September 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Strange BGP announcement.
by Neil J. McRae 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP RECV 207.45.199.225+179 -> 207.45.199.226+1935 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP RECV message type 2 (Update) length 71 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code Origin(1): Incomplete Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code ASPath(2): 6453 701 65525 ((65523)) 356 1 1691 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code NextHop(3): 207.45.199.225 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP RECV 204.174.40/24, 204.239.26/24, 204.239.27/24, 204 .239.147/24 Aug 6 13:46:20 Aug 6 13:46:20 bnp_path_attr_eer: peer 207.45.199.225 (External AS 6453) bad up date send NOTIFY flag 0 type 0 err_subcode 11, data 0 Aug 6 13:46:20 NOTIFICATION sent to 207.45.199.225 (External AS 6453): code 3 ( Update Message Error) subcode 11 (AS path attribute problem) data Aug 6 13:46:20 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP SEND 207.45.199.226+1935 -> 207.45.199.225+179 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP SEND message type 3 (Notification) length 21 Aug 6 13:46:20 BGP SEND Notification code 3 (Update Message Error) subcode 11 ( AS path attribute problem) Aug 6 13:46:20 Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night 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>

10 14

Frame Relay encap vis-a-vis point-to-point at UUNET
by Barry L James 23 Oct '98

23 Oct '98

Hey all, We just got a third T1, this time through UUNet and when I looked at their router configuration I got a little surprise. We ordered a point-to-point circuit that is being terminated at their detroit POP. The configuration, however, sets up the line as a frame relay encap on a sub-interface (on a Cisco, of course :). When I talked to my UUNet rep he advised that this was the way "every large ISP did it" which I knew wasn't exactly true since our MCI and AT&T (just recently transitioned from the BBN backbone to the AT&T network) does not use this configuration. He insisted that it was still a point to point and that the frame relay encapsulation was used to enhance the connection. Well, I had him grab an engineer (he was an SE) that could possibly explain it better to me (since the SE said F/R was used to decrease RIP broadcasts across their backbone) and the engineer said this (basically): the circuit is terminated in a cascade 9000 f/r switch (used for port density) which went to a HSSI interface in a Cisco 7xxx series router which connected directly to their ATM network. Therefore, the f/r encaps were needed to speak with the cascade. The engineer advised we had a full CIR and would not suffer any bandwidth loss from using f/r encap. Now, I guess my question is: am I getting sold the brooklyn bridge here? I mean, not that I wouldn't like to *own* the brooklyn bridge (well, I'd rather have the triboro or the washington, but anyway...). Is this f/r encap going have any adverse affect on the quality of this connection (assuming that this is *NOT* a point-to-point into a frame cloud) or am I getting shoveled a load of copralite? Thanks! Barry Barry L James | Mikrotec Internet Services, Inc (AS3801) Director R & D | 1001 Winchester Rd bjames(a)mis.net | Lexington KY 40505 http://www.mis.net/ | 606/266.5925 800/875.5095 Member AAAI, IEEE # 40277528 --- Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. -- Winston Churchill

11 12

Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed?
by Barry Shein 10 Oct '98

10 Oct '98

We've been having increasing problems with one or more porn sites in the .to domain promoting itself by massive spamming of AOL customers using one of our domains in their From: header thus causing both complaints to us and thousands of bounces from AOL due to bad AOL addresses in their spam lists. Looking at the .to domain I can't help but notice it's heavily laden with what appear to be porn sites (sexonline.to, come.to, xxxhardcore.to, etc.) 1. Performing traceroutes and other analyses seems to indicate that this domain is NOT being used for communication with entities legitimately located (legally, not only geographically) within the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Tonga, as intended. 2. Clearly criminal and malicious activites are arising from sites to which Tonga has provided comfort and sanctuary. 3. Therefore, I call for a process whereby it can be determined as to whether or not it is appropriate to decommission the Tongan domain due to negligence, mismanagement, and having allowed it to become an attractive resource for criminal activities. I do not believe the Tongan domain serves any legitimate purpose as an internet resource. In support of this assertion I want to show you an SMTP conversation with what claims to be the Consulate of the Government of Tonga in San Francisco (This San Francisco office is listed as an official Tongan contact point for visas etc by the US State Dept): world% telnet sfconsulate.gov.to 25 Trying 209.24.51.169... Connected to sfconsulate.gov.to. Escape character is '^]'. 220 colo.to SMTP ready, Who are you gonna pretend to be today? VRFY postmaster 500 Bloody Amateur! Proper forging of mail requires recognizable SMTP commands! -------------------- Viewing the web page for the Tongan Consulate in the US (http://sfconsulate.gov.to) reveals nothing but an ad for a software company, this page ends with: Need a domain name? Contact the Kingdom of Tonga Internet domain name registry. -------------------- Consequently, I assert there is no reason for this domain to exist and it should be removed from the root name servers. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.world.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*

