- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Appreciation for Bind patches
by Paul Vixie 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

> I have been following the various threads relating to Verisign and wanted > to make one comment that I feel has been missing. Simply put, I would like > to publicly express my appreciation to Mr. Vixie for taking the time to add > the "root-delegation-only" patch for Bind. I'm fairly new to NANOG, but > I'm sure that others beside myself also feel a thank you is appropriate. thanks for those kind words, but rapid response of this kind is one of our obligations to the bind forum, and it's only because of our members that we're able to serve the community in this way. btw: here's the short term results of me deploying root-delegation-only on my personal mail server at home: Sep 20 22:06:25 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (ok61930.com) Sep 20 22:06:25 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (ok61930.com) Sep 20 22:08:23 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (helimore574.com) Sep 20 22:08:23 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (helimore574.com) Sep 20 22:08:42 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (netscape1008.com) Sep 20 22:08:43 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (netscape1008.com) Sep 20 22:16:02 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (aagf91512.com) Sep 20 22:16:02 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (aagf91512.com) Sep 20 23:11:48 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (ok62928.com) Sep 20 23:11:48 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (ok62928.com) Sep 20 23:14:51 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (2mails235.com) Sep 20 23:14:51 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (2mails235.com) Sep 20 23:19:44 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (gratis-gratiss.com) Sep 20 23:19:44 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (gratis-gratiss.com) Sep 20 23:31:22 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (bosfvp.com) Sep 20 23:31:22 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (bosfvp.com) Sep 20 23:31:26 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (xvarnf.com) Sep 20 23:31:27 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (xvarnf.com) Sep 20 23:31:31 named: enforced delegation-only for 'com' (abdknt.com) i send this just in case anyone doubts that spammers forge sources. after the wildcard went in and before i deployed root-delegation-only at home, those would have been spams reaching my inbox. this is not much compared to a real mail server, but it is after all just my family here. (and i can assure you all that nobody typo'd the above domain names here.)

1 0

Bye Snubby, hello Mail Rejector
by Stephen J. Wilcox 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

Ooh, when did Verisign get rid of their Snubby program and put in something that actually behaves like an SMTP server? Seems verisign are watching the community reaction and acting to rectify their errors.. well some of them.... $ telnet sdfjsdfjsdjflsd.com 25 Trying 64.94.110.11... Connected to sdfjsdfjsdjflsd.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 VeriSign mail rejector (Postfix) HELO as 250 OK MAIL FROM:me 250 Ok RCPT TO:you 550 <unknown[193.0.255.132]>: Client host rejected: The domain you are trying to send mail to does not exist. DATA 554 Error: no valid recipients hello 502 Error: command not implemented 421 Error: too many errors Connection closed by foreign host.

3 2

Wildcards: ICANN and IAB posted their commentaries
by rgaglian＠adinet.com.uy 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

You can find them here: http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm I've just checked that VeriSign has not voluntarily suspend the service Best Roque Ing.Roque Gagliano rgaglian(a)adinet.com.uy

4 3

Looking for clue at NetSOL/Verisign
by Matthew S. Hallacy 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

Is there anyone with a clue at verisign who's able to actually repair a broken entry in their database? I've got a companies domain name that seems to be stuck with nameservers listed in whois, but none in the .com zone. This means that everything for this companies domain is hitting the sitefinder crap, mail is being rejected, etc. A call to netsol got me a rather clueless person who claimed that sitefinder was created by ICANN, and that it's normal for a domain to have no nameservers for up to 3 days when changing name server entries. (instead of an immediate transition) I had this problem before with the exact same set of nameservers, it required a week worth of calls to verisign and a threat of legal action before someone manually touched something in their database to fix it. Unfortunately they claimed at the time that it was normal, and the changes had been processed normally (after a week!), so I have no contact information for the clued person who fixed it. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203

3 2

Worst design decisions?
by Matt 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

Hello all, Was doing some upgrades on a UBR7246 (to a VXR), and I got to thinking about short sighted design considerations. I was curious if any of you had some pet peeves from a design perspective to rant about. I'll start with a couple. 1) Why did Cisco design the I/O controller on the 7246 with screws in the corner, which are very difficult to get at? And worse than that, why did they not include a cheap handle on the blank in this slot? 2) Why did Cisco not include side handles on the 12000 chassis? It's a heavy chassis, and I can imagine how many techs have thrown out their back moving that chassis around. I've got a couple others in my head from 3Com and a couple of others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. So, what do you think?

35 44

Re: Worst design decisions?
by neil＠DOMINO.ORG 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

I think it was the new MG F, where if you had the top down on the car and there was moisture on the boot [trunk] when you opened the boot [trunk] people in the car would get showered! They fixed it by adding a tighter spring so that the boot [trunk] opened slowly and the water dripped down the sides slowly! The biggest design flaw that really used to drive me nuts was with AS5300 cards and the fact you needed some special tool to pull them out. Also the good old cbus complex error when doing anything on a 7500 router, and the chopping up of memory when adding subinterfaces on ATM PA card. Another great one was in the early days of Demon, BT would only present telephone lines if they where terminated via their normal domestic wall socket, so at Demon there was like 200 odd wall sockets with phone connectors to the back of total control boxes. Talk a about a cable management nightmare, as well as dimensioning the network based upon wall size! Regards, Neil.

