May 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Earthlink SMTP for Mobile Users
by Crist J. Clark 10 May '02

10 May '02

I was stuck in a dial-up-only hell for a few months and used quite a bit of Earthlink dial-up. I during that time, I did a variety of tinkering of the email headers (like masquerading envelopes). It sure didn't seem to me that Earthlink cared at all what domain was in the return path. Their SMTP servers would relay _anything_ provided you're source IP was in their IP-space. So, AFAIK, you can do whatever you want with respect to outgoing mail (any source domain in the envelope or headers that you want) and Earthlink's SMTP servers will relay it. Not that I didn't get annoyed with the blocking from time to time. Sometimes I wanted to talk directly to a remote SMTP server with telnet to debug a client's setup or see if they were the open relay I was getting SPAM from. IIRC, you get ICMP admin-prohibited messages back when you try to connect to port 25. But I probably have to say that I think Earthlink is doing the right thing, IMHO. Aren't the other big US dial-up providers doing this kind of thing? I assumed they all were. Despite the continuous rise in total SPAM levels, don't see very much SPAM from the US mega-huge dial-ups anymore. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark(a)alum.mit.edu | cjclark(a)jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc(a)freebsd.org

2 1

MFN fiber cut in NYC
by Greg Pendergrass 10 May '02

10 May '02

MFN has a fiber cut in NYC. I don't know the extent of the outage, but I do know that my connection from 60 hudson to bush terminal in brooklyn is out. Hope it's not too bad. GP

1 0

Earthlink SMTP for Mobile Users
by Cutler, James R 10 May '02

10 May '02

Jim, Yes, SMTP settings will to have to be changed to match whatever service, different from Earthlink.net, that you happen to use. As an outlook user, I simply created multiple profiles which referred to the same local mail store. This technique even works with the VPN to the corporate Exchange system. I just click the correct shortcut (alias) to activate the correct configuration for my connection status. My experience with Earthlink.net using several domains has been quite positive. My understanding is that Earthlink can support this because the subscriber connection itself is authenticated, giving the required traceback to the end user for UCE policy enforcement. JimC --On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:37 PM -0700 "Rowland, Alan D" <alan_r1(a)corp.earthlink.net> wrote: > For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see: > > http://help.earthlink.net/port25/ That's very helpful! Thank you! One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using SMTP AUTH, from anywhere, or only from within your network? I observe, for instance, that the instructions for Outlook 2000 (Windows) does not have them check "my [outgoing SMTP] server requires authentication". If the former, great! I'll inform my affected customers. If the latter, they'll have to fool with settings as they move around -- which you no doubt already know is asking too much of 99% of the population. :-)

2 1

CAIS/Ardent Routing Problems?
by nanog＠ADNS.NET 10 May '02

10 May '02

Anyone see anything strange with AS 3491 today? They have been dropping our routes on and off all day long?

2 1

Toronto topics
by Susan Harris 10 May '02

10 May '02

Here's a preliminary list of presentations scheduled for NANOG25 in Toronto. PS - be sure to register at the hotel before our lower-price block expires on May 18: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0206/hotel.html ========================================================================== Preliminary Topics - NANOG25 June 9-11, 2002 Tutorials --------- Introduction to RPSL Ambrose Magee, Ericsson Inter-domain Traffic Engineering: Overview and Case Examples Josh Wepmen, Ixia, Joe Abley, MFN, and Andrew Lange, CW BGP Techniques for Service Providers Phil Smith, Cisco Deploying Tight-SLA services on an Internet Backbone: ISIS Fast Convergence and DiffServ Design Clarence Filsfils, Cisco General Session --------------- Panel: Core Network Design and Vendor Prophecies Danny McPherson, TCB, moderator Convergence and Restoration Techniques for ISP Interior Routing Curtis Villamizar, Avici Protecting the BGP Routes to Top Level DNS Servers Lan Wang, Xiaoliang Zhao, Dan Pei, Randy Bush, Daniel Massey, Allison Mankin, Felix Wu, and Lixia Zhang 10 Gigabit Ethernet Technology and Market Overview Dave O'leary, Juniper Controlling the Impact of BGP Policy Changes on IP Traffic Nick Feamster, MIT, Jennifer Rexford, AT&T Labs, and Jay Borkenhagen, AT&T Labs Redistribution Communities for Interdomain Traffic Engineering B. Quoitin and O. Bonaventure, University of Namur, Belgium Core Router Testing for High Availability Scott Poretsky, Avici Panel: Economic Differences Between Transit and Peering Exchanges Bill Woodcock, Packet Clearing House, moderator Panel: Smart Routing Technologies Sue Hares, NextHop, moderator Using the New ARIN WHOIS Server Ginny Listman, ARIN BGP Security Issues Barry Raveendran Greene, Cisco BOFs ---- Peering BOF V Bill Norton, Equinix, moderator BGP Benchmarking BOF Sue Hares, NextHop, moderator

1 0

Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
by James Smith 10 May '02

10 May '02

>> >> I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? > >Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure >non-redundant network. > >Steve > ============================================= Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. I think we all assume that our provider "guarantees" us some sort of "total reachability". Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a "reachability" guarantee? James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation So I'm top posting. Sue me.

