- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Need Contact at RoadRunner
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

>Unless you like playing whack-a-mole, you need a smarter hammer, not a >bigger one. Email peering *IS* a smarter hammer. If all the cluefull email administrators would set up peering agreements with each other and exchange contact information, there would be fewer of these situations. Part of the problem is that there are no agreed rules of engagement for email abuse issues. By setting up email peering agreements in advance, we could put those rules of engagement in place and we could ensure that our email peers have the *RIGHT* contact information. Domain registry whois listings and INOC-DBA are not the right contact information because they are too general. Now, an email peering agreement could very well specify that certain whois contact listings should be used as a second resort and that agreement would make them the right contact info. Also, the email peering agreement could specify that INOC-DBA phone number ASNUM*999 is the number one choice of contact method and then it would become the right way to contact email peers. The fundamental problem is not that there isn't technology in place to solve these problems; it is that there aren't *AGREEMENTS* in place to solve these problems. Organizations like CAUCE are happy to just bitch and moan instead of working to bring all email operators together to set up working agreements for *MANAGING* the email abuse problems instead of always letting the abusers take the first steps and drive the whole issue. Anyone for a joint NANOG/CAUCE meeting? http://www.cauce.org In fact, given the past experience with two joint ARIN/NANOG meetings could the best way forward be to have more joint meetings that combine a NANOG meeting with some other non-BGP/routing operational forum? Perhaps something jointly with a security organization like CIS? http://www.cisecurity.org/ Suggestions? --Michael Dillon

5 4

Cisco GSR logging issue
by Richard Welty 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

i'm working with some folks to try and develop evidence about proxy hijackers on or transiting their networks. i have useful notes about doing this with non-GSR Cisco routers, but right at the moment all i have for the GSRs is a note indicating that netflow is needed. i have no personal experience with the GSRs and am looking for one of two things: 1) someone experienced in capturing this stuff on a GSR or 2) a pointer to a cisco oriented list where i can get 1) above. thanks in advance, richard -- Richard Welty rwelty(a)averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

2 1

Re: Router with 2 (or more) interfaces in same network
by Rosen Adam J NPRI 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

Hi. This topic was discussed about a month ago, but I just found this mail list while doing a search. I have the same question that was discussed before. However, this is the first router I have ever set up, so I could be completely wrong about how I am doing things, but I'll explain to the best of my ability. I am setting up a router/firewall (Nokia IP380). For redundancy, I want 2 interfaces on the same subnet. The IP380 will be connecting to a pair of routing switches which are running VRRP. I am trying to use static routes, due to the fact that network topology will not be changing outside of hardware failure, and to keep speed as high as possible. How can I set up static routing to the virtual router if I can't have a second interface on the same subnet to pick up the floating IP address in case the VRRP master fails? Am I misunderstanding VRRP here? If anyone can give me some helpful hints, I would appreciate it. Thanks Adam Adam J. Rosen Code 2233 Naval Undersea Warfare Center 1176 Howell St. Bldg. 1171-2 Newport, RI 02841 Phone: 401-832-4740 Toll Free: 800-669-6892 x24740 Fax: 401-832-2130 Email: rosenaj(a)npt.nuwc.navy.mil

1 0

IP Address Management Software Again
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

Hi, I'm evaluating IP address management software. Looking for the following: 1) Pointers to online reviews. 2) Views on what is the absolute best package out there. 3) Views on useful free software if it's worth considering. 4) Contact info of sales persons of commerical software. 5) Insights on processes followed to manage addressing. 6) Also specifically looking for software that aids in re-IP-ing portions of a network. 7) Strong views on particular packages that drove you nuts. (offline emails may be best) If I get enough info together, I'll post a follow-up compilation email. I've looked at past threads on NANOG concerning this topic and see only bits/pieces of what I am looking for. Hoping to obtain a more comprehensive set of data. Thanks! -BM

3 2

AOL rejecting mail from IP's w/o reverse DNS ?
by Christopher X. Candreva 07 Dec '03

