- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Proposed list charter/AUP change?
by Joe Johnson 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

Before I write anything else, I wanted to say how much I enjoy reading NANOG and how much I appreciate all the things you have taught me in the past year I have been on the list. I realized today after the third person asked how I knew something obscure and technical that so much has rubbed off on me from your posts. I certainly look forward to what this next year brings. <snip> Nanog could have a set of similar topics - [OP-SEC] for operational security related issues, [OP-SPAM] for when members really do want to discuss spam issues that they consider operational, etc. </snip> To use the vernacular . . . that would rock. <snip> what is needed urgently is for this special meeting not to end up as a repetition of "the moderator is heavy handed", "list members always wander off topic, and we have to head them off somehow", and instead to develop on more productive lines. </snip> I certainly know if I were Susan or someone else at Merit, and I heard that I wouldn't respond well at all. It seems heavy handed because they can only ask for people to handle themselves professionally so many times before it becomes frustrating to them and it's just easier to ban or block then to explain rationally. On the same hand, none of us respond well to being told that we're straying and need to drop the issue. Let's face it, most people posting to the list know in their mind that they're always right (I know I am, at least) and to be told that we need to stop without the last word stings. People need to realize that it only stings their pride, and they need to move on. Some of the emails I wrote when I wandered a few weeks ago had to be deleted and re-written because I couldn't believe how nasty I was. Luckily, I dropped it. Just like I am dropping this issue now, because this is way off Operational topics. Joe Johnson

2 1

Clueful DNS Contact at XO?
by Crist Clark 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

We have some Direct Internet Access (DIA) through XO. We have several netblocks with them and would like to get the IN-ADDR.ARPA domains for these blocks delegated to us. Should be just a couple of NS records in the parent zone, right? No big deal, right? After several attempts over years and months to get this done, I'm appealling for an out-of-band source. All DNS stuff is handled through the Web Hosting end of the house, but we have no web hosting accounts, only DIA. Plus, our DIA account dates far enough back (to Concentric days), that the DNS servers that do secondary for some of our forward zones aren't even ones that the web hosting people run. (Not that this really should have anything to do with IN-ADDR.ARPA zones, but try explaining that to the phone droid.) This all causes much confusion, and I never seem to get anywhere. It would be really super-duper cool if we could even get RFC2317-style delegation for some /27's we also have, but I was always afraid I'd hear the *pop* of the head on the other end of the phone exploding if I brought that up. -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark(a)globalstar.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387

2 1

DNS issues w/ comcast.net and attbi.com
by Jim Popovitch 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

Over the last few days I have seen numerous maillog errors wrt resolving MX records for comcast.net and attbi.com. Am I alone in this? Yesterday: DSN: Host unknown (Name server: comcast.net.: no data known) Today: DSN: Host unknown (Name server: attbi.com.: no data known) Currently I can manually dig an mx record for comcast.net, but attbi.com still seems to be blank. ------------------------------- jimpop@bugs~$ dig mx attbi.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> mx attbi.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 36144 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;attbi.com. IN MX ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: attbi.com. 2282 IN SOA ns.attbi.com. hostmaster.ns.attbi.com. 2005010401 10800 3600 604800 604800 ;; Query time: 1 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Tue Jan 4 11:28:18 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 77 --------------------------------- jimpop@bugs~$ dig mx comcast.net ; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> mx comcast.net ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 38261 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;comcast.net. IN MX ;; ANSWER SECTION: comcast.net. 575 IN MX 5 gateway-s.comcast.net. comcast.net. 575 IN MX 5 gateway-r.comcast.net. ;; Query time: 1 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Tue Jan 4 11:28:43 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 81 --------------------------------- tia, -Jim P.

3 3

Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change?
by Bill Nash 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > Hi Bill, to be fair, there are specific forum for discussion of spam > tackling measures and people have been pointed in that direction on > numerous occasions, however in its generic sense it might still be on > topic for nanog. > > I note the original post that sparked this (assuming i'm following these > discussions correctly) was actually about abuse desks not spam specifically... > > So if the question is about anti-spam i think its OT, if its about abuse > or a new spam technique then its probably of interest. I would agree with this. I touched on that with mention of trojaned sources, but perhaps I should have been more clear. Thanks for the correction. - billn

1 0

RE: minimum requirements for a full bgp feed
by Erik Amundson 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

