February 1999 - Test - lists.nanog.org

agis outage?
by Dan Hollis 26 Feb '99

26 Feb '99

Just been notified AGIS lost power at their Santa Clara POP, running on backup batteries at the moment. ETA to total failure is 12:00 noon :-( Santa Clara is the cross connect for most of AGIS' network? -Dan

1 0

buggy server re-directors? buggy NATs? Too much RFC 1918 traffic on the net!
by woods＠most.weird.com 26 Feb '99

26 Feb '99

I've been seeing a growing amount of traffic of various sorts from various public internet sites that has a source address in an RFC 1918 private net. In some cases because I have servers running multi-homed on administrative LANs which use these private networks, and because I've installed filters to ensure traffic isn't coming from the wrong nets on the wrong interfaces, this is even causing some services and requests to fail. (Eg. source quenches coming from private nets where even if the filters didn't exist the desired effect is not achieved.) I'm also seeing a growing number of requests on a couple of my transparent web cache machines that seem to be directed at hosts in RFC 1918 private networks -- i.e. it would appear as though the URLs refer either directly to private networks, or perhaps some domain names used in publicly accessible URLs resolve to point at private nets. I'm almost tempted to try and implement a DNS proxy that'll refuse to allow any responses from foreign nameservers to contain RFC 1918 addresses (and of course ensure that my internal DNS is authoritative for all the necessary in-addr.arpa zones). I suspect what's happening is that people are putting load-balanced servers behind service re-directors and are running these servers on RFC 1918 private networks in hopes that the re-director will do the appropriate NAT. Unfortunately most of these re-directors are not yet sophisticated enough to work as full proxies, and they often fail to properly translate associated packets, such as related ICMP traffic. (As has been amply evidenced by the extremely common failure of Path-MTU discovery from several such load-balancing devices.) In cases where I can identify the owners of the errant servers from my filter logs and/or from simple tcpdump traces I do attempt to contact them. However I'd rather try a more preventative approach, perhaps by making this issue more widely known, and perhaps by educating vendors and implementors of devices that might be causing these problems of what mistakes they might be making. I'm interested in exchanging information about these issues with other operators and in trying to track down and identify devices that might be letting some such private traffic slip through, and of course in helping to find and implement fixes to these problems. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods(a)acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods(a)weird.com>

1 0

Re: FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature
by Brett_Watson＠enron.net 26 Feb '99

26 Feb '99

would everyone please go *read* the document first? http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9014.html -brett

1 0

FW: FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature
by James D. Wilson 26 Feb '99

26 Feb '99

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990225.enfccisp.htm FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature By Nancy Weil InfoWorld Electric Posted at 10:58 AM PT, Feb 25, 1999 In a long-anticipated vote, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday decided that dial-up Internet calls are interstate in nature and not local. The ruling overturns state decisions holding that dial-up calls to the Internet are local. The decision also could mean that local phone companies will be able to assess usage-sensitive access charges on ISPs, the FCC suggested in a statement Thursday regarding its vote. Without the so-called "Enhanced Service Provider Exemption," consumers might have to pay per-minute fees for dialing into the Internet on local lines, however not all Internet access calls necessarily will be charged at long distance rates. --------------------- 8< snip - James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)

5 5

Re: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd)
by Eric Germann 26 Feb '99

26 Feb '99

Uh folks, when did you ever request it be removed? Show me some documentation of the request, in writing. Also, how are you going to get the email message removed by Merit and the thousands of users who may have it sitting in their personal archives? What part of it is incorrect? This is a historical mail message posted to a list 14 months ago. We simply HTML format the archives from Merit. If you can get Merit to remove it, we will automatically remove it since we HTML format their archives, unedited. Dear NANOG readers, should I edit the archives and the search engine? Should I become an "offensive material editor" for any and all parties Eric ---Special FX Communications wrote: > > > Since you have refused to remove this page as requested we have been > forced to begin legal action and this information will be forward to our > attorneys in Boston. Again if this page is not removed immediately we will > be seeking damages against any and all who provide service to this page. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:06:58 -0500 (EST) > From: Special FX Communications <spfx(a)boston.special-fx.com> > To: dennis(a)bconnex.net, nanog(a)merit.edu, dougd(a)airmail.net, > owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > Cc: ekgermann(a)CCTEC.COM, abuse(a)cctec.com, abuse(a)digex.net > Subject: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html > > Notice to all: > > To all involved with and providing service to the page located at > "http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html", > please remove this page immediately since the information on this page is > old and no longer correct or appropriate. If this page is not removed > within the next 48 hours we will have no choice but to take legal action > against all involved in this site and anyone providing service to it. > > Special FX Communications > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

