May 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Semi OT: Co-Location in Virginia/DC/Maryland
by Christopher E. Brown 06 May '02

06 May '02

Hoping some of you can send me suggestions on Datacenter/CoLo facilities in the Virginia/DC/Maryland area that can support 20 Racks Multiple providers capable of a minimum of DS3 level service (OC3s available from multiple providers preferred) Stable/Secure/Sane to use facility Usable site supplied UPS, or support for customer provided Symmetra or similar. 24/7 access Any info or leads would be great, I am not familiar with the facilities situation on the East Coast. Thanks Chris -- I route, therefore you are.

2 1

NordNog meeting 13-14 May 2002
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 06 May '02

06 May '02

(Appologies if considered off-topic) Registration is now open for the first Nordic Operator Forum meeting in Stockholm, 13-14th of May 2002 at the Roayal Institute of Technology. The event will be free of charge. Please visit http://www.nordnog.org for information on registering and the agenda.

1 0

Williams Opinions?
by Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL) 06 May '02

06 May '02

Does anyone have any current opinions on Williams IP service and any expected changes with the Chapter 11? Shane

3 2

Re: Williams Opinions?
by Frank Coluccio 06 May '02

06 May '02

> Does anyone have any current opinions on Williams IP service and any > expected changes with the Chapter 11? > > Shane Williams Communications Group Inc. (The "Holding Company") has filed, but this, *ostensibly*, should not affect the ongoing operations of their operating subsidiary, Williams Communications, LLC. >From the Reuters news release on the subject: -- Williams Communications Files for Chapter 11 TULSA, Okla. (Reuters) - Williams Communications Group Inc. (OTC BB:WCGR.OB - news) said on Monday it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in a bid to restructure and cut its debt by about $6 billion. The company said it filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and expects to file a reorganization plan in the ``near future.'' Its operating subsidiary, Williams Communications, LLC, is not expected to be involved in the Chapter 11 reorganization process, the statement said. The company's Chapter 11 filing comes as the battered telecommunications sector continues to takes a hammering from heavy competition, a glut of fiber-optic networks and bankruptcy filings by other competitors. -- Caveat emptor, FAC.

1 0

portscan?
by blitz 06 May '02

06 May '02

I know theres knowledgable opinion on this list on this topic. Besides Gibson's (www.grc.com) port scan and www.DSLreports.com port scanning tools, is there any others you folks have found that are reliable and don't breed spam? TIA Marc

2 1

Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
by rs＠seastrom.com 06 May '02

06 May '02

Scott Granados <scott(a)graphidelix.net> writes: > No I think your message illustrates things pretty well. I guess the > fundimental differenc here is not only does it cost usually very little > to receive these messages it costs even less infact dramatically to send > spam. It seems there is no real reason for the spammer to be concerned > with whether the mail is properly targeted or not so a full on flood is > possible and the leads generated by this flood percentage wise have to > be many factors less than the percentage of success in snailmail. It does not cost "very little" to recieve spam. At my real job (ie, not seastrom.com) we're running a very nice (but expensive) commercial product to filter this stuff, and in a given time quantum during which we processed 1.9 million messages, spam and virii accounted for about 600k (32% was the last number I saw from our stats script). It's reasonable to assume, since some unwanted messages slip through, that we're over a third of all email being UCE. So we have a choice: pay for the (very nice but expensive) commercial product, or add forty percent to our mail spool disk farm and extra cpus and ram in the mail server farm to deal with the additional influx. In the numbers we're talking about, bandwidth costs become measurable too. Spam is theft, plain and simple. ---Rob

15 20

Re: Effective ways to deal with DDoS attacks?
by Lincoln Dale 05 May '02

05 May '02

At 03:34 AM 5/05/2002 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >I was hoping someone else might mention this, BUT what about the case of >customers providing transit for outbound but not inbound traffic for their >customers? two methods: [1] if your customer has their own AS, have them route the (valid) networks to you with the no-export bgp attribute set. [2] if they're not BGP connected, then surely you have some idea of what subnet(s) they're sending traffic out from? (i hope so). if so, then you'd have static-routes for those subnets pointing at their interface. you don't necessarily have to include those static-routes in announcements to your peers. both of [1] & [2] may mean that more traffic may 'prefer' the link from you to the customer. (probably doubly so given you're uunet and the amount of transit that goes thru you). in that case, perhaps using the no-advertise community so that the route stays 'local' to a router (or local to a city) will prove sufficient. cheers, lincoln.