1 0

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Casassa, Nathan 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

The scissor-jack you are referring to that comes with the 12016 also doubles as an excellent coffee table in our office... Nathan -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Solomon [mailto:ssolomon@ind.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:44 PM To: Matt; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Worst design decisions? The 12016 does have handles on the sides, but the documentation states not to use them for lifting purposes. Yeah, I laughed too, just before realizing that bear-hugging a 16 into position takes a bit of motivation. It is definitely one big hunk of iron (300+lbs on the shipping invoice), but I just couldn't understand why in the @%$$ useful handles weren't provided. On a side note, the scissor-jacks that came with them could lift a house. Heh. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps167/prod_installation_g uide09186a0080188f38.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Warning Do not attempt to lift the chassis with the handles on the back and sides of the chassis. These handles are not designed to support the weight of the chassis, and should be used only to steady and guide the chassis while it is being inserted into or removed from an equipment rack. To reduce the risk of damage to the chassis and serious bodily injury, do not use these handles to lift or support the chassis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- -----Original Message----- From: Matt [mailto:acheron@qwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:43 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Worst design decisions? Hello all, Was doing some upgrades on a UBR7246 (to a VXR), and I got to thinking about short sighted design considerations. I was curious if any of you had some pet peeves from a design perspective to rant about. I'll start with a couple. 1) Why did Cisco design the I/O controller on the 7246 with screws in the corner, which are very difficult to get at? And worse than that, why did they not include a cheap handle on the blank in this slot? 2) Why did Cisco not include side handles on the 12000 chassis? It's a heavy chassis, and I can imagine how many techs have thrown out their back moving that chassis around. I've got a couple others in my head from 3Com and a couple of others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. So, what do you think?

3 2

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Ron Snyder 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

> overdesigned rather than poorly designed. even if nobody > can use it, it's just an extraneous feature. an atm built > into the concrete that you'd have to stop short of and > get out of your car to use. now that would be poorly > designed. </lurk> Do you mean overdesigned in the sense that because that atm has features that wouldn't be needed in it's current location, that it shouldn't have those features? What about just making inventory tracking easier? (eg. "We have 32 ATMs that are all featurewise identical and they're all interchangeable" vs. "We have 22 ATMS with feature X and 10 w/o feature X") Now, to get it somewhat related to network stuff: s/atm/router/ s/features/capabilities/ s/location/network function/ <lurk>\

1 0

RE: routing issue?
by kwallace＠pcconnection.com 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

thanks to everyone who responded on/off list. The bad /24 announcement is now gone (pfm :) ) . Just seeing the /8 now. Keith Wallace Director, Telecommunications PC Connection Services kwallace@pcconnection dot com The information in this email, and subsequent attachments, may contain confidential information that is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed or retained by any person without authorization from the above named sender. -----Original Message----- From: Wallace Keith Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:15 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: routing issue? Can anyone reach the 38.221.129/24 range? I'm seeing this announced as a /24 by L3, but looks like it should be a /8 from Cogent(PSI). Just looking for another viewpoint. tnx. Keith

1 0

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Shawn Jackson 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

It's usually a legal risk deferrer decision to buy the ATM casing with Braille. Someone pointed out that Drive-Ups and Walk-Ups are the same, which it true for the internals but not Drive-Ups casing and moldings, which are adjusted for the average eye level of a person in a car, plus recessed, tiled monitors, etc. Basically, it costs x,xxx.xx to get the casing with Braille, and legal risk is valued at xx,xxx.xx (i.e. someone suing them because it doesn't have Braille). Better safe then sorry in risk management. I wouldn't view this is a lapse in deign decision, more of an obscure design decision. Shawn Jackson Systems Administrator Horizon USA 1190 Trademark Dr #107 Reno NV 89521 www.horizonusa.com Email: sjackson(a)horizonusa.com Phone: (775) 858-2338 (800) 325-1199 x338 -----Original Message----- From: Damian Gerow [mailto:damian@sentex.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:34 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Worst design decisions? Thus spake Mike Donahue (mdonahue(a)WATG.com) [19/09/03 15:28]: > Hi.. I might have missed the post, but braille on drive through has zero to > do with a design mistake - it's practicality. The ATM manufacturer doesn't > put out a "drive-through" and "walk-up" model - it puts out one, and then > it's up to whomever to mount it. Simpler just to put braille on the kit and > ship, and not worry about it. But the bank, who chooses to mount the Braille-enabled machine as drive through, orders the Braille added, do they not? (As to whether or not this is a good idea, I'm keeping away from.)

2 1