February 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

more info on SBC/Nap
by bmanning＠karoshi.com 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

I've just been told that SBC/PacBell is in process of renumbering the PacBell exchanges in Oakland and LA. So you should not see either 198.32.128.0 or 198.32.129.0 in your traceroutes or from your peers as of 28 feb 2002. --bill

3 3

black hat .cn networks
by Dan Hollis 08 Mar '02

08 Mar '02

http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,43437,00.html Time to drop AS4134. -Dan

16 17

ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
by Patrick 07 Mar '02

07 Mar '02

Although I reserve comment on some of the specific recommendation offered by the author, this is an otherwise extremely timely, well-articulated view into the history of ICANN to present written by the former Chair of the General Assembly. http://www.icannworld.org P.S. Yes Virgina, the resultant outcome of this mess could actually affect how you configure your router(s) some day.... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

18 27

Reverse DNS and SMTP
by Patrick Muldoon 01 Mar '02

01 Mar '02

We have recently implemented a policy on our mail servers of not accepting mail from hosts that do not correctly resolve via reverse DNS. While we on the technical side love the idea, there have been some questions from the business side of the house. If an ISP who doesn't have reverse DNS setup correctly on their mail servers, we point them to the RFC's and generally offer to help them correct it. We have noticed that our spam has reduced drastically, and the complaints are few, but alas this is a double edged sword, where if you even block 1 legitimate e-mail out of the 100K+ that we receive daily, someone is going to complain. Just curious if anybody here is doing the same and the response that they have had from doing so. Replies off list are fine and I will summarize if people are interested. Thanks, Patrick -- Patrick Muldoon, Network/Software Engineer INOC, LLC doon(a)inoc.net Press Ctrl-Alt-Del now for IQ test.

8 7

Re: DNS timeline
by Simon Higgs 01 Mar '02

01 Mar '02

At 01:40 AM 2/25/2002 -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: >Since it appears DNS goofiness is about to return, I put together >a timeline of significant events that affected DNS service technically >over the last 20 years. > >http://www.donelan.com/dnstimeline.html Here's some that you missed: 7/31/1996. DNS root fragments (no-one notices). IANA-rep authorizes Draft Postel TLD applicants to go live with new registr(ies) as proof of concept. AlterNIC chosen as the "test root" until 10/1/1996 when TLDs were due to go live in IANA root. Process hi-jacked by ISOC/ITU/WIPO whereby new TLDs forced to exist outside IANA root. ?/2001. ICANN introduce the first intentionally duplicate TLDs (.BIZ/.INFO), de-stabilizing the DNS and causing cross-root pollution (now everyone notices). ?/2001. .US domain moved to .BIZ name servers creating permanent state of DNS root cross-pollution and creates new .US resolution problems. And the latest major internet outage: 2/2002. Randy Bush starts sounding rational (Go Randy, go!): http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200202/msg002… Best Regards, Simon -- ###

2 3

ep.net status?
by Chris Parker 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

Anyone know what's going on with ep.net? It's been unresolvable since at least yesterday. PAIX, SIX and several other exchanges point to ep.net to register for an IP assignment at the exchange. The two authoritive servers, flag.ep.net (198.32.4.13) dot.ep.net (198.32.2.10) are not working by my testing (from own network as well as looking glasses). I cannot even reach flag, and dot doesn't know about ep.net. $ dig @198.32.2.10 ep.net soa ; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> @198.32.2.10 ep.net soa ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 10 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; ep.net, type = SOA, class = IN $ dig @198.32.4.13 ep.net soa ; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> @198.32.4.13 ep.net soa ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; res_send to server 198.32.4.13: Connection timed out Any insight or answer on how to register for IPs at an exchange ( since the exchange operators are just as stumped ) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net

4 3

Re: Reverse DNS and SMTP
by David Charlap 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

Jared Mauch wrote: > > What I do is format my smtp headers such that a very simple > regex can find mail with no reverse dns and dump it in a spam folder. > I find this catches a lot of the messages. If your server is using a heuristic that has the potential of offending your customers, you can make the blocking optional. More specifically, respond to the "spam detected" condition by writing a header that customers can check for. Once that header's in place, a customer can configure his mail client to accept, delete, or spam-folder the message. If a client wants these kinds of messages to be deleted on the server, that may not be too hard to do either, once the header is written. -- David

1 0

Re: Reverse DNS and SMTP
by Conrad A. Rockenhaus 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

Patrick Muldoon <doon(a)inoc.net> said: > > If an ISP who doesn't have reverse DNS setup correctly on their > mail servers, we point them to the RFC's and generally offer to help > them correct it. > We have noticed that our spam has reduced drastically, and the > complaints are few, but alas this is a double edged sword, where if you > even block 1 legitimate e-mail out of the 100K+ that we receive daily, > someone is going to complain. To be honest, I would do this as a last resort. For example, if their ISP's (or their own, if they have the block delegated) DNS server is misconfigured, etc, you might have a issue. Also, some admins have no clue what reverse dns is, seriously :). I would use a service like MAPS first to see if that resolves the issue, and use this as a last resort. If they don't have an issue with blocking unresolvable ips, then they shouldn't have an issue with just using an rbl ;). --conradr

1 0

RE: Reverse DNS and SMTP
by Pete Stephenson 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

>A better solution is to check the ip and see if it is an MX record for >the domain the mail purports to be from. [de-lurk] Perhaps, but do recall that there are systems out there which have certain servers listed in the MX records for receiving mail, and different servers for sending mail that aren't listed in the MX records. You can't please everybody, I guess. Apologies to Daniel, as he would receive two copies of this message. -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com

1 0

Re: Satellite latency
by Mark Allman 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

> > if you adjust the window size on the sending and receiving > > systems, you can improve this, but this solution is impractical, > > as you would need to get everyone on the internet (or at least > > all of the webservers and websurfers you are servicing) to make > > adjustments to their local TCP stack. > > The receiver is the one that informs the sender how large of a > window it can accept, so it can be practical for a subscriber > installation. It wouldn't be a good idea to park a bunch of > servers behind one of these links, but any receiving node that set > its TCP receive window to 2x the byte/sec capacity of the link > should see decent throughput. No, you need to set things on both sides. The sender has to buffer data until it is ACKed in case it needs to retransmit. So, its buffer needs to be as big as the advertised window or the sender buffer will effectivly limit the advertised window. allman -- Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

2 1