May 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Possible login/password grabbing ploy
by Darryl Baker 11 May '98

11 May '98

I have found that most of the common mis-spellings of our domain name have been registered with the Internic by a company named Americaoffline. Examples: concentic.net concentri.net concnetric.net consentric.net They have also grabbed other mis-spellings of popular domains Examples: aool.com bellsoth.com bellsuth.com hotmaiil.com mailexite.com pacbel.net spraynet.com Originally I thought they were using these to build a bulk email list. Then I found they have configured ftp addresses in each domain. This will allow them to gather valid usernames and passwords anytime someone makes a typo and trys to upload something to their ISP. We have listed their servers as bogus in our DNS configuration for now and are looking into other more complete solutions. Bind 8.X configuration addition: server 205.231.48.243 { bogus yes; }; server 205.231.48.244 { bogus yes; }; -- __ _ __ Darryl Baker / ) // / ) / Sr. Systems Engineer / / __. __ __ __ , // /--< __. /_ _ __ For the Concentric Network /__/_(_/|_/ (_/ (_/ (_/_</_ /___/_(_/|_/ <_</_/ (_ dpb(a)concentric.net / '

1 0

SMURF amplifier list...
by kbrown＠primelink.com 11 May '98

11 May '98

Directed mainly at Karl... Karl, you have the following on your updated list: MCI Telecommunications Corp - internetMCI Provisioning (NETBLK-MCI-NETBLK05) MCI-NETBLK05 206.24.0.0 - 206.31.255.255 I am the admin for 206.24.58 and 206.24.59 these two networks have been fixed to deny amplifying. Please remove at least these two networks from your list. Funny though... I can still view the page. *shrug*

2 1

Re: AT&T NOC?
by Brian Wilson 11 May '98

11 May '98

At 09:25 AM 5/9/98 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: >> Is this the correct address for their NOC or should I try elsewhere? > >This is not a NOC at all. This is a mailing list, read by quite a few >network operators, many of whom are not impressed by would be operators >who can not tell a mailing list from a NOC. Neither are they impressed by people who can't follow simple trains of thought and paragraph structure. >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? "This" referring to 'noc(a)att.net' and not 'nanog(a)merit.edu'. I think it was plain from his message ("I need to contact them" instead of "I need to contact you", etc) that he understood that 'nanog(a)merit.edu' isn't the address for AT&Ts NOC. It's not that I don't appreciate good flames, I just like them to be properly directed. SFTS. B/W/ Brian Wilson --- Engineer, MindSpring Network Operations Center wilsonb(a)mindspring.net http://www.mindspring.com Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. -- Nikita Khrushchev

2 1

Core router bakeoff?
by Rob M VanHooren 10 May '98

10 May '98

Hi, just a quickie (respond via e-mail, I'll summarize to the list)... Need to build a core NSP backbone. Who's equipment do I want: 1) cisco 2) Bay 3) 3Com Please include model, personal likes/dislikes, caveats, etc, etc... Thanks! Bakeoff ends May 31st/98... ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-.._..-*~ Rob M. VanHooren - Chief Plumber, +1 519 679-1155 x33 Packet Pusher, and Resident Mad Scientist(tm) Alarms to 646-4724 Network Engineering Services 171 Queens Avenue, Suite 320 Linkdata Communications Inc. London, CANADA

24 40

Re: Core router bakeoff?
by Sean Donelan 10 May '98

10 May '98

>A real example from our core: > >XXXXXXX-CoreX uptime is 38 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 49 minutes >System restarted by power-on XXXXXX>show version Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) GS Software (RSP-K-M), Version 10.3(7), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-1995 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Wed 01-Nov-95 14:07 by vatran Image text-base: 0x600087E0, data-base: 0x60530000 ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 5.3(16645) [szhang 571], INTERIM SOFTWARE ROM: GS Bootstrap Software (RSP-BOOT-M), Version 10.3(8), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2) XXXXXX uptime is 102 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 47 minutes System restarted by reload 10.3 was a fairly stable release. The longest running devices on our network are likely some DECserver 100's stuck somewhere long since forgotten. Every year or two, we get a phone call about terminals not working and it turns out the original load host for the terminal server had been upgraded several times in the last decade, and eventually retired from service. There is something to the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

