- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

I'm glad you brought that up. :-) As a follow-up to the two posts that I made earlier about Congressional hearings and the OMB mandate, let me applaud Congressman Tom Davis (did I really just say that?!?) for making a salient point during the hearings yesteday: "Asian countries have been aggressive in adopting IPv6 technology, because Asia controls only about 9 percent of the allocated IPv4 addresses and yet has more than half of the world's population," Congressman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, said at the hearings. Davis noted that Asian governments have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in IPv6 technology, which vastly opens up the number of Internet addresses over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and additional links for wireless devices. ref: http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/164904243 In addition to Davis' point, I think that it bears to remember that "newer" doesn't mean "better". The Internet is about end-to-end connectivity, not if one version of a particluar set of protocols is "newer" than another. It's all about the connectivity, man. Bear in mind--and as Congressman Tom Davis mentions in the article above--the primary reason that Asia (and to a lesser extent Europe) is primarily interested in IPv6 is that it has a larger pool of available IP host addresses. Virtually all of the "newer" functionality that IPv6 offers has been retro-fitted into IPv4. No, back to your regularly scheduled programming. - ferg -- Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi(a)niif.hu> wrote: > GOSIP II anybody? Will it be different this time than it was with OSI? > Everyone had to scramble in the late 1980s to get OSI stuff done, then the > gov't never used it. > Certainly will be different. Lots of network in Asia and Europe already started to use IPv6 in production..... -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

New IANA IPv4 allocation for RIPE NCC (89/8, 90/8, 91/8)
by Doug Barton 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following three (3) IPv4 /8 blocks to RIPE NCC: 89/8 90/8 91/8 For a full list of IANA IPv4 allocations please see: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space> - -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCxEwgwtDPyTesBYwRAjajAJ9bo5grWwRRsKakb4mgn9Mh2/GL7QCgheO6 Xirb1dsrMytiQeUa8GZKE4Y= =sDQ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Kuhtz, Christian 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

> So, the questions are: will OMB fund the transfer of the US gov't > sites? Will there ever be a US gov't web site only on IPv6? (I > think the API issue has been solved.) While that would certainly be nice.. There doesn't need to be. Unlike GOSIP, IPv6 is largely transparent, thanks to all the work that has been done on this subject in the IETF. ***** "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." 118

2 1

RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Kuhtz, Christian 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

No kidding. He should be nominated to head up coordinating transition planning to IPv6. ;-) Not that I'm complaining, GOSIP paid my contract fees in 1996/1997 (sic). Most of these clowns don't realize how hard these mandates are to stop if they turn out to be in error, especially if they make it into RFP requirements again (which they undoubtedly will). Ooof. I wouldn't mind seeing IPv6, but as a market forces driven thing not as a mandate. Besides, what all these incredibly wise folks (NOT) are missing is that this isn't like GOSIP at all. IPv6 can happily exist without IPv4 having any clue about it, which is one of the cool things about it actually. So, anyone mandating this conversion should be taken out back and shot for exhibiting spectacular lapses in clue. IPv6. Coming to a toaster near you. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > Fergie (Paul Ferguson) > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:38 AM > To: dts(a)senie.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 > > > > Thought thief. ;-) > > - ferg > > > -- Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> wrote: > > >Just in case anyone was wondering, U.S. gummint agencies will > >be screaming in migration agony for the next couple of years. ;-) > > > >http://www.fcw.com/article89432-06-29-05-Web > > GOSIP II anybody? Will it be different this time than it was with > OSI? Everyone had to scramble in the late 1980s to get OSI stuff > done, then the gov't never used it. > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ ***** 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. 162

1 0

ISP phishing
by Gadi Evron 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

Hi guys. I notice a large increase in recent weeks of ISP directed phishing - largely because of worms moving backward to using the user's own domain for the spam, but not just in the from: address. I believe this started out as a "let's feel this out" or "wow, that worked, let's phish ISP's directly too". I now have several reports that point to this becoming a serious problem. Old with a spark of new, but definitely a problem. Anyone else dealing with this? Gadi.

