- Test - lists.nanog.org

BIND + DLZ
by Micah McNelly 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Nanog, Does anyone have information on performance numbers comparing tinydns vs. bind w/ dlz patch? Hit me up off-list. /m

5 6

RE: My yearly post about environmental monitoring devices
by David Lesher 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

>I am looking for a device that meets the following criteria. I'd add: g) Inexpensive, so it can be widely deployed. A Basic Stamp might be the platform for such; but I've retired from hardware hacking projects. I'd suggest queries to sci.electronics.design in hopes of finding someome interested. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

How to monitor BGP route stability ?
by Joe Shen 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Hi, Is there any tool to monitor BGP route stablity? thanks Joe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Log on to Messenger with your mobile phone! http://sg.messenger.yahoo.com

4 3

RE: is reverse dns required? (policy question)
by cjosephes＠ibsys.com 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

> Quick example, though: of 6936 patterns currently in my list, if you > just run a cut on \\ (which catches either '.' or '-' as the > next char, > for the most part) you get (matches of 20 or more): > > count first left-hand pattern part > ----- ---------------------------- > 1572 ^[0-9]+ > 206 ^.+ > 200 ^host[0-9]+ > 179 ^host Exceedingly long list cut.... Just to throw in my own 2 cents: I find it really ironic that we rely on reverse DNS data that potentially comes from a spammer in order to determine whether or not someone is a spammer. It probably works for the zombies. But in the long run, ip based filtering is quicker, since there's no DNS check and you have a better idea of the size of the netblock you're filtering. I'll be a lot happier once the smtp-submission port (587) catches on. It will make filtering a lot simpler.

1 0

RE: How many backbones here are filtering the makelovenotspam scr eensaver site?
by Hannigan, Martin 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 9:06 PM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: nanog list > Subject: Re: How many backbones here are filtering the makelovenotspam > screensaver site? > > > > I dont know how many providers are blocking them but at home I have a > cox cable connection and they are blocking them... > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 07:04 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > I've heard reports of traceroutes through several backbones > timing out > > or going !H after a few hops, and I note that the impact > seems to have > > been enough for the site's IP to change .. > > > > suresh@frodo 06:56:27 [~]$ dnsip www.makelovenotspam.com > > 213.115.182.123 > > > > suresh@frodo 07:01:16 [~]$ dnsname 213.115.182.123 > > ua-213-115-182-123.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se > > > > Hosted on a cablemodem? Tch, tch, how the mighty have fallen The blocks are widespread. The reports of hackers are incorrect. The blackholes are what is stopping them. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com

1 0

RE: My yearly post about environmental monitoring devices
by Paul Jasa 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Our MIS folks have used this device called "Netbotz" for a couple of years now. I have to say, especially in the later versions, that I am quite impressed by their capabilities including motion-detection cameras, alerting, and all the environmental probes you mentioned. Those little things have saved our necks quite a few times. The PoE thing may not be there yet, but I really don't know, best to contact Netbotz to inquire about this type of power requirement. http://www.netbotz.com/ pj -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Alex Rubenstein Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 1:12 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: My yearly post about environmental monitoring devices I'm sure if you peruse the archives, you'll see that I post about this about every year. The answer to your question is 'No, I haven't found what I am looking for yet.' However, the quest I am on is slightly different. I am looking for a device that meets the following criteria. a) Reasonably small. This probably wouldn't be rack mounted; it'd be wall mounted, desk mounted, celing mounted, etc. b) Powered by PoE. c) Is SNMPable over Ethernet. NOT RS232 or serial, or anything archaic like that. Not MODBUS. It's 2004, people. d) Provides Temperature and Humidity. e) Has 4 or so input contact sensors (connections to AC units, etc.) f) Has 4 or so output contact sensors. Help. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- The information contained in this e-mail and any attached documents may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

