September 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

caida macroscopic geographic analysis of IPv6 addresses
by k claffy 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

[disclaimer: this email will not affect any router config or worm containment or verisign behavior, and please don't waste your time reading unless you want to learn something about v4/v6 address distribution by country] bradley extended his IPv4 address resource geopolitical analysis to IPv6 addresses this summer while working with WIDE in Japan. http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/ipv6.xml feedback more than welcome k

1 0

Re: VeriSign SMTP reject server updated
by George William Herbert 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

>At anytime, Verisign could remove your .COM domain from their DNS for >a short period of time which would result in all of your inbound >email going to the Verisign collector servers. If this was only done >for a brief interval, say 10 minutes, you might never notice that it >had happened. But Versign's industrial espionage department would have >your email in their hands and could do whatever they wish with it. >How profitable might that be? Actually... If they were to accidentally remove someone's .COM domain and do that, that would be a criminal violation of ECPA, says my not-an-attorney analysis. Even if they did it by accident. Even if they didn't keep a copy. Even if their mail server didn't accept it and returned a 550 on the RCPT, if the sending mail agent did something braindead like just pump out a whole message plus embedded SMTP headers like... oh, I dunno... a bunch of Spamware does. It seems... wrong... to consider that we could file criminal charges against Verisign for illegally intercepting spam between the spammer and our systems, but it appears to be a legally consistent postulate. As Verisign is doing SiteFinder for commercial gain, it might even qualify for the higher penalties (1 yr first offense 2 yr each subsequent offense). I wonder if 'offense' would map to 'domain' or 'individual email message' or what. Conceivably could be very very bad news. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

1 0

ICANN Secsac message to the board
by Doug Barton 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Recommendations Regarding VeriSign's Introduction of Wild Card Response to Uninstantiated Domains within COM and NET http://www.icann.org/correspondence/secsac-to-board-22sep03.htm Several members of this community responded to my request for input on this topic, and your very helpful suggestions were incorporated in the final product. On behalf of the Committee, I'd like to thank you for these contributions, and encourage you to continue sending comments and suggestions regarding operational or security issues. Doug Barton -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/b6gQyIakK9Wy8PsRAivkAJwLQGFRFSWqklE0q0qVzYk3J+ivWwCfc/AX 8Vvn+ABkkw2MsUK3za0fQ4Q= =cvJc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

comments on addressing futures....
by bmanning＠karoshi.com 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

this from the ARIN-PPL mailing list... it deserves broad consideration, even from NANOG :) ------------------------------------------------------- william(a)elan.com writes: Since ARIN has been sending new proposals today, they seem to have forgotten the most important one of all, that applies to all RIRs and how they deal with ICANN. The info is at http://lacnic.net/sp/draft-9-22.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The four RIRs (Regional Internet Registries): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC have jointly worked on the preparation of a proposal concerning the liaison among the RIRs as well as the structure through which the RIRs and their communities take part in ICANN. As a consequence, three documents have been prepared: - Proposal to execute an agreement between the four RIRs in order to create the Number Resource Organization (NRO). This organization will represent the interests of the IP addresses community before the national, international or public entities. - Proposal of a Memorandum of Understanding between the RIRs, to act through the NRO and the ICANN in relation to the ASO (Address Supporting Organization), the ICANN section committed to the Internet Number Resources issues. The ASO was created through a previous Memorandum of Understanding, signed in 1999. The current proposal would replace the previous Memorandum, modifying the present ASO structure. - Proposal of an Open Letter from the RIRs to the ICANN relative to the previous items. The RIRs call for public comments from the community members in relation to these documents. As the comments will be jointly organized, they will be officially managed in English.

