March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG 22!
by Susan Harris 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Greetings everyone - the next NANOG meeting will be held May 20-22 in Scottsdale, Arizona, at the DoubleTree Paradise Valley. Our local host will be CenterGate Research Group. You'll find a Call for Presentations below. Thanks for being patient while we made final arrangements for the conference. Meeting registration begins April 2 and details about hotel reservations will follow shortly. Thanks also for the comments about NANOG and Merit that many of you made on the list after the Atlanta meeting. We've written up a FAQ that answers some of your questions: http://www.nanog.org/faq.html Questions and comments are welcome - please send them to nanog-support(a)nanog.org, so that we can keep the main list focused on operational issues. ============================================================================== * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS * * NANOG 22 * * May 20 - 22, 2001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold its 22nd meeting in Scottsdate, Arizona, between May 20-22, 2001. The meeting will be hosted by CenterGate Research Group. NANOG conferences provide a forum for the coordination and dissemination of technical information related to large-scale (i.e., national/international) Internet backbone networking technologies and operational practices. NANOG meetings, held three times each year, include two days of short presentations, plus afternoon/evening tutorial sessions. Meetings are informal, with an emphasis on relevance to current backbone engineering practices. The conference draws over 600 participants, mainly consisting of engineering staff from large national service providers, and members of the research and education community. Now in its sixth year, NANOG evolved from the NSFNET "regional-techs" meetings, where technical staff from the regional networks met to discuss operational issues of common concern. With the emergence of the commercial Internet, NANOG meetings evolved to include a broader base of providers, network operators, and researchers. The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Paradise Valley. For more information about NANOG meetings, schedules, and logistics, see: http://www.nanog.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NANOG invites presentations on backbone engineering, coordination, and research topics. Presentations should highlight issues relating to technology already deployed or soon to be deployed in core Internet backbones and exchange points. Previous meetings have included presentations on: - Backbone traffic engineering - Coordination of inter-provider QoS - Deployment experience with queueing disciplines (CAR, RED) - Inter-provider security and routing protocol authentication - Routing scalability in backbone infrastructures - Security issues for the Internet core - Routing policy specification and backbone router configuration - Building large-scale measurement infrastructure - Cooperative inter-provider caching - Alternatives to hot-potato routing - Recommendations on queue management and congestion avoidance - Experience with differentiated services - Reports from next-generation networks (CANARIE, Internet2)) - Inter-domain multicast deployment - Backbone network failure analysis Tutorials have covered topics such as: - BGP case studies - MPLS fundamentals - External route selection - IP multicast technologies - Distributed content caching in large IP networks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO PRESENT Submit an informal one- or two-paragraph abstract describing the presentation in email to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. The deadline for proposals is April 16, 2001. While the majority of speaking slots will be filled by April 16, a limited number of slots will be available after that date for topics that are exceptionally timely and important. Submissions will be reviewed by the NANOG Program Committee, and presenters will be notified of acceptance by April 23, 2001. NANOG also welcomes suggestions/recommendations for tutorials, panels and other presentation topics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Shawn McMahon 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 03:50:06PM -0500, Susan Harris wrote: > Hello Shawn - I sent a message to the list asking everyone to stop posting > on the topic of DNS. Did you not see it? Please don't post on this topic > any longer. Thanks. A tremendous number of people in the list seem to think it's a valid topic with operational impact. Why do you feel it appropriate to go against their wishes?

6 7

Re: FTP exploit?
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Yes, FTP based attacks are up....Check out http://www.cert.org/current/current_activity.html#scans **************************************************** Spencer Wood, Network Administrator Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us Phone: 614.644.5422/Fax: 815.361.0714 **************************************************** Clayton Fiske <clay(a)bloomcounty.org> Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu 03/19/2001 04:01 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu cc: Subject: FTP exploit? Is there a (fairly) recent exploit for common ftp daemons going around lately? In the past several days, I've seen a very noticeable jump in the number of people attempting anonymous ftp logins. Typically I noticed it once or twice a week, and usually single attempts, but now they're coming in every few hours and they each make 4 attempts within a second (which is one per IP bound to the box I'm watching). It looks like it has to be some kind of script. Anyone else seeing any noticeable increases like this? -c

1 0

RE: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Roeland Meyer 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

> From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 12:47 PM > > In other words, we need an authorized international body > with the clout to > > oversee the whole mess. But then, isn't that what ICANN is > supposed to be? > > (Or would you rather have the ITU oversee the Internet?) > > some days I'd rather have the UN do it... :-) The ITU is a UN body, so is WIPO (a part of WTO).