> > ... > > Actually, the policy also specifies that you must not be an end-site. well, you sure caught me this time. in august 2002 when the /32 in question first came to isc, i had not read the policy. so i don't know if it was different from the current policy. i assume it was, because i know that we qualified, officially, under the rules at the time the /32 came to us. > I'd be particularly interested in knowing what ISC said who would be their > 200 other organizations who they intended to allocate the address space > (their employees?), and how ISC would not be an end-site. > > This is a more generic issue, of course. of course. in august 2002 there were no v6 isp's. isc is multihomed, so it's difficult to imagine what isp we could have taken address space from then, or now. we do allocate /48's to various open-source organizations who get their transit from us, but it could take us some years to add 200 of these. if arin's allocation policy for ipv6 does not take account of multihomed non-allocating enterprises then either that policy will change, or the internet exchange point business model will be dead. speaking as a co-founder and former president of PAIX, i don't like that idea at all. speaking as someone who's had too much coffee today, it seems possible that the preponderance of arin's membership could prefer a pure transit world to a mixed transit/IXP world. but since woody has been on the arin board for a while now, i don't think that such a decision could have been taken quietly. i hope that if nothing else, this proves that the issues are more complex than which policies arin followed when allocating 2001:4f8::/32. (and note, as before, that i'm not speaking for arin.)

35 84

ATM over T1
by Greg Boehnlein 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Hello, This is my first post to the NANOG list, so please.. be gentle! ;) I am looking at consolidating several different POPs in a specific city that include a mixture of Point to Point and ATM T1 circuits. My goal is to shut down all of the physical infrastructure in that city, cross connecting all of the circuits onto a Muxed DS3 and backhaul them into a larger Metro POP. This is pretty simple for the standard DS1 and PRI circuits, but the ATM T1 connections have me wondering. I do not have a great deal of experience with ATM, and although we have a couple of T1 ATM interconnetions in our primary Metro POP, I am questioning wether it is truly possible to cross connect the ATM T1 interconnects to Verizon and SBC onto a standard M13T mux, backhaul them into my Metro POP and then hand them off to appropriate ATM interfaces. I've gotten conflicting answers from various sources, so I figured that I would ask here, as most likely there is someone here who can give a cogent answer as to why or why not. So, can I cross connect several ATM T1s onto a DS3 mux and break them out on the other side? Or do I need some sort of intelligent MUX that understands ATM? -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST

3 2

RE: is reverse dns required? (policy question)
by cjosephes＠ibsys.com 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

> Just a quick note: it's not a BCP yet, but it's also considered > /extremely/ friendly by mail admins and others, if you use a naming > convention for your rDNS that is easily placed into access.db > and other > "right-anchored" string matching mechanisms. e.g., if you have a > dynamically assigned DSL range, and want to assign rDNS to it based on > the IP, > > 123-45-67-89.dsl.dyn.example.net > > is a lot easier to block via rudimentary mechanisms than > > dsl-dyn-123-45-67-89.example.net > The bulkzone program will easily create right-anchored forward and reverse zonefiles for any size network block. http://backpan.cpan.org/authors/id/C/CH/CHRISJ/bulkzone.pl Just run it twice, and you've got it covered. On the bigger question of "charging" for reverse DNS: I would consider it part of the initial setup, or a deferred process tied to the initial setup. But if a customer swamps you with changes or updates beyond a reasonable amount, I'd consider delegating the reverse zone, or charging based on the number of changes. Just my 2 cents.

1 0

RE: is reverse dns required? (policy question)
by Hannigan, Martin 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:57 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: is reverse dns required? (policy question) > > > > > I thought I saw some 'MUST' statements in an RFC > > [*] From RFC 1912, section 2.1. > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1912.html > > "Every Internet-reachable host should have a name. The consequences of > this are becoming more and more obvious. Many services > available on the > Internet will not talk to you if you aren't correctly > registered in the > DNS. > > Make sure your PTR and A records match. > ... > Failure to have matching PTR and A records can cause loss of Internet > services similar to not being registered in the DNS at all. Also, PTR > records must point back to a valid A record, not a alias defined by a > CNAME." > I think it's best practice, even if not written. As far back as I can remember, you couldn't access ftp.uu.net without a proper reverse and that's probably going on 14 years or so. The relevance there is that it was considered proper that far back all the way to this day. Many services won't respond or allow without reverses either. As far as charging, I've seen ISP's set limits on how many changes a month. Not on establishing the records. They're a required part of the service - in my mind. -M<

1 0