- Test - lists.nanog.org

SRI-NIC.ARPA 26.0.0.73
by Sean Donelan 02 Feb '07

02 Feb '07

Do old packets ever go away on the Internet? How many DNS packets still wander towards SRI-NIC.ARPA's old root server at 26.0.0.73? At some point, regardless of what the lawyers say, you've got to make your own decision and move on. Things change on the Internet, if you don't maintain your systems they will become obsolete. Conversely, no matter how many ways, how many times you try to inform people about changes someone will miss it, ignore it, misunderstand it, etc. And someone may even sue you over it.

1 0

BellSouth OC192 Fiber Cut
by Pablo Espinosa 02 Feb '07

02 Feb '07

I'm hearing reports of a Fiber Cut between College Park, GA and Tallahassee, FL. Can anyone chime in on specifics? thanks Pablo

1 1

Re: what the heck do i do now?
by Scott Weeks 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

-------- froomkin(a)law.miami.edu wrote:--------------- From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> As an, ahem, lawyer, I think what you do and how you do it matter a lot ... Pulling a plug after reasonable/lots of warnings (did you miss anyone? how do you know for sure?) is on the safer end of the legal spectrum. ---------------------------------------------------- Matters a lot? In what country's legal spectrum? Or did you assume the queries are US-based only? Or are you suggesting he treat US-based queries differently than the rest of the world? Or are you speaking from US-centric tunnel vision? scott

3 2

Re: what the heck do i do now?
by Jon Lewis 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Justin Shore wrote: > Jon Lewis wrote: >> 2) maps.vix.com. 604800 IN NS u1.vix.com. >> maps.vix.com. 604800 IN NS u2.vix.com. >> maps.vix.com. 604800 IN NS u3.vix.com. >> ... [as many as you like] >> u1.vix.com. 604800 IN A 192.0.2.1 >> u2.vix.com. 604800 IN A 192.0.2.2 >> u3.vix.com. 604800 IN A 192.0.2.3 >> ... [as many as you like] >> >> 1) just tells them there is no NS, go away. >> >> 2) gives them someone unreachable to try, which they'll do, and do, and do, >> wasting lots of retransmitted queries and the time it takes them to >> timeout. If you're lucky, the timeouts might be noticed as increased load >> and mail slowdown on the servers sending these queries. > > Or you could just point them at a spammer's DNS. That's what the query is > all about anyhow. Just let the spammer give the appropriate response. > Wouldn't that be fun? I wonder how beefy Linhardt's NSs are.... Yeah, that'd be barrels of fun when the spammer sues you for orchestrating a DDoS against them in the form of bogus DNS queries. Next. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

1 0

WTH does Paul do now?
by Jon Lewis 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Why do I even bother? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:08:22 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)soloth.lewis.org> To: jlewis(a)lewis.org Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details The original message was received at Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:08:18 -0500 from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <paul(a)vix.com> (reason: 553 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [69.28.69.2] blocked using reject-all.vix.com; reason / created) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to sa.vix.com.: >>> RCPT To:<paul(a)vix.com> <<< 553 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [69.28.69.2] blocked using reject-all.vix.com; reason / created 550 5.1.1 <paul(a)vix.com>... User unknown

4 4

the authors of RFC 2317 have a question for at&t worldnet
by Paul Vixie 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

(this must be my week for past-sins pennance related to RBL's.) today someone whose e-mail was blocked when they tried to send it to an at&t customer, asked the authors of RFC 2317 to please unblock their address. as the only such author whose e-mail address hasn't changed since RFC publication i pretty much assumed that the other two guys weren't hearing this, and so i investigated. the complainer showed me this text: <foo(a)att.net>: host gateway2.att.net[12.102.240.23] said: 550-24.248.126.43 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=worldnet,dc=att,dc=net 550 Blocked for abuse. See http://www.att.net/general-info/rblinquiry.html" (in reply to MAIL FROM command) i looked at the URL thus indicated, and the link for Information for end-users whose messages have been blocked. is http://www.att.net/general-info/mail_info/block_enduser.html which says: What to do: Ask your system administrator to submit identifying information to the DNS. For more information, your administrator should refer to http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2317.html In the meantime, you should use a fully registered domain for sending your messages, such as the mail system from an ISP or one of the major free e-mail services. now, i count myself as a master of the obscure reference, but this is over the top. can someone from at&t worldnet please contact me for the purpose of explaining what RFC 2317 could possibly have to do with spam complaints? (and btw, if you're going to block inbound e-mail, you need to give senders some idea of how to get unblocked. not for fairness, just for practicality. and this parenthesized paragraph is why i count this screed as not-off-topic.)