07 Dec '03

Since I'm 99% sure the idea (or stupidity thereof :-) of blocking SMTP servers without reverse DNS came up here in this discussion, I just ran a manual queue run to clean out a queue, and saw this come up: ... Connecting to mailin-04.mx.aol.com. via esmtp...220-rly-xn05.mx.aol.com ESMTP mail_relay_in-xn5.9; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:59:55 -0500 220-America Online (AOL) and its affiliated companies do not 220- authorize the use of its proprietary computers and computer 220- networks to accept, transmit, or distribute unsolicited bulk 220- e-mail sent from the internet. Effective immediately: AOL 220- may no longer accept connections from IP addresses which 220 have no reverse-DNS (PTR record) assigned. >>> EHLO westnet.com I don't know if this is new -- I don't recall seeing it before, but it doesn't say they WILL refuse, just they may. If they do start blocking -- this WILL be an operational issue. ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris(a)westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/

18 38

Explanation on recently noticed increase of udp 1026-1031 traffic
by william＠elan.net 07 Dec '03

07 Dec '03

The original notice about all this I received came through dshield announce. I followed up the information and thereafter came upon the message on the popadstop website, its rather interesting how they claim they did not intend their software to send a "pop-ad" advertisement of that same software (to random other systems) that is supposedly supposed to block such ads. Of course this was all just a "test" before they start selling their anti-spam software (which would probably act like a mail worm in advertising itself)... http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?date=2003-12-04 "Handlers Diary December 4th 2003 Updated December 5th 2003 06:39 EDT PopAdStop.com Scanning Component For over a week, we had been tracking an increase in port 1026-1031 UDP traffic. More detailed investigation revealed a component in this traffic with the following characteristics: (*) The payload consisted of two zero bytes (*) A large number of sources participated in these scans (*) the scans came from valid IPs, and the source port did not appear to be crafted This is different from most popup spam sent to this port. Most popup spam is sent by only a small number of sources. And usually uses a fixed source port. While popup spam in itself is not any more dangerous then e-mail spam, and more of an annoyance, the large number of sources hinted to the fact that it is likely sent from unsuspecting exploited systems ("Zombies"). The connection with popup spam was made later, by allowing a honeypot to respond to the two byte probe. The result was an ad sent by the probing host. ... The advertised site, "www.popadstop.com" does offer a program for download, which promises to stop future popup spam. We downloaded the application, and installed it in an isolated lab network. During install, the application checks for updates by requesting: www.neweststuff.com/versinfo.dat. Recent version of the application do not show any further outbound traffic. However, earlier version of the application did start to send the typical two zero bytes and popup spam. Summary An earlier version of the software distributed by PopAdStuff did actively scan and send popup spam from unsuspecting user's system." http://www.popadstop.com "NewestStuff.com LLC Official Statement PopAdStop has been discontinued... PopAdStop was a free product, and better than some similar products that others have sold for up to $40 in the past. The offering included a Messenger popup blocker, as well as a separately downloadable free web popup blocker. Free products or services are apparently not always appreciated... Bug report: Multiple indepentant reports indicate that the first few versions *MAY* have been affected by a modular advertisment component that had been accidentally inserted into the first version, apparently. This may possibly have caused PopAdStop to advertise itself from a few systems (providing a new form of Internet 'word of mouth' advertising, providing much greater distribution of PopAdStop in a much shorter time than we intended, and *MUCH* greater cost to *US*, because so many people downloaded PopAdStop from our website!!!), but was not part of the design. This possible bug was fixed ON ALL AFFECTED SYSTEMS with an automatic update, and no longer occurs. Very embarrassing indeed. Please accept our appologies if you experienced anything like this, but please do not slander us for it!!! The resulting public backlash and slander caused by this suspected bug seriously reduced our ability to use PopAdStop as a marketing tool for our SpamBurner product, and turned PopAdStop into nothing more than a huge waste of our time... Valuable lesson from the PopAdStop project: Do not let the same programmer develop two different pieces of software at the same time, and probably giving stuff away for free is a bad idea too..."

