January 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: OUTAGE: Earthlink - more nationwide difficulties
by Roeland Meyer 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

DSLnetworks (my lvrmr upstream) had outage (redback router) from 2300 til 0900 this morning.<sheesh!> Can we say "PO'd moi"! > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:49 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: OUTAGE: Earthlink - more nationwide difficulties > > > > Earthlink appears to have either a new, or continuing routing problem > affecting much of their network. > > >

1 0

OUTAGE: Qwest - problem?
by Sean Donelan 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

Qwest also seems to be having widespread difficulties. Is there something common going on? I haven't heard of any fiber cuts.

1 0

OUTAGE: Earthlink - more nationwide difficulties
by Sean Donelan 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

Earthlink appears to have either a new, or continuing routing problem affecting much of their network.

1 0

Re: CAIS DSL failure: lessons in how not to inform
by Steve Sobol 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

John Todd wrote: > When I'm on hold with a vendor and I get music (or worse, ads) pumped > into my ear, I will often ask for the manager on the next opportunity > that someone comes on the line. I'm exactly the opposite. I don't necessarily want to hear ads, but I don't like not quite being sure whether I'm connected or not :) -- Steve Sobol, BOFH, President 888.480.4NET 866.DSL.EXPRESS 216.619.2NET North Shore Technologies Corporation http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net JustTheNet/JustTheNet EXPRESS DSL (ISP Services) http://JustThe.net mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Proud resident of Cleveland, Ohio

2 1

msdn.microsoft.com still won't resolve
by Chris Davis 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

Looks like there's more to learn. Although "the routing change was backed out", msdn.microsoft.com still won't resolve. The MSDN site's there, though: http://207.46.130.161/ -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:54 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: Dan Hollis; Eric A. Hall; NANOG Subject: Re: MS explains In message <E14LpXc-0000ET-00(a)roam.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes: >> I'd love to see a detailed description of what went wrong, and I hope >> that those in the know will be allowed to post it or present it in >> Atlanta. > >was it not don knuth's turing aware lecture which consisted of a detailed >analysys of some recent bugs in his code? > We all learn much more from failures than from successes. To quote Alfred E. Neuman, "Learn from the mistakes of others; you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself." --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

4 3

RE: msdn.microsoft.com still won't resolve
by Chris Davis 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

MSDN must be in a DNS cache somewhere then. I can't resolve MSDN against MSFT's nameserver nslookup msdn.microsoft.com 207.46.138.12 Well, now I can't resolve anything against their nameservers, as .21, .20, .12 and .11 aren't responding to me at all. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:54 PM To: Chris Davis; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: msdn.microsoft.com still won't resolve Chris Davis wrote: > > Looks like there's more to learn. Although "the routing change was backed > out", msdn.microsoft.com still won't resolve. Comes up fine for me, but I get a "This page cannot be displayed" page. I'm not using Internet Explorer, I'm using Netscape, so it's not the browser displaying it. HTTP 500.13 Server too busy DNS, however, resolved instantly. I can't do a traceroute right now, but that's probably due to the way I have the outbound filters set on my DSL router. -- Steve Sobol, BOFH, President 888.480.4NET 866.DSL.EXPRESS 216.619.2NET North Shore Technologies Corporation http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net JustTheNet/JustTheNet EXPRESS DSL (ISP Services) http://JustThe.net mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Proud resident of Cleveland, Ohio

1 0

Re: MS explains
by Steven M. Bellovin 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

In message <E14LpXc-0000ET-00(a)roam.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes: >> I'd love to see a detailed description of what went wrong, and I hope >> that those in the know will be allowed to post it or present it in >> Atlanta. > >was it not don knuth's turing aware lecture which consisted of a detailed >analysys of some recent bugs in his code? > We all learn much more from failures than from successes. To quote Alfred E. Neuman, "Learn from the mistakes of others; you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself." --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

RE: Microsoft spokesperson blames ICANN
by Tim Wolfe 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

