August 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Karyn Ulriksen 30 Aug '00

30 Aug '00

I've been running webhosting farms for over five years and for the past year, we have been running entirely Host Header based webhosting. Also, because we run everything clustered we've had to become inventive if it isn't a good candidate for NAT (too many IPs and not enough management resources on the load balancer, etc). There is only a small number of services that currently really require dedicated IPs. HTTPS and Anonymous FTP. Although, the HTTPS is a concern - not that many customers actually use the Anonymous FTP service. We ended up offering Anonymous FTP as a premium service (I like to think that this cuts down on warez and script kiddie distribution). HTTPS is offered as a premium service as well, but is served out of it's own cluster so we don't have to make sure that IPs are predefined for the sites. Code can be altered to reflect hostnames based on user logins or can be simply made generic or NoName branded. A few customers will whine, but 98% don't know the difference, understand and accept the limititations, or are just so damn happy it works that they don't mind. Although I do agree that ARIN does tend to be anal, I believe some system architects would have shot us all in the foot by now if they hadn't put their foot down. We just have to be cleverer than them and I think that shouldn't be too hard, right? Karyn

1 0

RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 30 Aug '00

30 Aug '00

It's about time I looked into this as well. > -----Original Message----- > From: J Bacher [mailto:jb@jbacher.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:53 AM > To: Roeland M.J. Meyer > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > It sounds more like ARIN wants to shut down web-hosting companies or > > prevent them from doing SSL. The only other way to read this is that > > someone at ARIN is incompetent. Frankly, I'd like to know which. > > http://www.arin.net/announcements/election.html. > > Any volunteers? > >

1 0

RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 30 Aug '00

30 Aug '00

> From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:05 AM > > Hmph, Americans, always jumping first to the wrong conclusions ;) > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > It sounds more like ARIN wants to shut down web-hosting companies or > > prevent them from doing SSL. The only other way to read this is that > > someone at ARIN is incompetent. Frankly, I'd like to know which. > > Part of ARIN's docs state: > > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, > ARIN will not > accept IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, > unless an exception is warranted. > > A valid exception in *some* cases would be the use of > SSL-hosting. Most > day-to-day websites do not use SSL, or require SSL. Since when is it ARIN's business to determine what my business requires? Also, why should encryption be special-cased? I'd like to see encryption be made de rigueur, especially in the face of the FBI Carnivore. Yes, this would eliminate non-IP based hosting. But, that is actually the special case. However, this would also play havoc with in-line hardware compressors(encrypted packets are generally non-compressable<g>). Even if you lay all that aside, I know of at least three dot-com online-store hosting firms that could be be crippled with this ruling. They will probably get a variance. I know of at least two other ventures that will be trying the same play. It's a good bet that they won't get the variance, or they will wind up arguing their business plans in front of ARIN, which has absolutly NO business reviewing business plans in the first place, unless ARIN has money to invest. I challenged earlier, show me another way to read this. Thus far, you haven't.

1 0

what's this all about? (NetSol RootZone FubAr?)
by Jay Stewart 30 Aug '00

30 Aug '00

>whois -h whois.networksolutions.com networksolutions.com. <--- trailing dot. [disclaimer pablum deleted] Whois Server Version 1.1 Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM Registrar: 7DC, INC. Whois Server: whois.7dc.com <--- ???????? Referral URL: www.7dc.com <--- Who??? Name Server: NS2.NETSOL.COM Name Server: NS1.NETSOL.COM Name Server: NS3.NETSOL.COM Updated Date: 20-may-2000 -=-=-=-=-=- ????? This is happening for pretty much every domain I bothered to check, and only seems to happen when using a dot at the end of the FQDN. Jay Stewart Internet Network Engineer Olympia Networking Services - "The Northwest's Premier ISP" A wholly owned subsidiary of Advanced TelCom Group, Inc.

2 1

Does or Can UUNET expedite orders?
by John M . Brown 29 Aug '00

29 Aug '00

Private replys please. No backbone flames / wars please I have a DS3 on order with UUNET and I am being told that they UUNET, not WCOM have no way to expedite orders. I find that sort of hard to believe. If you know of someone that can expedite orders, please let me know privately. jmbrown

2 1

Re: Formal study: How many points networks share
by Sean Donelan 29 Aug '00

29 Aug '00

On Sat, 26 August 2000, Randy Bush wrote: > but i imagine that we would all be willing to reveal under nda to a trusted > research group such as acri, if their result would be well anonymized. but > many of us would all have to send letters to each other giving notice etc. > messy, but may be worth it for quality research. After the wave of mergers, attempted mergers, unmergers, and all the related investigations by the EU and DOJ; I think most of the providers know how to give each other notice by now :-) ACRI wasn't one of the names normally associated with inside the beltway research projects. SAIC or Mitre are more likely candidates. Before they bought a $700 toilet seat, I was hoping someone had already done it. But it looks like its an open research project.

