October 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
by Gregory Hicks 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

> From: David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:33:56 -0400 (EDT) > > A query to help educate me. Feel free to flame away; > the week is young. > > Every site should accept/respond to "postmaster" -- T/F? True. Required by RFC 822, para 6.3 "Reserved Address" and discussed by RFC 2142 and RFC 2821. Although RFC 822 does not specify "sites running mail", 2142 does, in fact, specify that <postmaster> must exist "...on all hosts that have an SMTP server." Although RFC 2142 says this, further reading of the RFC and supporting RFCs implies that the "domain-name" must accept mail to <postmaster@domain-name> and forward to the proper person/mailbox. So I guess, if you are the proud owner of a domain, you must have routing that supports <postmaster@domain>..." In other words, ... Connected to the internet with a domain name? Must have a <postmaster> mailbox. > > Or is it "Every site running mail".... The RFC states > Or every box running mail? RFC states " on all hosts that have an SMTP server..." > > IOW: Which of the following are required vice recommended vice > best practives, etc. > > a) postmaster(a)example.com > b) postmaster(a)mail.example.com > c) postmaster(a)wizzbang.example.com > d) postmaster(a)pop.example.com > e) postmaster(a)cisco.example.com They should all be recognized *IF* each of these boxes run SMTP. <postmaster(a)example.com> should be recognized in any case. Best practice? I define postmaster == root == some person or group of persons. Does everyone do this? Nope! Not by a long shot. I get flak over the policy. I can categorically state, however, that the machines where I get mail from root seem to have less problems than those where root mail is ignored. Does this definition result in some unwanted email? Yep. But, the one message that says "I found this problem, please fix." is worth all the chaff that just get deleted. This is especially true when the problem causes the machine to die in such a fashion that it cannot be restarted in a 'sane' manner and the only clue is a message from root... YMMV. > > and most important to me: where to I go to justify the > decisions on same? Depends on the services you offer: >From Para 5, RFC 2142: 5. SUPPORT MAILBOX NAMES FOR SPECIFIC INTERNET SERVICES For major Internet protocol services, there is a mailbox defined for receiving queries and reports. (Synonyms are included, here, due to their extensive installed base.) MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS ----------- ---------------- --------------------------- POSTMASTER SMTP [RFC821], [RFC822] HOSTMASTER DNS [RFC1033-RFC1035] USENET NNTP [RFC977] NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET WEBMASTER HTTP [RFC 2068] WWW HTTP Synonym for WEBMASTER UUCP UUCP [RFC976] FTP FTP [RFC959] Regards, Gregory Hicks --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks(a)cadence.com "I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --from the Cryptography list

1 0

RE: Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us
by Eric Germann 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

While you're at it, can you patch in the floor mikes or have the speakers repeat the floor questions? They're answering question we don't have any idea about. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Metcalf [mailto:prelude@mindspring.com] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:52 PM > To: ekgermann(a)cctec.com > Subject: Re: Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us > > > Yes, can someone check the plugs? Is everything grounded? Its > really bad... > > andrew > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Germann" <ekgermann(a)cctec.com> > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:22 PM > Subject: Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us > > > > > > > > > > > ========================================================================== > > Eric Germann CCTec > > ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 > > http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 > > Fax: 603 825 5893 > > > > "It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed > > complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an interesting problem, > > and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade > > interesting problems :)" -- Vadim Antonov <avg(a)kotovnik.com> on NANOG > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Real Problems
by Lucy E. Lynch 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

All - The real audio sound problems are being worked on - the multicast streams have no known sound problems, so if thats an option for you - fire up. Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 Cell: (541) 912-7998 5419127998(a)mobile.att.net

1 0

NANOG audio problems
by Wayne E. Bouchard 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

There are some real problems with the audio in the RA broadcast. As has already been noted, there is a severe hum but additionally, the floor mics don't appear to be hooked into the broadcast. (Perhaps one of them is actually causing the above problem?) For those of us who don't read lips, can someone work on this? Thanks..

1 0

Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us
by Eric Germann 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 "It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an interesting problem, and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade interesting problems :)" -- Vadim Antonov <avg(a)kotovnik.com> on NANOG

1 0

LINX outage on Tuesday
by Sean Donelan 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

According to news reports the LINX exchange experienced a broadcast flood. Its been a few years since I've heard about a broadcast flood at a major exchange, so its nice to hear about a traditional problem. http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171318.html One question, as I understand the LINX set up, it consists of two logical/physical networks using different vendors and hardware. Did the broadcast storm take out both?

