- Test - lists.nanog.org

Domain Registration and MX Records [Was: Re: Discovering policy ]
by Paul Ferguson 16 Aug '07

16 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Douglas Otis <dotis(a)mail-abuse.org> wrote: >Do not depend upon applications not to resolve addresses for root names, even when a convention is explicit. Depending upon root answers to support a protocol feature unrelated to DNS is normally considered a design mistake isn't it? > Subject line changed to reflect reality. If this issue has strayed into the field of DNS issues, please, let's mark it as such. The initial thread started on the issue of domain tasting, and perhaps it has morphed here. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGw79vq1pz9mNUZTMRAtCnAKCW7swTGNENv2MbjTc4dogXVy5bPQCgzX4W pDXCDMmFkYTqmqJQqO5tpZA= =YDtZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Paul Ferguson 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow(a)verizonbusiness.com> wrote: >On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote: > >> That point forward, spammers would be less able to take advantage >> of domains in flux, and policy schemes would be far less perilous for > >are spammers really doing this? do they mine the domain system for changes >and utilze those for their purposes? I ask because i don't see that in my >data, which is small admittedly... I see lots of existing well known >domains in the 'from'. Unless you have some data showing otherwise (or >someone else has data to share) I think this is a specious arguement. > More than ~85% of all spam is being generated by spambots. Spammers are gaming the domain registry system, not for MX record manipulation, but to install their own nameservers on compromised hosts, round-robin and fast-flux their ability to avoid detection, and inevitably hide behind various layers of obfuscation. They are manipulating both the (legitimate) process of obtaining IP addresses, registering domain names (and all the cruft that it brings along with it, given the loopholes in the processes), and manipulating the ability to move their nameservers around at-will. It's pretty much a mess -- these guys use the system to succeed. Honestly, I don't have any answers -- only questions at this point. :-/ - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwpOtq1pz9mNUZTMRAgwMAJ9tANe2A4jlH5rx9WG+RddhHJwHcgCgrO2B dVaFMZF1Lp87F0vygsvbvJM= =qyM6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

3 2

udp fragments, 1472 bytes payload
by Miguel Mata 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

I'm being attacked with UDP fragments having a payload 1472 bytes. Seems like a DDoS that only likes to suck bandwidth. Anyone on the same coaster? drop me a line. -- Miguel Mata Gerente de Operaciones Intercom El Salvador mmata(a)intercom.com.sv voz: ++(503) 2278-5068 fax: ++(503) 2265-7024 "Intercom, sus Telecomunicaciones en buenas manos"

3 3

Network Inventory Tool
by Wguisa71 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

Guys, Does anyone known some tool for network documentation with: - inventory (cards, serial numbers, manufactor...) - documentation (configurations, software version control, etc) - topology building (L2, L3.. connections, layer control, ...) All-in-one solution and It don't need to be free. I'm just looking for some thing to control the equipments we have like routers from some sort of suppliers, etc... Marcio

5 4

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Robert Bonomi 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Mon Aug 13 20:15:50 2007 > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:37:09 -0500 > From: Carl Karsten <carl(a)personnelware.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy... > > > J Bacher wrote: > > > > Carl Karsten wrote: > > > >>> That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability > >>> of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the > >>> liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller. > >> > >> I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud. > > > > You got what you ordered. You used it. You pay for it. It's that simple. > > That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free samples. If a > registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that. > > It is not even close to that simple, In and of itself, 'tasting' is neither criminal, nor fraudulent. *HOWEVER*, available evidence suggests that a large proportion of 'tasting' _is_ done "in furtherance/support of" criminal/fraudulent activities. Registry operator data indicates that less than _six-tenths of one perecent_ of 'tasted' domains are kept by the taster. Analysis of data from another registry operator suggests that that operator is now processing roughly 3.25 _million_ *unpalatable* (i.e., _will_ be returned) 'tasting' domain registrations =per=day=. IF we postulate there are 100 million registered names with that operator, then the annualized number of _returned_ 'tasting' registrations is around TEN TIMES the total number of registered domain names. _IF_ the registry operator is at least breaking even on the entire registration process -- 'real domains' plug 'tasting' -- then it would seem that the registry-operator fee for registration of a domain registration could be reduced _by_a_factor_of_ten_, if tasting was the same price as a real registration. On the other hand, if the free tasting is 'out of hand' to the point where registry operators are 'in the red' due to the 'incremental' costs thereof, *that* problem also needs to be addressed. Life could be _really_ interesting if a registry operator contract came up for renewal, and _nobody_ bid. Anybody with _reasonable_ "plan ahead" skills can live with a week between name registration submission, and the name going 'live' -- given that they do know, _immediately_ that the registration is successful. Those who have 'urgent' need should pay a premium for 'expidited' service -- and those who have a _legitimate_ need for such service will not balk at paying a significant premium for that service. It _IS_ worth 'big bucks' to them, because, even at that price, it is '_much_ cheaper than the alternative'. I'd suggest: 1) one week latency between registration and entry into the TLD nameservers. 2) 50% (of 1-year registration fee) 'penalty' for cancelling the registration before it hits the TLD servers. 3) $250 'surcharge' (to registrant) for 'immediate' _irrevocable_ recording in the TLD nameservers, 25% of that surcharge to be retained by the registrar, 25% to the registry operator, and 50% to IANA.

