May 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Stealth Blocking
by Richard A. Steenbergen 23 May '01

23 May '01

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 11:42:21PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > 1) MAPS is a single self appoint law enforcement agency on the INTERNET. > > a) MAPS creates the LAW, ie. no open relay > > b) MAPS enforces the law > > I didn't think I'd ever be drawn into this debate, however... Ditto... I hate spam as much as the next guy, and I don't believe MAPS is part of any grand scheme to take over the internet, yada yada, but... > MAPS publishes a list of IP addresses. It might use whatever > bizarre mechanism it likes to generate them. However, in my > personal view, and many many other people, this lists bears a very > good correlation to IP addresses which I don't want sending > email to my mail server. They do this for free. Noone is forced > to use them. If you think the way they identify these IP Have you ever had a run-in with the check verification system Chex Systems? They have an argument similar to this one for MAPS, they don't actually stop anyone from getting a checking account, they just "maintain a list", and individual banks make the decision to deny you if you are on that list, with the seemingly noble goal of "preventing check fraud and keeping costs lower for everyone else". But the reality of the situation is that if you ever have the slightest problem with your checking account, you are marked for 7 years. I had a $14 overdraft on one checking account, and to make things worse it was the bank's fault and they supposidly removed it from their records. But Chex Systems doesn't want the incidents removed from their records, they ask banks to report every incident even if it is resolved promptly. Trying to call them and get through to a person is like trying to find the free porn by following the free porn links, the best you can get is a free copy of your Chex Systems record (required by law) so you can see why you are marked. And I challange you to find a bank who doesn't use them to disqualify potential checking account applicants, the best you'll find is 0.1% who will overlook a single resolved incident on your record. I'm not saying MAPS is anything like this, infact they aren't, which is why they are respectable while ORBS is not. But there is something to be said for fear of the power of the people who are just "publishing a list". Unfortunantly, the spam situation of the modern internet requires that you have some degree of trust in the servers which bring you mail. You might have better luck trying to restrict the domains or ips to those where you have actual customers, or try coming to some other reasonable compromise. P.S. Notice I didn't have to call anyone an idiot to get my point across. P.P.S. After reading dotcomeon.com, I didn't say I didn't think it. :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

RE: Stealth Blocking
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:54 PM > > > In the PURE war, one ONLY shoots confirmed bad-guys and has ZERO > > collateral damage. > > So if someone has a machine gun and is firing randomly, > you don't act to stop him until he happens to hit someone? Lottsa mitigating circumstances here; .Are they shooting spam? .Are they trying to hit anyone? One spammer is no justification for nuking their entire city. Targeted response, sir ... targeted response. That's what MAPS is, a laser beam, not a hand granade. > That's madness. [I] don't advocate > random scanning, as it is unethical to probe random people for > vulnerability. However, once you know there is in fact an > open relay, you are entirely justified in blocking it. Agreed, but its open-relay status is irrelevent. The fact that one has proof-positive of spam, from that site, is. > And if you have legitimate reason to > suspect a site is an open relay, you are entirely justified > in probing it to see whether or not it is. No you are not, by your own ethical standards. Suspicion is not proof. Only a piece of spam, in hand, from that specific site, is sufficient grounds. > If your neighbor is aiming a gun at you, you are > justified in checking to see if it's loaded. No you are not, you assume that it is and fire first <grin>. But, you are not justified in taking out his whole block, including the other neighbors. You are not allowed ANY collateral damage. Anything less is sloppy anyway. What's the matter, ain't you that good? Can't you aim?

2 1

Remote Area Satellite Internet Access
by Dennis Dayman 23 May '01

23 May '01

Any suggestions as to satellite companies or equipment to use for remote area Internet access? --------------------------- Thanks Dennis Dayman dennis(a)swbell.net Voice 972-682-7555 FAX 972-682-7556 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

1 0

RE: Reference to the internet traffic growth
by Frank Coluccio 23 May '01

23 May '01

Maybe this analysis from BCR may be helpful. I've followed Sevcik for a long time and I've come to trust his sober approach in such matters. Of course, attempting to actually track bandwidth utilization, as opposed to simply the amount that is being made available - there is a gaping difference there - is another story, altogether. Interesting topic, though. http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2001/01/p10.asp This site at ATT Research is somewhat surprisingly candid, and in depth,, as well. Enjoy. http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/networks.html ------Original Message------ From: Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer(a)nayna.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Sent: May 22, 2001 9:00:37 PM GMT Subject: Reference to the internet traffic growth Could somebody point me to a well respected referece on the Internet traffic growth trends. Thank you for the help. Regards, sudheer

