March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Monday evening, the 26th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for a.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.101 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.36.144.133 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 203.181.106.5 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 208.206.240.5 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the old and new IP's for a.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel for enough time to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems Verisign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

1 0

Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Patrick Corliss 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

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. 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. Of course, ICANN's claim to be the one and only authority over the internet allows them to get away with introducing a new dot BIZ knowing it is causing a collision. But, in answer to your point, Karl Auerbach has described how multiple roots work as follows: "What I would say to the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify" by Karl Auerbach. <snip> 2. Multiple Roots are "a good thing" http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots 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. We've seen through that. Today we have a flourishing competitive telephone system filled with all kinds of commercial and technical offerings that were inconceivable during the days of "Ma Bell". We routinely use directory services in a multiplicity of forms -- telephone books published by local telephone companies or entrepreneurs, 411 services in various shapes and forms, web pages, or even on CD-ROMs (indeed a well known Supreme Court case involved a telephone directory published on CD-ROM). These telephone directories are not published by any unified authority, there is no regulatory body sitting over them. And we as consumers are not damaged or harmed by this. And the telephone system continues to work just fine. Yet, on the Internet there are those who wail and gnash their teeth at the thought that the Domain Name System, the Internet's "white pages" might have multiple points of entry. Indeed, the whole series of documents from NTIA -- including the Green and White Papers -- and the existence of ICANN is founded on the notion that there is but one root system for the Domain Name System. I assert that those nay-sayers are wrong. I assert that just like the telephone system can have multiple publishers of telephone directory services, the Internet can have multiple roots to the Domain Name System. There is no doubt that as a purely technical matter, the Internet can have multiple root systems for the DNS. It has had these for years. The question is whether to recognize the value and use of multiple root systems and not foreclose them. Let's get a bit more specific. When I say "multiple root systems", I mean a regime in which you, or I, or anybody can set up a set of computers to serve as a suite of root servers for the DNS. In other words, you, or I, or anybody could establish a group of computers to operate in parallel with, and not necessarily in administrative coordination with, the legacy A-L.root-servers.net computers now operated by NSI, IANA, ICANN and others. >From a technical point of view all that a root server group does is to give its users a way to find the DNS servers that handle the various Top Level Domains (TLDs). The root servers do not themselves answer queries about what names are inside the various TLDs. Those questions are passed on to the TLD servers themselves. That is a subtle point and a point that is often lost when discussing the DNS. It bears repeating -- all that a root server does is to answer queries about how to find a server handling a TLD named in the query. In other words, a root server only answers queries such as "Where do I find a server that contains the list of names in .com?". Now that we know that root servers and root server systems are nothing more than the doorway through which one enters the Domain System, we can ask this question: What happens when we begin to think of the Domain Name System not as an intrinsic core service of the Internet, but rather as an elective service that can be offered by many providers and among which customers and user select based on the packages offered by the providers? I'll give you a preview of the answer: We end up with a stable Internet with no loss of reachability. We get a system of competitive root operators who make business decisions about what TLDs they want to incorporate into their "inventory". We get rid of questions about "how many TLDs should be created?". We don't need complicated ICANN-like quasi-governmental agencies overseeing the DNS and the Internet. And we end up with a means for communities of users to fine tune the view of the Internet Landscape that they want to allow into their communities. So, you should be asking yourselves, how does this Nirvana come about? Imagine each operator of a root server system as a store. The shelves contain the store's inventory. In this case the inventory consists of TLDs that the root server system knows about. Thus, a user of a root server system will perceive a Domain Name name space composed of the TLDs in the store (the root server system) that that user has elected to use. Now, I should mention, that when I say "user has elected to use", I don't really usually mean the end-user directly. In most cases, the end-user will have delegated the choice to that user's ISP or to his or her organizational information manager. Of course, the technically inclined, such as myself, will tend to make the choice for ourselves. How does a root server operator select the inventory of TLDs that it wishes to offer? The answer is "whatever satisfies the needs and demands of the operator's customer base." If we look at this through the eyes of a businessman operating a root server system, we realize that there are two elements that the customers will care about: TLD coverage and value added services. As a general rule, customers of a root server system will act much like subscribers to a cable TV system -- they will want as many TLDs (or as many channels) as they can get. This will drive the root server system operators to include as many viable TLDs as they can into their inventory. The net result of all the root system operators following this strategy will be that they all attempt to trump one another by each including more TLDs. The end of this is that all root server operators will incorporate all viable TLDs. The benefit of this is that the domain names of all people and organizations who have registrations in these TLDs will be essentially universally resolvable no matter which root server system us being used. I've used the phrase "viable TLDs" to describe those which are of a character that most reasonable root system operators would feel that they could incorporate that TLD into their inventory without undue risk of problems. It is easiest to define "viable TLDs" by listing what kind of TLDs would be non-viable. TLDs that are being contested are not very viable. Thus, if two or more claimants were offering different versions of a TLD named ".foo", it would be unlikely that any root system operator would add any version of ".foo" to the inventory. This tends to remove the issue of TLD ownership from the current ICANN regulatory framework and place it where it belongs -- in the traditional give and take world of business and open market economics. Since all root server systems will tend to eventually incorporate all viable TLDs into their inventory, value added services will tend to become the differentiating factor between root server systems. One might well ask how a root server system can offer value added services? It does seem an odd concept at first, but then again, a few years ago, the notion of value added long distance telephone services was an odd concept. An example of a value added service would be that of filtration -- A root server system operator may offer a service in which customers who use that root will be able to have the responses cleaned of any answers that are sources of pornographic material. This could be a valuable tool for communities that wish to tailor their view of the Internet Landscape according to their own community standards. And it is a mechanism which allows any member to opt out of the community, and its restrictions, simply by selecting another root server operator. Yes, there are other ways to achieve the same kind of filtering, but who are we to say which methods are the most viable? Indeed, we should be careful not to dismiss, or worse to foreclose, an area of Internet entrepreneurship simply because we don't see the immediate value. I'd like to finish this discussion about multiple roots with a few observations. Multiple root systems add to the stability of the internet by removing a dependence on a single root system for the Domain Name System. Multiple root systems eliminate the need to face questions such as "what new gTLDs should be added" - multiple root systems permit the marketplace to provide the answer. Multiple root systems provide means for inventors and entrepreneurs to create new ways of packaging DNS servers. And I've suggested one such extension that could add a new means for individuals or communities to shield themselves from the tidal wave of questionable material on the Internet. So, why have multiple root systems not evolved? One of the reasons is that the existing system has so far worked reasonably well, so there has been little pressure. But there is a very strong secondary reason -- those who have advocated or established a multiple root system have been shunned by the technical community. But the biggest reason why it hasn't happened is that ever since the NTIA process started, the idea that there could be multiple roots has been swept aside with an administrative flick of the wrist and an offhand repetition of the stale legend: "oh that would never comport with network stability". <snip>

