January 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Wireless Pt-Pt in Orlando FL ?
by Ben Crosby 14 Feb '04

14 Feb '04

Hi all, If anyone knows of a company who can provide internet connectivity via fixed wireless in Orlando, please contact me off-list. I'm looking for DS3 or higher. I welcome any experiences anyone may have had with this type of service. Ben.

1 1

Re: updated root hints file (fwd)
by bill 06 Feb '04

06 Feb '04

> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:39:40 -0500 > To: bill <bmanning(a)karoshi.com> > Subject: Re: updated root hints file > > I thought the RSSAC site was www.root-servers.org. > root-servers.org is -NOT- the rssac site. --bill

5 6

Are SW upgrades needed in MPLS core networks?
by Pekka Savola 06 Feb '04

06 Feb '04

Hi, Just taking a quick poll, as we don't use MPLS and I think this is an interesting thing to know. One of the many (maybe misguided) arguments for MPLS is that you don't need to perform softwqare (or other similar) upgrades in the core network, and the "intelligence" is pushed to the to the edges of the MPLS cloud. I'd like to get a feel how correct this "argument" is in practice. So, if you have had to upgrade the core equipment, please tell. If you haven't (due to the "MPLS design"), that might be interesting as well. If you had to upgrade, please also indicate the reason for that (fixing bugs ("minor upgrade")? providing new features, if so which features? etc.?) Please respond off-list if you feel so. Thanks. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

6 14

Re: in case nobody else noticed it, there was a mail worm released today
by Roger Marquis 04 Feb '04

04 Feb '04

Scott Francis <darkuncle(a)darkuncle.net> wrote: > I've been wondering lately, after about 10 years of email worms spreading in > exactly the same manner with every incarnation ... why do you think people > haven't learned not to open unexpected attachments yet? Blaming it on end users is one way to look at the problem, but not a way that will result in a solution. You should be wondering, after 10+ years of virus laden MS operating systems, why they haven't fixed this stuff. Similar vulnerabilities in Unix, Mac, and other OS were fixed long ago. They're not patched in Windows because MS doesn't have to. MS doesn't write secure code because they are a monopoly and maintain that status by introducing subtle OS bugs that plague competitive third party applications. They don't publish an API for many of their system calls so nobody can write secure code other than MS themselves. They also run as much of their own software as possible in priviliged mode for performance (to avoid context switching). You'll never seen any real security from this type of business model. > (Note: I really do not want this to degenerate into another rant against > vendor M; Sorry for not sharing your disinterest in the actual reasons we continue to see these viruses and trojans infecting MS and, for all intents and purposes, only MS operating systems. -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/

10 18

Re: B.root-servers renumbering
by Daniel Kerr 03 Feb '04

03 Feb '04

On Jan 30, 2004, at 4:26 AM, John L Crain wrote: <snip> > New Hints files can be found at: > > ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/db.cache > ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.cache > ftp://rs.ineternic.net/domain/named.root neophyte@afi:~$ whois ineternic.net Whois Server Version 1.3 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. No match for "INETERNIC.NET". Cheers, -- Daniel Kerr

2 1

Re: AOL web troubles.. New AOL speedup seems to be a slowdown
by webmaster＠jessicastover.com 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

JC, I would encourage you to get more familiar with the HTTP 1.1 spec with regard to your claim of copyright infringement. I will summarize my interpretation of a part of it here. When someone provides HTTP content, they are agreeing to the protocols governing the transmission of that content, which includes caching and transformation of that content by proxy systems. Fortunately, the spec provides for netizens to send Cache-Control headers that can exclude their content from storage on and transformation by proxies. These headers are outlined in the spec, so I'm not going to detail them here. But as far as I have been able to tell, AOL is in compliance with the Cache-Control specs. I see it like this: Not including Cache-Control headers and claiming copyright infringement is like publishing a novel in English and distributing it in the U.S., but printing the copyright notice in Chinese. Clients accessing your content must be able to understand that you do not wish for it to be transformed; and since proxies speak HTTP, content providers need to include the appropriate HTTP headers so the proxies understand their wishes. Conversely, when a content provider excludes Cache-Control headers, ISPs have free reign to handle the content and deliver to the end user in whatever way they wish, as long as that way falls within the HTTP 1.1 spec. As an aside, I have a special folder on my Apache server for Jessica Stover's website where I keep images that I don't want to be compressed by all of these web accelerators (Earthlink and NetZero have them too, not just AOL). In that folder's .htacccess file, I have included instructions to send the "Cache-Control: No-Transform" header on all files requested via HTTP within that folder; those images are not modified in any way by the various web caching systems out there -- the end user gets the identical image to what is stored on my server. ~ The Gunn webmaster(a)jessicastover.com > AOL is copying and redistributing the image in a new format *without the > permission of the copyright holder* in a way that A) makes AOL money and B) > removes protections that the copyright holder had placed on the image to > help keep third parties from reproducing the image without permission. > > and in doing so: > > IMHO they are infringing on the copyright of those who have placed the > digital watermark in the image. > > jc

5 5

SCO blames ISPs for blocking access to web site
by Sean Donelan 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

SCO's spokesperson Blake Stowell blamed ISPs around the world for blocking access to SCO's web site. SCO says their web site bandwidth is at normal levels. According to SCO the attack is not schedule to begin until Sunday at 1609 GMT. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/68946/1/.html So much for spin-control. If you thought you were helping SCO, it appears SCO doesn't want your help.