4 4

Re: inter-domain link recovery
by Scott Weeks 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

----------- rdobbins(a)cisco.com wrote:--------------- On Aug 14, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Chengchen Hu wrote: > 1. Why BGP-like protocol failed to recover the path sometimes? Is > it mainly because the policy setting by the ISP and network operators? There are an infinitude of possible answers to these questions which have nothing to do with BGP, per se; those answers are very subjective in nature. Can you provide some specific examples ------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps your path flapped numerous times and you were "dampened" by your upstream provider? First web search using "route dampening" gives: www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/ip/routing/bgp/operation/bgp_route_fl… As Roland mentions, specific examples (for example, "show" commands from the router) would help. scott

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Paul Ferguson 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow(a)verizonbusiness.com> wrote: >> More than ~85% of all spam is being generated by spambots. > >yes, that relates to my question how though? I asked: "Do spammers monitor >the domain system in order to spam from the domains in flux as tastinng >domains?" I asked this specifically because that behavior was being used >as a 'resaon to stop tasting', or to clamp down on it atleast. > The answer to your question is "Yes, sometimes." But that's not the explicit reasoning behind the motivations behind tasting. >Conflating the 3 (or parts of the 2 sets) is >just as wrong as saying that 'tasting lets the terrorists win'. Completely agree, and would not want to paint this problem in that light. Again, this problem is multi-fold: bad actors gaming the system for illicit (and illegal) purposes. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwqFfq1pz9mNUZTMRAm59AKD2iwDGNA+hBOu7RPNunp16PvC+AQCcD67x k31lq1G9F6wqjIkbqELucto= =RtK2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: inter-domain link recovery
by Paul Ferguson 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> wrote: >Why do you think BGP was supposed to find the remaining path? And to be less verbose -- let's remember that IP-layer notification (specifically BGP) as a certain "ships-in-the-night" characteristic with link-layer availability. Protocol time-outs and all that stuff (BGP is not a LSP, per se). What we have here... blah... is a situation which is designed to work around the fact that failures in a certain substrate of the protocol stack are not (and cannot be) communicated directly to another adjoining layer. Welcome to the Internet. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwpp9q1pz9mNUZTMRAtZ1AKCyflceDo+heHEY4qEL5Y1MHkdvjACg7W6c gvAIMH9rBLu7qlLZO182R5M= =nc2o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Paul Ferguson 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Douglas Otis <dotis(a)mail-abuse.org> wrote: >A clearer and safer strategy would be to insist that anyone who cares >about their email delivery, publish a valid MX record. Especially when >the domain is that of a government agency dealing with emergencies. At >least FEMA now publishes an MX record. This requirement should have >been imposed long ago. : ) Let's be clear here -- the fact that a particular domain does, or does not have an MX associated with it, is a separate issue from what this thread originally began: domain tasting, and the "gaming" of the domain registry system for bad actors. Now, while these issues may indeed be related, the whole MX record thing relates specifically to the issue of spamming -- and there are even larger issues involved here (aside from spamming). :-) Not to demean your point, but just wanted to clarify a couple of talking points. There are completely valid reason why domains can be registered which do not have associated MX records. I can think of several right off of the top-of-my-head. Gaming the domain registry system for illegitimate uses -- that's my main sticking point. Cheers, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwoxUq1pz9mNUZTMRAiNmAJ9M4vhP2Nh4zQbBsMiF3RAJCS8yWgCgrKjf P/FRS+0SNyE59NK2KrfcnUo= =Aegb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Call for Nominations for NANOG Steering Committee 2007/2008
by Joe Abley 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

People of NANOG, Elections for three of the six elected positions on the NANOG Steering Committee will be held in October 2007. The currently- serving SC members whose terms are expiring are Joe Abley, Chris Morrow and William B. Norton. The NANOG Steering Committee works closely with Merit to promote, support and improve NANOG. The Steering Committee is responsible for the selection of the Programme Committee and the Mailing List Committee, and is the community's instrument for ensuring that NANOG as an organisation remains open, relevant and useful. If you care about NANOG as a forum, and think you would like to take a turn at volunteering your time to help make it better, please consider either volunteering yourself or nominating someone else. For more information about the role of the SC, or to find out more about what's involved in being an SC member see the NANOG charter or contact someone who is already serving and ask them directly. http://www.nanog.org/charter.html http://www.nanog.org/sc.current.html HOW TO NOMINATE SOMEONE You may nominate someone else, or yourself. There is no limit to the number of nominations that may be submitted by a single person. Individual nominees will be contacted directly to confirm that they are willing to accept the nomination, and so that they can supply a biography for the NANOG web page. To submit a nomination, send the nominee's full name and contact details to nominations(a)nanog.org. IMPORTANT DATES Tue 2007-08-14 Call for Nominations issued Tue 2007-09-10 Last day for SC Nominations to be received Sun 2007-10-14 Voting for the 2007/2008 NANOG SC opens Tue 2007-10-16 Voting for the 2007/2008 NANOG SC closes; results announced at the close of the meeting Joe Abley for the NANOG SC

1 0