13 14

Re: Clear Channel on a T1
by Ron Buchalski 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Good point, Phil. I believe that the modern T1 spec states that a maximum or 45 zeros can be sent before the CSU will inject a '1'. I don't have a spec handy to verify it. Of course, with B8ZS, you'll never approach this long string of zeros on the line, so it's a moot point. B8ZS replaces eight zeros with 4/4 ones/zeros, in a known bipolar violation pattern. This will insure that ones' density is met on the line, and the circuit endpoints can replace the injected ones with eight zeros and restore the bit patterns of the modified DS0s. It's also the source of grief when a telco provisions one segment of a T1 circuit without B8ZS. When this non-B8ZS segment sees too many zeros, ones will be injected in the stream, corrupting the data. Of course, this NEVER happens anymore...right? ;-) -rb >From: Phillip Vandry <vandry(a)TZoNE.ORG> >To: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals(a)hotmail.com> >CC: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Clear Channel on a T1 >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:04:46 -0500 (EST) > > >Please correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not _that_ certain of this) but >I think you still need the 1's density to maintain timing even in the >absence of repeaters. If you have a whole bunch of zero bits in a row the >voltage on the line will remain 0 for the length of the series. You get no >indication of when one bit ends and another starts. If the string of zeroes >is very long, the receiver might miscount the number of 0 bits that the >sequence represents (more than intended if its clock is running faster than >the sender's, less than intended otherwise). You don't have this problem >with a long string of 1 bits because the voltage transitioning from + to - >or back at every bit boundary. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

4 3

RE: dsl providers that will route /24
by Jason Lixfeld 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Right, and even though I haven't seen any personally, I'm sure there are atypical deployments out there somewhere :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:56 AM > To: Jason Lixfeld > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: dsl providers that will route /24 > > > > Jason Lixfeld wrote: > > > Are we talking business grade DSL or Resi grade DSL? > > Residential DSL is typically a bridged solution, meaning you don't > even get to use a router... which renders the answer to this > question a > moot point... > > -- > Steven J. Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC | > sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net > SAY IT LOUD: I'M GEEK AND I'M PROUD! | 888.480.4NET (4638) > 216.619.2NET (2638) > http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net | http://ClevelandProductions.com > http://JustThe.net | Powered by Linux, pizza, Coke, Cuervo, > and cheap beer. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This email server is running an evaluation copy of the > MailShield anti- > spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any > questions about this message. MailShield product info: www.mailshield.com .

1 0

RE: dsl providers that will route /24
by Nanog 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

GotBandwidth.Com can do this over a Rhythms' business DSL line, presuming it's "your" space. Depending on your application the rates may be different. Lance -----Original Message----- From: michael [mailto:michael@aplatform.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:08 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: dsl providers that will route /24 Hello, Looking for contact information on dsl providers that route IP space not within their assigned block. I am also curious on high speed wireless doing the same. Thanks, Michael...