4 3

Will it actually happen this time?
by Leo Bicknell 28 Aug '00

28 Aug '00

http://www.mae.net/ A rather offical looking announcement, complete with a rather lengthy FAQ. Humm, migrate 20 miles out to Ashburn with bad ATM service, or migrate 1/2 mile around the corner to a brand new PAIX facility with carrier diversity and with GigE capability. Which will you choose? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

1 0

Re: Formal study: How many points networks share
by ken lindahl 28 Aug '00

28 Aug '00

On 28 Aug 2000 17:32:16, Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: >On Sat, 26 August 2000, Randy Bush wrote: >> but i imagine that we would all be willing to reveal under nda to a trusted >> research group such as acri, if their result would be well anonymized... ... >ACRI wasn't one of the names normally associated with inside the beltway >research projects. SAIC or Mitre are more likely candidates. Before they >bought a $700 toilet seat, I was hoping someone had already done it. But >it looks like its an open research project. randy can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think he is referring to ACIRI, not "ACRI." http://www.aciri.org/ ken

2 1

Re: Formal study: How many points networks share
by Sean Donelan 28 Aug '00

28 Aug '00

On Mon, 28 August 2000, batz wrote: > I missed the discussion from a few weeks ago, but is this for physical > network maps? Yes. > If not, couldn't this be done using routing tables, RAdb > information, and some geometry a la CAIDA? > > Aren't most accurate physical network maps borderline classified for the > most part? Yes, but not a problem for the government. They've done this type of study for the voice network, and already have NDA's with the three major IXCs and however many RBOCs are left. I doubt getting NDA's from the other major CLECs is a real issue. Its mostly deciding which ones actually matter. I wouldn't use the word "classified," it has a specialized meaning in this context. The problem isn't NDAs, but rather it will be too NDA. Even the contributors may not find out about their own weaknesses, which may be great for the government but not much use for industry. > Many network maps include a PVC they use from a Tier-1 provider as part > of a 'physical' infrastructure, which would cause their network map to > be conspicuously similar to that of their transit provider. And they would have shared fate. However, unless you know how the logical network is routed across the physical network you can't really predict the affects of physical actions. You might think there are two routes which don't pass through the same city, but in fact the physical layer of the PVC may not only pass through the same city, but the same switch and same fiber. It may turn out the real vulnerability is some bridge across the Mississippi river in the middle of nowhere which 90% of the carriers use as the route from east to west across the country. > CAIDA's AS connectivity maps are the closest thing to a study that I have > seen. The CAIDA maps are a good starting point, and in fact have been used as the starting point. But they have some severe limitations for predicting the behavior of the network. In particular they can't discover "shadow" routes until after the primary route falls out of service. While the details of the net may change from microsecond to microsecond, the macro level stuff changes much more slowly. Providers aren't opening and closing POPs minute by minute. Nor do you need a 100% map to figure out how you can effectively knock New York City off the net.

1 0

Additional Hotel Information for NANOG 20
by Carol Wadsworth 28 Aug '00

28 Aug '00

Since the NANOG room block is already full at the Renaissance Washington D.C. Hotel on _only_ Saturday, October 21, a block of rooms, at a discounted rate, has now been reserved at the following hotel for Saturday night only: Marriott at Metro Center 775 12th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 URL: http://www.marriotthotels.com/WASMC/ Phone: 202-737-2200 Toll Fee: 800-228-9290 Room Block Name: NANOG Date Available October 21 (Saturday) Rate: $169 (single & double) Cut-off date: September 21 This hotel is two blocks away from the NANOG meeting site, the Renaissance Washington D.C. Hotel. Carol Wadsworth Merit Network, Inc. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 4:31 PM -0400 From: Carol Wadsworth <carolw(a)merit.edu> To: nanog-announce(a)merit.edu Subject: NANOG 20 Meeting Information -- Registration Open **************************** NANOG 20 Meeting Information **************************** All, Registration is now open for the Fall NANOG 20 meeting, October 22-24, at the Renaissance Washington D.C. Hotel. The meeting will be hosted by America Online. ---------------------- Registration ---------------------- https://www.merit.edu/nanog/registration.form.html ---------------------- Hotel Reservations ---------------------- Renaissance Washington D.C. Hotel 999 9th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-4427 Direct Hotel Reservations: 202-898-9000 Central Reservations: 800-228-9290 Room Block Name: NANOG Dates Available: October 21-24 Rate: $169/single; $189/double Cut-off date: September 21 ---------------------- Call for Presentations ---------------------- Submission deadline: September 11 http://nanog.org/mtg-0010/call20.html http://nanog.org/mtg-0010/call20.pdf Hope to see you in Washington, D.C! Carol Wadsworth Merit Network, Inc. ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

1 0