December 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: MS's new antispam idea
by Michel Py 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

David, >> Michel Py wrote: >> Besides, the deployment is sketchy: before it can be >> activated, it needs to be deployed at the vast majority >> of servers that send legitimate mail, which means that >> in the interim one still has to accept emails that don't >> use the system, which in turn produces no incentive to >> deploy it in the first place. > David Schwartz wrote: > While I think this scheme is a pretty bad idea, the argument > above is just not correct. Obviously, until this scheme is > widely-deployed, you have to accept email from sources that > won't perform this validation, but that doesn't mean that > there's no benefit to performing the validation or > requesting it. Your point is valid, but along with the benefits of performing the validation even if the deployment has not reached 100% yet comes major drawback: If it can be assumed that Microsoft or eBay will indeed shell out the resources to buy and operate a few rackfulls of 1U low-end servers to distribute the processing load, the same assumption does not apply to smaller entities. I have a relatively small customer (~200 employees) that has a 300,000 person mailing list; they effectively send 300,000 legitimate emails a day. If I stick to the figures proposed yesterday (10 seconds of CPU an email / 8000 a day for one CPU) what does it mean for these guys in the period before 100% deployment: They have to choose between: 1. Do nothing and risk being more filtered than they otherwise would be. 2. Bite the bullet, buy 37 new servers (while they were using one) and develop a mechanism to load share the computation of the puzzle. A large number of these guys won't go for the 37 extra servers. What does it mean for you and me in the decision to deploy or not to deploy such a scheme on our own mail servers: it means that the extended filtering capabilities you described (which are very valid) nevertheless have to be balanced with an increased number of false positives, that very number of false positives being greatly increased by the partial deployment. As of today, the way I see the challenge of spam is not in terms of how much you block, but in terms of the ratio of false positives to undetected spam. Unfortunately, in the interim period this enhanced filtering mechanism you describe would favor two categories: a) the big and/or wealthy (because they can buy the required resources) and b) the spammers (because they steal the resources) at the expense of the smaller organization. :-( Michel.

1 0

MS's new antispam idea
by Stephen J. Wilcox 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3324883.stm Ok so in summary you have to use a bit of CPU to solve a puzzle before it lets you send email. So either this doesnt work because spammers dont actually use their own PCs to send email or we are talking about a whole new mail protocol, either way I'm thinking this isnt going to work and its yet another publicity stunt. Steve

6 6

RE: MS's new antispam idea
by Michel Py 26 Dec '03

26 Dec '03

> Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > So either this doesnt work because spammers don't > actually use their own PCs to send email Indeed; it doesn't do any good against spammers that control large numbers of zombie machines; they'll just distribute the processing load all over the place. And it would make life miserable for people that send large numbers of legitimate emails. Besides, the deployment is sketchy: before it can be activated, it needs to be deployed at the vast majority of servers that send legitimate mail, which means that in the interim one still has to accept emails that don't use the system, which in turn produces no incentive to deploy it in the first place. Michel.

2 1

RE: Out of office/vacation messages
by Pete Templin 26 Dec '03

26 Dec '03

You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. However, I don't think you should necessarily consider the subscriber as the offender - I for one have no choice in what email software is run at my corporate office. Everyone in my corporate IT group is so busy continually justifying their existence and staking their ground that there's no chance that they'll switch platforms. Heck, the Windoze guy turns almost white when I talk about taking over the DNS servers. -----Original Message----- From: David Lesher [mailto:wb8foz@nrk.com] Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 9:51 AM To: nanog list Subject: Re: Out of office/vacation messages Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period. > > Then again, most of the autoresponders being sent to the list are from > Exchange. Which is broken, period. Most? Not "all"?? When/if I get tired of getting the admin box full of such, I find unsubscribing the offender to be a good cure. -- 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

