September 2008 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ingress SMTP
by hobbit＠avian.org 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

I am completely convinced that abuse@ in most big providers is a black hole with an autoresponder hung off it, and nothing ever gets done with complaints. NO HUMAN ever sees them, and even if they did, most of the humans at these outfits wouldn't recognize a Received: header if it bit them in the ass. I invite and welcome anyone from the "big boyz" I named in the original question -- verizon, comcast, roadrunner, charter, bellsouth/SBC, and now Google -- *especially* Gmail, given that counterproductive "privacy" policy we noted -- to inform me otherwise. _H*

1 0

ingress SMTP
by Keith Medcalf 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:58:53PM -0400, Nicholas Suan wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > >You're forgetting that 587 *is authenticated, always*. > > I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference since the > > usual spam vector is malware that has (almost) complete > > control of the machine in the first place. > Well, that depends on MUA design, of course, but it's just > been pointed out to me that the RFC says MAY, not MUST. > Oops. > Does anyone bother to run an MSA on 587 and *not* require > authentication? Raises hand. Why would the requirements for authentication be different depending on the port used to connect to the MTA? No matter how a session comes into the MTA (port 25, 465, 587, anything else) and no matter whether it is encrypted or not, the requirement for authentication (which is always available and advertized), is based on a simple policy: - local delivery originating from a non-blacklisted or "internal/customer" address does not require authentication; - relay from "internal/customer" IP Addresses does not require authentication; - any connection from a blacklisted IP requires authentication or no mail will be accepted; - relay from "external/non-customer" IP Addresses requires authentication; Is there a valid reason why a different configuration is justified? As an aside, outbound port 25 traffic is also blocked except from the MTA.

8 11

RE: Comcast Email/Abuse Dept Contact Request
by David Hubbard 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

From: Sean Doyle [mailto:sdoyle@kddia.com] > > All, > > If there's anyone out there from Comcast's Email > Administration or Abuse > dept, can you please contact me off list? > > I've had a ticket open for over a week now and lets just say > it's "being > dealt with poorly". ;-) > > Good luck with that. Dave

1 0

Comcast Email/Abuse Dept Contact Request
by Sean Doyle 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

All, If there's anyone out there from Comcast's Email Administration or Abuse dept, can you please contact me off list? I've had a ticket open for over a week now and lets just say it's "being dealt with poorly". ;-) TIA, -- Sean Doyle Systems/Network Engineer KDDI America, Inc. - Chicago Office Direct: 630-227-1373 Main: 630-227-1350 Cell: 630-808-7207 Fax: 630-227-1360 NOTE: This electronic mail message may contain confidential and privileged information from KDDI America,Inc. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, photocopying, distribution or use of the contents of the received information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this message and all related copies.

2 1

why not AS number based prefixes aggregation
by yangyang. wang 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Hi, everyone: For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. The prefixes in the same AS almost have the same AS_PATH associated, and aggregating prefixes according to AS will shrink BGP routing table significantly. I don't know what comments the ISPs make on this kind of routing scheme. -yang

12 13

Status Page bookmarks?
by Jay R. Ashworth 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

I'm working with Virendra Rode on setting up a wiki for outages.org. One of the things we want to put there -- and yes, we know we'll likely be duplicating some work done elsewhere -- is as complete a list as possible of links to a) Network and Service status webpages and b) Web-based diagnostic tools. If y'all could take a minute, sometime today or tomorrow, to mine your bookmarks and reply -- off-list -- to this message with anything you've got to share, that'd be real cool. I'll be happy to do the first round of wikification. I haven't linked the page in to the public tree (such as it is) yet; I wanted to finish cleaning up the list we pulled over from puck. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+---------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA +-http://bestpractices.wikia.com-+ +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me

1 0

Internet Traffic Growth Slows
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

http://www.pcworld.com/article/150709/internet_growth_trends.html?tk=rss_ne… -Hank

1 0

Re: [Fwd:] Nvidia NICs with duplicate mac addresses
by Christopher LILJENSTOLPE 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, it's the truth - trust me. There was an Interop show (back when it really was an Interoperability event) that was made quite enjoyable for the network staff by that set of NIC cards.... Chris On 05 Sep 2008, at 07.53, Scott Berkman wrote: > This reminds me of a story I was told a while back that there was a > batch > of 3com NIC's that all went out with the same MAC from the factory. I > never found out if that was a rumor/urban legend or the truth. Anyone > know firsthand or have an article about that? > > -Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs@seastrom.com] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:33 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: [Fwd:] Nvidia NICs with duplicate mac addresses > > > Forwarded to NANOG in the interests of wider awareness... having been > there and torn out my already scarce hair, duplicate MAC addresses can > really mess up your day... > > --- > > Just when you thought this couldn't happen any more... > > Copying from a different email list... > > mac address 04:4b:80:80:80:03, was showing up in multiple places > across the network. I googled the mac address and discovered that > other people are having the same issue with this mac address. Below > are some links describing the problem: > > http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=22148 > http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-73469.html > > > I just wanted everyone to know about this problem in case you run > across similar slow "connectivity" issues. I believe the network card > is made by NVIDIA. > > > > - --- 李柯睿 Check my PGP key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB67593B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJIxd6iAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/TAUH/0zG2RUi2oJ3oNaPO0yNoz73 noV7ql2NVpJNtaJz8kmaeoZamE5pSVgJ1byj/wSknPimeAFdDUny+ZmPqSO8b0N4 E1Pqh9O5MegxVAZ2FjjTCLv9TvJ8mnH+l3pDPebqps43PGTyBfa6alZjceadMWDj NyPfS9yrne7JM6zaZt6mgBvfPc93ZXdaB77N4SteKRbplB+5FbzPzzE2HnEiY46E qxYbZHt9vT/6f9cyPZmH7AGjqnbNBaCMb/dXEWKn1LqkTWRUdhfbKTUUvvtUYvGJ tiT6EI4r8z/IlsCn9+APSA5mnsMDm8dI1/j48ogsgW/RumL2BBi9CEalJO4CHPo= =77sL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation
by Boyd, Benjamin R 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

>-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Francis [mailto:francis@cs.cornell.edu] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:31 PM >To: Ricardo Oliveira; nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: RE: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation > > >This thread begs an interesting question: what is the right >amount of granularity for load balance? Folks here are saying >that one-entry-per-AS is too course...an AS wants to influence >load on incoming links, and so it needs multiple entries. > >On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that we need hundreds >of entries per AS, or even dozens. So I'm curious...if we >could wave a magic wand and control the exact number of >entries any AS needs to advertise, what would folks consider >to be roughly the right number of entries? > >Thanks, > >PF > Although hard to imagine, I would think that flexibility would be desired for those willing to implement/manage it. *************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.

1 0

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
by Scott Weeks 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

--- ge(a)linuxbox.org wrote: On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > > --- ge(a)linuxbox.org wrote: > > Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client > you have? > ---------------------------------- > > Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and profit? :-( I haven't seen any flames, I've seen them claim they cleaned up, instead of pointing out all their other bad clients, I am asking for a good one. Should be easy enough to manufacture. ------------------------------------- Stop. Please. scott

4 4