Microsoft.com is again responding here. I had to point this out. On the main page (www.microsoft.com) under Today's News (which conveniently makes no mention of the fact that they've been offline for a day) They have this headline for a story, "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer explains how Microsoft software provides the business agility that customers need to stay ahead." Can you say irony? I bet Steve Ballmer can... --Tim ============================================= Timothy M. Wolfe CCNA, NSA Sr. Security Engineer tim(a)ignw.com InfoGroup Northwest 541.485.0957 x108 ============================================= -----Original Message----- From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:01 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Microsoft spokesperson blames ICANN [ On Wednesday, January 24, 2001 at 13:09:45 (-0800), Roeland Meyer wrote: ] > Subject: RE: Microsoft spokesperson blames ICANN > > From our efforts, it is not at all surprising that someone, at MSFT, munged > the DNS configuration, totally. Even their best guru could have done it, due > to the murky nature of the config. I suspect that there are less than 100 > ppl that could even have a clue, in this area, and they don't all have the > same pieces of clue. That's absolutely idiotic (of M$, that is !;-). Even more idiotic than putting all their nameservers in one basket, so to speak. I'd bet any high-school kid who had any experience whatsoever at installing Linux or FreeBSD could no doubt blow a real OS and a native BIND install onto any sufficiently capable set of four machines in about an hour or so and provided that someone could cough up at least a half-baked zone file from somewhere to load on them they'd all be online and answering to the registered nameserver IP numbers in no time flat. Certainly in less than what's apparently going to be at least 23 hours now! Heck I know a half dozen or more people around the world who would have put their dislike of M$ away for a short period and loaded a zone file or two on their own nameservers for M$ if only M$ could have managed to get the .COM zone updated with new delegations.... What ever happened in this community to asking the community for help when you're caught between a rock and a hard place? (Not that a company the size of M$ should have to ask for a handout -- they no doubt have significant IP connectivity in as many places around the world as almost anyone else!) MS has nothing and no-one to blame but their own stupidity and arrogance in this. Meanwhile they're so damn big and "important" to so many users that this outage is having both a direct and an indirect negative impact on a lot of ISPs around the world! "Hey! The Internet must be broken if I can't get to M$.COM!" > What's needed is for some(one/group) that has a though understanding of both > systems, at the design level, to sort out the bits. This is properly, a > development project, one that most system admins are unsuited for. > Unfortunately, it is left at the system admin level, IMHO. No, what's needed is for M$ to learn that they need to deploy software that's capable of the task even if it didn't come from a box and doesn't have their logo branded on it. Squishing things together that were never meant to be squished together is only going to cause a big mess. Err, has already caused a big mess, at least for M$ and those who deal with them! ;-) They'd also do well to learn a bit about network geography and just exactly how authoritative nameserver visibility from various locations on this wonderful Internet of ours can directly affect their bottom line! -- 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> PS: they're still down for the count from this neck of the woods! Interestingly one of them's completely unreachable from here now... $ host -C microsoft.com microsoft.com NS DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET Nameserver DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET not responding microsoft.com SOA record not found at DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET, try again microsoft.com NS DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET Nameserver DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET not responding microsoft.com SOA record not found at DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET, try again microsoft.com NS DNS7.CP.MSFT.NET Nameserver DNS7.CP.MSFT.NET not responding microsoft.com SOA record not found at DNS7.CP.MSFT.NET, try again microsoft.com NS DNS6.CP.MSFT.NET Nameserver DNS6.CP.MSFT.NET not reachable microsoft.com SOA record not found at DNS6.CP.MSFT.NET, try again

2 1

The unwashed and unaggregated
by Patrick Greenwell 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

What about using "sane" route aggregation(or lack thereof) as one of the determining factors in requests to receive additional address allocation from the IP registries? Good idea, bad idea?

2 1

RE: From Microsoft's site
by Roeland Meyer 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

> At 6:30 p.m. Tuesday (PST), a Microsoft technician made a > configuration > change to the routers on the edge of Microsoft's Domain Name Server > network. The DNS servers are used to connect domain names with numeric > IP addresses (e.g. 207.46.230.219) of the various servers and networks > that make up Microsoft's Web presence. Connect 22.5 hours worth of dots between these two events. > At approximately 5 p.m. Wednesday (PST), Microsoft removed the changes > to the router configuration and immediately saw a massive > improvement in the DNS network. Their management should be real embarrassed to take so long to back out the last-change.

4 3