October 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Verisign to sell Network Solutions
by Mark Radabaugh 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

> >So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry > services > >operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be > owned by > >different companies? > > Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer > based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging > various monopoly rights that they have such as ownership > of .com and ownership of the main root CAs whose > certificates are bundled with Microsoft's OS. > > >Isn't that what we wanted all along? > This just gets more interesting. If the sale of the NetSol was in the works for some time (and these things usually take a while) it would mean that Verisign was likely counting on the revenue from Sitefinder to offset the loss of revenue from selling NetSol. They cut off an arm and then shot themselves in the foot. Maybe ICANN can put them out of our misery. It would help explain why Verisign continues to press so hard for Sitefinder despite the firestorm over it.... New Coke anyone? Mark

1 0

Verisign to sell Network Solutions
by Mark Radabaugh 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

This is interesting: Dear Valued Network Solutions® Customer, Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new entity formed by Pivotal Private Equity. Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 720-3635 begin 666 clear.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````````"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end

8 8

Re: Verisign to sell Network Solutions
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

>So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services >operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by >different companies? Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging various monopoly rights that they have such as ownership of .com and ownership of the main root CAs whose certificates are bundled with Microsoft's OS. >Isn't that what we wanted all along? Uhhh... sort of, but I guess most folks really just wanted the whole domain name business to be handled in an open honest and fair manner. This latest move by Verisign doesn't make any substantial advance in that direction. The fact is that we have created Verisign's .COM monopoly by treating .com domains as the cool thing to have and we are sustaining Verisign's .COM monopoly by not educating our customers and our friends about the alternative domains that are available. As technically skilled people we could also help by developing detailled transition plans to help people shift to a new TLD and then turn off the old one. This isn't as straightforward as just slapping an extra zone into DNS and an alias onto Apache. If you want to get rid of the .com domain name then you need some way of identifying which traffic still uses the old .com domain name and then you need some means of notifying the users to change their own records or address books. --Michael Dillon

3 2

RE: Site Finder
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

> What effective action can we take as a collective group to > get the point across that we will not tollerate this type of behavior? Internet death penalty? (at last a topic you can configure your router for) Having been provided a mechanism to catch all those typos what ISP wouldn't want that traffic to go to something they make money from? If you don't want it someone else will pay you for your share of the traffic (saves porn houses buying lots of domains when they can use them for free) brandon

1 0

RE: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
by McBurnett, Jim 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

All, I hate to agree but he is right. With companies like godaddy out there. Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our headaches? To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND version truly break sitefinder? Later, Jim ->-----Original Message----- ->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidelman@civicnet.org] ->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM ->To: nanog list ->Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service -> -> -> ->Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain ->registrations those of us ->on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one ->thing, taking ->all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at ->getting a point ->across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to ->be even more ->agressive at taking advantage of their positioning). -> ->Miles -> ->

3 2

more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
by David Lesher 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

Err.. at least in the meeting, the VeriSlime carefully evaded giving any quantifiable answer as to warning time. I have no idea what they spun to the press afterwards. What I observed was they started out cocky...as the meeting went on and the questioning got pointed, they got snippy and defensive. Further along, they got a clear tone of desperation in their speech. Their counsel actually stood up and blocked them from answering some questions. As for the ?35? companies they polled; note the number started far higher and dribbled down. I suspect that the reason it was so low was (SURPRISE!) the 35 had to sign NDA's.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

8 7

RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s
by McBurnett, Jim 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

->-----Original Message----- ->From: Phil Rosenthal [mailto:pr@isprime.com] ->As long as it's provider assigned, and your provider announces the ->supernet that the /24 is from, it will still work. If you ->announce PI ->space out of the old class A space in /24's, many networks ->wont be able ->to reach you. I am not sure I agree with this. We are annoucing a /24 from the 66 /8 block and I have only found 2 ISP's (according the the netlantis project) that can't reach me. We are multihomed. I suspect that may be due to aggregation. But even with our backup online, I still saw the routes propogate via Netlantis.. Or am I out in left field going nuts? Later, Jim

2 1

Re: possible ORG problems, maybe?
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