4 4

RE: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
by Rowland, Alan D 10 May '02

10 May '02

For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see: http://help.earthlink.net/port25/ Best regards, Al Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Joel Baker [mailto:lucifer@lightbearer.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:26 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet? On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:10AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote: > > Now there's a good idea, and it works, I have several sites running a > "port 25" trap to stop smtp abuse. > > To stop port 25 abuse at some schools, the firewall grabs all outgoing > port 25 connections from !"the mail server", and to !"the mail server", > and runs then via "the mail server", which stops header forging, mass rcpt > to: abuse, and vrfy/expn probing. Anything that goes past the filters has > a nice clear and traceable received by: line. > > If a few of the larger pre-paid isp's could simply filter port 25 on their > accounts, add some sanity checking (like, a user must be using a valid > email address in the from:/return-path:/reply-to: lines, etc) and reject > other abuse like rcpt to: stacking. Plus, add a anti-bulk email check, > like razor or checksum clearinghouse, (yeah, seriously, checksum the > outgoing emails, if some humans somewhere have said "this is spam", then > /dev/null or BOUNCE the outgoing email.) > > I'd even be inclined to place these filters at the border to smaller > downstream isp's, let them register their valid email domains, any user > from their network trying to send invalid email, or email that is listed > in razor, just kill it or auto-refer to the abuse desk. > > [This may sound expensive, but on reflection, a US$2K box with BSD could > handle 20Mbps of port 25, remember only port 25, nothing else, you would > place one behind your dial up infrastructure, or several for a large site, > and your "transparent smtp proxy" would pay for itself by killing off a > lot of your abuse@ work. There was many ways of redirecting the port 25 > packets, have a look at all the good work done on port 80 transparent > proxies.] > > // :), patent pending? No, the concept is hereby commited to the public > domain. // Earthlink was doing this for basically all of their consumer-grade (dialup, most of the ADSL, etc) customers in 1999 (well, almost certainly earlier than that, but I can only personally speak to it being in place then). It doesn't stop absolutely everything, but it's a very good 95% first pass filter. Don't forget to allocate support queue time for explaining to folks why they can't do SMTP relaying through their other provider where they have a hosting account, though... (Business customers were exempted, but paid hefty setup fees and monthly fees, and if I recall the contract correctly, forfeited all of them for AUP violations, which explicitly included UCE). Keeping the filters up to date is often a painful excercise in assignment coordination testing, too... -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer(a)lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

3 2

gTLD Informational Message
by Verd, Brad 10 May '02

10 May '02

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: VeriSign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for k.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set for com/net/org. The change will be reflected in zone serial # 2002051001 The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.42.93.30 H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.54.112.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.43.172.30 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.33.14.30 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.52.178.30 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.12.94.30 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.55.83.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the new and old k.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel to accommodate the zones TTL's. ------------------------------------------------------------ Brad Verd Resolution Systems Operations Manager Verisign Global Registry Services http://www.verisign-grs.com Email: bverd(a)verisign.com ------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

gTLD Informational Message
by Verd, Brad 10 May '02

10 May '02

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: VeriSign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for k.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set for com/net/org. The change will be reflected in zone serial # 2002051001 The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.42.93.30 H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.54.112.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.43.172.30 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.33.14.30 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.52.178.30 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.12.94.30 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.55.83.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the new and old k.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel to accommodate the zones TTL's. ------------------------------------------------------------ Brad Verd Resolution Systems Operations Manager Verisign Global Registry Services http://www.verisign-grs.com Email: bverd(a)verisign.com ------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

users of xacct?
by Mark Turpin 10 May '02

10 May '02

I'm interested to hear from those of you that might be using xacct, and your thoughts on the product. To keep traffic down on the list, just reply to me. If you are providing cable modem service and using xacct I'd really like to talk to you. For those of you that ask for a summary of the replies I receive, I will pass opinions, not names. Thanks, -Mark -- To a dog, you're one of the family. To a cat, you're one of the help.

1 0