >Jan Czmok >IPF.NET NOC > >more headers : > > Return-Path: hioqibua38(a)msn.com >> Delivery-Date: Sun May 10 04:48:03 1998 >> Received: (qmail 26693 invoked from network); 10 May 1998 04:48:03 >-0000 >> Received: from claven.cse.psu.edu (HELO cse.psu.edu) (130.203.3.50) >> by finch.cse.psu.edu with SMTP; 10 May 1998 04:48:03 -0000 >> Received: from relay.ipf.net (relay.ipf.net [195.88.0.13]) by >cse.psu.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA21505 for ><0000(a)0000.cs.psu.edu>; Sun, 10 May 1998 00:48:02 -0400 (EDT) >> Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:48:02 -0400 (EDT) >> From: hioqibua38(a)msn.com >> Received: (qmail 13706 invoked from network); 10 May 1998 04:47:58 >-0000 >> Received: from 1cust151.tnt1.tampa.fl.da.uu.net (HELO byte007) >(153.37.184.151) >> by relay.ipf.net with SMTP; 10 May 1998 04:47:58 -0000 >> To: hioqibua38(a)msn.com >> Comments: Authenticated sender is <hioqibua38(a)msn.com> >> Errors-To: shadow007(a)hotmail.com >> Subject: DO YOU KNOW HIS OR HER BACKGROUND??? >> Message-Id: <199805103688SAA3125(a)post.ipf.net> >

2 1

AT&T NOC?
by BOFH 11 May '98

11 May '98

AT&T are currently advertising 61.8/20 for some reason but 61.8/19 is one of my networks. I need to contact them urgently as this is affecting about half of my customers. I'v fired of an email to noc(a)att.net but havent got anything yet. Is this the correct address for their NOC or should I try elsewhere? -- Ben Buxton_____________________ o _ _--_|\ ZIP Internet P/L Zip Guy bb(a)zip.com.au /____|___|_)________/______\______________________ Voice: 9270-4777 | . \_.--._* Virtually Dial-in: 9247-7288, 9247-9144 Fax: 92475276 v the best :)

5 4