1 0

Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
by Dave Israel 04 May '02

04 May '02

Content providers have to recieve and hold spam mail before they delete it. People and mailing lists who have well-published addresses can recieve hundreds of spam messages a day. I know that, without my filters, I would easily spend 30-45 minutes a day downloading, identifying, and deleting spam mail. Not counting the frustration, that's costing the company money. I heard somewhere that ~$2 of an AOL users' monthly bill goes towards spam management. (IS there an AOLer who can confirm or deny?) AOL has some 10 million users. That's a lot of dough a month to handle what appears to be no big deal. SPAM is a milder version, but it is no better than if telemarketers called you collect to try to sell you crap. -Dave p.s. Also, if you're a parent, do you think the spammer knows how old you are before sending you "Teenage Girls Doing Farm Animals! Click here?" On 5/3/2002 at 15:27:08 -0700, Scott Granados said: > > I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge... > can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most > friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big > deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some > of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my > snailmail box. Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs <no offense > to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key just like my trash can. > I know at one time the argument was made, and quite correctly that > people were paying to receive this service and these messages cost them > money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per > packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end > user to filter properly and or dress that delete key. I always shut > down customers who spam and disrupt service simply because I don't want > the backlash or want specific ips blocked but in a way I don't feel its > right that the carriers do the filtering it seems tome up to the end > user. > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > > > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email > > > > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just > > > > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account, > > > > and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account. > > > > > > spam is like pollution in that (a) whenever you're not sure if you're > > > doing it, you probably are, and (b) if everybody did whatever it is, > > > life would be universally worse for, well, everybody. > > > > > > > Random disclaimer: Yes, we're a competitor of no-ip.com's... And yes, we > > > > used to send similar emails to people signing up for an account, > > > > although nowadays instead of sending them an initial password we send a > > > > confirm URL instead. > > > > > > that's the right approach. no-ip's problem was they presumed my permission. > > > > > > > You don't even have to be in the "big idiot" league to figure out that in > > both the "wrong" and the "right" approach as sanctioned above by a higher > > authority, an email message (aka spam) is sent to the presumed subscriber. > > > > One sends a password, one asks for permission to issue a password on their > > site. What's the difference in the annoy factor, if indeed one were to be > > subscribed by a secret "admirer"? > > > > Mr. Halmu chose to think, rather than bindly obey... > > > > --Mitch > > NetSide > > > -- Dave Israel Senior Manager, IP Backbone Engineering

3 2

Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
by Tony Rall 04 May '02

04 May '02

On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers? I hope not. If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more so) breaks so many things that it would be unconscionable to advertise as an ISP. Even some tcp apps fail under NAT. The NAT box may include a number of "fix-ups" but such will never be equivalent to giving the customer a public address. An Internet Service Provider gives the customer a full connection to the Internet. All IP protocols should work. I'm in favor of using NAT only where there is a good argument for it and the customers are given the straight story about what they're buying and what it won't be able to do. Don't call yourself an ISP. Tony Rall

17 31

RoadRunner abuse?
by E.B. Dreger 04 May '02

04 May '02

Greetings all, Sorry to post this, but it appears that past emails to RoadRunner re a spammer (sending out attachments to boot) have been ineffective. Only ~150kB, but multiply that by however many victims... I'd think and hope *someone* cares. Back to on-topic material. I just wanted to see if there's anyone out there before I go whining to MAPS, et al. -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> To: blacklist(a)brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

5 4