- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: How long much advanced notice do ISPs need to deploy IPv6?
by Michel Py 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

> Christopher L. Morrow > note, I'm obviously NOT a sales person, BUT... > http://www.verio.net/access/ipv6.cfm > perhaps you should ask them? Oh, I see. So, this new Internet that has changed to IPv6 requires me to buy a point-to-point link to a POP a hundred miles away to get a "pre-commercial service". I'm thrilled. Michel.

1 0

More on AT&T and whitelists
by Hank Nussbacher 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/22/0130216.shtml?tid=111&tid=126&tid=187… -Hank

1 0

Re: Unusual GET requests
by Brian Bruns 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

Thanks to everyone who's responded. We were a bit concerned because of all the lovely new exploits going around as of late, and had no idea what it was up to (considering it was coming from a cable modem, it threw up a red flag). Sorry to bother everyone :) -------------------------- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org ICQ: 8077511 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Krueger" <benjamin(a)seattlefenix.net> To: "Brian Bruns" <bruns(a)2mbit.com> Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu>; <admins(a)2mbit.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 9:20 PM Subject: Re: Unusual GET requests > * Brian Bruns (bruns(a)2mbit.com) [031021 18:01]: > > > > Hmmm, this is probably offtopic, but I can't seem to find anything online > > which explains this and I've never seen it before. > > > > Maybe someone else here has seen this in their logs or has any idea what > > would do this? > > > > Its obviously trying to gather some sort of information, could it be a > > prelude to some sort of DoS or exploit thats not publically known yet? > [ ... snip loggy type stuff ... ] > > http://www.asp-shareware.org/pad/ > > -- > Benjamin Krueger > > Confidence is the mother of success. Cockyness is a mother of a time bomb. >

1 0

NSI gives away a years reg and free transfer of the domain name...
by todd glassey 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

Hey all - I got this advertising email blurb today from NSI saying that I could move all my domains to NSI and get an additional free years subscription. And there is NO movement cost. Interesting marketing ploy - how many others got one of these... Todd

2 1

OT: Chicago field trip, late tonight...
by Bill Woodcock 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

In November, 2000, the radio show This American Life condensed twenty-four hours of life in a Chicago neighborhood 24-hour cafe into a one-hour show. This cafe was the site of notable quantitative experiments demonstrating that rotating pies sold significantly better than static ones. We may wish to independently corroborate their results using the same data source. I propose that we conduct this experiment at midnight, tonight. The Golden Apple cafe can be reached on the El, Chicago's elevated railway: http://www.transitchicago.com/maps/maps/F2003N.html Wellington on the Brown Line or Scheffield on the Purple Line (same station). The This American Life radio show, with a textual abstract and full version in Real Audio: http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/00/172.html A restaurant review: http://entertainment.metromix.chicagotribune.com/top/1,1419,M-Metromix-Rest… And a driving map, in case you don't like the train: http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&ct=NA&1y=US&1a=540+n… If folks like, they can meet in the lobby of the Marriott at 11:20pm. -Bill

1 0

Heads-up: AT&T apparently going to whitelist-only inbound mail
by Jeff Wasilko 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

----- Forwarded message ----- Return-Path: <rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com> Message-ID: <3F80414B002D0EC2(a)attrh0i.attrh.att.com> (added by postmaster(a)attrh1i.attrh.att.com) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.102 (B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:21:50 UT Subject: *** ACTION: IP Address of Outbound SMTP Server Requested (Updated 10/21/03) From: rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com AT&T Business Partners & Customers AT&T has received many of the requested IP addresses in response to an e-mail originally broadcast yesterday to our business partners and clients. However, we have also received many concerned responses to the original request. This 2nd e-mail is to let you know that this is a legitimate AT&T request asking for your cooperation, which will let us improve the service that AT&T offers you and that our partnership requires. We have provided a toll-free number below to help you confirm the legitimacy of this request. We have assembled the distribution list for this e-mail by looking up the administrative contacts for each of the known e-mail domains we currently exchange e-mail with, referencing WHOIS and other such services available via the Internet. What AT&T is asking is for you to help AT&T to restrict incoming mail to just our known and trusted sources (e.g., business partners, clients and customers). Therefore, we need to know which IP address(es) are used by your outbound e-mail service so we can selectively permit them. Please send this information to the following e-mail address (rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com) If you need assistance determining what these IP addresses are, please contact your company's administrative e-mail server support / network administration personnel. We regret that AT&T is burdening you with this request, but our AT&T security team is advising that we take this step to help safeguard our e-mail systems, which ultimately will help us serve you better. Please contact us with any concerns or questions: AT&T Security Help Desk 1-800-456-4230, prompt 4 (8am - 10pm est) Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Brian Williams, IP Network Services Tim Scholl - District Manager, IP Network Services Kevin O'Connell - Division Manager, Information Technology Services Engineering Bill O'Hern - Division Manager, Network Security ----- Original Message (Sent Monday, 10/20/03) ----- AT&T has an urgent situation with our anti-spam list. In order to continue to allow email to AT&T you need to provide the IP addresses of all your outbound email gateways. If you do not respond immediately, your access may not continue. The required information should be sent to rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com. ----- End forwarded message -----

