October 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: the group
by Paul Vixie 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

> I wouldn't consider gatewaying nanog into usenet land (even one way) to be > the world most constructive exercise... I do. I read NANOG in a private local newsgroup. It only works one-way -- to post, I have to send mail to nanog(a)merit.edu and so my address has to be entered on the nanog-post list. KILL files are wonderful. /etc/aliases says: local-mail-net-nanog: |"/news/local/mailpost -d local local.mail.net.nanog" i've put a copy of "mailpost" at http://www.vix.com/~vixie/mailpost.txt. it's really a perl script, 324 lines long, written by me back in 1992 or so.

5 4

Re: the group
by Paul Vixie 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

> You and others here probably already know this trick, but you might be able > to get automatic echoes if you use the list address as the moderator of the > newsgroup, such that replies are forwarded to the moderator address rather > than being posted. Might also need to massage the outbound message so that it > strips off unwanted NNTP headers. A bidirectional mail/news gateway is lots harder than what I use for NANOG. In addition to the above concerns, there's a need for the "mail side" to keep its own message-id history for round-the-horn duplicate suppression. This is how the namedroppers(a)ops.ietf.org <=> comp.protocols.dns.std gateway works, for example. (The news -> mail direction is moderated, first by ISC and then by Randy as are all postings to namedroppers.) However, for my private NANOG newsgroup I prefer that followups just silently die. Any local user of my nnrp server who can't figure out that they need to use e-mail to post to NANOG, probably ought not be posting to NANOG :-).

1 0

ATIS report SS7/CCS outages continue to increase
by Sean Donelan 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

According to ATIS's network reliability steering committee, the frequency of CCS (i.e. SS7) outage (40) and CO Power outage (26) over the last four quarters were the greatest of any four consecutive quarters. Based on a special review of CCS outages, procedural errors are the primary root cause. The number of facility outages (i.e. backhoes) has decreased. More details at http://www.atis.org/ATIS/NRSC/minutes.htm Similar information for the Internet does not exist.

1 0

H-ratio & Packing density
by Bill Manning 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

Looking for any data on the "packing density" of address delegations. This might also be phrased as "address utilization". Earlier, also informal, surveys had indicated an average of between 4-7% utilization. I would expect that current practice has been to encourge better packing (ref RFC 2050) on recent delegations. Private replies would be appreciated. -- --bill

1 0

Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
by Paul Vixie 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

> > Intentions matter not at all. Only results of said traffic, the > > consequences of which are borne entirely by the receiver. If the > > receiver doesn't want it, the receiver should not have to receive it. > > This is not how things are done elsewhere, so I don't see why it would > have to be on the net. on the net, recipients pay for part of the transport of traffic to them. elsewhere, senders pay for all of the transport of traffic to them. that's why it has to be different on the net than elsewhere. > Also, how do you intend to inform everyone about > everyone else's wishes in this regard? that would be impractical, unscalable, and unnecessary. > > Unless you're willing to come out > > and state that being connected to the Internet is a de facto agreement to > > receive anything and everything somebody wishes to send you > > It is, "de facto". If you know that doing something has a certain result, > and you do it, you can't really be surprised that the result ensues. so if i have an IP address than i ought not be surprised when it's pingflooded? and if i have an e-mail inbox i ought not be surprised when it's spammed? elsewhere, this ideology is called "blame the victim", and is not respected.

1 0

Re: Thursday Hawaii telephone mishap
by Michael Painter 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

>>Do you get your ADSL line from Verizon or from a CLEC?<< Verizon. I'm not sure if we even have any CLECs.<g> --Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "James" <james(a)james-web.net> To: "Michael Painter" <tvhawaii(a)shaka.com>; "Andy Walden" <andy(a)tigerteam.net> Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:36 AM Subject: RE: Thursday Hawaii telephone mishap > >Oh btw, I wasn't using it during the entire outage, but my ADSL line > >worked fine for the 3 hours that I did use it. > > Do you get your ADSL line from Verizon or from a CLEC? > > If its a CLEC, their ATM fiber circuit out of your CO might (and probably > is) seperate from any Verizon fiber lines that were affected. > > - James >