4 3

ARIN Elections
by Christopher Wolff 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Greetings; The voting booth is open for the ASO Address Council. Hooray. If you want to know what the ASO is responsible for..http://www.arin.net/aso/asonom.htm Since we learned last fall that "every vote does count," Does anyone have any suggestions on which candidates will act as the best industry advocates while maintaining some peace and thoughtful management of address space? >From the BIO's all I can tell is that we have seven ISP's CTO's each representing themselves as the best. However, this seems like such an important policy committee that affects how we grow our infrastructures that we should make the right selections... Thanks for your input, Christopher J. Wolff, CTO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com

1 0

Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
by Steven M. Bellovin 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

It's been pointed out to me that RFC 2821 requires that all hosts running SMTP servers accept "postmaster". In fact, 2142 (which I had cited) has the same requirement, in some text that I overlooked. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com

1 0

Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
by Steven M. Bellovin 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

In message <200110221433.KAA27123(a)sigma.nrk.com>, David Lesher writes: > >A query to help educate me. Feel free to flame away; >the week is young. > >Every site should accept/respond to "postmaster" -- T/F? > >Or is it "Every site running mail".... >Or every box running mail? > >IOW: Which of the following are required vice recommended vice >best practives, etc. > >a) postmaster(a)example.com >b) postmaster(a)mail.example.com >c) postmaster(a)wizzbang.example.com >d) postmaster(a)pop.example.com >e) postmaster(a)cisco.example.com > >and most important to me: where to I go to justify the >decisions on same? RFC 2142 standardize the name 'postmaster' (which is originally from RFC 822). 2142 says For well known names that are not related to specific protocols, only the organization's top level domain name are required to be valid. For example, if an Internet service provider's domain name is COMPANY.COM, then the <ABUSE(a)COMPANY.COM> address must be valid and supported, even though the customers whose activity generates complaints use hosts with more specific domain names like SHELL1.COMPANY.COM. Note, however, that it is valid and encouraged to support mailbox names for sub-domains, as appropriate. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com

1 0

Re: OC3 Multiplexers
by Christopher Wolff 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Thank you Barton, it seems like this is the way to go. We're mostly a cisco shop so it will fit in well with the other architecture. The config options you list here make it very easy to piece together...very cheap on the used market... C. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Barton F Bruce" <barton(a)cent.net> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:44:23 -0400 >Get a Cerent. > >Well it is now called a cisco 15454 > >Makes FLM-150 look very antique. > >The fully protected config will have > >1 x Chassis >1 x Fantray >2 x MCC+ (processor) >2 x crossconnect >1 x alarm >2 x 4 port OC3 (1310 intermediate range ok?) >2 x ds3 12 port > ( if expanding later, 1 or both should be the N version - as in 1:N >protect - only the protect card in slot 3 or 15 needs to be N for the 4 >others adjacent to it on the side you have the BNC bulkhead panel, but many >folks ONLY buy N versions for all DS3 slots so there is no confusion in the >field. The plain card can be run in 1:1 protect mode but the 1:4 capability >of the N is best) >1 x (A or B side) 96 jack BNC panel > >If you don't need protect on the port cards, just get 1 of each. > >It will run without the alarm card. > >This box will do 4 OC3s to DS3s, and can expand to do up to 2 OC48s to 96 >DS3s in one shelf (if you don't need everything protected) and you can fit 4 >of these in a 7' rack. Also takes 12 port 10/100 E and 2 port Gig-e cards, >and OC12 and OC48 cards. - and many others. Very latest version with latest >crossconnect cards will also do OC192. > >This is the box cisco paid 6.9 ***Billiion*** for and was prepared to go to >14 Billion. > >It is very simple to install and configure > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Wolff" <chris(a)bblabs.com> >To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 6:33 PM >Subject: OC3 Multiplexers > > >> >> Hello, happy weekend to you; >> >> I've been browsing around for a mux to break an OC3 down into DS3's. ADC >et al only have DS3-DS1 muxen, from what I can tell on their site (Although >the widebank 28 has worked great for me). >> >> It looks like my only option is to go with something like a Fujitsu FLM150 >which is a good box, but I wanted to see if there's anything cooler, >cheaper, faster out there. >> >> Thanks, >> Christopher >> > > >

1 0