1 0

Determining ownership of Internet routing problems
by kenw＠kmsi.net 06 Dec '03

06 Dec '03

I am a little hesitant to post this here, as it comes from the perspective of a user (albeit not a lay user). However, I believe the issue is very much one for service providers. Although it has been previously discussed on comp.protocols.tcp-ip, I have yet to determine whether there is a clear answer, let alone what it is. If I am posting inappropriately, feel free to tell me so. -------------- I had an... "interesting" problem a little while ago. I couldn't reach my mail server, and I couldn't tell who was responsible. The problem appeared to be a routing loop somewhere between my connectivity ISP and my hosting ISP. I talked to the connectivity ISP, and they said the router was outside of their network and run by someone they had no contract with. The hosting ISP said essentially the same thing. Now, I realize that dynamic routing means that there's no real way to predict the path a given packet will take. But I had somehow thought that the contractual arrangements between ISPs and their backbone providers would mean that there must be service agreements between everyone on the path between two points, and that if a link failed, there was a path of contractual responsibility. E.g. [backbone provider] / \ [intermediate A] [intermediate B] / \ [ISP A] [ISP B] where (say) ISP A is the connectivity provider, and ISP B is the hosting provider. So if I can't reach ISP B, either ISP A or B should be able to talk to his upstream provider and get it fixed. Now I'm wondering if that is even a valid assumption. Maybe the truth is more like this: [backbone provider A] [backbone provider B] / \ / \ [intermediate A] [intermediate C] [intermediate B] / \ [ISP A] [ISP B] and if the problems is with intermediate C, I'm probably SOL. Clearly, I would want my ISP to insist that his upstream providers not allow such unreliable topologies to be used. So, my questions are, am I asking too much? Am I misunderstanding the real world of the Internet? And am I posting in the wrong forum? /kenw Ken Wallewein CDP,CNE,MCSE,CCA,CCNA K&M Systems Integration Phone (403)274-7848 Fax (403)275-4535 kenw(a)kmsi.net www.kmsi.net

2 1

Need Contact at RoadRunner
by Tom (UnitedLayer) 06 Dec '03

06 Dec '03

I need to speak with someone at RR about blocking issues. Apparently they've decided to block mail from Apache.org and some of our other customers without any notice to UL. I've followed their instructions and e-mailed the listed addresses, I've waited quite a while (over 24 hours) and have yet to be contacted with information about why we were blocked. UL is very responsive to abuse issues, so this is a little concerning. Please contact me or the NOC. Thank You --- Tom UnitedLayer Office: 415-294-4111 AS23342

8 17

Large Cable ISP Looking for a Roadrunner contact...
by Dan Ellis 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

Hello, Could someone from Roadrunner please contact me - you have blocked a large ISP's mail server farm and are not responding to requests to unblock. We received no notification of a block. Thanks --Dan -- Daniel Ellis, CTO, PenTeleData (610)826-9293 "The only way to predict the future is to invent it." --Alan Kay

3 2

Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem v1.1
by William B. Norton 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

Hi all - Thanks to those who provided comments to the last white paper draft of "The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem". I've made most of the changes and added the data points as suggested, so I am now ready to send out the document more broadly. Lots of acknowledgements in the acknowledgements section now - Thanks!! In a nutshell, the Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem introduces the notion of the Internet as a set of Regional Peering Ecosystems, each with its own - Tier 1s (who have access to the entire regional routing table solely through peering relationships), - Tier 2s (broadly all other ISPs), and - Content Providers These players are modelled with characteristics (upstream transit links, peering links, etc.) and their motivations (described as Peering Inclinations (Open, Selective, Restrictive, or No Peering) articulated in Peering Policies) that can predict roughly their behavior in the Peering Ecosystem. The "Evolution" of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem is the result of five forces: 1) The so-called dot.bomb - economic collapse of the telecom sector 2) The emergence of a large scale used equipment market 3) The exponential growth of Kazaa traffic costing eyeball networks $$$$ 4) The failure of @Home - cable companies provide Internet services themselves 5) The rapid decline in transport and transit prices The three major changes roughly are: 1) The Cable companies are peering (with Tier 2s and each other) in a *big* way 2) The Large Network Savvy Content Companies are getting into peering in a *big* way 3) The Large Network Savvy Content Companies are getting their content directly onto the Cable companies eyeball networks by peering relationships. These are significant changes due to the volume of traffic exchanged, the amount of money being saved by avoiding intermediary transit providers, and the performance implications of these direct connections. As promised, if you are interested in this stuff I will gladly send you a copy of the latest draft, v1.1. I'm working on the same exploration for the Asia Pacific Peering Ecosystems (hence the APRICOT Peering Track note I sent out earlier this week). Hope this helps - Bill

2 1