4 3

PAIX-Central (Dallas)
by William R. Charnock 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Greetings, We have turned up our equipment at the PAIX location in Dallas and it appears that we are the first. I was curious as to whether anyone else will be joining us there soon? Thanks, -- William R. Charnock Director, Core IP Technology Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 469.259.2260

1 0

ARIN overloaded...
by Matt Levine 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Anyone know what's up with ARIN? Are they getting flooded? Been getting this on whois queries for last hour or so: * * WELCOME to ARIN Registration Services * * Sorry, the system load is temporarily too heavy. * * Please wait a while and try again. Thanks * and/or socket times out. Regards, Matt

2 1

Netscan.org? anyone?
by Sehmel, William C. 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Hey, Anyone know what happened to netscan.org? -Bill Sehmel Bill Sehmel Sr. Network Engineer chcs.com Seattle, wa wcs(a)chcs.com "The great nations have always acted like gangsters and the small nations like prostitutes." -- Stanley Kubrick

3 2

test
by John 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

1 0

BGPv5
by John 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Has anyone been involved with the IETF on submitting information on BGP-5? I am trying to understand how congestion control would be best handled. Would it be possible to add something additional in the OPEN message rather than just having MP_NLRI_REACH and MP_NLRI_UNREACH or better yet run them in parallel. If we replace the encoding of the NLRI and then withdraw the routes with these 2 attributes wouldn't that make it work? Thanks John

1 0

Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Patrick Corliss 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Greg A. Woods <woods(a)weird.com> wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2001 4:25 AM (AEST) > [ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 03:38:54 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ] > > Subject: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach > > > > On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001, > > Miles Fidelman <mfidelman(a)civicnet.org> wrote: > > > > > For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards, > > > everyone has to use the same root servers. Otherwise things can rapidly > > > degenerate into chaos. The whole point of law and due process is that > > > a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that > > > everyone use the same root servers. > > > > Sorry, Miles, it's not true. It's just ICANN FUD. > > Obviously you haven't got a friggin clue about how the DNS works either > technically or politically. Hi Greg Interesting you should say that based on what I think is my second posting to this list. And that posting quite fairly quoted both points of view. The argument I'm favouring is that put by Karl Auerbach who is considered by many to be a leading expert on the internet. I see that your partnership specializes in networking and Unix system administration. As you seem to be rather competent, perhaps you could tell me more clearly why you think Karl Auerbach is mistaken in his arguments. They seem rather well thought out to me. Much of Karl's expertise seems rather similar to your own. It includes secure operating systems and secure networks as well as Advanced Internet Architectures with Cisco Systems. You will find it described at http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/karl.html > Read what the man said: "Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into > chaos." They might. Then again they might not. Depends who's in charge. > > Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer, has said that potential > > problems exist for users with any of the several alternative root or domain > > systems on the market. He argues: > > > > "The Internet works because of common protocols. The DNS protocol depends for > > its reliability and trustworthiness on the principle of authoritative > > uniqueness, which requires the use of a single root." > > > > He added "Anything else creates the potential for conflicts." > > > > Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as > > otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways. He is arguing, like > > you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read "ICANN") > > root. > > Now look who's reading between the lines! He explicitly did not say > "ICANN roots". There's no need for ICANN to control the root servers, > and indeed they don't really do so now. All that matters is that there > can only be one true authoritative set of root servers for the public > DNS. You're the one reading between the lines. I didn't say anything about "control". Andrew McLaughlin said a "unique root". Karl Auerbach said "multiple roots". It is clear to me at least that they are inherently different architectures. Regards Patrick Corliss > -- > 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> >

2 4