39 144

MCI or Sprint NNI to GTE?
by Scott Michel 09 Oct '98

09 Oct '98

I've got an unique situation which I'm more than happy to elucidate via private e-mail which has me asking the question, "Does MCI or Sprint have an NNI to GTE's ATM cloud in So. Cal?" -scooter -- Scott Michel scottm(a)aero.org Member of Technical Staff, CSRD 310/336-5034 The Aerospace Corporation

2 1

NDAs
by Jennifer DePalma 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Since a thread related to nondisclosure agreements has been brought up and I have been mulling over this topic lately, I'd like to know your opinions on whether or not the practice of requiring NDAs will continue. Are free market pressures working against such a model? Can secretive pricing really be sustained over a long period of time? It makes me think of when market economies first began. A lot of haggling took place, and buyers didn't always know what prices others were buying at. Some might buy the chicken for a quart of milk, others might have to hand over a whole cow. As the market matured, fixed pricing became more the rule of thumb for efficiency and expediency reasons. Bargaining still takes place but mainly with small "mom-and-pop" sort of shops and in more informal markets. A haggled down discount at Barnes & Nobles seems inconceivable. (Of course, a customer can haggle down a car salesman--or at least think he is--and individual car lots might receive periodic discounts from the factories...) An effective marketing strategy for a competitor of WorldCom might be open pricing. Am I right? Wrong? I'd like to see pricing become open, but I don't want the government outlawing NDAs. Perhaps NDAs are a market experiment that won't hold up? Thanks, Jennifer At 10:41 AM 9/16/98 -0400, you wrote: >last i checked www.spicegirls.com wasn't on the exodus network. > >i think it's on netkonect.net > >whitehouse.com is on exodus though... ;) > >as per the contractual issues, all they told lowly engineers like myself >was that we could disclose publicly the fact: > >1. we have reached a solution with GTEi >2. it includes expanding ds3's with them >3. we're not buying transit or paying for peering >4. we're like friends and stuff now... ;) > >i'm sure when bowman gets up, he'll have something to say. he probably has >a LOT more insight into #3 > >-dhiraj >sr. systems engineer, exodus communications > > > >On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Adam Rothschild wrote: > >> > > Hmm.. not to start another massive thread here, but I wonder if this means >> > > that Exodus is now paying for transit and/or peering? >> > >> > Disclosure of this information is probally violation of >> > the agreement, so unless you work for one of them, or know >> > someone who does, you won't find out. >> >> Indeed. Point well taken. >> >> Still, I have a funny feeling that GTEI/BBN is being compensated royally >> for this. This would have never happened otherwise, methinks. >> >> I doubt Mr. Curran is doing this simply to allow himself and his customers >> to continue accesssing quality Exodus-hosted content, such as the Spice >> Girls and whitehouse.com. Then again, I could be mistaken! :-) >> >> > > ***************************** After September 25, please respond to jdepalma(a)alumni.princeton.edu Jennifer A. DePalma 202.789.5226 202.842.3490 (fax) Research Analyst Telecommunications and Technology Studies Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001

3 2

Re: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed?
by Andy Walden 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