3 2

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 26 Dec '03

26 Dec '03

This report has been generated at Fri Dec 26 21:47:48 2003 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 19-12-03 128899 90425 20-12-03 128943 90361 21-12-03 128972 90386 22-12-03 129021 90403 23-12-03 128937 90406 24-12-03 128959 90484 25-12-03 129191 90477 26-12-03 129101 90490 AS Summary 16303 Number of ASes in routing system 6517 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1395 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 73533184 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 26Dec03 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 129152 90491 38661 29.9% All ASes AS4134 707 123 584 82.6% CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street AS6197 821 295 526 64.1% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS4323 677 205 472 69.7% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS701 1395 961 434 31.1% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7018 1390 959 431 31.0% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS7843 505 116 389 77.0% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS6198 568 228 340 59.9% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS22909 320 13 307 95.9% DNEO-OSP1 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. AS27364 381 81 300 78.7% ACS-INTERNET Armstrong Cable Services AS22773 327 31 296 90.5% CCINET-2 Cox Communications Inc. Atlanta AS1239 955 665 290 30.4% SPRINTLINK Sprint AS4355 380 99 281 73.9% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS1221 911 656 255 28.0% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS17676 290 42 248 85.5% GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp. AS6347 329 85 244 74.2% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS25844 243 16 227 93.4% SKADDEN1 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP AS209 732 516 216 29.5% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS9583 272 56 216 79.4% SATYAMNET-AS Satyam Infoway Ltd., AS6140 350 138 212 60.6% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat AS14654 205 3 202 98.5% WAYPORT Wayport AS11305 231 38 193 83.5% INTERLAND-NET1 Interland Incorporated AS4519 194 13 181 93.3% MAAS Maas Communications AS6478 218 41 177 81.2% ATT-INTERNET3 AT&T WorldNet Services AS6327 204 28 176 86.3% SHAW Shaw Communications Inc. AS9929 203 27 176 86.7% CNCNET-CN China Netcom Corp. AS2386 405 237 168 41.5% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS20115 580 413 167 28.8% CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC Charter Communications AS2048 248 84 164 66.1% LANET-1 State of Louisiana AS15270 204 41 163 79.9% AS-PAETEC-NET PaeTec.net -a division of PaeTecCommunications, Inc. AS9800 212 57 155 73.1% UNICOM CHINA UNICOM Total 14457 6267 8190 56.7% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 24.138.80.0/20 AS11260 ANDARA-HSI Andara High Speed Internet c/o Halifax Cable Ltd. 61.12.32.0/24 AS7545 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet Pty Ltd 61.12.34.0/24 AS7545 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet Pty Ltd 64.62.64.0/24 AS3549 GBLX Global Crossing 64.62.126.0/23 AS25700 SWIFTDESK SWIFTDESK VENTURE 66.41.192.0/18 AS13367 CCCH-AS3 Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc 69.8.128.0/17 AS7260 NORLIGHT Norlight Telecommunications 132.0.0.0/10 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 137.0.0.0/13 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 138.136.0.0/13 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 140.143.2.0/24 AS1221 ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd 158.0.0.0/13 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 192.43.230.0/24 AS4738 SAARDNET-AS South Australian Academic Research and Development Network 192.44.0.0/19 AS702 AS702 MCI EMEA 192.64.84.0/24 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.83.16.0/20 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.83.32.0/19 