1 0

A rare and isolated event
by Sean Donelan 23 May '01

23 May '01

Our regularly scheduled NANOG provider problem was right on time again this meeting. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010522/tc/instant_messenger_outage_1.html "The problems were fixed by early afternoon. Graham said one Internet provider under contract with AOL had connection trouble. The company uses several outside companies to let users connect with computers that run Instant Messenger and other services. The outage, which Graham termed ``a rare and isolated event,'' "

2 1

Re: Stealth Blocking
by Paul Vixie 23 May '01

23 May '01

Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu writes: > This is *so* bass-ackwards it isn't funny. You want facts, yet you read NANOG? To call what's been posted to this thread "wildly inaccurate" would give it far more credit than it has earned. (Not picking on Valdis in particular, he and I are on the same side after all.) > Open relays were the norm until people realized that they were getting > abused. The clueful were already closing their relays back then. Vixie > started providing the MAPS service because clueful people wanted to protect > themselves against idiots. The list that netside found itself listed on was MAPS RSS, which was originally created by Al Iverson under the name RRSS. MAPS gave it, and then later Al himself, a new home. Vixie (that's me) was never personally involved -- MAPS is a limited liability company founded by Vixie (me again) and Dave Rand. > Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that both ORBS and the now-defunct > DorkSlayers databases actually pre-date the MAPS project. ORBS is the name Alan Brown switched to when I complained that calling his project the DorkSlayers RBL was leading a lot of people to send hate mail to MAPS (the original "RBL") about sites that were actually on Alan's list. > So obviously there was a demand for the service before Vixie started it up. Vixie (me, still) started the RBL as an independent project shortly before MAPS was cofounded by Vixie (hi!) and Rand. RRSS was created independently by Al Iverson at about the same time as Alan Brown started DorkSlayers. RRSS became the MAPS RSS some time afterward. > And as was already pointed out, spam-l and news.admin.net-abuse.email are > probably more appropriate fora for this discussion... Right. On the other hand I don't read those since I'm not a day to day part of MAPS or indeed of the anti-spam community. Dave Rand is MAPS's executive director now (following his resignation from MFN/Abovenet a while back) and while he reads the spam fora I don't think he's on NANOG any more. Comments about the MAPS RSS, or indeed anything else about MAPS, should most likely be sent to him (dlr(a)mail-abuse.org) if you want to be sure he reads them.

1 0

RE: NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: Alan Clegg [mailto:alan@clegg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:32 AM > > Unless the network is lying to me again, John Palmer (NANOG > Acct) said: > > > > NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS > > But is rabbit.net a member? > > AlanC {is this too obscure a reference?} Yep.

1 0

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 AM > > > Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of > the policy > > business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for. > > True. And it should also get out of the operations biz, > but that is another kettle of fish. The problem there is that there is no place for operations discussions, AFAICT. This may be an oversight on part of the ICANN conceptual framework. Most of the rest of us assumed (yeah, I know) that the IETF would handle that. Agreed, this may be in error. But, it is an error without a solution. Ignoring operations issues is not an option, IMHO. For the sake of expediency, IETF should continue to deal with operations issues until such time as ICANN organization can be modified to handle the new org. Considering the outstanding (higher priority) issues wrt @LArge and /DNSO/IDNHC, this could take some time (years) and operational issues need to continue to be discussed now. In short, it doesn't have another home, let's keep it fostered, under IETF, until such time as it gets a home.

2 1

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM > > > > There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private > > > use TLD. > > > > Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with > ICANN/DNSO. It is > > the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the > IETF. In order > > tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make > attempts to > > surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, > ICANN doesn't > > know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. > I'm very much > > involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, > in the DNSO. This > > effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want > to catch a LOT > > of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need > to widen the > > visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy > directly and IETF > > isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO. > > The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work. Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of the policy business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for. > Clearly > there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do > not believe that others have considered the impact of > entry points in the DNS That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of involvement and communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit. Yet, they do not and cannot recommend TLDs to the DOC. Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks that ARE supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware of. Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that ARE supposed to make them, and we then have a cat-fight. > and that they have exclusive understanding of the > ramifications of controlling this space. That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there ;) > See RFC 2606 Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.

2 1

NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 23 May '01

23 May '01

NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS A GROUP OF Internet TLD (top-level domain) holders have formed a nonprofit association to prevent what they fear will become a splintered Internet domain naming system. The new group, the Top Level Domain Association (TLDA - http://www.tlda.org) announced Wednesday that it will begin accepting membership applications Saturday from an estimated 200 operators of some 500 TLDs around the world. For the full story: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/05/17/010517hntld.xml?0518frpm If you would like to become a member, go to http://www.tlda.org to apply online.

2 1