September 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Fw: Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by Jerry Eyers 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

An interesting thought... Jerry >Jerry, > >One question - if I previously typed in an URL that was incorrect and would get the usual response from my OWN system, there would be not a real lot of data sent/received to pay for that mistake. Now that Verisign is doing their current thing, there is a lot more data being paid by ISPs across the world that shouldnt HAVE to be paid for. > >So is anyone thinking of banding together the ISPs in on this formal complaint citing loss of income >from this? The bigger the ISP - eg AOL - the bigger the new cost for Verisign advertising, paid at the >ISP's expense because of all this. A group of ISPs all complaining should get some action you would >think. > >I am posting this to you as if you can use it, feel free to post it to Nanog where I have no posting rights. > >Regards, Greg. > >.

2 1

Re: DNS anycast considered harmful (was: .ORG problems this evening)
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On donderdag, sep 18, 2003, at 14:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> BGP is really bad at. DNS servers on the other hand track RTTs for >> query responses > BIND does it but what about Microsoft cache/forwarder? At RIPE 45 (you > were there), Was I??? > a talk by people at CAIDA showed that A.root-servers.net > received twice as much traffic as the other root name servers since it > is just the first one listed... That's not good. But not an excuse. If MS is unable to fix this (how long did it take them to retire the FAT filesystem that was considered prehistoric by the late 1980s again?), BIND runs under Windows too... >> (but I hope they're smart enough to keep some non-anycasted root >> servers around), > Who is "they"? Not sure. :-) > Since there is no top Root Nameservers Authority, every > root nameserver manager decides for himself (I assume they coordinate > but I'm not sure and it's not the same thing). Unlike a TLD, there is > no central decision for management of the root's name servers. So they > can all decide independently to anycast. Diversity is a good thing. But who to the root operators answer to anyway? Not to ICANN, I'm told.

1 0

Just had an interesting side effect of the "V" hijack...
by Jerry Eyers 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Went to register.com to register a new DNS server for someone, and when it normally asks for the IP address (new server, new domain), it didn't because when it did a query, it got a response for that name. Now, it is reporting the new DNS server as resolving to Verisign's IP address. I think register has got some tweaking to do on their web scripts to ignore wildcard responses... But, shows another side effect of "V's" unilateral action. Jerry

1 0

Re: DNS anycast considered harmful (was: .ORG problems this evening)
by Todd Vierling 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: : BIND does it but what about Microsoft cache/forwarder? At RIPE 45 (you : were there), a talk by people at CAIDA showed that A.root-servers.net : received twice as much traffic as the other root name servers since it : is just the first one listed... There's an easy fix to that particular situation: Make the first (or first two) listed servers anycast, and the rest unicast. That gains the distributed nature of anycast to deal with crap like this, while keeping the ability for DNS servers to find one that is *up*. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

1 0

Re: What *are* they smoking?
by George William Herbert 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>> A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > >It's Verisign's return shot at the web browser "couldn't find this page" >searches. Doesn't seem to have much by way of advertising yet, but I'm >sure that'll change. I heard about this coming from somewhere last week, >though I don't recall where. Probably Wired or the WSJ. Verisign wants >the revenue that all those typos are generating. It's just the next shot >in the eyeball war. This is sufficiently technically and business slimy that I would null-route that IP, personally. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

16 18

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

18 Sep '03

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned in all this is the incredible business >monopolizing effect this move will have on the TLD's in question. It >dramatically shifts the domain playing field in Verisign's favor by pointing >millions of potential customers to their site(s) specifically, giving them >millions of dollars in free advertising eye-time over any of the competition I don't see how this eye-time can be translated into millions of dollars. But it is clear that Verisign are making money by selling sponsored links to people who sell spamming services and software. And it is also clear that this redirection of traffic allows them to amass a large database of email addresses that are current, active and which belong to people who don't always check things carefully before acting, i.e. the To: email address was mistyped. They could make a lot of money selling that list of email addresses to spammers. And they could also sell a lot of the mistyped addresses after "correcting" the domain name portion by supplying the closest matches from the .COM and .NET database. I wonder how anyone can continue to trust a company like this as a certificate authority. They seem to have attracted the breed of get-rich-quick management who want to make money by scamming the public and selling very unsubtantial things like names(.COM) and numbers (SSL certs). I don't pretend to believe that we can stop fast-buck artists from running these sorts of scams but we have to find alternative sources for SSL certs from companies whose business model lies squarely in the world of security and trust. That clearly excludes Verisign. Any company with such shoddy business practices that they can unleash this technically flawed redirection of traffic without proper testing and public consultation is also a soft target for infiltration. As was already mentioned, it is only a matter of time before a criminal gang infiltrates Verisign and launches man-in-the-middle attacks on the banking system. There are already people that are specifically targetting banks by installing surreptitious keyloggers on computers that sniff out Internet banking passwords. This would be far more effective if the keyloggers were installed by a man-in-the-middle so that they were targetted only at the intended victims. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Route failures to behosting.com
by Lou Katz 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

I am unable to reach them via several different ISPs. It looks to my naive eyes like routes to them have vanished. Can anyone shed any light on this? -- -=[L]=-

