September 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Daryl G. Jurbala 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

* How about the plastic stand-offs that hold the AIM-VPN cards in the 2600 and 1700 series. Yeah...the ones that DON'T come with your SmartNet replacement chassis and that you have the pull the entire board to release. * And how about this: Cisco: PICK A BUSINESS END ON YOUR SMALL OFFICE ROUTING EQUIPMENT. Most of my less clued customer like to "help out" and rack the equipment ahead of time. And it always gets done pretty side out. Yeah..the side with a Cisco logo and three lights. It sure does look like it should be the front, but it's useless that way. Maybe putting the power on that side would clue people in to the fact that it's basically useless to point that at the easy-access side of the rack. * PCs with built in Ethernet that is so close to a lip on the case, with the release pointed down, that you need to use a screwdriver/knife/whatever to release the cable. * Lack of proper SPAN support on 29xx/35xx series switches. Read only? I can live with it. No inter-vlan? Very bad. Does that make my worse design decision using Cisco CPE at my small customer/remote office sites? Hmmmm.... Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp

10 10

Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by George William Herbert 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Michael Dillon wrote: >Complaining on this mailing list achieves very little but [...] It did one useful thing; it gave a wide number of operators across the ISP and infrastructure industries a chance to see what was happening and put in their two cents. My initial impression was that the wildcard was amazingly bad for a number of reasons, but based on my own impression alone I am unlikely to launch complaints to a wide range of regulators and congresspeople. It is now quite clear that nobody in the industry has seen fit to respond to the Verisign actions as anything defensible at the technical or policy levels. So my opinion goes from being my two cents to a consensus; and I will act in those external arenas based on what I see as a sufficiently wide consensus... -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

1 0

consider fewer posts, more substance please...
by ren 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

To all parties who have posted to NANOG a dozen times or more in the past 24 hours... For a good time please check out: http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html#topics * Think Before You Post * When you send mail to the NANOG list, it will be received by thousands of current and potential peers, employers, suppliers and customers. It will be archived in many places, and will be easily found and retrieved by anybody with access to a browser and a search engine for many years to come. * People will form opinions on you based on the way you conduct yourself on the list. Think before you post to avoid acting foolish in front of people you might someday have to ask for a job, an emergency response to a customer problem, rackspace, or peering. NANOG Committee Members, perhaps the addition of a per-day posting limit should be considered in the next round of FAQ updates? -ren

1 0

Re: .ORG problems this evening
by Todd Vierling 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, John Fraizer wrote: : Todd, you don't make the announcement for the anycast address from your : border.. You do it from within the anycast cluster as a CONDITIONAL : announcement. IE; you use a specially written BGP daemon that makes the : announcement when the service is alive and retracts it when it isn't. Um, I did in fact previously mention running BGP on the "cluster" -- which was referring directly to the DNS service machines -- and you even responded to that message. Yes, I do understand. (Ref: One of the things I do for a living is work on a BGP4 peer implementation written from scratch.) Doing this requires implementing keepalive handling in the service monitoring side of the world correctly. Which, obviously, *the entity in question did not*. Because of this, I can no longer trust them to get it right "next time" without changing their fundamental design. It's not like this is all that hard to grasp: the services for a TLD are much more critical than a 2LD or 3LD and should be given much more thought into failover handling than just "anycast will do it for us." The other two of the Big Three gTLDs, and most ccTLDs, allow a client to attempt queries to geographically diverse DNS servers at any time, regardless of the BGP table's correctness, in order to allow some additional level of failover and reliability assessment by the DNS client. Some of these servers could run anycast, and I wouldn't even know it without looking deeper. What I can trivially see, though, is where geographically diverse servers are available on said TLDs, I can get a guarantee that at least two from each zone's NS group go to different places. Why is .ORG somehow different and special that I/we should trust a third party to do the whole operation solely via anycast, where said anycast has the possibility of becoming a single point of failure? -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