5 4

FYI New Jam space please update filters
by Richard Irving 25 Feb '99

25 Feb '99

New JAM space, please everyone update the filters..... BGP routing table entry for 198.32.187.0/24, version 2889259 Paths: (1 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP, EBGP) 666 701 701 208.227.1.173 from 208.227.1.173 (208.222.222.20) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 102, valid, external, best Not good. :\

2 1

RE: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd)
by James D. Wilson 25 Feb '99

25 Feb '99

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Arguing that the page is libelous is better left to land-sharks as IANAL. In your earlier post you said that the message referred to a condition caused by a clue-impaired employee who had left the server open to relay-rape. In any case continuing the discussion here only ensures that there are more posts in the archives about the issue which could turn up in future searches. - - James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) - -----Original Message----- From: Special FX Communications [mailto:spfx@boston.special-fx.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 3:25 AM To: James D. Wilson Cc: ekgermann(a)cctec.com; dennis(a)bconnex.net; nanog(a)merit.edu; dougd(a)airmail.net; owner-nanog(a)merit.edu; abuse(a)cctec.com; abuse(a)digex.net Subject: RE: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd) "Threatening to sue over publication of the truth" There has been no truth proven here... You show no example of any wrong doing, thus this page is inaccuracte and should be removed immediately... We asked to have it removed on Feb 13 but we were ignored. It wasn't until we forwarded this information to our attorneys that we began to get response but without merit. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals iQA/AwUBNtVdQzAufbtGOmgdEQLuMgCfVAG8JEFTQP5gPrXRt1boKXS1cHgAoP6I 4dNOnQ0k+Ha/FfVEIZ37/ozB =V8eN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd)
by James D. Wilson 25 Feb '99

25 Feb '99

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Then let your current efforts speak to the problem. Every organization makes mistakes, have employees act clueless, etc. This is understandable, and if corrected, forgivable. It sounds like your company has addressed the problem. If anyone asks about it, tell the truth, and explain how you fixed the problem. Asking (or in your case rather forcefully threatening/demanding) a historical archive of a mailing list to selectively purge their records is not the answer. An archive is just that, and what you are asking for defeats the purpose of the archive; furthermore it is not likely to result in erasing the record as there are likely to be cached copies elsewhere. If you are worried that the post will show up in web searches, then publish a followup page and submit it to the search engines so it comes up along with the original post. Threatening to sue over publication of the truth makes you look far worse than having made a mistake a year and a half ago and then acknowledging and fixing the problem. - - James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) - -----Original Message----- From: Special FX Communications [mailto:spfx@boston.special-fx.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 7:57 PM To: James D. Wilson Cc: ekgermann(a)cctec.com; dennis(a)bconnex.net; nanog(a)merit.edu; dougd(a)airmail.net; owner-nanog(a)merit.edu; abuse(a)cctec.com; abuse(a)digex.net Subject: RE: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd) All we are asking it to clear the slate. If e-mail was sent through our servers (which may have happened back then since it was so long ago and the sys admin we had at the time had no clue what he was doing), we have put measures in place to prevent anything like that from happening. We are continuing to improve our servers and service. We are in the process of hiring all new staff and make our service better than ever. We are currently adding a T3 and in the next 2 to 4 month we will have another T3 and we are adding 50 to 75 new servers. You can see that we are investing a lot in our service and we don't need some stupid little page like this with inaccurate information hanging over us. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals iQA/AwUBNtT2cjAufbtGOmgdEQKYKQCfTPycwzOYnpoEOAG8Nk/rSipoN/8AoIdS TpHbKgOpnasnY7ho2ncQgmLu =dFZx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: GateD + OSPF Q
by Andrea Di Lecce 24 Feb '99

24 Feb '99

At 10:34 2/24/99 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Brandon Applegate wrote: > >> Would a question about GateD with OSPF be off topic for the list ?? > >Yes I disagree. The main reason I personally read this list is to listen and learn. It would be a sad state of affairs if an operational or technical question was off-topic, don't you think ? Andrea. ************************************************** Andrea Di Lecce (416) 935-6485 Rogers@Home Network Operations 1 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto, M4Y 2Y5 **************************************************

2 1

GateD + OSPF Q
by Brandon Applegate 24 Feb '99

24 Feb '99

Would a question about GateD with OSPF be off topic for the list ?? If so, where should a post like this go ?? PS: We're not a GateD consortium member or anything, just and end user of the freely availible version. Brandon Applegate, CCNA Network Administrator OneNet Communications 9944 Reading Road Cincinnati, OH 45241 (513) 618-1000

3 2