March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Miles Fidelman 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Matt Levine wrote: PLEASE, I didn't say this. > > On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001, > > Miles Fidelman <mfidelman(a)civicnet.org> wrote: a whole bunch of stuff of mine as in here and quoted the following was someone else's comments > > > > It wasn't that many years ago in the United States when there was one big, > > monolithic telephone company. > > > > It was taken as gospel by many that the stability of the telephone network > > depended on there being one unified, monolithic telephone company. I'd never say anything this transparently wrong. ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman(a)civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************

1 0

Anyone at the @Home NOC?
by Jason Lixfeld 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

To anyone from @Home who reads this, please email me asap as your peering session at TorIX has been down since Saterday AM. All attempts at contacting you have failed. Thx. .

2 1

Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach (fwd)
by David Lesher 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

Somewhat OT, perhaps, But I can't let this pass: > It wasn't that many years ago in the United States when there was one big, > monolithic telephone company. HorsePucky. There were in the 80's roughly 1100 independent telcos in the US. (Can anyone say "REA"?) There was also GTE & AllTel (who were quietly buying up many of the 1100...) and don't forget ConTel. Now? We are far far closer to err.. quad-opoly control of the PSTN and the last mile than back then. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Looking for Brooks Fiber contact
by Hank Nussbacher 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

The info in both whois.radb.net and whois.networksolutions.com results in a dead end. The NOC list at http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi doesn't list Brooks Fiber either. Please send me some contact info at Brooks. Thanks, Hank ><hostmaster(a)BFP.NET>: Name service error for domain 209.160.3.4.BFP.NET: Host > found but no data record of requested type > ><rtarbert(a)bfp.net>: Name service error for domain 209.160.3.4.BFP.NET: Host > found but no data record of requested type > >Received: from docking.att.net.il (docking.interall.co.il [192.115.216.97]) > by biff.att.net.il (Postfix) with ESMTP > id 7C08910F4; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:58:37 +0200 (IST) >Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010318102139.00acd4a0(a)max.ibm.net.il> >X-Sender: hank(a)max.ibm.net.il >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:23:17 +0200 >To: hostmaster(a)BFP.NET, rtarbert(a)bfp.net >From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)att.net.il> >Subject: Global routing table bloat - AS6499 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >AS6499 has been lately seen to be sending out too many prefixes not based >on CIDR boundries, thereby increasing the global router table size: > >ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description >AS6499 170 60 110 64.7% Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. > >See http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/routing/ and >http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html >for further details. > >I hope you can take the time to add the appropriate BGP filters so that >the we all do not suffer from global router table bloat. > >Thanks, >Hank >

3 2

RE: Top Level Domain Finder Tools
by Roeland Meyer 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

> From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 3:29 PM > .. 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? 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? The effort to remove colliders has been on-going for a little over a year. Over much discussion it was decided that, if a TLD was in contention, none of the zone servers would be referenced for that TLD. Many of the colliders got together and ironed out their differences. In some cases, one party sold their interest to the other party. In other cases, they merged. Yet, in other cases, one-side capitulated. In the remaining cases, neither of the parties are in the ORSC root zone. That sets the initial entry. However, it doesn't resolve the case where a usurper comes along later (like ICANN, with the BIZ TLD, or new.net) The obvious answer is to keep the incumbent and ignore the usurper. However, one can only play that game with commanding market-share and solid FCFS historical precedent. ICANN desires to not play there and refuses to acknowlege FCFS. Therefore, taking their cue from ICANN, new.net plays likewise. Both ignore ORSC efforts. Given new.net resources, comparative to ICANN, we may be facing a serious threat of DNS name space fragmentation. Seeing at least a three-way fracture, of the root, it looks as if this will be resolved in the law. Remember, the law is not about moral rectitude or justice. It is about who can field the most effective squadron of attorney's. The first requirement of that is money which Idealabs has in abundance, ICANN is short of (unless WIPO gets involed), and ORSC has none of.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Simon Higgs 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

