- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Why replicate the DNS?
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

>I think Bill's point was that if a distributed database is required to >contain routing policy, why not use existing distributed database >infrastructure to host it (i.e. the DNS). In this context, deployment >of LDAP-accessible databases (which you advocate) is "replicating the >DNS" (which you mention you don't want to do). No it's not. This LDAP-based solution is leaving the DNS alone rather than trying to stuff more and more functionality on it. DNS will not be replicated and will not be replaced. It will, however, be used as an integral part of locating appropriate LDAP servers to query. Read this draft for an idea of how this might work. If you haven't time to read the whole thing then just look at section 7. http://www.ehsco.com/misc/draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core-00.txt And there is an IETF working group called CRISP that is discussing this stuff. -- Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: OT: level3 contact
by Kris Foster 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

> > Can someone clueful at level3 please contact me about bgp. We are a > > customer, and phone calls and email have failed to get us a contact. > > WOW...you're a _customer_ and you can't get somebody on the phone? > 'get somebody on the phone' or 'get someone with BGP clue on the phone'

5 4

IPv4 Addresses update
by John L Crain 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

Dear Colleagues, As you may be aware the Regional Internet Registries have been active with the "Early Registrations Transfer [ERX] Project". As part of the preliminary investigations of this project and verification of the data by the IANA some /8s previously listed as "Various Registries" have now been designated as unused and as such will be listed in the IANA registries as "IANA Reserved". This update will take effect at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space as of 23:59 UTC, 31 March 2003. The affected /8s will be listed as follows: 173/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 174/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 175/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 176/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 177/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 178/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 179/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 180/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 181/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 182/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 183/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 184/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 185/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 186/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 187/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 189/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 190/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved Comments can be sent to iana(a)iana.org. -- Best regards, John L. Crain mailto:crain@iana.org

1 0

RE: OT: level3 contact
by Steve Rude 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

Thank you to the very clueful and responsive help I received at level3. All my questions have been resolved. We are a current customer, with an active connection. I needed to speak to someone with BGP clue about bringing up BGP for the first time. Also, Level3 is _very_ responsive for all of our normal questions and changes, and NANOG was only a last resort because I felt I was not getting an adequate response from the standard channels. --steve -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgold@FDFNet.Net] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:01 PM To: Andy Dills Cc: Kris Foster; Steve Rude; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: OT: level3 contact The assumption here is that they are a current customer, with an active connection, and have exchanged routes. We don't know any of that. Level(3) is generally pretty responsive - if the guy on the phone doesn't know the answer, they tend to be pretty good about finding out. Maybe the original poster would care to share the resolution? Thanks, Dan On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Andy Dills wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Kris Foster wrote: > > > > > Can someone clueful at level3 please contact me about bgp. We are a > > > > customer, and phone calls and email have failed to get us a contact. > > > > > > WOW...you're a _customer_ and you can't get somebody on the phone? > > > > 'get somebody on the phone' or 'get someone with BGP clue on the phone' > > Either and both. I'm sure L3 has people outside of their core engineering > group that understand BGP. > > Ok, so maybe he's looking to start running BGP. I could understand not > being able to get somebody on the phone without effort when trying to get > things running the first time (but with multiple emails and calls, it's > still inexcusable). However, if you're already exchanging routes with > them, there's no excuse for not being able to get somebody who understands > BGP on the phone. > > Andy > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Andy Dills 301-682-9972 > Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access > >

1 0

OT: level3 contact
by Steve Rude 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

Can someone clueful at level3 please contact me about bgp. We are a customer, and phone calls and email have failed to get us a contact. Sorry for the OT post. Thanks. Steve Rude IP Network Engineer Skyriver Communications, Inc. steve(a)skyriver.net 858-812-9326 | office 858-945-1557 | mobile

2 1

RE: level3 contact
by Temkin, David 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

I sure hope this isn't the future of Genuity.... -----Original Message----- From: Steve Rude [mailto:steve@skyriver.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:46 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: OT: level3 contact Can someone clueful at level3 please contact me about bgp. We are a customer, and phone calls and email have failed to get us a contact. Sorry for the OT post. Thanks. Steve Rude IP Network Engineer Skyriver Communications, Inc. steve(a)skyriver.net 858-812-9326 | office 858-945-1557 | mobile IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.

1 0

Re: spamcop.net?
by Martin Hannigan 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

Not for nothing, but there's so much time wasted with all these diversified spam systems. I've been reading about Barry Shein's proposals and I have to say I am on board with a centralized -single- system based on his young, but intelligent, model. http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/INW20021219S0003 I applaud RBL, spamcop, etc., but without funding and consolidation, it's another waste of offensive time that could be spent on a far more effective defense. -M At 02:51 AM 3/4/2003 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, blitz wrote: > > > > > Anyone having trouble getting to/ know of any issues with spamcop.net > today? > > > > They seemed to have dropped off the radar from me... > > > > No pings > > No traceroute > > > > but they still show registered at 216.127.43.89 > > > >laptop ~]$ t 216.127.43.89 80 >Trying 216.127.43.89... >Connected to 216.127.43.89 (216.127.43.89). >Escape character is '^]'. >GET / > >hmm, there isnt anything returning right now, but it connects atleast :) > > > Tnx > > > > Marc > > macronet.net > > Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

9 8

nntp peering question
by Scott Granados 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

Just a brief question. For people wishing to nntp peer, is the usenet peering page still used as a resource or is that out of date? Thanks

1 0

BGP to doom us all
by Jim Deleskie 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

http://news.com.com/2100-1009-990608.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed Seems the BGP will be the down fall of the internet, the sky is falling the sky is falling

18 27

Re: BGP to doom us all
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

> Uhhhh.... it's nice to be able to change routing information in a > timely fashion without needing intensive therapy afterward. The > idea isn't inherently bad, but I'd not want the current ARIN > acting as a route registry. How would you feel about ARIN being the root of a registry hierarchy that works similar to the DNS? In that case, ARIN would not necessarily hold the route information, they would just be at the top of the search hierarchy just like the root name servers are at the top of the DNS hierarchy. ARIN would authoritatively identify the leaseholder of an address block and give you a pointer to that leaseholder's LDAP server where you could query for whatever info they have available. This could include route registry info. --Michael Dillon

4 3