Well, In my experience it depends on the model of router. I had a 3640 (granted, it's old) with 128MB that was just fine until a couple of months ago, now it's not enough. For one BGP table you will have to have at least 256MB in a 36xx router. Our 720xVXR routers currently have 256MB in them as well, but we've already ordered upgrades to 1GB with new NPE-G1s... - Erik _____ From: Mark Bojara [mailto:mark@aboutit.co.za] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:23 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: minimum requirements for a full bgp feed Hello All, If I wish to purchase a Cisco router that handles a full internet BGP feed what are the minimum specs I should be looking at? Regards Mark Bojara

4 3

Hotel
by Brandon Ross 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

Just called the Rio to make my reservation. They had a small amount of difficulty finding the special rate for the meeting. They said that if you give them the group code S01NAN5, it will make it easier to find. Someone may want to add this to the hotel info page. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Yahoo: BrandonNRoss

1 0

Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection
by Nils Ketelsen 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +0000, Sam Stickland wrote: > Since IPSEC is an integral part of IPv6 won't this have an affect on the > deep packet inspection firewalls? Is this type of inspection expected to > work in IPv6? Well it will work as good as the Virus-Scanning on Firewalls, when you use a SSL website. > Perhaps using some kind of NAP the firewall is allowed to speak on behalf > of the host(s) it firewalls, so that to the client it appears to be the > firewall itself appears to be the IPSEC endpoint? If the IPSEC implementation allows that it is seriously broken. You are proposing the firewall to run a man in the middle attack. Nils

1 0

Re: Active and available abuse desks
by J. Oquendo 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Matt Hess wrote: > > I'm curious as to what people feel is pro-active for the internet > community as far as an available and active abuse desk goes.. As of late > I run into more and more automated groups who I personally think are > very wrong for forcing reports to come in via e-mail or web submission only. Quite obvious I am the expert of nothing so here is my take on abuse desks. Most of the times abuse desk work has been delegated to systems engineers/admins who often have too much *work* to fully address abuse work. Sort of understandable when you take a look at say AOL's moronic "Click here to report abuse" functions where people often click the wrong button often overwhelming innocent (and not so innocent) networks. This is a waste of money for any company so I could see where companies would be reluctant to hire someone dedicated to explaining to cluebies what the heck a spoofed email is, and why they just happened to send themselves a message. Which reminds me, being the admin of my own machines I just received a message notifying me that my admin was suspending my account. Woe is me. > The argument I have been presented is that those ISP's should not have > to offer an actual human being on an abuse desk for non-customers as > they make no money on it. ISP's, heck any company for that matter is likely to shoot the task of that sort of work to their systems teams, and or have their netops teams CC'd with messages of this sort. I can't think of any network outside of spamming INSERT_NICER_WORD_FOR_SCUMBAGS_HERE that would not take abuse mail serious considering no one would really want their networks blocked. > My take is that this is an inherent expense to having customers.. that > expense is part of being involved with the internet and should be > expected of a provider who wishes to be taken seriously in the internet > community. I hope this message was out of boredom sort of like my response. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't take abuse serious. Yet I can't think of any specific reason why someone should be paid to do something that would normally fall under the task of a system/network administrator. That is sort of akin to having a carburetor mechanic to work along with your engine mechanic no? > *dons flame retardant.. well, everything* I'm with you on that and I raise your flame retardant to bulletproofing. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x51F9D78D Fingerprint 2A48 BA18 1851 4C99 CA22 0619 DB63 F2F7 51F9 D78D http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x51F9D78D sil @ politrix . org http://www.politrix.org sil @ infiltrated . net http://www.infiltrated.net "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey

1 0

Active and available abuse desks
by Matt Hess 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

I'm curious as to what people feel is pro-active for the internet community as far as an available and active abuse desk goes.. As of late I run into more and more automated groups who I personally think are very wrong for forcing reports to come in via e-mail or web submission only. The argument I have been presented is that those ISP's should not have to offer an actual human being on an abuse desk for non-customers as they make no money on it. My take is that this is an inherent expense to having customers.. that expense is part of being involved with the internet and should be expected of a provider who wishes to be taken seriously in the internet community. *dons flame retardant.. well, everything* Matt Hess

1 1

My last message of the evening
by Susan Harris 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

Just wanted to remind you that our Las Vegas hotel room block rate expires this Friday, Jan. 7th, and the registration fee goes up by $50 on Monday, Jan. 10. Keep your eye on the "agenda topics" page, as we'll be adding new talks as the meeting approaches: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0501/topics.html Hope to see you in a few weeks!

1 0