At 05:08 AM 3/17/01 -0500, you wrote: >If it's *my* DNS server running on *my* equipment using *my* bandwidth, >then I can do whatever I want to with it, right? Good punt. But you're returning data owned elsewhere (like someone else's A record). If you are responsible for returning accurate data to a public audience, and it's not your data to alter, then you are liable for the consequences. If you want to run a different .COM in private (i.e. no public audience and no consequences), go right ahead. >Why doesn't new.net start sending me monthly paychecks? Since they're >*all* about money, then if I am going to help them get their business off >the ground, then where's mine? Go ask them. (626) 229-7800. Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...

1 0

.mn.rr.com dns possibly hacked?
by Kevin Day 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

One of my customers, who's got a cable modem off of mn.rr.com is reporting that roughly half the DNS lookups being done on their servers are returning the IP to www.lolitasex.com. I have no idea how widespread this is, but apparently others in minneapolis are seeing the same thing. If any of you have customers asking why their website is now a porn site, this may be why. :) -- Kevin

4 4

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Mathew Butler 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Adrian: The key word is "cooperating". New.net (and its brethren that are being born in technology incubators as we speak) are not "cooperating", they're intentionally "culture-jamming" for their own gain. -Mat Butler Speaking for himself, not his company -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Chadd [mailto:adrian@creative.net.au] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:18 AM To: Stephen J. Wilcox Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? On Wed, Mar 14, 2001, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > You dont have to use ARIN/RIPE allocated IPs on your network, you can pick > your own (non-RFC1918) addresses just dont advertise them, but again what > good is that to users on my network who wont be able to see the sites. > > Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there > are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on > "The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they > are on. Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information. When did that change? :-) I'll be happy when more companies start to see that they canactually make money by fostering internet growth rather than making money by abusing internet growth. Adrian -- Adrian Chadd "The fact you can download a 100 megabyte file <adrian(a)creative.net.au> from half way around the world should be viewed as an accident and not a right." -- Adrian Chadd and Bill Fumerola

11 17

Statements against new.net?
by Hank Nussbacher 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? Thanks, Hank

16 32

Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Kevin Loch 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

So the plug-in does *not* change which dns server you query. if a query fails against your normal name server it just appends .newdotnet.net or, if that fails, makes stuff up. Of course if your regular resolver server was a UDNS server or Earthlink or an ISP that adopted the new.net TLD's you would have found an A record for pie.shop with or without the plug-in. This also means that if your reguler resolver server had your own private .shop zone (perhaps empty), that would take precedence for regular and plug-in queries for that TLD. KL Chris Davis wrote: > > I removed the plug-in already, but pinging www.pie.shop went like this: > > ping www.pie.shop > > std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails > std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes > wins query for www.pie.shop fails > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3 > std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails > std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes > wins query for www.pie.shop fails > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3 > std query for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net against my name server > > newdotnet's NS replied with the IP for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net & the > echos came back. > > I did mean to say in my last posting, everything *non-resolvable* outside > the ICANN TLD's is resolved to 64.208.49.135 > > Existing new.net TLD domains resolve to whatever their IPs are. > > The plug-in, however, sends ANY query outside the ICANN TLDs to > 64.208.49.135. > This usurps any and every other imaginable future TLD, ie www.bull.shit > They're not advertising a 'shit' domain (um, literally), and yet requests > for 'shit' go to their NS. > > Their scheme, if successful, takes over service for EVERY TLD domain not > already in operation by ICANN. > > Who's the monopoly? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:57 PM > To: Chris Davis; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. > > Chris Davis wrote: > > > > I downloaded their plug-in and then: > > What happens when you ping www.pie.shop which is > in a new.net "private" TLD? > > (snip) > > Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to > > 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135 > > > > That was probably meant to be somewhat meaningfull with names > and not IP numbers. BTW, do you mean "everything not ending > with an ICANN TLD or "everything not resolvable"? (see above) > > KL

4 3