1 0

Re: Worst design decisions?
by John Neiberger 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>The hands-down winner, so far, is the Cisco >CMS-formerly-known-as-Arrowpoint, which has an RJ45 console cable >which WILL NOT WORK, full stop, with the RJ45 connectors on Cisco's >own console servers. > >*wild applause* Ah, yes. I've run into that bad boy. It really stinks to come in to work in the middle of the night to troubleshoot a problem and you know there is only one serial adapter that works with the Arrowpoint CSS and you can't find it! Once I found it I marked it with bright tape and wrote a big A on it with a magic marker. I then made sure everyone in my department knew what it was and where it was. I personally feel that the biggest benefit to upgrading to the new CSS was getting a 'normal' console connection. John --

1 0

videotron contact
by Todd Mitchell - lists 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

If anyone from Videotron is around, please contact me off-list. Thanks. Todd Mitchell --

1 0

Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>If I remember correctly, Verisign person stated in an interview that >they estimate that >it will be worth up to $100M annually. Boycott Verisign as much as possible. You can register new names in .BIZ or .INFO or in a country specific TLD including .US http://www.us-register.com/faq-us.cfm If you just cannot convince customers to stay away from the polluted mess of .COM then please use one of the alternative registrars so that less of your money goes to Verisign. And you can get SSL certs from alternative sources such as GeoTrust http://www.geotrust.com/ If you really believe that Verisign's actions are stock manipulation or shareholder fraud and you have some evidence to support that belief then report it to the SEC http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml If you believe that Verisign's actions have damaged your business in any way then ask your lawyers to write a letter to Verisign demanding that they cease and desist. If necessary, then follow up with a lawsuit or join in a class action suit against Verisign. Complaining on this mailing list achieves very little but there are things that individuals and businesses can do to put their money where their mouth is and have some real impact on Verisign. --Michael Dillon

5 5

Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by John Neiberger 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>>>> Marc MERLIN <marc_news(a)merlins.org> 9/18/03 9:27:11 AM >>> > >On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:42:19AM +0100, Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com wrote: >> And you can get SSL certs from alternative sources such as GeoTrust >> http://www.geotrust.com/ > >Bzzz, geotrust is Verisign > >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=Thawte+… >ought+by+Verisign > >Marc If GeoTrust is Verisign, why do they make a big deal out of competing with Verisign? http://www.geotrust.com/resources/market_share/index.htm John --

4 3

New routeviews service available (Address/Prefix -> AS/ASPATH mappings)
by David Meyer 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

All, In response to requests from many folks asking for prefix to AS mappings, routeviews is now providing 2 new services mapping and address or prefix to its origin AS and to its ASPath. These services are available via two zones: (i). asn.routeviews.org asn.routeviews.org maps an address or prefix into its origin AS, prefix, and prefix length, as seen by route-views2.routeviews.org (the data is held in TXT records). For example, the following command % dig txt 223.128.asn.routeviews.org returns (among other things) 223.128.asn.routeviews.org. 86400 IN TXT "3582" "128.223.0.0" "16" The syntax here is: "AS" "Prefix" "Prefix Length" (ii). aspath.routeviews.org aspath.routeviews.org is similar to asn.routeviews.org, except that it maps an address or prefix into the ASpath (rather than origin AS), prefix, and prefix length, as seen by route-views2.routeviews.org (again, the data is held in TXT records). For example, the following command % dig txt 223.128.aspath.routeviews.org returns (among other things) 223.128.aspath.routeviews.org. 86400 IN TXT "286 209 3356 3701 3582" "128.223.0.0" "16" The syntax here is: "ASPath" "Prefix" "Prefix Length" These zones are built twice per-day, 11:45 and 23:45 UTC. Finally, please let us know (help(a)routeviews.org) if you have questions, comments or suggestions for ways we might otherwise improve this service. One note: note that these zones are quite large, and reloading these produces a period of a few minutes during which the server may not reply. Thanks, Dave

1 0

IP issues with .com/.net change?
by Alex Kamantauskas 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Not really operational content, but I was wondering if there was an intellectual property issue with the Verisign .com/.net redirect? For instance, <http://searchthewebwithgoogle.com/> brings you to a Verisign search engine. Or, even better, <http://getyourdomainnameatregister.com/> will bring you to a Verisign website. -- /ak

5 6