July 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

prodigy.net.mx contact please?
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Preferably someone with mailops experience there, who can troubleshoot what appears to be some mail delivery brokenness at prodigy.net.mx - that is causing email to their users to be accepted by your users and then lost. regards srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

Paul Vixie on the wgig report
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

http://fm.vix.com/internet/governance/wgig-report-july05.html I like the ending - > I think a lot of hard work went into this report, and considering the > number and strength and diversity of views expressed during the WGIG > process, the result has to be called herculean. I'm a bit concerned that > it amounts to a generally agreed upon statement that "somebody ought to > put a bell on that cat". Turning hegemony into democracy by peaceful means > has been done only a few times in human history, and the outlook for this > time isn't good. > > Paul Vixie -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

Re: Non-English Domain Names Likely Delayed
by Brandon Butterworth 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

>> Already, some 21 TLDs are whitelisted, including .cn, .tw, a number >> of European ccTLDs, .museum, and .info. Any other registrars who >> want to be supported can simply E-mail Gerv at the Mozilla >> Foundation, or his Opera counterpart, and give them a pointer to >> their anti-spoofing rules. I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a system with a known vulnerability and try and work around it by having some people agree they'll police the exploit. No doubt the people protecting us will be tempted to exploit it themselves by trying to sell the spoofs to the spoofed domain owner as essential international branding (.mobi, yeah. .com is shorter and people should learn about content negotiation to present suitable content to mobiles, no need to buy your domains all over again) If this goes ahead the browser needs a default on button for "please don't expose me to this spoofing attack" brandon

8 23

RE: clec vs ilec, how do you know who's lying?
by Reeves, Rob 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Jason "Feren" Olsen: > So go to the website for the ILEC and find the conect information. As an example, SBC plasters > information for the different teams all over their pages. If you identify that you're with your employer > when you call in and summarize the problem, you'll get transferred to somebody who can answer your > question on the ILEC work orders. Hell, they'll probably leap at the chance to "help" you in order to > try and convince you to move away from the CLEC. This may or may not work the way you'd think. As far as the ILEC is/should be concerned, their customer is the CLEC since that's where the work order came from. If you contact the ILEC and just happen to get that person who doesn't care, you'd be in luck. Otherwise, they'll likely say that there's nothing they can do, and that you must escallate through the CLEC...which quite frankly is exactly what you should be doing. If it's taken this long for them to not bring up your service, you should be holding your account rep by his/her ears and screaming through a bull-horn, mercilessly. Push on the sales side and make them do the leg-work. Demand to speak with a manager, and if you don't start getting satisfactory answers within 24 hours, go to the manager's manager, and continue up to VP level if necessary. With enough pressure from the top, these folks will suck it up and get it done, despite any animosity between them. Best of luck! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rob Reeves IP Network Engineer Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. 703-456-4172 rreeves(a)arbinet.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

RE: clec vs ilec, how do you know who's lying?
by Olsen, Jason 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

David Hubbard: > how do I tell who's lying to me? If their lips are moving, they're probably lying. > I have supposed work order numbers for > the ilec but I don't have any direct contact So go to the website for the ILEC and find the conect information. As an example, SBC plasters information for the different teams all over their pages. If you identify that you're with your employer when you call in and summarize the problem, you'll get transferred to somebody who can answer your question on the ILEC work orders. Hell, they'll probably leap at the chance to "help" you in order to try and convince you to move away from the CLEC. -Fer Jason "Feren" Olsen DeVry, Inc. Senior Network Engineer One Tower Lane Em: jolsen(a)devry.com Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181-4624 Ph: 630.645.1607 Fx: 630.382.2929

1 0

RE: clec vs ilec, how do you know who's lying?
by Kuhtz, Christian 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

> Hello everyone, not sure if this is off topic or not > since it is will be operational in nature if I can ever > get the service set up. :-) I'm having the pleasure, or > lack thereof, of ordering some data connectivity via a > very large clec which requires the ilec to provide the > local loops. Well we're about two months past the > estimated install completion and all I get from the clec > is continuous blame pointed at the ilec who has now > missed three install dates and in turn has wasted staff > time sitting there from 8 to 5 each of the days; assuming > they were really scheduled in the first place. I know the > two types of entities don't particularly like each other > but at this point how do I tell who's lying to me? I > have supposed work order numbers for the ilec but I don't > have any direct contact with them to see if they are > real numbers and if the disposition of the previous > work orders are what the clec has told me or if they are > messing things up themselves and trying to cover it up. Hmm, I don't know specifically how you'd resolve that since your customer relationship is likely with the clec, but.. Every ilec has a wholesale unit (in BellSouth territory this is called BellSouth ICS - Interconnection Services) and you could probably get in touch with them directly and run the work order numbers by them and see what they say. That's the sort of thing I did when I was on the outside and blamestorming started. ;-) Best regards, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

1 0

Can someone from AOL contact me offlist?
by Joseph Nuara 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

4 3

Re: Non-English Domain Names Likely Delayed
by Brandon Butterworth 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