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.83.64.0/19 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.83.96.0/22 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.83.100.0/24 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.119.135.0/24 AS270 PSCNI-AS National Aeronautics and Space Administration 192.124.252.0/22 AS680 AS680 DFN-IP service G-WiN 192.135.50.0/24 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services 192.136.71.0/24 AS719 AS719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.136.79.0/24 AS719 AS719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.153.144.0/21 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 192.172.0.0/19 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 192.188.208.0/20 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 192.243.32.0/23 AS2044 PALIN-AS Palin Aquisitions Inc. 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLATLANTIC-COM Bell Atlantic, Inc. 198.41.194.0/24 AS1982 ASN-NWNEXUS Northwest Nexus Inc. 198.97.72.0/21 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 198.97.80.0/20 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 198.97.88.0/24 AS89 NUSC-CSTLNET-AS Naval Underwater Systems Center 198.97.192.0/20 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 198.97.240.0/20 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 198.101.4.0/22 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 198.136.32.0/20 AS19329 MCNET Martin County Board of County Commissioners 198.144.32.0/19 AS3998 CITY-NET CityNet, Inc. 198.161.87.0/24 AS6539 GROUPTLCOM GT Group Telecom Services Corp. 198.161.165.0/24 AS852 ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications 198.163.155.0/24 AS684 MBNET-AS Manitoba Regional Network 198.167.0.0/16 AS7456 INTERHOP Interhop Network SERVICES Inc. 198.167.163.0/24 AS15290 ALLST-15290 Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 198.169.0.0/16 AS803 SASKTEL SaskTel 198.232.133.0/24 AS23075 SKOTOS-AS Skotos Tech, Inc 199.10.0.0/16 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.60.0.0/20 AS271 BCNET-AS University of British Columbia 199.84.0.0/16 AS701 ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 199.114.0.0/18 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.114.0.0/21 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.114.128.0/18 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.114.130.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.132.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.136.0/24 AS1913 DLA4 Defense Logistics Agency 199.114.138.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.140.0/24 AS3544 ITSDN-U7 DISA/UNRRA 199.114.142.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.144.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.148.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.150.0/24 AS721 DLA-ASNBLOCK-AS DoD Network Information Center 199.114.152.0/24 AS1913 DLA4 Defense Logistics Agency 199.114.154.0/24 AS1733 CENTAF-SWA AF DDN PMO 199.114.156.0/24 AS1913 DLA4 Defense Logistics Agency 199.114.160.0/24 AS1733 CENTAF-SWA AF DDN PMO 199.120.32.0/19 AS16582 NEXTLEVELINTERNET NEXTLEVEL INTERNET, INC. 199.121.0.0/16 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.123.0.0/18 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.123.16.0/20 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.123.80.0/21 AS568 SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA 199.189.32.0/19 AS7332 IQUEST-AS IQuest Internet 199.202.0.0/16 AS701 ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 200.120.0.0/16 AS22047 CL-VPNS-LACNIC VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. 202.0.180.0/24 AS4058 LINKAGENET-AP CPCNet Hong Kong Ltd. 202.4.252.0/22 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network¡ªChina169 Beijing Province Network 202.4.255.0/24 AS4799 UNSPECIFIED Ji Tong Communications Co., Ltd. 202.70.240.0/20 AS4058 LINKAGENET-AP CPCNet Hong Kong Ltd. 202.72.112.0/22 AS22351 INTELSAT-1 INTELSAT 202.122.76.0/24 AS17553 TIMELESS-AP System Integration provider 202.136.254.