I have a legit .to domain. I paid $100 for it like any .com domain, which of course has no porn sites. or something... Sincerely, Andy Walden System Administrator MTCO Communications 1-800-859-6826 On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Barry Shein wrote: > > We've been having increasing problems with one or more porn sites in > the .to domain promoting itself by massive spamming of AOL customers > using one of our domains in their From: header thus causing both > complaints to us and thousands of bounces from AOL due to bad AOL > addresses in their spam lists. > > Looking at the .to domain I can't help but notice it's heavily laden > with what appear to be porn sites (sexonline.to, come.to, > xxxhardcore.to, etc.) > > 1. Performing traceroutes and other analyses seems to indicate that > this domain is NOT being used for communication with entities > legitimately located (legally, not only geographically) within the > sovereignty of the Kingdom of Tonga, as intended. > > 2. Clearly criminal and malicious activites are arising from sites to > which Tonga has provided comfort and sanctuary. > > 3. Therefore, I call for a process whereby it can be determined as to > whether or not it is appropriate to decommission the Tongan domain due > to negligence, mismanagement, and having allowed it to become an > attractive resource for criminal activities. I do not believe the > Tongan domain serves any legitimate purpose as an internet resource. > > In support of this assertion I want to show you an SMTP conversation > with what claims to be the Consulate of the Government of Tonga in San > Francisco (This San Francisco office is listed as an official Tongan > contact point for visas etc by the US State Dept): > > world% telnet sfconsulate.gov.to 25 > Trying 209.24.51.169... > Connected to sfconsulate.gov.to. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 colo.to SMTP ready, Who are you gonna pretend to be today? > VRFY postmaster > 500 Bloody Amateur! Proper forging of mail requires recognizable SMTP commands! > > -------------------- > > Viewing the web page for the Tongan Consulate in the US > (http://sfconsulate.gov.to) reveals nothing but an ad for a software > company, this page ends with: > > Need a domain name? Contact the Kingdom of Tonga Internet domain name > registry. > > -------------------- > > Consequently, I assert there is no reason for this domain to exist and > it should be removed from the root name servers. > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.world.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* >

11 19

It's 1998; do you know where your packets are?
by Barry L James 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

This isn't entirely operational in nature, but if true does somewhat have an impact on what we are operating. You can find the entire text at www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15295.html but here are a few snippets to give you an idea of what it's about. "In October, Europe's governing body will commission a full report into the workings of Echelon, a global network of highly sensitive listening posts operated in part by America's most clandestine intelligence organization, the National Security Agency. " "Echelon is reportedly able to intercept, record, and translate any electronic communication -- telephone, data, cellular, fax, email, telex -- sent anywhere in the world. " "Echelon intercepts Internet traffic at the transport layer, such as the TCP/IP layer, so the system doesn't care too much what it is or where it came from," said Pike. "For analog traffic, such as telephone conversations, it uses automatic voice-recognition technology to scan the conversations." Seems far fetched (but not *that* far), but worth a read. Barry --- Barry L James \ \ I have known them all already, known them all. Mendicant \ \ I have known the mornings, evenings, afternoons. www.terraware.net \ \ I have measured my life with coffee spoons. blj(a)terraware.net ____/ \________________________ T.S. Eliot

3 2

InterNIC modification
by william＠pacific.net.ph 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