5 6

BGP issues
by Bret Baptist 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

I recently deployed a multihome BGP configuration at our location. Now I am having issues of some of my netblocks not being reachable or not being able to reach certain networks. I am uncertain what the issue might be. Right now I have visi.com as one provider (AS8015), and Qwest (AS3908) as the other. When I look at the as-paths for my netblocks the ones from visi.com look fine, 208.42.20.0/23 and 208.42.104.0/23, the ones from Qwest go through visi.com and then on to us, 65.116.186.0/24, 65.121.8.0/23. The Qwest networks are the ones that I am having problems reaching hosts from or getting to from other networks. Any insight would be greatly appreciated, if anyone needs more information just let me know and I can supply router configs or whatever might be needed. Thank you in advance. -- Bret Baptist Systems and Technical Support Specialist bbaptist(a)iexposure.com Internet Exposure, Inc. http://www.iexposure.com (612)676-1946 x17 Web Development-Web Marketing-ISP Services ------------------------------------------ Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.

4 3

route to behosting.com
by Lou Katz 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Actually, me bad. It is the nameservers they use for their clients: ns5.behosting.com 208.56.139.155 ns6.behosting.com 208.56.138.142 I cannot reach either from many nets on the west coast, and the traceroutes die very early: >From usenix.org: 12-% traceroute -n 208.56.139.155 traceroute to 208.56.139.155 (208.56.139.155), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 131.106.3.254 0.677 ms 0.324 ms 0.310 ms 2 131.106.1.252 0.937 ms 0.971 ms 0.931 ms 3 * * * 4 * normally goes out: 1 gw.usenix.org (131.106.3.254) 0.561 ms 0.296 ms 0.260 ms 2 alternet-gw.usenix.ORG (131.106.1.252) 1.396 ms 1.024 ms 1.324 ms 3 twtwan (206.169.168.45) 235.612 ms 106.793 ms 156.533 ms 4 twtgw (206.169.155.13) 212.983 ms 154.202 ms 213.979 ms 5 ^C dist-02-so-0-0-0-0.okld.twtelecom.net (168.215.55.74) 176.927 ms 217.310 ms 173.318 ms >From other nets available to me: traceroute to 208.56.139.155 (208.56.139.155), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets 1 megapath-gw (192.160.193.1) 3.408 ms 1.670 ms 1.634 ms 2 ip-64-139-1-1.dsl.sca.megapath.net (64.139.1.1) 11.782 ms 11.101 ms 10.642 ms 3 * * * traceroute to 208.56.139.155 (208.56.139.155), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets 1 (10.9.129.35) 3.734 ms 2.450 ms 2.311 ms 2 (10.8.5.73) 89.816 ms 169.081 ms 145.875 ms 3 (10.8.2.1) 210.021 ms 219.102 ms 280.200 ms 4 * * (10.x.x.x internal to my ISP - WCOM) traceroute to 208.56.139.155 (208.56.139.155), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 sonic-gw (209.204.189.1) 14.490 ms 14.470 ms 12.984 ms 2 fast1-0-0.border.sr.sonic.net (208.201.224.194) 16.476 ms 24.872 ms 14.633 ms 3 fast4-1-0.border2.sr.sonic.net (64.142.0.26) 15.193 ms 14.675 ms 16.076 ms 4 serial1-0.gw.focal-sf.sonic.net (64.142.0.2) 17.359 ms 16.794 ms 15.017 ms 5 * * * >From the well: traceroute to 208.56.139.155 (208.56.139.155) 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 gw.well.com (206.14.209.1) 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 2 206.14.211.65 (206.14.211.65) 86 ms 1 ms 1 ms 3 206.14.211.65 (206.14.211.65) 1 ms (ttl=254!) !H * 1 ms (ttl=254!) !H -- -=[L]=-

2 1

RE: Route failures to behosting.com
by McBurnett, Jim 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

good from AT&T and Broadwing J > -----Original Message----- > From: Haesu [mailto:haesu@towardex.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:46 PM > To: Henry Yen; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Route failures to behosting.com > > > > Also accessible no problem from Qwest and Nlayer. > > -hc > > -- > Sincerely, > Haesu C. > TowardEX Technologies, Inc. > WWW: http://www.towardex.com > E-mail: haesu(a)towardex.com > Cell: (978) 394-2867 > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:35:54PM -0400, Henry Yen wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:29:57AM -0400, Brian Bruns wrote: > > > Attempts to access behosting.com were successful from > several different > > > locations, which included ameritech and sprint. I'm not > going to include > > > traceroutes here (if you would like them, I can email them to you > > > privately). What ISPs are you using to try and get to them? > > > > behosting.com/www.behosting.com (aka 216.121.96.160) also accessible > > without problem from sprint and uunet. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Lou Katz" <lou(a)metron.com> > > > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:23 PM > > > Subject: Route failures to behosting.com > > > > > > > I am unable to reach them via several different ISPs. It looks > > > > to my naive eyes like routes to them have vanished. Can anyone > > > > shed any light on this? > > > > -- > > Henry Yen Aegis > Information Systems, Inc. > > Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York > >

1 0