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network¡ªChina169 Beijing Province Network 202.136.255.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network¡ªChina169 Beijing Province Network 203.29.222.0/24 AS22934 EBROADBANDNOW E Broadband Now Inc. 203.32.4.0/23 AS7617 APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 203.62.0.0/17 AS7572 AARNET-ACT-RNO Australian Academic and Reasearch Network (AARNet) 203.76.128.0/24 AS9729 IS-AP iAdvantage Limited 203.76.224.0/24 AS9549 COMDEK-ISP-AS-AP Comdek ISP 203.86.2.0/23 AS4058 LINKAGENET-AP CPCNet Hong Kong Ltd. 203.132.95.0/24 AS9787 CONCEPT-AU-AP Concept Networks 203.132.97.0/24 AS7652 VIANET-AS-AP Vianet Communications Pty Ltd 203.132.107.0/24 AS10236 FOXGOLD-NET-AU-AP FOXGOLD COMMUNICATIONS 203.132.108.0/24 AS10236 FOXGOLD-NET-AU-AP FOXGOLD COMMUNICATIONS 203.132.109.0/24 AS10141 CALOUNDRA-AS-AP Caloundra.net 203.132.111.0/24 AS10236 FOXGOLD-NET-AU-AP FOXGOLD COMMUNICATIONS 203.132.112.0/24 AS10236 FOXGOLD-NET-AU-AP FOXGOLD COMMUNICATIONS 203.132.118.0/24 AS18065 CENTRALDATA-WA Central Data Pty Ltd. 203.132.122.0/24 AS4802 WANTREE-AS-AP Wantree Development 203.132.123.0/24 AS18065 CENTRALDATA-WA Central Data Pty Ltd. 203.132.124.0/24 AS18065 CENTRALDATA-WA Central Data Pty Ltd. 203.132.125.0/24 AS4817 TECHEX1-AS-AP Techex Primary Netblock 203.135.99.0/24 AS2687 IBM-MMD-AS IBM 204.19.224.0/19 AS816 UUNET-AS4 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 204.69.144.0/22 AS5668 AS-5668 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. 204.154.125.0/24 AS3952 TELLABS-ASN TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.154.126.0/24 AS3952 TELLABS-ASN TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.154.127.0/24 AS3952 TELLABS-ASN TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.194.110.0/23 AS30653 EXOBIT 205.150.0.0/15 AS701 ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 206.41.32.0/19 AS14824 NEWSOUTH NewSouth Communications Corp. 206.81.187.0/24 AS19194 JOVITA Sentris Network LLC 206.108.34.0/24 AS852 ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications 206.108.35.0/24 AS852 ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications 206.167.57.0/24 AS376 RISQ-AS Reseau Interordinateurs Scientique Quebecois (RISQ) 206.191.64.0/18 AS15290 ALLST-15290 Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream 206.251.69.0/24 AS27429 TIL Telesat International Ltd. 207.47.39.0/24 AS816 UUNET-AS4 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 207.162.192.0/19 AS4589 EASYNET Easynet Group Plc 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA NuNet Inc 208.81.187.0/24 AS19194 JOVITA Sentris Network LLC 209.169.219.0/24 AS189 GENUITY-AS189 Genuity 209.169.223.0/24 AS189 GENUITY-AS189 Genuity 209.172.0.0/18 AS7770 TRITON Triton Technologies, Inc. 209.196.192.0/19 AS1784 GNAPS Global NAPs Networks 209.213.32.0/19 AS10629 INTERPAC Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.213.50.0/24 AS10629 INTERPAC Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.213.51.0/24 AS10629 INTERPAC Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.213.55.0/24 AS10629 INTERPAC Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.213.56.0/24 AS10629 INTERPAC Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.222.137.0/24 AS27429 TIL Telesat International Ltd. 209.240.96.0/19 AS10815 KCNET KCnet, Inc. 209.251.0.0/19 AS11036 SISCOM SISCOM, Inc 209.251.64.0/19 AS10266 NETWAY-AS MDC, Inc. 210.213.0.0/19 AS6453 GIEUROPE Teleglobe America Inc. 216.18.224.0/21 AS11458 IMBRIS IMBRIS, INC. 216.18.224.0/22 AS11458 IMBRIS IMBRIS, INC. 216.18.228.0/22 AS11458 IMBRIS IMBRIS, INC. 216.36.46.0/24 AS7176 GENUITY-AS7176 Genuity 216.36.47.0/24 AS7176 GENUITY-AS7176 Genuity 216.96.128.0/18 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

