March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: DECNet over IP?
by CARL.P.HIRSCH＠sargentlundy.com 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/idg4/nd2002.htm#xtocid2292… grep GRE "Cisco's Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) multiprotocol carrier protocol encapsulates IP, CLNP, IPX, AppleTalk, DECnet Phase IV, XNS, VINES, and Apollo packets inside IP tunnels."... assuming you're running Cisco gear, anyhow. -carl hirsch network analyst sargent & lundy llc

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Daryl G. Jurbala 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

The last thing we need is DNS functioning like IRC, which has much of the same types of problems that a thing like new.net introduces. While I would like to think that their intentions are nothing other than to force progress, and possibly make a buck or two at it, intellectually I have to believe that it is much more sinister than that, and it's simply the equivalent of a land grab. I think I'm going to start my own fake TLD provider, with the same TLDs and new.net. I'm going to be r00thack.org, and team up with all of the ISP's that operate out of their garages. Anybody with a nameserver running on a 486 over a 28.8k dialup want in on this? Daryl G. Jurbala Manager of IT Infrastructure Tel 215.823.5077 Fax 215.823.5062 http://www.Antiphony.com -----Original Message----- From: Scott Francis [mailto:scott@virtualis.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:13 AM To: Patrick Greenwell Cc: Scott Francis; Stephen J. Wilcox; Randy Bush; Hank Nussbacher; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? [...] This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, what way is the Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me (and a few others) that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an ultimate authority - not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying to do: create an alternate ultimate authority. How exactly will a user know which site foo.com takes them to, if new.net's response and the rest of the Internet's response a la *.root-servers.net don't jibe? The concept of unique and separate domains breaks down when you have conflicting responses to the question, "Where does this domain actually point?" [...]

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Sean Donelan 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

On Tue, 13 March 2001, "Brett Frankenberger" wrote: > > On Tue, 13 March 2001, "Steven M. Bellovin" wrote: > > > Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very > > > strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same > > > link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against > > > the will of the web page designers. > > > > Its not really the "will of the web page designers." If this becomes > > popular, I suspect most web page designers will start using dotted-quad > > addresses inside their HTML URLs on their web pages. So clicking on a > > link on a web page will go to were the web page designer directs you. > > Except for NAT strangeness, IP Address are mostly globally unique. > > Fine. Then we have a technical issue associated with "all the links > break when a web server is moved to a different IP address because > whoever was hosting it had to renumber", and it's companion "I can fix > the links because there's no way to know what the new IP address is". > > Since the reason renumbering is a reality are technical -- or, are at > least presented that way -- the need for a single DNS root remains > technical. Generally the web page author is nominally in charge of moving a web page from one IP server address to a different IP server address. If this happens, they could change (perhaps through a script) all the links on the page to use the new IP address just like they currently renumber all the other things which must change when moving. In general, people clicking on URL's have no idea what the anchor URL is. Unless you look at the HTML source, you see the text not the URL. Of all the protocols which use DNS, HTTP/HTML seems to be the easiest for users to use something else. TELNET, FTP, and SMTP have much more user-visible DNS names, and are therefor much more difficult to change. There are several inter-related issues (as always): - Long-term stability of the identifier - Global uniqueness (within the relevant domain) - Easy for humans to remember - Simple for machines to process

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103131010030.41040-100000@localhost>, Patrick Greenw ell writes: > >On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Randy Bush wrote: > >> >> > 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? >> >> RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root > >It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root." > As someone who was on the IAB at the time that RFC was written, I disagree -- there were *no* political discussions. But that's an unverifiable assertion. Instead, could you point at anything in the document you perceive as "political" rather than technical? To be precise, what is your response to this, the second paragraph of the document? Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against the will of the web page designers. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

8 11

Re: DECNet over IP?
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

GRE tunnel's are the best. We used that for over a year to tunnel Banyan Vines across our IP Network.... It works great.... Spencer **************************************************** 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 **************************************************** Simon Lockhart <simonl(a)rd.bbc.co.uk> Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu 03/14/2001 11:30 AM To: "Stillman, Kevin" <STILLMKT(a)sysadm.suny.edu> cc: "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: Re: DECNet over IP? >Has anyone had any experience successfully getting native DECNet packets >encapsulated in an IP packet and transmitted over an IP network? The >solution I am trying to create will allow VAXes to continue to talk DECNet >on their LANs and have the ability to communicate with DECNet areas on a WAN >via IP. Essentially we are try to remove the DECNet protocol from our >intranet while not disrupting location's DECNet configurations. I've not tried it, but my gut reaction would be to use GRE tunnels. Have you looked on cisco.com for sample configs? Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart(a)bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/

1 0

Forgery! ...
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

... and I thought NANOG folk were above playing these games. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:greenwell_is_a@corporatedirtbag.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:03 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > Patrick, you are a k00k! I'm tempted to blackhole you completely. > > NANOG, > > I recommend you add this to your .procmailrc NOW: > > :0: > *^From.*patrick(a)cybernothing.org > /dev/null > > HAND Mr. Greenwell, nice knowing you!