> it would appear that given the large scale > ddos attacks against networks, and dns in particular over the last year, > an anycast implementation is the *only* way that dns has a chance of > surviving. It might help but isn't a cure all. If they can query it they can DoS it and given the splay of zombies vs your servers there should be enough to kill them all dns serving P2P style (I'm not suggesting someone should do it) would even up the odds, with enough penetration you could get 1:1 so they all attack themselves. > In terms of UltraDNS, we try to make it easier by having the following > two records on every server: > dig @[UltraDNS Anycast name or ip address] whoareyou.ultradns.net A > and > dig @[UltraDNS Anycast name or ip address] whoami.ultradns.net A more useful would be to make a query that returned the answers from all your servers (obfuscated if necessary) so we can see which is different & have data to report the problem I presume you have such a tool internally for regression testing brandon

1 0

It's been 5 years...
by Rodney Joffe 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

| Jon Postel | August 6, 1943 - October 16, 1998 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2468.txt Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drum Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come. Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead, Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves, Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves. He was my North, my South, my East and West, My working week and my sunday rest, My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song; I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong. The stars are not wanted now: put out every one; Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun; Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood. For nothing now can ever come to any good. W. H. Auden /rlj

1 0

RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s
by H. Michael Smith, Jr. 15 Oct '03

15 Oct '03

This is a part of the problem. I realize that large ISPs are probably against micro-assignments so that they can continue to use address space to treat customers as indentured servants. I guess they can skip Chicago and just filter out any micro-assignments that ARIN may one day issue. My biggest gripe on this topic is about ISPs that assign /24's to multi-homed customers, but filter out /24's received from peers. Verio (the example of the day) accepts /24's (that they likely assigned) from customers but filters these out from others. Are they expecting their peers not to filter these /24's or do they really care? I suppose if their peers adopt filtering policies such as theirs, they can just tell their customers "We accept your /24, but the other guy is filtering it out" Michael -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:35 PM To: Forrest; michael(a)awtechnologies.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Forrest, Even if ARIN passes this policy that will not make any provider change their filtering policy. It is true that many providers do use the ARIN allocation sizes to create their filtering rules but the two are not inherently linked. Any ASN can choose the filter on what ever rule set they choose. Andrew At 04:38 PM 10/15/2003 -0500, Forrest wrote: > > >This is just one of the many reasons why we need ARIN proposal 2002-3 to >be approved. So that small networks that wish to multihome don't have >issues with networks filtering out their /24 along with all the other >garbage /24's that are announced. > >http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_3.html > >If you support 2002-3 I urge you to get on the ARIN Public Policy >Mailing List (PPML) and voice your opinion. > >http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > >Forrest > > >-----Original Message----- >From: H. Michael Smith, Jr. [SMTP:michael@awtechnologies.com] >Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:24 PM >To: 'Phil Rosenthal'; 'John Palmer' >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s > > > >What about the /24's that many ISPs (especially tier 2-3) are assigning >to multi-homed customers? What about an IX or "critical infrastructure >providers" that may be issued a /24 from ARIN (Policy 2001-3)? > >Although it may be rare that a large aggregate would become unreachable >to a "large" network, doesn't the possibility exist that a customer with >a /24 would become unreachable (to some) due to the aggregate dropping >out even though the /24 should still be reachable? That scenario may >not be very likely, but the question of assymetric routing and one's >ability to balance traffic become issues. Assigning a lower preference >to /24's would be a lot friendlier than just throwing them away. > >If I am way off base, I fully expect to be corrected (with volume). My >flame retardant suit is in place. > >Michael > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of >Phil Rosenthal >Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:47 PM >To: John Palmer >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s > > >http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter > >That's how Verio does it, and I assume, that's how most people who >filter by length do it as well. > >--Phil >On Oct 15, 2003, at 4:40 PM, John Palmer wrote: > >> >> Good question. >> >> You know there are thousands of legacy /24's out there that were >> allocated by >> IANA as /24's How can you aggregate them up if all you have is the >/24? >> >> To those who filter out /24's - how is this done - just by the netmask > >> size? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jean-Christophe Smith" <jsmith(a)vitalstream.com> >> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 15:34 >> Subject: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s >> >> >>> >>> >>> In current practice would there be serious jeopardy of portions of >the >>> internet not being able to reach this address space due to bgp >>> filters or >>> other restrictions? What is the smallest acceptable block of IPs that > >>> can be >>> announced without adverse or unpredictable results? Verio would most >>> likely >>> be picking up these routes from us. I don't want to cause a religious >>> debate, but I am interested in what the industry consensus is. >>> >>> I'm just doing some research, any comments would be appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jean-Christophe Smith >>> >>> >> >> >--Phil Rosenthal >ISPrime, Inc. > > > > > > >

1 0