Happy Holiday Wishes
by Braun, Mike 25 Dec '03

25 Dec '03

To all on Nanog, Have a happy holiday season and a great new year :-) Mike Braun "MMS <firstam.com>" made the following annotations on 12/24/2003 11:22:29 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY FILES TRANSMITTED HEREWITH, ARE INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE ADDRESSEE INDICATED IN THIS MESSAGE (OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERY OF THIS MESSAGE TO SUCH PERSON) YOU MAY NOT REVIEW, USE, DISCLOSE OR DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE OR ANY FILES TRANSMITTED HEREWITH. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER BY REPLY E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND ALL COPIES OF IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM." ==============================================================================

4 3

Extreme spam testing
by Chris Brenton 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Greets again all, I noticed something kind of interesting when I made my last post to NANOG. I can understand people wanting to do spam checking, but IMHO this is a bit excessive and inconsiderate. I'm guessing njabl.org is doing this to everyone who posts to the list, so I thought others might want to know about it in case they have not noticed it in their own logs. BTW, if you are curious about the "spammers_waste_oxygen" portion, that was grabbed off my SMTP banner. Cheers, C *********************************************** Dec 22 08:21:50 mailgate sendmail[492]: hBMDLnHS000492: before-reporting-as-abuse-please-see-www.njabl.org [209.208.0.15] did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection to MTA Dec 22 08:21:50 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHS000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:50 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHT000495: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<relaytestsend@spammers_waste_oxygen;>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=553 5.1.8 <relaytestsend@spammers_waste_oxygen;>... Domain of sender address relaytestsend@spammers_waste_oxygen does not exist Dec 22 08:21:50 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHU000495: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<"relaytestsend(a)rt.njabl.org"@spammers_waste_oxygen;>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=553 5.1.8 <"relaytestsend(a)rt.njabl.org"@spammers_waste_oxygen;>... Domain of sender address relaytestsend@rt.njabl.org@spammers_waste_oxygen does not exist Dec 22 08:21:51 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHV000495: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<relaytestsend>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=553 5.5.4 <relaytestsend>... Domain name required for sender address relaytestsend Dec 22 08:21:51 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHW000495: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<relaytestsend@localhost>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=553 5.5.4 <relaytestsend@localhost>... Real domain name required for sender address Dec 22 08:21:51 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHX000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:51 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHY000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:51 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHZ000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:52 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHa000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:52 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHb000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:52 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHc000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:52 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHd000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest(a)rr.njabl.org>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:52 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHe000495: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<postmaster@spammers_waste_oxygen;>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=553 5.1.8 <postmaster@spammers_waste_oxygen;>... Domain of sender address postmaster@spammers_waste_oxygen does not exist Dec 22 08:21:53 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHf000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<relaytest%rr.njabl.org@spammers_waste_oxygen;>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 <relaytest%rr.njabl.org@spammers_waste_oxygen;>... Relaying denied Dec 22 08:21:53 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHh000495: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<relaytestsend@spammers_waste_oxygen;>, relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=553 5.1.8 <relaytestsend@spammers_waste_oxygen;>... Domain of sender address relaytestsend@spammers_waste_oxygen does not exist

14 21

May be OT: Riverstone Configuration Issue
by Tom Daly 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Hi, I'm trying to configure my Riverstone RS3000 v.8.0.0.0 to advertise a host route with a BGP community on it. Here is the cisco version of the command set: redistribute static route-map static-to-bgp ! route-map static-to-bgp permit 5 match tag 12345 set community additive XXX:12345 ! ip route 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.255 Null0 tag 12345 I'm spent 4 hours or so trying different configurations, route maps, and ip-policies on the RS, with no luck. The route is exported into BGP, but doesn't get tagged with the community. Suggestions off list would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Thomas J. Daly tom(a)dyndns.org Chief Infrastructure Officer Dynamic DNS Network Services, LLC. http://www.dyndns.org/

1 0

Cox.Net problems?
by Marius Strom 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Any cox.net folks around this evening? Seems packets from various cox.net terminated sites to AT&T address space (12.0.0.0/8) is going to Singtel.net out of Singapore. Singtel.net is not permitting transit. Partial MTR below: 2. bcstbbrc01-vln30.ma.dl.cox-internet 0% 1 1 11 11 11 11 3. dllsbbrc01-gew0402.ma.dl.cox-intern 0% 1 1 18 18 18 18 4. dllsdsrc01-gew0303.rd.dl.cox.net 0% 1 1 60 60 60 60 5. dllsbbrc01-pos0101.rd.dl.cox.net 0% 1 1 16 16 16 16 6. chndbbrc02-pos0103.rd.ph.cox.net 0% 1 1 37 37 37 37 7. chndbbrc01-pos0100.rd.ph.cox.net 0% 1 1 44 44 44 44 8. lvxxbbrc01-pos0103.rd.lv.cox.net 0% 1 1 47 47 47 47 9. paltbbrj01-pos010000.r2.pt.cox.net 0% 1 1 64 64 64 64 10. g1-0-0.plapx-ar1.ix.singtel.com 0% 1 1 72 72 72 72 11. 203.208.182.21 0% 1 1 68 68 68 68 12. 203.208.182.129 0% 1 1 254 254 254 254 13. ??? If need be for troubleshooting at the source (connected via Cox), I can be reached via 979-575-1605. -- /-------------------------------------------------> Marius Strom | Always carry a short length of fibre-optic cable. Professional Geek | If you get lost, then you can drop it on the System/Network Admin | ground, wait 10 minutes, and ask the backhoe http://www.marius.org/ | operator how to get back to civilization. \-------------| Alan Frame |---------------------->

