March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

teleglobe, toronto router or link broken
by Jim Mercer 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

as of 11:00 (eastern), we have only been getting 242 routes from teleglobe.net according to teleglobe tech support, something in toronto is broken. the message was unclear as to whether it was a router or a link, but it said their transmission people were working on it. -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.ca ] [ Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood ] [ aka jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ]

1 0

Test
by Petri Stephen 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Test

1 0

DNS threads
by Susan Harris 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Hi everyone - I'd like to suggest that we end the DNS threads that have cropped up on the NANOG list lately and return to our focus on operations and engineering issues. There are a variety of DNS-specific mailing lists where these discussions would be more appropriate and you'll find a list here: http://www.nanog.org/isp.html#lists Thanks --Susan

3 3

Re: DNS is like radio frequencies
by Patrick Corliss 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Alexei Roudnev <alex(a)relcom.net> wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2001 6:35 PM (AEST) > (you can even live without DNS at all - use search engine instead... It's not > effective but possible yet). Hi Alexei Perhaps what you're talking about here is a "yellow pages" directory structure that bypasses domain names and goes straight to IP addresses. If so, why not? But there are other ways to communicate without domain names and this issue was raised at the ICANN conference in Melbourne by Andrew Pam during the public forum in the afternoon of Tuesday the 13th March. Unfortunately nobody, particularly Vint Cerf, seemed to appreciate the importance of question that was being raised. Later I spoke to Andrew privately and he explained the workings of ICQ. Which I understand is a method of communication that doesn't use the DNS. Best regards Patrick Corliss

2 1

Re: Top Level Domain Finder Tools
by Simon Higgs 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

At 11:29 PM 3/17/01 +0000, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >the collisions dont seem to be being avoided > >Checking (AlterNIC) nameserver ny.alternic.org for .SHOP >Checking (NEWNET) nameserver ns0.newdotnet.net for .SHOP >Checking (NS) nameserver ns.autono.net for .SHOP > >See - you open it up and it all falls apart > >These "finder tools" are bobbins, they just query against a botched >together list of servers. The tools are designed to find the existing collisions and prevent future collisions. So there's nothing wrong with the tools. They're working! The result, as you correctly point out, is that the "botched together list of servers" are now visible to everyone and will need to be fixed somehow. That is the entire point of making the tools available. >.. also ORSC sounds techie friendly - it has the word open in so it must >be good - but c'mon theres no difference between it and new.net or >whoever? I wouldn't put any money down on that bet. ORSC is a non-profit Delaware corp., and it's only product is a published root zone which it gives away for free. New.net is a for-profit/VC-funded registry/registrar operation. Not quite the same thing at all. >having said that maybe it would be better than icann.. only >problem is who has to give them the authority and make everyone abide by >it? You do, along with everyone else that has control over where their DNS points (per RFC2826). >Steve > >On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote: > > > > > Simon Higgs <simon(a)higgs.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, March 18, 2001 8:12 AM (AEST) > > > > > TLD Finder Tools (collision avoidance tools) are available for people to > > > see which TLDs are already "in play": > > > > > > > > > ORSC have a Top Level Domain Finder which queries the ORSC root zone: > > > http://tldfind.open-rsc.org/ > > > > > > Planet Communications & Computing Facility (PCCF - who run the .GOD > > > registry) have a TLD Finder which queries multiple roots: > > > http://www.pccf.net/cgi-bin/root-servers/whereis-tld?+ > > > > > > > AlterNIC's newest tool > > http://www.alternic.org/tldfinder.html > > Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...

2 1

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

19 Mar '01

> yes, and multiple directory services are a great thing. > However, when I dial > +1.310.642.0351 it reaches the same number no matter where the call > originates, in what phone network, who my LD carrier is, who > my local telco > is, or how many switches it passes through on the way. Actually (and this is why I hate analogies), I have folks calling my home number, for someone else who previously was assigned that number, all the time. I've had that number over five years. We've had that discussion before, wrt rat-holing net-blocks. What if the netblock gets assigned to someone else? The other counter is that the number is the equivalent of the IP addr. You dial direct, you get the same phone. Use an older phonebook and you may have a different number. Two different phonebooks, yielding two different numbers, owned by the same person, is no problem either. Two different phonebooks, yielding two different numbers, owned by different persons, is probably a court case anyway. At the least, it's a trademark violation. It can all be drawn with a Karnaugh map.