> Unfortunately, the problem is inherent in human writing systems. > Consider rnicrosoft.com and paypaI.com. And people are no better than muppets in ensuring they don't screw themselves up > The good news is that fairly simple homograph rules can be applied Rules aren't safe, it involves humans. I presume that if a Chinese bank were to register their name then the similar .com would be blocked for them (just as the Chinese paypal alike would be blocked). What if the .com is a blogger, would the Chinese bank accept being blocked, would they exert pressure to have theirs anyway or would the blogger be fair game for lawyers/ICANN managed domain hijacking? "If it's too hard people won't understand it" brandon

1 0

RE: Non-English Domain Names Likely Delayed
by Jason Sloderbeck 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

I don't know of any other IEEE/NANOG/IETF/ICANN-sanctioned method to completely confuse even a savvy IT user who is trying to determine the validity of an SSL site. > There are dozens of ways we know of, and probably more that lie undiscovered, > to exploit vulnerabilities in DNS, browsers, and in human nature to conduct > phishing. Sure, there are bugs and hacks. The existence of such does not justify approving new measures (in this case, a glaring security hole) as a global standard. In fact, quite the opposite: folks are generally trying to fix such problems, not push them forward in public policy agenda. It's clear that no one intended for the side effect of a complete meltdown in the user layer of SSL (where the only thing you can do is double-check the URL in your browser and verify there's a padlock icon in your status bar), but the side effect is there and it's naive to pretend that fairness to non-English folks or globalization justifies a hole this large. Certainly, the vulnerability is just as much a problem for the targeted benefactors of this change. -Jason -- Jason Sloderbeck Positive Networks jason @ positivenetworks . net -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Crist Clark Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:43 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Non-English Domain Names Likely Delayed Isn't someone more eloquent than I going to point out that that spending a lot of effort eliminating homographs from DNS to stop phishing is a security measure on par with cutting cell service to underground trains to prevent bombings? It focuses on one small vulnerability that phishers exploit, and "fixing" this one vulnerability just may make things worse. It wastes resources that could go to coming up with a *real* solution, and it may provide a false sense of security. Worrying about homographs is probably something about which we should let the trademark lawyers get there undies in a bunch (knowing ICANN, that may very well be what's driving this, not phishing worries) while the IT security community concerns itself with a usable, and actually secure, end-to-end security model for e-commerce. -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark(a)globalstar.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387

2 1

RE: IPv6 push doesn't have much pull in U.S
by Kuhtz, Christian 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

> On 18-jul-2005, at 18:31, Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > > > If there is pressure to adopt IPv6 rapidly in a given > region, and that > > given region also happens to drive broadband technology > evolution, and > > North America ends up being dependent on cheap equipment primarily > > driven by overseas standards.. > > I don't see this. For instance, the need for non-ASCII characters in > (for instance) Asian languages has pushed Unicode. Modern systems in > NA are all capable of using Unicode. But do users in NA actually > _use_ Unicode? ASCII works fine for them 99% of the time. I don't disagree with that point at all. But what I was trying to say goes a little further and is basically the notion that you're likely to use gear that happens to speak Unicode because of other developments and while you may be fine using ASCII most of the time (given that it is a charset specifically developed to meet North American English needs some time ago), you may be receiving a parasitic benefit of it showing up elsewhere or everywhere else. It won't influence purchase decisions perhaps, you won't buy gear X because it doesn't do Unicode, but it may just show up as the defacto standard. Just like other charsets have made it into just about every current, modern operating system and application.. So, you'd adopt just because it's there and it's no worth fighting the current of being different. (GSM in North America is a similar example, I think :-) There are economic forces at work, that have very little to do with the suitability of technology for a specific locale, which may drive adoption of technology. > Same thing with IPv6. Windows and MacOS have had IPv6 on board for > years. Doesn't mean people use it. Yup. That is absolutely correct. But, if there are huge amounts of actions in a given market place, that's bound to spill over into a different market place because of global distribution of goods. Not because the other, different market asked for it, but just because it's more economical to make one set of gear that is a superset in the end. > > The key questions are > > > When will who you want to talk to speak IPv6? > > That's a key question when you've made up your mind to be one of the > last to adopt IPv6. Yes, and in terms of volume, that's where I see North America being right now.. We're on a track to be dead last (well, almost) on the path we are on right now (and have been for some years). > The real key question is: when will it start to > make sense to use IPv6 for my own stuff, regardless of what the rest > of the world does? Not if you are fine with what you have, and believe in never change a running system because one doesn't believe it's prudent to keep up with technology... > In an enterprise environment the ease of never > again having to think about how many hosts are going to end > up in the > same subnet alone may be quite compelling. But it only makes sense > when you can turn off IPv4 in most of the network and proxy or > translate communications to the outside. Well, I'm not sure I would be so bold as to say it's an either or choice, but it would have to be for substantial islands of a corporation or other type of organization to make economic sense. Just like there's still antiquated computing gear (& software on it) hopping around happily all over the place, although isolated and put into a scenario where there are gateways or dain bramage impact on the rest of the world is otherwise limited, there will be IPv4 in islands long after IPv6 achieves world domination (which has yet to be seen). If there is a business case for IPv6, it is pandemic rather than epidemic for as far as my rather cloudy crystal ball will let me see... Best regards, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

1 0