1 0

RE: [SOT Rant] Non-hostile probes / opt-in/out
by Quibell, Marc 28 Oct '01

28 Oct '01

LOL! I believe that the question should be: Why are you pinging me? Tell me what admin who sees thousands of ping from one host does not investigation the nature? Do mean to say that if you were to log thousands of pings, you would ignore them? Also many ping attacks start with harmless ping probes. Marc -----Original Message----- From: James Thomason [mailto:james@divide.org] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:00 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu; Quibell, Marc Subject: RE: [SOT Rant] Non-hostile probes / opt-in/out If I did, and they responded negatively, I would tell them YOU said it was a good idea. Seriously, why should the administrators of *.army.mil care if I test packet response time between our networks? Is this an illegal activity I am unaware of? On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > At 02:16 PM 10/26/2001 -0500, Quibell, Marc wrote: > > > >Maybe you should ping NS01.ARMY.MIL about 2400 times in 3 hour and see if > >you don't get a visit? Pinging a website 2 times means nothing.. > > How about 441 times in 2 hours? :) > > > >Marc > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > >

3 2

Gemini Fiber Cut in the NYC area
by Sean Donelan 27 Oct '01

27 Oct '01

Does anyone have the story about a Gemini fiber cut in New York City. Yeah, I know, things are still a bit messed up in NYC. But it seems Qwest, C&W and other carriers were affected by this.

1 0

Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
by Paul A Vixie 27 Oct '01

27 Oct '01

i'd written: > > well, be careful with your acl's, because if you accidently disrupt > > nonabusive traffic as a side effect of protecting your network from > > abuse, you'll shortly be hearing complaints from EFF about how you've > > disenfranchised said nonabusers. someone answered: > You've got to be kidding me. no i am not. in http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect14.31.html#II we see: | The focus of efforts to stop spam should include protecting end users and | should not only consider stopping spammers at all costs. Specifically, any | measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach | their intended recipients. Proposed solutions that do not fulfill these | minimal goals are themselves a form of Internet abuse and are a direct | assault on the health, growth, openness and liberty of the Internet. | Email is protected speech. There is a fundamental free speech right to be | able to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right | is being abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be | restricted. It is unacceptable, then, for anti-spam policies to limit | legitimate rights to send or receive email. To the extent that an anti-spam | proposal, whether legal or technical, results in such casualties, that | proposal is unacceptable. i never thought i'd feel a need to lecture shari or john on the nature of the protection in "protected speech", so, i have not even tried.

3 2

Re: 6500 Supervisor IOS/Native mode (RE: 12000 ACL issue)
by Rubens Kuhl Jr. 27 Oct '01

27 Oct '01

>So, just curious if there's a large crowd going towards 6500 >"native" mode (using Supervisor IOS instead of CatOS >"hybrid" dual-headed monster). Probably not because of POS modules lack of support in Supervisor IOS. People doing DFC and SLB are required to run Supervisor IOS; people that doesn't like the vlan/port metaphor tend to run Sup IOS. >I've heard of a few enterprise- and metro-area networks >migrating from a 7500+GSR platform to 6500's, but none are >running 6500 native mode. > >Seems like native mode is pretty new, maybe 18 months old >now. Not many IOS versions to choose from, but plenty of >bug-fix releases (5 since Aug '01). Curious whether anyone The Sup-IOS releases are usually paired with CatOS or MSFC IOS upgrades, correcting similar bugs and adding similar funcionality. Very few bugs were SupIOS-related, as far as can I tell from the release notes (which doesn't always include all that have changed). >is testing or operational with it, and what your experience >has been. Most of the times we hit a CatOS bug we also tried the current SupIOS release on lab, and the same bug was also present... it would probably make no difference to run either of them, unless you use something exclusive to SupIOS that would have its own bugs. Rubens Kuhl Jr.

1 0