Hi all! Is it Internic becoming slower in their modifications? We have sent a modification request twice and until now - nothing has happened.... William ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:24:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Domain Registration Role Account <domreg(a)internic.net> To: armand(a)shell.egis.net Subject: Re: [NIC-980924.46494] Re: MODIFY DOMAIN dwrt.com Your request NIC-980924.46494 for [NIC-980924.46494] Re: MODIFY DOMAIN dwrt.com. could not be automatically processed. The request has been queued for manual processing. It will be processed within 5 business days. InterNIC Registration Services email hostmaster(a)internic.net voice (703) 742-4777 ============================================================ >From armand(a)shell.egis.net Thu Sep 24 16:48:22 1998 >Received: from opsmail.internic.net (opsmail.internic.net [198.41.0.91]) > by mail-hub.internic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04873 > for <hostmaster(a)mail-hub.internic.net>; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:48:21 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from biprrs3.lb (biprrs3.lb.internic.net [192.168.120.41]) > by opsmail.internic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA16745 > for <hostmaster(a)internic.net>; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:47:54 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (qmail 23915 invoked from network); 24 Sep 1998 05:58:06 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO shell.egis.net) (202.163.235.6) > by 192.168.119.41 with SMTP; 24 Sep 1998 05:58:06 -0000 >Received: by shell.egis.net (Smail3.1.29.1 #57) > id m0zMFSJ-001SlLC; Thu, 24 Sep 98 13:45 EDT >Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT) >From: Armand Hernandez <armand(a)shell.egis.net> >To: hostmaster(a)internic.net >Subject: [NIC-980924.46494] Re: MODIFY DOMAIN dwrt.com >In-Reply-To: <199809240552.BAA17662(a)rrs2.lb.internic.net> >Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.90.980924134523.9387A-100000(a)shell.egis.net> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >X-MTS-Ticket: 980924.46494 >X-MTS-Type: Domain >X-MTS-Mode: Modify >X-MTS-Priority: Normal >X-MTS-Status: Open >X-MTS-Timestamp: 980924164822 > > > > >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 hostmaster(a)internic.net wrote: > >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> This is the Domain Name Registration Agreement you >> recently created. >> In order to complete this modification, >> >> YOU MUST E-MAIL THIS FORM TO: hostmaster(a)internic.net >> >> After you e-mail this form, you should receive an auto-reply >> with a tracking number. You must use that number in the >> Subject of any future messages you send regarding >> this registration action. >> Once this registration action is completed you will receive >> a notification via e-mail. >> >> [ URL http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/domain ] [ 03/98 ] >> [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/domain-template.txt ] [ 03/98 ] >> >> ******* Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number or Sections A-Q ******** >> >> Domain Version Number: 4.0 >> >> ******* Email completed agreement to hostmaster(a)internic.net ******* >> >> NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. >> >> DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AGREEMENT >> >> >> A. Introduction. This domain name registration agreement >> ("Registration Agreement") is submitted to NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. >> ("NSI") for the purpose of applying for and registering a domain name >> on the Internet. If this Registration Agreement is accepted by NSI, >> and a domain name is registered in NSI's domain name database and >> assigned to the Registrant, Registrant ("Registrant") agrees to be >> bound by the terms of this Registration Agreement and the terms of >> NSI's Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Dispute Policy") which is >> incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Registration >> Agreement. This Registration Agreement shall be accepted at the >> offices of NSI. >> >> B. Fees and Payments. >> >> 1) Registration or renewal (re-registration) date through March 31, 1998: >> Registrant agrees to pay a registration fee of One Hundred United States >> Dollars (US) as consideration for the registration of each new domain >> name or Fifty United States Dollars (US) to renew (re-register) an >> existing registration. >> 2) Registration or renewal date on and after April 1, 1998: Registrant >> agrees to pay a registration fee of Seventy United States Dollars (US) >> as consideration for the registration of each new domain name or the >> applicable renewal (re-registration) fee (currently Thirty-Five United >> States Dollars (US)) at the time of renewal (re-registration). >> 3) Period of Service: The non-refundable fee covers a period of two (2) >> years for each new registration, and one (1) year for each renewal, >> and includes any permitted modification(s) to the domain name record >> during the covered period. >> 4) Payment: Payment is due to Network Solutions within thirty (30) >> days from the date of the invoice. >> >> C. Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees, as a condition to >> submitting this Registration Agreement, and if the Registration >> Agreement is accepted by NSI, that the Registrant shall be bound by >> NSI's current Dispute Policy. The current version of the Dispute >> Policy may be found at the InterNIC Registration Services web site: >> "http://www.netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html". >> >> D. Dispute Policy Changes or Modifications. Registrant agrees >> that NSI, in its sole discretion, may change or modify the Dispute >> Policy, incorporated by reference herein, at any time. Registrant >> agrees that Registrant's maintaining the registration of a domain name >> after changes or modifications to the Dispute Policy become effective >> constitutes Registrant's continued acceptance of these changes or >> modifications. Registrant agrees that if Registrant considers any such >> changes or modifications to be unacceptable, Registrant may request >> that the domain name be deleted from the domain name database. >> >> E. Disputes. Registrant agrees that, if the registration of its >> domain name is challenged by any third party, the Registrant will be >> subject to the provisions specified in the Dispute Policy. >> >> F. Agents. Registrant agrees that if this Registration Agreement >> is completed by an agent for the Registrant, such as an ISP or >> Administrative Contact/Agent, the Registrant is nonetheless bound as a >> principal by all terms and conditions herein, including the Dispute >> Policy. >> >> G. Limitation of Liability. Registrant agrees that NSI shall have >> no liability to the Registrant for any loss Registrant may incur in >> connection with NSI's processing of this Registration Agreement, in >> connection with NSI's processing of any authorized modification to the >> domain name's record during the covered period, as a result of the >> Registrant's ISP's failure to pay either the initial registration fee >> or renewal fee, or as a result of the application of the provisions of >> the Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees that in no event shall the >> maximum liability of NSI under this Agreement for any matter exceed >> Five Hundred United States Dollars (US). >> >> H. Indemnity. Registrant agrees, in the event the Registration >> Agreement is accepted by NSI and a subsequent dispute arises with any >> third party, to indemnify and hold NSI harmless pursuant to the terms >> and conditions contained in the Dispute Policy. >> >> I. Breach. Registrant agrees that failure to abide by any >> provision of this Registration Agreement or the Dispute Policy may be >> considered by NSI to be a material breach and that NSI may provide a >> written notice, describing the breach, to the Registrant. If, within >> thirty (30) days of the date of mailing such notice, the Registrant >> fails to provide evidence, which is reasonably satisfactory to NSI, >> that it has not breached its obligations, then NSI may delete >> Registrant's registration of the domain name. Any such breach by a >> Registrant shall not be deemed to be excused simply because NSI did >> not act earlier in response to that, or any other, breach by the >> Registrant. >> >> J. No Guaranty. Registrant agrees that, by registration of a >> domain name, such registration does not confer immunity from objection >> to either the registration or use of the domain name. >> >> K. Warranty. Registrant warrants by submitting this Registration >> Agreement that, to the best of Registrant's knowledge and belief, the >> information submitted herein is true and correct, and that any future >> changes to this information will be provided to NSI in a timely manner >> according to the domain name modification procedures in place at that >> time. Breach of this warranty will constitute a material breach. >> >> L. Revocation. Registrant agrees that NSI may delete a >> Registrant's domain name if this Registration Agreement, or subsequent >> modification(s) thereto, contains false or misleading information, or >> conceals or omits any information NSI would likely consider material >> to its decision to approve this Registration Agreement. >> >> M. Right of Refusal. NSI, in its sole discretion, reserves the >> right to refuse to approve the Registration Agreement for any >> Registrant. Registrant agrees that the submission of this Registration >> Agreement does not obligate NSI to accept this Registration Agreement. >> Registrant agrees that NSI shall not be liable for loss or damages >> that may result from NSI's refusal to accept this Registration >> Agreement. >> >> N. Severability. Registrant agrees that the terms of this >> Registration Agreement are severable. If any term or provision is >> declared invalid, it shall not affect the remaining terms or >> provisions which shall continue to be binding. >> >> O. Entirety. Registrant agrees that this Registration Agreement >> and the Dispute Policy is the complete and exclusive