5 4

Outbound Route Optimization
by Jim Devane 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

Hello, I am trying to determine for myself the relevance of Intelligent Routing Devices like Sockeye, Route Science etc. I am not trying to determine who does it better, but rather if the concept of optimizing routes is addressing a significant problem in terms of improved traffic performance ( not in cost savings of disparate transit pipes ) I am interested in hearing other views ( both for and against ) these devices in the context of optimizing latency for a small multi-homed ISP. I want to make sure I understand their context correctly and have not missed any important points of view. My questions are these: "Is sub-optimal routing caused by BGP so pervasive it needs to be addressed?" "Are these devices able to effectively address the need?" Thanks, Jim

11 16

RE: Verizon mail troubles
by Alon Tirosh 01 Feb '04

01 Feb '04

Personal Favorite: We put a move order in with VZ for June 12, then rescheduled to July 12 (we were moving across the st.) of this year. On May 12 we come in and discover that half our lines don't work. After 4 hours on the phone, it turns out they took exactly half our lines (interestingly enough 1,3,5,7,etc.) and moved them across the street, and wired them into the phone block for what was to be our neighbouring office. People calling us got a furniture consulting firm half the time. It took me 5 days to get all our lines back where they belonged, as when they moved them back they decided to leave a couple there and then not acknowledge the problem, only to move again finally in July and have them forget to move a couple lines over. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Gerald Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:03 PM To: Brian Wallingford Cc: Andy Dills; Bob Snyder; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon mail troubles On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Brian Wallingford wrote: > There's no question that there's a certain amount of social > engineering involved in contacting (or being allowed to contact) > competent folk. It's advisable to be sure that any staff who will be > contacting them are fully versed in any services they will be > discussing. The clueful staff at VZ are much more receptive and > accessible when they know in advance that they can expect to pick up a likewise-clued individual. My favorite (extreme sarcasm) lines I received from Verizon: - (At 25 Bway with a T3 from the carrier room.) "The T3 outage you are experiencing is not our problem." Turned out someone messed up a cable in to their router in the carrier room. A tech that they dispatched to 25 Bway got access to the carrier room and recrimped the cables in to THEIR equipment, not ours. Anyone who knows 25Bway knows you can't enter the carrier room without a purpose. I can't go there and say let me work on VZ equipment in the Carrier room. - "I don't see the circuit ID for the T3 you just gave me in here do you have another CID for it?" - Random person in back office I had been transferred to, "(definitively) It's not a problem on our system...What was that CID again? Let me trace each leg of the Circuit. (pause) Oh wait, there is a problem in the Central Office that that would affect that line" Me, "How do I keep up with the progress of this ticket? Is there a ticket number on that problem?" Him, "It's an internal ticket number. I can't give it out." - "If you are having intermittent problems, we can't do anything about it. We can test the line and if the T1 shows clean we will close the ticket." - Me, "The T1 CID $CID is down." Them, "What would you like us to do?" - (From a T1 plagued with issues after 9/11. Paraphrased:) "Due to the wiring in your building it would probably be best if we just ran a new T1 out to you. You will need to sign a new 60 month contract and we will work out the details of closing the old T1 once the new one is setup." (This was a sales rep.) - "Hi, I'm Chris L. I'm your new account manager. I will be your contact with any problems you have." (Chris no longer answers his phone. Neither does anyone else from the "Enterprise Services" dept here in NYC. None of the phone numbers Chris sent to me respond either.) - The Trouble ticket line has given up any semblance of desire to help Most companies answer "$Company_Name, This is $Name speaking, how may I help you?" The TT line, "Verizon?!" - T1 group, "I can loop the smart jack." Me on site, "The smart jack has no lights." Them, "Oh, wait I was looping the wrong smart jack, what was that CID again?" - My favorite recording from the trouble ticket line: "We are experiencing an unusually high call volume, please try your call again later <CLICK>" - One T1 outage last year: T1 tech says need to dispatch to site, Site tech says no issue at smart jack need to get basement people in here (don't remember the name right off), basement people say we can't hear anything from C.O., C.O. tech says we can't hear anything from the building. This outage took 5 days to recover from to get techs on site and dispatched after each person pointed the finger at another person. I could go on, but it is just depressing. I still have no one to complain to if I can't get a hold of my sales rep or the T1 TT line screws up royally.

3 2

Impending (mydoom) DOS attack
by bcm 01 Feb '04

01 Feb '04

Is anyone taking any special precautions given the potential for a sudden increase in aggregate packets per second across your networks come Sunday afternoon when the original Mydoom virus enters into its DOS phase? Does anyone know if the virus' assault will be slowed if it is unable to reach www.sco.com? I am hoping that if it cannot reach SCO's site that the HTTP GET command will be slow in returning, effectively reducing the volume of traffic a single PC is capable is generating. I am having a difficult time artificially forcing the virus to start its attack in a lab environment, so I am unable to confirm this. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!

10 14