6 6

Re: Heads-up: AT&T apparently going to whitelist-only inbound mail
by Jamie Reid 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

I'm not sure whether shadenfreude is the right word, however, it seems that, regarding a previous conversation about cutting off users infected with viruses, ATT has decided that putting a bit of stick about is the right thing to do. It will be very interesting to see how this works out, as it may set a very big precedent. I just hope that they do it subnet by subnet over time instead of all at once, so that the interruption can be isolated brifly to small areas over a longer period of time. I don't envy their customers, or their security department for having to resort to this, but we should all be watching for the results, as it may make or break the case for dealing with user sites that expose the network to risk. Best, -j -- Jamie.Reid, CISSP, jamie.reid(a)mbs.gov.on.ca Senior Security Specialist, Information Protection Centre Corporate Security, MBS 416 327 2324 >>> "Jeff Wasilko" <jeffw(a)smoe.org> 10/21/03 05:24pm >>> ----- Forwarded message ----- Return-Path: <rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com> Message-ID: <3F80414B002D0EC2(a)attrh0i.attrh.att.com> (added by postmaster(a)attrh1i.attrh.att.com) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.102 (B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:21:50 UT Subject: *** ACTION: IP Address of Outbound SMTP Server Requested (Updated 10/21/03) From: rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com AT&T Business Partners & Customers AT&T has received many of the requested IP addresses in response to an e-mail originally broadcast yesterday to our business partners and clients. However, we have also received many concerned responses to the original request. This 2nd e-mail is to let you know that this is a legitimate AT&T request asking for your cooperation, which will let us improve the service that AT&T offers you and that our partnership requires. We have provided a toll-free number below to help you confirm the legitimacy of this request. We have assembled the distribution list for this e-mail by looking up the administrative contacts for each of the known e-mail domains we currently exchange e-mail with, referencing WHOIS and other such services available via the Internet. What AT&T is asking is for you to help AT&T to restrict incoming mail to just our known and trusted sources (e.g., business partners, clients and customers). Therefore, we need to know which IP address(es) are used by your outbound e-mail service so we can selectively permit them. Please send this information to the following e-mail address (rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com) If you need assistance determining what these IP addresses are, please contact your company's administrative e-mail server support / network administration personnel. We regret that AT&T is burdening you with this request, but our AT&T security team is advising that we take this step to help safeguard our e-mail systems, which ultimately will help us serve you better. Please contact us with any concerns or questions: AT&T Security Help Desk 1-800-456-4230, prompt 4 (8am - 10pm est) Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Brian Williams, IP Network Services Tim Scholl - District Manager, IP Network Services Kevin O'Connell - Division Manager, Information Technology Services Engineering Bill O'Hern - Division Manager, Network Security ----- Original Message (Sent Monday, 10/20/03) ----- AT&T has an urgent situation with our anti-spam list. In order to continue to allow email to AT&T you need to provide the IP addresses of all your outbound email gateways. If you do not respond immediately, your access may not continue. The required information should be sent to rm-antiattspam(a)ems.att.com. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

News peering/feeding?
by Drew Weaver 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

I know back in the good old days this used to be fairly common, but does anyone still trade news feeds/peering? We just upgraded our NNTP system and have noticed that the incoming feeds we're receiving are a tad incomplete. So we would like to add a few more feeds. Thanks, -Drew

1 0

netgear sntp followup, embedded address I-D
by Dave Plonka 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

NANOG folks, I'm posting this as a followup invitation for feedback regarding the SNTP anycast operational strategy I proposed in this talk: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/plonka.html http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~plonka/nanog/nanog29/ [formats other than PDF] The new Internet Draft I mentioned, "Embedding Globally Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful", can be found here: http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~plonka/embed-addr/ (it hasn't shown up on the IETF internet-drafts site yet) If you have feedback that would benefit from the group's review, please follow-up in the nanog mailing list, otherwise email me personally. Thanks, Dave -- plonka(a)doit.wisc.edu http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~plonka ARS:N9HZF Madison, WI

1 0

data request on Sitefinder
by Steve Bellovin 21 Oct '03

21 Oct '03

The session this morning ran out of time, so I didn't get to ask my question. Verisign's review panel has identified a number of problems -- I won't argue if they're minor or not -- that are addressable with software changes. We heard this morning that Postfix is an application that will need to be changed to handle the proposed new version of Sitefinder's MX record. Of course, it's generally considered a good idea to test sofware before deploying it. So -- how much notice would the operator community want before deploying new software? What about for enterprises? (We all know that stuff *can* be deployed more quickly in emergency circumstances. We also know the problems that that can lead to, which is why we generally want testing and controlled deployment.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

16 33