3 2

Go Daddy vs Verisign over Site Finder
by Andy Ellifson 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

Go Daddy is at it again. They filed suit against Verisign accusing Verisign of misuse of their registry position with their Site Finder service. Let's hope they win this lawsuit too! https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pressreleases/NR-GoDaddysuesVerisign9-22.pdf…

1 0

.ORG problems this evening
by Todd Vierling 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

tld[12].ultradns.net, the NS for .ORG, was completely unreachable for about an hour or two this evening, timing out on all DNS queries. Anyone else see similar? (The hosts are unpingable and untracerouteable, so I had to use DNS queries to determine when they were back up.) It makes me wonder how UltraDNS got a contract to manage the domain on all of two nameservers hosted on the same subnet, given that they were supposed to have deployed "geographically diverse" (or something like that) servers. But then, we know ICANN smokes the crack liberally at times.... <sigh> -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

19 50

ATTBI/Comcast issue
by Tony Varriale 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

If someone on this list is from ATTBI/Comcast, could you please contact me offline regarding a chronic issue present since about March/April? I've had multiple tickets open and spoke with 2 "supervisors", and no one will address/take responsibility of the problem. Thanks, Tony

1 0

Verisign Responds
by David Lesher 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

>Looks like the lawsuits are going to be the ones to settle this >dispute...anyone think there's a chance of ICANN pulling .COM and .NET >from Verisign due to breach of contract? I think it's highly unlikely. ...about as likely as Mary Carey winning the Califunny recall. VeriSlime has big lobbying muscle here Inside the Beltway. -- 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

1 0

Operations notification manager software
by Pete Kruckenberg 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

My apologies in advance for asking a rather "low-brow" question. What software is available/recommended for NOC contact management? I assume that big networks use CRM type stuff (probably heavily customized), integrated into the OSS and other operational systems. What about for the rest of the world? Is there any decent (free, proprietary, or home-grown) software that can do contact management justice (either as a complete package or integration of multiple packages), supporting features like: - contact information refresh (regularly verify contact information via electronic or triggered human interaction, dealing with failed notification attempts)? - complex notification (ie per-event customized notification by affected device/region/service, notification to customer-selected method based on type and urgency of notice) - customer-friendly subscription management (including multiple notification methods) and notification archiving - notification SLA's (ie re-sending multiple timed notices when required, tracking notifications for auditing, etc) - efficiently managing multiple conduits for notification (email, alpha pager, text-to-voice/scripted call center, RSS feed, Web archives/posting) - enforcing consistency in notifications (ie form-/ rule-based notification creation and validation, notification review/authorization prior to distribution) - handling feedback from notifications (handling customer responses, tracking viewing and/or reading of notifications, measuring effectiveness of notifications) - other important features? I know that some of these features are built into products like HPOV. Do they fill the needs of large network operators? What software do you use to manage customer notifications? Thanks. Pete.

4 4

RE: When is Verisign's registry contract up for renewal
by Mike Damm 22 Sep '03

22 Sep '03

The webpage was very 'thrown together' so we could get to work on actually getting the servers built. Our policy is to provide clean versions of the COM and NET zones. Minus all of VeriSign's hackery. If you register a .com domain, it will appear in our zone, if you don't renew one, it disappears. We plan to mimic exactly how a responsible TLD operator should work. We don't want to change the world, we don't want to expand the number of TLDs, and we really don't even want to run a root. The root we are (temporarily) running is just a hack to allow people to access our gTLD zones, everything else is pointed to *.root-servers.net. At this point, nothing really works. But we hope to have it operational within the next week. If you don't like it, don't use it. This is the last post about this you'll see on NANOG from me about it. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer@nic.fr] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:44 AM To: Mike Damm Cc: 'Jared Mauch '; 'nanog(a)merit.edu ' Subject: Re: When is Verisign's registry contract up for renewal On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:53:19AM -0700, Mike Damm <MikeD(a)irwinresearch.com> wrote a message of 63 lines which said: > This sort of not-for-profit is exactly what I proposed when the VeriSign > discussion started. A non-technical response to a non-technical problem. > Since my inital email, I've recruited a few other NANOG folks and put up a > website: www.alt-servers.org. In what way your proposal is different from the other "alternative roots" (such as ORSC, www.open-rsc.org)? All of them are facing the same problem: we don't like ICANN's policies, OK, but what are ours? Do we redelegate .md? Do we give .com to someone else? To who? Do we delegate .god to the jerk that just asked? I'm not aware of any serious policy work from any of the alternative roots: they just claim that they work very hard but they never explain the details. You claim to have working servers already (the easiest part) but you say nothing about your policy...

1 0