1 1

www.dhs.gov looking for input for future solicitations
by k claffy 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

for those who don't speak inside-dc-beltway, the below is a request for information that a well-funded federal agency will use to write a proposal solicitation, to which folks (including but not limited to operators) then write proposals to get ops research funding. (and ultimately, presumably for implementations/ infrastructure.) so if you want to influence what the U.S. department of homeland security funds in the area of IPS (not my meme), jan 2004 is an opportunity to tell them what to ask for. you are encouraged to take it, lots of people there trying to do the right thing and could use help from experts regarding what exactly that is. formatted below, unreadable version of your very own at: http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2003/11-November/23-Nov-2003/FBO-00474736.h… k --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY INTERNET PRIORITY SERVICE (IPS) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope The National Communications System (NCS) of the Department of Homeland Security is soliciting information regarding assured communications through the Internet. This information is with respect to services or products that carriers, vendors, and third parties can provide, or plan in the future to provide, applicable to designing/developing an Internet Priority Service (IPS) capability to support national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications. This request for information (RFI) seeks technical information regarding Internet-based assured communications for data, including Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Responses from all organizations including commercial entities, academic institutions, and Government departments and agencies, are encouraged. 1.2 Background Under the provisions of Executive Order 12472, the NCS is responsible for ensuring that an NS/EP telecommunications infrastructure exists and is responsive to the needs of the President and the Federal departments and agencies using public and private telecommunications systems. In support of this mission, we have initiated several programs designed to overcome network failure and congestion during emergency situations, including the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS), Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP), and Wireless Priority Service (WPS) to address priority services for Federal, State, and local Critical Infrastructure leadership personnel during an emergency. The current implementations of priority service for NS/EP telecommunications consist of voice and voice-band data only in the circuit switched wire-line and wireless networks. Due to the ever-increasing use of the Internet for transmission of all types of communications, we are looking at ways to provide similar types of assured communications for data applications and voice or video applications running over the Internet. Information learned from this RFI will be used to help NCS achieve the following goals: _ Identify plans and emerging technologies for providing priority services through the Internet. _ Facilitate promising technologies as prototypes and proof-of-concept projects. _ Identify any new areas requiring standardization. _ Model technologies to determine what enhancements are required. _ Develop an Internet Priority Service (IPS) program plan. 2. AREAS OF INTEREST The following functional goals of an IPS concept should be considered: Enhanced Priority Treatment Secure Networks Ubiquitous Coverage International Connectivity Interoperable Scalable Bandwidth Mobility Voice Band Service Broadband Service Reliability/Availability Restorable Survivable Non-Traceable Affordable Ultimately, the service should be resilient to large-scale outages of the Internet infrastructure in addition to other infrastructures the Internet is dependent upon_such as electric power and telecommunications. It should also be resilient to cyber attacks originating within the Internet itself, such as denial of service, worms, etc. Solutions should have ubiquitous coverage in that they translate to various physical and link layer technologies, locations, applications, and network topologies. Specifically, we are looking for solutions that will work in inter-AS cross-provider environments, as well as within single provider networks. To enable interoperability, we have IPS standards efforts underway through the Parlay Group 4 requirements; however, a lack of standards should not preclude a response--we are also interested in concepts and implementations that may be proprietary in nature, and have not yet been standardized. Responders are encouraged to review the T1A1.2 committee_s _Roadmap Standards in Support of Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS)_ under the project T1A1-19 _Reliability/Availability of IP-based Networks and Services,_ whose concepts are reflected throughout this RFI. An IPS should have a large set of capabilities to potentially be of service during disaster recovery activities. Since not all of the following features are currently available, responses are not expected to meet all of these criteria; however, IPS features and objectives could include the following: _ Multimedia and telephony services _ Rapid user authentication _ Security protection of user traffic _ Preferential access to telecomm facilities _ Preferential establishment of communications _ Preferential