1 0

Re: dsl providers that will route /24
by michael 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

Hello Jonathan, I was/am hoping that by putting in my original question someone that was knowledgable from those places et al, would reply. Thanks, Michael... On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Jonathan Kalbfeld wrote: > AFAIK, Covad/Brainstorm/RCN will route /24s, but grudgingly. > > I've got them routing 199.33.244.0/24 to my house. > > Good luck when you call them though, trying to explain to them what > it means for address space to be portable. ;-) > > jonathan > > -- > Jonathan Kalbfeld > ThoughtWave Technologies LLC > UNIX, Networking, Programming > +1 415 386 UNIX > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, michael wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > Looking for contact information on dsl providers that route IP space not > > within their assigned block. I am also curious on high speed wireless > > doing the same. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Michael... > > > > > >

1 0

RE: xDSL providers that will route /24
by Segal, Mark 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

Although we are in the Toronto Area, I will still put my two cents in... We are a xDSL provider in Canada (using rhythms Canada loops (which we happen to be a 50/50 JV partner)). We will route customer provided IP space; If they "actually" own it, and also if they are not a service provider. Since many companies who have portable space, were either around 10 years ago.. :) or are service providers we usually are very cautious on this front. Under no circumstances will be BGP peer with a xDSL customer. The reasoning is quite simple, business grade xDSL is oversubscribed (not as much as residential) that's why it is so much cheaper, and someone with IP space of their own are usually going to use more than their fair share.. So we them to buy a T1.. :). Also, many xDSL providers think this way, so if you want some sort of redundant guaranteed uptime, xDSL isn't all its cracked up to be, plus the SLA's are usually poor (our avg downtime is much higher for xDSL than other access method). Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data and Internet Planning Axxent Corp. Tel: (416)907-2858 > -----Original Message----- > From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:rdobbins@netmore.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:09 PM > To: michael > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: dsl providers that will route /24 > > > > Try www.rhythms.com. > > michael wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Business grade. And it was suggested that I follow up with > more specific > > location. > > > > California, San Francisco bay area. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Michael... > > > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > > > > > Are we talking business grade DSL or Resi grade DSL? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:04 PM > > > > To: 'michael'; nanog(a)merit.edu > > > > Subject: RE: dsl providers that will route /24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you find such, I want to know too. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: michael [mailto:michael@aplatform.com] > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:08 AM > > > > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > > > > Subject: dsl providers that will route /24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Looking for contact information on dsl providers that route > > > > > IP space not > > > > > within their assigned block. I am also curious on high > > > > speed wireless > > > > > doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Michael... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ----------- > > > > This email server is running an evaluation copy of the > > > > MailShield anti- > > > > spam software. Please contact your email administrator > if you have any > > > > questions about this message. MailShield product info: > > > www.mailshield.com > > > . > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> // 408.859.4137 voice >

1 0

Looking for a good dual homing situation in Macomb County, MI
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

Hi - We currently have PSINet routing our CIDR block to us over a DSL connection. I'd like to become dual-homed (for reliability). Anyone know of a DSL provider that serves our area and also will route an address block that isn't one of their blocks? We operate an ORSC root server as well as several large TLDs and need the reliability of two connections.

1 0

RE: dsl providers that will route /24
by Roeland Meyer 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

If you find such, I want to know too. > -----Original Message----- > From: michael [mailto:michael@aplatform.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:08 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: dsl providers that will route /24 > > > > Hello, > > Looking for contact information on dsl providers that route > IP space not > within their assigned block. I am also curious on high speed wireless > doing the same. > > Thanks, > > Michael... > >

1 0

Provider outage explanations...
by Jonathan Disher 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

[Names withheld to protect the inept] Tonight has been a frustrating night. Two outages, both totally unexpected, and as of yet, totally unexplained. Admittedly, it's only been 8 hours since the first, and 2 since the second. But it really should not take 48 (or, often times, MORE) to come up with a valid explanation of what happened. We've had outages that have -never- been explained... just ignored. Basically, the first outage around 8 tonight, we saw everything blip for about 3 minutes. We're dual homed to $provider within the facility, one gig-e pipe to each of two hosting routers. What it looked like to me was that both were rebooted, or something was cycled in between us and the world. When I called $provider, I was shooed off by one tech who promised (and failed) to call back. The second crammed the "No, you're an idiot, you missed the published maintenance list which I'm emailing to you, go away" line down my throat. Of course, I dont know of providers that perform that level of maintenance at 8pm PST. None of their scheduled maintenance was listed. The second was, indeed, scheduled maintenance. Replacing the secondary hosting router. Then someone (apparently) reloaded the primary router while the secondary was -in pieces-... Then when I called, I was told "Oh, no, we have no idea what happened, but we'll let you know in 48 hours..." My BGP session was reset. -SOMETHING- happened, guys. Neither of these outages generated an email to the customer notification list. IMO, this shouldn't be acceptable. I may be new to some of this stuff, but in my experience, it doesn't take long to figure out whether someone reloaded the wrong router, or of the GRP let go of the precious magic smoke. What are some of the other major hosting/transit providers' outage notification and post-mortem policies? Should our next contract include provisions for Rogaine, so that when I finish tearing out my hair I can recover? -j -- -Jonathan Disher -Sr. Systems and Network Engineer, Web Operations -Internet Pictures Corporation, Palo Alto, CA -[v] (650) 388-0497 | [p] (877) 446-9311 | [e] jdisher(a)eng.ipix.com

1 0