16 29

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

Thought thief. ;-) - ferg -- Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> wrote: >Just in case anyone was wondering, U.S. gummint agencies will >be screaming in migration agony for the next couple of years. ;-) > >http://www.fcw.com/article89432-06-29-05-Web GOSIP II anybody? Will it be different this time than it was with OSI? Everyone had to scramble in the late 1980s to get OSI stuff done, then the gov't never used it. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: IPv6 by June 2008
by Olsen, Jason 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Fergie (Paul Ferguson) > Just in case anyone was wondering, U.S. gummint agencies will > be screaming in migration agony for the next couple of years. ;-) > http://www.fcw.com/article89432-06-29-05-Web While I feel their pain and don't envy them in the least, I think there could be some good that will come out of this: the announcement may serve as enough incentive for other large organizations that have been hanging back to outline and implement a plan for their own migration. At my place of employment I've been agitating for some time to get an IP6 testbed set up (all of our server and network gear can handle it, but we don't actually enable it) so we can at least start getting some first-hand experience with the future. Unfortunately the department is helmed by followers who have pushed back on the idea because "nobody else was doing it." Having seen these people drag their feet and only implement IP inside the corporate network within the last six years, I would rather be ahead of the curve on this than behind it once again. With the government finally getting rolling and actually announcing the plan I may finally have a whip big enough to get my management to start thinking about the future (if only because we have to communicate with government institutions as part of our daily business operations). 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: Is my BIND Server's Cache Poisioned ?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

Maybe Congress uncovered that mystery in their IPv6 hearings. ;-) http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/164903883 - ferg -- "william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Mark Andrews wrote: > No. These are just a mis-configured zones. > > hangzhou.gov.cn only has glue records for the nameservers. > zpepc.com.cn has CNAMEs for the nameservers. > > Both of these misconfigurations are visible to nameservers > that are IPv6 aware. Nameservers that are not IPv6 aware > are not likely to make the queries that make these > misconfigurations visible. Why would these dns misconfigurations be visible only to IPV6-aware servers? [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Is my BIND Server's Cache Poisioned ?
by Joe Shen 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

Hi, I met a strange problem with my cache server, which runs BIND9.3.1. In past days, our customers complaint that three domain names (www.hangzhou.gov.cn, www.zpepc.com.cn) could not be resolved frequently. I checked on the cache server and found, when the cache server could not resolve www.hangzhou.gov.cn (www.zpepc.com.cn) I can solve the problem by running "rndc flush". The debugging output of named process has the following output when it could not resolve www.hangzhou.gov.cn. Do that mean my cache server is poisioned for these two domain name? =============================== 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.015 client 202.101.172.148#32769: UDP request 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client 202.101.172.148#32769: view internal-in: request is not signed 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client 202.101.172.148#32769: view internal-in: recursion available 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client 202.101.172.148#32769: view internal-in: query 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client 202.101.172.148#32769: view internal-in: query (cache) 'www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A/I N' approved 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client 202.101.172.148#32769: view internal-in: replace 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 clientmgr @2addf8: createclients 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 clientmgr @2addf8: create new 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client @3c19f28: create 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 createfetch: www.hangzhou.gov.cn A 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 client @3c19f28: udprecv 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): create 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): join 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fetch 2739250 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): created 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): start 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): try 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelqueries 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.026 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): getaddresses 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.027 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): query 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.027 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): send 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.027 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): sent 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.027 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): senddone 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): response 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): noanswer_response 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cache_message 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelquery 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelqueries 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): try 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelqueries 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.049 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): getaddresses 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.050 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): query 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.050 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): send 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.050 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): sent 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.050 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): senddone 36 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): noanswer_response 37 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cache_message 38 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelquery 39 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelqueries 40 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): try 41 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelqueries 42 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): getaddresses 43 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): query 44 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.052 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): send 45 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.053 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): sent 46 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.053 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): senddone 47 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 resquery 74b4870 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): response 48 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): answer_response 49 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cache_message 50 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): clone_results 51 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelquery 52 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): done 53 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): stopeverything 54 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): cancelqueries 55 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): sendevents 56 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fetch 2739250 (fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A)): destroyfetch 57 24-Jun-2005 19:02:00.054 fctx 37ad318(www.hangzhou.gov.cn/A'): shutdown =============================== regards Joe __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 1GB free storage! http://sg.info.mail.yahoo.com

4 5

IESG statement on e-mail authentication drafts
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Okay. Gasoline, fire, etc. Article: Antispam proposals advance http://news.com.com/Antispam+proposals+advance/2100-1032_3-5768498.html IESG announcements: Document Action: 'Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-MAIL, version 1' to Experimental RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/recent_announcement.cgi?command=show_de… Document Action: 'SMTP Service Extension for Indicating the Responsible Submitter of an E-mail Message' to Experimental RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/recent_announcement.cgi?command=show_de… Most appropriate comment (from the IESG): "While many proposals for domain-based authorization have been under consideration, no consensus has yet been reached concerning a single technical approach," the IESG said in a statement. "The IESG does not endorse either of the two mechanisms documented in the experimental RFCs--their publication is intended to encourage further discussion and experimentation in order to gain experience that can be used to write future standards in this space." - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0