routing of traffic _ Preferential use of remaining operational resources _ Preferential completion of user traffic to destination _ Allowable degradation of service quality _ Interchange of critical telecomm service management information _ Optional preemption of non-emergency traffic (where permitted by regulation) The objective is to provide priority service for Internet applications critical to essential personnel during a crisis. Preliminary analysis shows that numerous approaches are possible due to the design of the protocol model and state that makes up the Internet; however, prioritized delivery of individual packets at the lower layers of the Internet protocol model does not guarantee that transactions will gain priority processing on end systems and servers. Since any single protocol is likely to be insufficient to guarantee priority, several approaches may need to be combined to form an operational system. In addition to end-to-end solutions, we are interested in individual submissions that may consist of building blocks for an overall IPS architecture. Responses should address how these building blocks fit within the traditional Internet model to eventually provide an end-to-end solution. Specifically, the following areas should be addressed: _ Link Layer. A large variety of layer 2 link level technologies are incorporated within the Internet. Enhancements applicable to priority services for High-speed optical backbone technologies such as SONET, Packet over SONET, MPLS, Gigabit Ethernet, DWDM, and ATM are of interest. Also of interest are enhancements applicable to access technologies such as DSL, cable modem, and fixed wireless, in addition to priority within mobile wireless protocols such as messaging, 3G cellular data, and satellite data. _ Network Layer. Internet Protocol (IP) makes up the entire network layer for the Internet. There are two versions of IP applicable to this RFI. IP Version 4 is the current protocol that operates the majority of the Internet. IP v6 will eventually replace IP v4, with superior addressing, security, priority and other features. We are interested in approaches that are applicable to either or both versions of IP. _ Transport Layer. Protocols designed to assure data transmission end-to-end or hop-by-hop through the Internet often are considered transport layer enhancements. The IETF has standardized a number of approaches, so implementations of these are of interest to us. Additional concepts and proprietary implementations in this area are also of interest. _ Application Layer. Applications control the Internet; as an example BGP and DNS are applications that are considered core infrastructure pieces of the Internet. Applications also make up the services that utilize the Internet. Of interest are application enhancements that will lead to one or more of the fourteen functional goals for an assured IPS. Applications of particular interest include (but are not limited to) email, messaging, web, VoIP, (transport and edge), and video. _ Standards and APIs. We are also interested in standards or APIs that have been developed in these areas, whether or not implemented in products or services. 3. RESPONSE GUIDELINES 3.1 Scope Most organizations do not have expertise or capabilities in all of the areas described above; therefore, responses addressing only a subset of or single identified area(s) of interest are also welcome. Responses should be clearly labeled with the areas of interest that are discussed. Length of responses should be limited to no more than 40 pages. 3.2 Structure Provide any materials, suggestions, and discussion you deem appropriate. In addition, please provide ample contact information, including telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, to facilitate any needed clarification or further discussion. Include, as appropriate, the following: _ Description of Products/Technologies/Research/Standards/APIs, including performance information _ Plans for commercial use of these technologies _ Corporate partners who will use the technology _ Feasibility Assessment _ Cost and Schedule Estimates _ Existing Government Contracts _ Corporate Expertise 3.3 Format Electronic and hard copy formats are both acceptable, although electronic submission is preferred. If provided electronically, submissions should be in a Microsoft Office compatible format or Adobe Acrobat. Copies may be emailed to Mr. Dave Nolan at noland(a)ncs.gov or mailed to the address below. 3.4 Deadline Responses are due 60 days after release of this RFI. 4. DISCLAIMER There is no bid package or solicitation document associated with this announcement. The requested information is for planning purposes and does not constitute a commitment, implied or otherwise, that a procurement action will be issued or a contract awarded. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the Government will arise as a result of the submission of information. Responses to the RFI will not be returned. The Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any improperly identified proprietary information. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with the applicable Government regulations. In accordance with FAR 15.202(e), responses to this notice are not an offer and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFI. 5. CONTACT INFORMATION Mr. David J. Nolan NCS/N2 701 South Court House Road Arlington, VA 22204-2198 (703) 607-6190 noland(a)ncs.gov ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1