1 0

RE: RACO looking for you
by Segal, Mark 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I'm good jim... :).. So RACO using nanog to find jason now.. :) Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data and Internet Planning Axxent Corp. Tel: (416)907-2858 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Mercer [mailto:jim@reptiles.org] > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 2:25 PM > To: Jason Lixfeld > Cc: 'nanog(a)nanog.org' > Subject: RACO looking for you > > > > > peter/michelle want to talk to you. > > i hear you are using up all your vacation. how is that going? > > 8^) > > -- > [ Jim Mercer > jim(a)pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.ca ] > [ Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder > Blood ] > [ aka jim(a)reptiles.org +1 > 416 410-5633 ] >

2 1

draft-netrail-packet-over-aol-dialup-00.txt
by Omachonu Ogali 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

missng@subtopia$ traceroute www.dsli.com traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 207.99.106.2 @ hme0:2 traceroute to www.dsli.com (207.31.125.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 nac-gw.colo1.psnynj.informationwave.net (207.99.106.1) 1.254 ms 0.771 ms 0.626 ms 2 209.123.11.153 (209.123.11.153) 1.558 ms 1.752 ms 1.517 ms 3 global-crossing.transit.nac.net (207.99.10.2) 1.661 ms 2.550 ms 1.644 ms 4 s3-0-1-45M.br1.NYC2.gblx.net (206.132.29.161) 2.750 ms 3.759 ms 3.864 ms 5 pos2-1-155M.cr2.NYC2.gblx.net (206.132.249.193) 3.274 ms 3.072 ms 4.230 ms 6 pos1-0-622M.cr1.ATL1.gblx.net (206.132.115.94) 23.473 ms 22.354 ms 22.223 ms 7 pos4-1-0-155M.br1.ATL1.gblx.net (208.178.116.26) 22.105 ms 22.887 ms 21.876 ms 8 t3-1-0-3--0.pr1.Atlanta.GA.us.netrail.net (205.215.1.65) 24.902 ms 24.610 ms 25.988 ms 9 ge-2-1-0--0.tr1.Atlanta1.GA.us.netrail.net (205.215.60.193) 24.914 ms 27.209 ms 26.658 ms 10 at-0-2-0--4.tr1.Miami2.FL.us.netrail.net (209.44.75.77) 53.625 ms 53.938 ms 54.092 ms 11 DSLICorp-10M.Miami2.FL.US.netrail.net (205.215.25.38) 60.638 ms 55.186 ms 66.316 ms 12 ACA80105.ipt.aol.com (172.168.1.5) 68.131 ms 57.195 ms 66.348 ms 13 IWC-W21A.MIA.netrail.net (207.31.90.5) 61.419 ms 61.708 ms 61.906 ms 14 user.dsli10.com (207.31.125.10) 60.042 ms 59.769 ms 76.960 ms Umm...either NetRail is passing traffic through an AOL dialup with amazing compression and keeping latency down, or someone looked at 192.168 and 172.16 and decided to add a netblock to RFC1918 without letting anyone else know... -- Omachonu Ogali missnglnk(a)informationwave.net http://www.informationwave.net

3 2

Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Steven M. Bellovin 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

In message <20010318204704.40B8D8C(a)proven.weird.com>, Greg A. Woods writes: > >[ On Sunday, March 18, 2001 at 14:23:26 (-0500), Miles Fidelman wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach >> >> I would suggest that telephone books/directories are not an appropriate >> analogy. Rather, DNS is a lot closer to the internal plumbing of the net - >> more akin to Signalling System #7. I'd guess that for 95% or more of phone >> calls, the caller already knows the numeric phone number in question - >> while for the Internet, very few people give their email addresses as >> mfidelman(a)207.226.172.79 or http://207.226.172.79. Telephone directories >> are optional in most cases, DNS is not. > >You are absolutely correct. :-) > >Telephone directories are most definitely *not* like the DNS. A domain >name is more like a telephone number itself, and as you say the IP >numbers are more like the underlying circuit routing glue in something >like SS#7. We really do not have a "telephone directory" for the >Internet (unless you count WHOIS/RWHOIS). Right. And even for phone numbers, there's a single authority controlling the space. Internationally, it's the ITU; within the U.S./ Candadian zone, it's the North American Number Plan Administrator. And its problem has been too little supervision -- see http://www.bergen.com/biz/codes18200103181.htm --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

RE: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Roeland Meyer 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

> From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 12:01 PM > The correct way to fight against a DNS root controlled by someone you > don't like is not to propose multiple DNS roots, but rather > to campaign for a democratic root. That campaign has been on-going for quite a few years. It continues to go nowhere. The rest of us are begining to get fed-up with the anti-progress. Kent Crispin repeatedly claims that ICANN is a corporation and not a democratic entity. In this case he is correct. I disagree with him that this is a desired outcome. Crispin and Crocker are of the opinion that (non-democratic) status quo is acceptable. > Auerbach's proposal is not > technically sound and > is political suicide. As someone who spoke with Karl before he wrote that proposal, there was a lot involved that wasn't published.

1 0