agreement between >> Registrant and NSI regarding the registration of Registrant's domain >> name. This Registration Agreement and the Dispute Policy supersede all >> prior agreements and understandings, whether established by custom, >> practice, policy, or precedent. >> >> P. Governing Law. Registrant agrees that this Registration >> Agreement shall be governed in all respects by and construed in >> accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United >> States of America. By submitting this Registration Agreement, >> Registrant consents to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the >> United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, >> Alexandria Division. If there is no jurisdiction in the United States >> District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria >> Division, then jurisdiction shall be in the Circuit Court of Fairfax >> County, Fairfax, Virginia. >> >> Q. This is Domain Name Registration Agreement Version >> Number 4.0. This Registration Agreement is only for registrations >> under top-level domains: COM, ORG, NET, and EDU. By completing >> and submitting this Registration Agreement for consideration and >> acceptance by NSI, the Registrant agrees that he/she has read and >> agrees to be bound by A through P above. >> >> Authorization >> 0a. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.........: M >> 0b. Auth Scheme.....................: >> 0c. Auth Info.......................: >> >> 1. Comments........................: >> >> 2. Complete Domain Name............: dwrt.com >> >> Organization Using Domain Name >> 3a. Organization Name................: 99.5 RT >> 3b. Street Address..................: 14/F JAKA (Royal Match) Bldg., 6780 Ayala Avenue >> 3c. City............................: Makati >> 3d. State...........................: MM >> 3e. Postal Code.....................: 1200 >> 3f. Country.........................: PH >> >> Administrative Contact >> 4a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JRL17 >> 4b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual >> 4c. Name (Last, First)..............: >> 4d. Organization Name...............: >> 4e. Street Address..................: >> 4f. City............................: >> 4g. State...........................: >> 4h. Postal Code.....................: >> 4i. Country.........................: >> 4j. Phone Number....................: >> 4k. Fax Number......................: >> 4l. E-Mailbox.......................: >> >> Technical Contact >> 5a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JRL17 >> 5b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual >> 5c. Name(Last, First)...............: >> 5d. Organization Name...............: >> 5e. Street Address..................: >> 5f. City............................: >> 5g. State...........................: >> 5h. Postal Code.....................: >> 5i. Country.........................: >> 5j. Phone Number....................: >> 5k. Fax Number......................: >> 5l. E-Mailbox.......................: >> >> Billing Contact >> 6a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JRL17 >> 6b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual >> 6c. Name (Last, First)..............: >> 6d. Organization Name...............: >> 6e. Street Address..................: >> 6f. City............................: >> 6g. State...........................: >> 6h. Postal Code.....................: >> 6i. Country.........................: >> 6j. Phone Number....................: >> 6k. Fax Number......................: >> 6l. E-Mailbox.......................: >> >> Prime Name Server >> 7a. Primary Server Hostname.........: NS1.PACIFIC.NET.PH >> 7b. Primary Server Netaddress.......: 210.23.234.33 >> >> Secondary Name Server(s) >> 8a. Secondary Server Hostname.......: NS2.PACIFIC.NET.PH >> 8b. Secondary Server Netaddress.....: 210.23.234.65 >> >> >> END OF AGREEMENT >> >> >> For instructions, please refer to: >> "http://rs.internic.net/help/instructions.txt" >> >>

7 9

.cc domain spam
by Jon Lewis 30 Sep '98

30 Sep '98

Are others being spammed on their NIC contact addresses by domainspace.com trying to sell .cc domains? Received: from domainspace.com ([209.203.244.14]) by yoda.fdt.net with ESMTP id UAA01623 for <jlewis(a)FDT.NET>; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 20:19:03 -0400 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____

14 20

Fiber outage for BBN 29 Sep
by Andy McConnell 30 Sep '98

30 Sep '98

Curious - no one seemed to mention BBN Planet's "major" fiber cut yesterday. Their trouble system "shortcutted" calls to an automated message saying there were two major cuts in the Texas and Washington DC area. their ticket was #273439. As a BBN customer, we had trouble getting out of BBN all morning, and by early afternoon things were fine. Did anyone on the list see this sort of trouble? -Andy -- Andy McConnell アンディマッコネル Network Architect, NTT Multimedia Communications Laboratories Freedom means that, in time of war, good men and women will be asked to risk their lives because we think it better to die free than to live as slaves.

2 1