February 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

port 139 scans?
by Jasper Wallace 13 Feb '02

13 Feb '02

Is anyone else seing lots of packets being thrown at port 139? We're getting 5 or 6 packets a sec, mostly from 80.0.0.0/8 (and all tcp syn's). -- Internet Vision Internet Consultancy Tel: 020 7589 4500 60 Albert Court & Web development Fax: 020 7589 4522 Prince Consort Road vision(a)ivision.co.uk London SW7 2BE http://www.ivision.co.uk/

3 3

CERT CA-2002-3 (Cisco)
by German Martinez 13 Feb '02

13 Feb '02

Cisco has just released their Field Alert in their web site. We will see couple of reboots Router#reload http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-malformed-snmp-msgs-pub.shtml German ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * THE DILBERT FUTURE * * Thriving on Stupidity in the 21st Century * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Internet capacity will increase indefinitely to keep up with the egos of the people using it"

3 2

Configuring Linux Box as Router
by tarun banka 13 Feb '02

13 Feb '02

2 1

Bulk WHOIS Dump
by ginny listman 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

ARIN has enacted a policy to provide a bulk copy of the WHOIS database, minus point of contact information, to any organization who signs ARIN's acceptable use policy for that data. This policy was brought about through discussions via the ARIN public policy mailing list and public policy meeting. The requirements and decisions to enact this policy came from the Internet community. For further information, visit: http://www.arin.net/announcements/2001-7.html Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN

1 0

it's here
by Alex Rubenstein 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-03.html -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

3 2

operator requirements for network management
by Steve Feldman 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

For those of you at the NANOG meeting, my slides are now avaialble in http://www.twincreeks.net/~feldman/Presentations/ in powerpoint, HTML, and PDF formats. They should also be on the NANOG web site soon. For those of you not at NANOG, we're (still) soliciting input from network operators on requirements for network management. Please read the slides and the internet-draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ops-operator-req-mgmt-01.txt and let us know what you think. There's a discussion list for this, mail ops-nm-request(a)ops.ietf.org to join. Steve

2 1

Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
by Stephen Stuart 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

> You are now in defiance of reality, I think. Well, of course; I was talking about USENET, after all. Stephen

1 0

GigE tariffs
by Mike Duckett 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

There was some discussion during the exchange provider presentations around GigE tariffs. In answer to that (not a sales pitch, just an FYI), BellSouth has offerings now and others planned in that area. You may want to check out http://cpr.bst.bellsouth.com/ Obervation: notifications posted for point to point (non-switched) service in certain areas. Tariffs (GSST) exist in Fl, Ga, and NC (switched platform).

1 0

Experience
by Timothy R. McKee 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

I would appreciate private comments from anyone with personal experience regarding performance/administrative/technical issues (positive and negative) with IP transit from Qwest, Williams, or Velocita. Please reply privately, not back to the list. Thanks, Tim McKee trm3(a)nuvox.net <mailto:trm3@nuvox.net>

1 0

Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
by Stephen Stuart 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

> Think about it. I post a reply to a question in a newgroup. The more > intelligent and interesting it is, and the more my reputation makes people > want to read my interesting comments, the more I pay. Does that make any > sense? You're stuck thinking about users again. This is between sites, as I thought I explained previously. This is about my spool having less trash. If your post is not a pirated copy of Word, and if you, as a user, can be intelligent and interesting and enhance your reputation in less than, say, 20 KB per post (you seem to be doing fine in less than 2KB, so no worries there), then I don't think the wonderful world of USENET should change for you. Not one bit. On the other hand, I want the site that accepts postings from you to incur higher costs if you or your site-mates inject pirated copies of Word that take up space in my spool and eat up my bandwidth when *my* site's set of users and downstream feeds have no interest in that (apparently we lack "human nature"). On a private thread that cc'd you, I said this: If my server pre-fetched only the articles in the groups that its users were known to read, on the whole it would have much fewer large binaries than visit its spool every day. Behold, less trash. Yes, there would be completeness in rec.humor.funny and comp.mail.mh, and I would want those articles distributed in the manner they are now - whether by having articles pushed at me or by pre-fetching because I know there are consumers, I don't care which. The groups that *nobody* on my server reads would not consume content for articles, only for pointers. All the content would still be out there somewhere for some time, at the price of higher latency. If I had an additional policy knob that avoided pre-fetching content from servers that carried trash, so much the better. "Pre-fetching" is loosely equivalent to "accept flooded articles" to me; I don't make a fine point of only spooling articles that I know will be read, I just don't want to spool today's five pirated copies of Word. Neither do I want to prevent USENET from being used to distribute larger stuff, though, so what to do? The idea is to make the cost of injecting trash high. If your site doesn't tend to inject lots of things that other sites tend not to want to carry in their spool (pirated copies of Word, MP3s, and pornography are the current set of examples), you - as a site - would be rewarded by not having many unicast hits. If you do, you'd be "denied" the ability to poison other people's spools. The articles you have to offer would still be available as "pointers," in the event that one of your site's many users contributed something other than one of the items noted previously. Reducing the number of pirated copies of Word offered by your site would be rewarded by a reduction in the amount of unicast hits as more sites became willing to accept articles from you. Note that I consider unicast transfers of articles to take place between spools; when a reader asks for an article that is only resident as a pointer, the reader's spool would go get it and, in theory, cache it for the next reader who happened to want it. Probably some unwanted copies of Word would end up in spools this way, but at least it would be as a result of some user asking and not just because ten other sites decides my spool should have as many copies of Word as possible. Number of unicast transfers does not equal number of readers of an article; hopefully you'll see some increasing distance between what I'm saying and the belief that it would somehow change USENET for you. When presented with the notion that no cost savings would result (again, on the private thread that cc'd you), because "users" are going to fetch every article in large binary groups because of what is loosely termed "human nature," then I said: Yes, we agree on that. If the fact is that that particular aspect of human nature means we can't prevent reposting it all every week, though, then this really is an academic discussion. We can make the system more complex for the sake of shaving a few sharp edges off, but the real shape of USENET isn't going to change. There might be some benefit from an academic perspective in an implemention that would allow a news admin to set a knob so that articles below a certain size got flooded as currently happens, while articles above got "pointerized" (headers plus overview records, perhaps) and thus only fetched if actually desired by a downstream site. The notion is not to replace USENET with the web publishing model (we already have the web for that, and "web forums" and their ilk haven't exactly rendered USENET obsolete); if anything it's to augment it with some capabilities from that model that are there for site admins to use if they choose to do so. If that turns into costs that site admins want to recoup in the form of charges for their users, that's left as an exercise for the implementors (remembering my opinion stated above that I don't think USENET should change for you). Stephen

2 1