5 4

Vendor support (Re: Core router bakeoff?)
by Sean Donelan 10 May '98

10 May '98

We pay for 4-hour premium 24x7 on-site response supposedly so I don't have to argue with Cisco whether they will have a tech on-site now, or next tuesday (Next business day from Saturday==Tuesday). At least that's the theory. Most of the time it works well, but last weekend we ended up having to escalate things through cisco's call center of the hour (wherever "M27542" ends up) because the cisco person on the other end kept insisting that 4-hour response meant only Monday through Friday. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! I was thinking up some very interesting variations of Cisco Certified I.... in my head. >An anecdote that is related to this... > >In January, on the day we (NACS.NET) had our open house, the RSP-2 >board in our 7513 (which we bought used) died. > >Cisco worked with us to get a replacement in four hours, even though they >were only contractually obligated to 24 hours. > >Kudos to Cisco's Cleveland office for going WAY beyond the call of duty. > >And when I'm ready to buy a dedicated router, it WILL be a Cisco. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Y2K
by Sean Donelan 09 May '98

09 May '98

Since the rest of this has nothing to do with routers, for Randy: clock set 00:00:00 1 jan 2000 >I don't but its an opportunity to sell the client. And if you don't test it I >recommend you don't get quoted saying it doesn't matter unless you want a >lawsuit if anything happens. > >Customers want everything in writing to be Year 200 compliant or not having any >affect on their operation and in many cases regulators are mandating it in >writing. Funny how the customer wants it to be Y2K compliant, but they have no problem with the rest of the software licenses that says "In no event does xxxxx warrant that the Software is error free or that Customer will be able to operate the Software without problems or interruptions." Quoted directly from a very well-known vendor's license agreement, who has issued big press releases about their Year 2000 Compliance program. Its even going to be 'certified.' Whoopie! How about a challange, instead of issuing press releases about the Y2K compliance, just remove the above sentence from your license agreement and stand behind your product. If something fails, does it really matter why it fails? The problem is it failed. Some users have become so accustomed to using CTL-ALT-DEL, they think its a normal part of the software function. Why do I have this feeling on January 3, 2000 (fortunately Jan 1, 2000 is a Saturday), the same number of users are going to get the 'blue-screen of death' as on every other day between now and then; but on the CBS evening news Dan Rather's replacement will gravely report that millions of computers got the 'blue screen of death' because its the year 2000. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re (2): Core router bakeoff?
by jkucic＠kpmg.com 09 May '98

09 May '98

Eric Germann <ekgermann(a)cctec.com>,Internet writes: Given that Cisco built their routers for them, and then they pissed off Cisco to the point where they didn't renew there code license for IOS in there hubs because of their anti Cisco marketing campaign. It was a limited 4000 Router. Only two slots instead of three. Cabletron is now pushing their new SmartSwitch Router that they acquired when they purchased YAGO systems. They claim its an ISP backbone quality router (honest its on their web page). But I don't believe it does BGP4. Cabletron has a bad rap with consultants. Don't ever try to partner with them and walk them in someplace. They are the borg, you will be assimilated. Hey, you haven't spoken with your local Cabletron rep lately; Cabletron is pushing channel relationships again. Now that I ragged on em, they do have solid stuff. I have one client who has had their MMAC hubs up and running for about 8 years with narry a hiccup. And these are in rotten basements. You are right but is it Year 2000 compliant? Thanks, Joe Kucic

5 4

Re: Core router bakeoff?
by shields＠crosslink.net 09 May '98

09 May '98

In article <199805081728.NAA19463(a)persephone.ny.ans.net>, Selina Priestley <selina(a)ans.net> wrote: > One PC remote management win is that you can actually have secure > encrypted access/authentication for remote management, rather than > relying passwords in the clear and tftp. This is lacking in all > router venders at this instant, far as I know. Cisco has support for Kerberized telnet in some images -- good luck getting it to work, though. -- Shields, CrossLink.

1 0

Re: Core router bakeoff?
by Selina Priestley 09 May '98

09 May '98

> > In short, unless you have numbers to indicate otherwise, I can't say > that PCs cost you much, in the short term or the long term. > > What Cisco's will buy you is better handling of T3s, SONET, etc., and > the ability to handle much higher performance lines. They also have > much better remote management facilities, in so far as the things have > real serial consoles and such, which PCs don't. > > Perry One PC remote management win is that you can actually have secure encrypted access/authentication for remote management, rather than relying passwords in the clear and tftp. This is lacking in all router venders at this instant, far as I know. Selina

3 2