1 0

DECNet over IP?
by Stillman, Kevin 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Perhaps this question is not appropriate here... but I'm grasping at straws. Has anyone had any experience successfully getting native DECNet packets encapsulated in an IP packet and transmitted over an IP network? The solution I am trying to create will allow VAXes to continue to talk DECNet on their LANs and have the ability to communicate with DECNet areas on a WAN via IP. Essentially we are try to remove the DECNet protocol from our intranet while not disrupting location's DECNet configurations. If anyone has any info, please response off list. Thanks. Kevin Stillman SUNYNet, State University of NY

3 2

Re: new.net
by Patrick Greenwell 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Amen Brother! You would think, with all of us being network operators, or at least claiming to be as such, that we would work on ways to *reduce* the brokenness of the modern-day Internet instead of reducing more brokenness to it. Do you guys *really* like to work that hard? Don't we have enough things to fix? New.net must die!!! ---------------------------------------------- Original Message From: "Stephen Kowalchuk"<skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com> Subject: Re: new.net Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:14:30 -0500 > >Sounds to me like at its core new.net is taking advantage of the obvious >frustration that some of us feel with the techno-political "establishment", >using the discontent as a springboard to an eventual hijack of the root zone. I >don't think they have any intention of seeing themselves as an alternate. It >seems the ticket is to muddle the issues by labeling every argument for one root >"political", thus "unsavory" and offensive to many folks' more-egalitarian >vision of the Internet. > >new.net offers "freedom from oppression", but in its own right is nothing but an >old spin on an old play. Create enough FUD about the establishment, then get a >few partners to commit to the "new.net" namespace, and if you have enough >subscribers you can negotiate with ICANN. > >It seems new.net is taking lessons from Microsoft: > - berate the common standards > - create lots of dust > - rape the standards of their essence > - create exclusivity with proprietary extensions to the standards > - appeal to the lowest common denominators of human expression (in this > case, .xxx says it all) > - partner with like-minded souls seeing the same pot of gold at the end > - fight like hell to get a critical mass of subscribers to the idea > (through any means possible) > - negotiate the altered standards back into the mainstream > >Why do this? Money. Position. Microsoft is an excellent model for building a >profitable business. > >Only one problem. Rape the DNS, and the whole house comes down. You might as >well be running IRC. > > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com >Diamonex, Incorporated > >...learning cannot be controlled; it is out of control by design. Learning >emerges spontaneously, it proceeds in an individualistic and unpredictable >way, and it achieves its goal in its own good time. Once triggered, [it] >will not stop--unless it is hijacked by conditioning. -- Roger Fouts >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0

Re: new.net
by Stephen Kowalchuk 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Sounds to me like at its core new.net is taking advantage of the obvious frustration that some of us feel with the techno-political "establishment", using the discontent as a springboard to an eventual hijack of the root zone. I don't think they have any intention of seeing themselves as an alternate. It seems the ticket is to muddle the issues by labeling every argument for one root "political", thus "unsavory" and offensive to many folks' more-egalitarian vision of the Internet. new.net offers "freedom from oppression", but in its own right is nothing but an old spin on an old play. Create enough FUD about the establishment, then get a few partners to commit to the "new.net" namespace, and if you have enough subscribers you can negotiate with ICANN. It seems new.net is taking lessons from Microsoft: - berate the common standards - create lots of dust - rape the standards of their essence - create exclusivity with proprietary extensions to the standards - appeal to the lowest common denominators of human expression (in this case, .xxx says it all) - partner with like-minded souls seeing the same pot of gold at the end - fight like hell to get a critical mass of subscribers to the idea (through any means possible) - negotiate the altered standards back into the mainstream Why do this? Money. Position. Microsoft is an excellent model for building a profitable business. Only one problem. Rape the DNS, and the whole house comes down. You might as well be running IRC. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com Diamonex, Incorporated ...learning cannot be controlled; it is out of control by design. Learning emerges spontaneously, it proceeds in an individualistic and unpredictable way, and it achieves its goal in its own good time. Once triggered, [it] will not stop--unless it is hijacked by conditioning. -- Roger Fouts --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Patrick Greenwell 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Patrick Greenwell wrote: >Is this some scripture to quote? :-) 1 strike. > >> And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world >> will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and >> what will that achieve? > >I think that you would find that capitalists tend towards effective market >solutions(that is in fact why most of them are capitalists.) As can be evidenced by the very healthy US stock market in regards to tech stocks at the moment. > >> Stick to the single root, stand firm on this policy and new.net wont get >> far! Most definitely! >Suddenly, I feel like I should be grabbing your hand and engaging in a >rousing rendition of "Kumbayah my lord." Strike 2. >Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your >breath until they go away? Strike 3. PLONK! I swear to GOD, this list has gotten worse than alt.flame. Patrick, you are a k00k! I'm tempted to blackhole you completely. NANOG, I recommend you add this to your .procmailrc NOW: :0: *^From.*patrick(a)cybernothing.org /dev/null HAND Mr. Greenwell, nice knowing you! _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0