3 2

Best way to supply colo customer with specific provider
by Rick Kunkel 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Hello all, Being relatively new to the colocation business, we run into a fair number of issues that we've never run into before. Got a new one today, and although I can think of kludgey ways to accomplish what he wants, I'd rather get some other ideas first... We just had our first customer that's requesting bandwidth exclusively through a particular provider of ours (Cogent) at less expensive pricing. The money people here are up for it, but obviously, they want to make sure that he's confined to that Cogent connection. So now of course we're attempting to figure out the best way to do this, and I figured that rather than reinventing the wheel, I'd check to see how others accomplish things like this. The way I can imagine doing it is by using route-maps to steer all of this customer's traffic out the Cogent pipe, and modifying our BGP announcements by AS prepending on whatever block or blocks we set aside to be "Cogent-exclusive". Again though, this seems to me to lack a certain amount of, for lack of a better word, "grace". Any other suggestions? Thanks, Rick Kunkel

7 6

NANOG 39 IPv6 Network Operations BOF
by sdb＠stewartb.com 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Hi, I'm going to be running the IPv6 Network Operations BOF at NANOG 39 in Toronto. The BOF will be held in Sheraton Hall B/C, 2pm to 3.30pm on Tuesday February 6th. A basic list of topics is available via the agenda page. If you have any other (relevant) issues you'd like to raise about IPv6, let me know and I'll try to get them in. I'd also be interested to know if people are definitely coming, just so I know I'm not going to be sitting there by myself :) If you're around and not going to either the BGP tutorial or the Peering BOF (part I) and are interested in IPv6, please drop in. Hopefully it won't just be about how awful IPv6 is and how multihoming is broken! Regards, Stewart Bamford -- Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual) Level3 Snr IP Engineer *** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 *** Primary email stewart(a)whoever.com Secondary email me(a)stewartb.com Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/

1 0

Re: WWPVD
by J. Oquendo 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

> I suppose in some universe, it *IS* possible that Paul could be found negligent by some jury trial and ordered to pay millions of dollars. > But that's the same universe were swine routinely fly to and fourth across the green sky. Apparently you've never been in a jury trial and hopefully you won't have to be. The problems (to some this is the solution) with jury trials is, define "peer". You're under the impression - if on a worst case scenario there was a jury trial - that, Paul would be sitting with a jury of his peers. Peers in the sense that those hearing the case would be in his demographic range: Computer Engineer (heck even an avid user) of some form, around his age, hopefully in the same profession. Often what will happen is some poor shmoe will be sitting on the case, bored by the fact he won't understand anything, the explanation of it all will be convoluted, aggravated that he/she has to sit at a jury trial (how many people loathe jury duty). Couple this with moronic logic: "If I was suing I would want someone to have mercy on my pockets" ... So GUILTY! So while Chivalry may be dead frivolry (Yes another Bushism/craptabulous/butchery of a word) isn't... What I would do is offer a warning of sorts for the duration of 90 days and pull the plug with copies of messages that were sent forewarning (l)users of impending changes. This to some degree exonerates you from possible repercussions. Now before you take my advice, this is based of logic not factual law as (obviously) IANAL.

1 0

Re: WWPVD (was what the heck do I do know)
by J. Oquendo 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Why not write a real-time script and loop the querier right back to his own self... Luzer --> *.vix.com --> Luzer This sort of reminded me of the days of "bandwidth raping" where others used someone's own bandwidth to their own disadvantage. > We've told people for years that when they choose to use a DNSBL or > RHSBL that they need to (a) subscribe to the relevant mailing list, > if it has one and/or (b) periodically revisit the relevant web site Akin to a mailing list asking someone to configure their options so autoresponding "Out of the office" replies don't annoy. Rarely works. In the case of system administration/network administration, the industry shifts so much whereas someone who managed a machine is likely not working for that company any more. From my experiences, I've seen the horrible documentation(ing (Bushism?)) companies maintain so its likely unknown to these offenders. Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > Bottom line is that in the absence of a promise -- explicit or implicit (!) > -- to the contrary, you can usually turn off your gear and get on with your life Promissory Estoppel might hinder shutting off the power. http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/marshall.wick/bus447/promissory_estoppel.html -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo echo @infiltrated|sed 's/^/sil/g;s/$/.net/g' http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey

3 2