- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: how many roots must DNS have before it's considered broken (Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches)
by Simon Higgs 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

At 05:21 AM 11/19/01 +0000, you wrote: >Once we start down the slippery slope of "I'm a root too", how >many different ad hoc DNS "universes" (for lack of better >term) must we have before we decide that things are "broken"? Two. That happened back in 1996 when the IANA TLD applicants began getting their glue added to AlterNIC. Today lack of entry in the root has created a dozen or so more alt.roots. Now people are beginning to notice the consequences (i.e. the .US zone is now causing cache pollution outside the legacy root since it's using the ICANN .BIZ name servers - and that .BIZ isn't recognized by all the alt.roots). But it's OK. Really. There's only one root. Honest. Except for this one, which is being run with all the usual I* blessings: http://www.isi.edu/otdr/ >Maintaining a single, authoritative root seems, IMHO, to be a >Good Thing. Given multiple registries, namespace collisions >would get ugly -- and, even in the absence of collisions, let us >consider "reachability" issues. That's the point. Getting the alt.root "universes" to cooperate is an exercise similar to "cat herding", but it has to start somewhere. Best Regards, Simon -- DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.

6 5

Routing to .US TLD servers
by Sean Donelan 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

If you (or your customers) have difficulties resolving domains in the US zone, it was moved recently moved to a new set of servers. Nothing special, except they are all in 209 net space, and are being announced as /24 network routes. There is no covering CIDR aggregate being announced, so providers which still filter 209 CIDR blocks (i.e. an obsolete copy of access-list 112) you may have difficulty reaching the new servers. a.gtld.biz. 209.173.53.162 b.gtld.biz. 209.173.57.162 c.gtld.biz. 209.173.60.65 route-server>show ip bgp 209.173.48.0/20 longer BGP table version is 502125, local router ID is 134.24.38.246 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 209.173.53.0 134.24.127.30 35 0 1740 7018 701 7786 i *> 209.173.57.0 134.24.127.30 35 0 1740 7018 7786 i *> 209.173.58.0 134.24.127.30 35 0 1740 7018 1 7473 9911 7786 ? *> 209.173.60.0 134.24.127.30 35 0 1740 7018 209 7786 i This is strictly a network routing issue, and has nothing to do the merits of Neustar, ICANN or any other DNS issue. If you, and all your upstreams, accept /24's you shouldn't see any problems.

1 0

Re: BT monopoly causes widespread network failure
by Rodney Thayer 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

At 06:19 PM 11/21/2001 -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: >Yes. But I'm more interested in how a provider manages to wipe >out their entire national network. That takes talent. > >I'm sure BT has some clever network engineers, and they could have >done it to themselves. On the other hand, BT uses the exact same >equipment as US providers and other providers around the world. >Is there some latent defect in the vendor gear we all use? Or arrogance. There seem to be a lot of allegedly clueful service providers out there that have single points of failure, lack of genetic diversity, insufficient resources assigned to allegedly mission-critical facilities, etc.etc. Notice for example there doesn't seem to be anyone from BT speaking here... I assume, given the usual suspects that graciously ignore the NA in NANOG, that nothing relevant has been posted on UK/European lists...

2 1

Next generation DSLAMs
by srihari varada 22 Nov '01

22 Nov '01

Hello: I would like to know what services are planned to be converged on the next generation DSLAM boxes from the service provider point of view. A servicve that was talked of was the VPNs provisioned through either ATM or IP/MPLS backbone networks. What would be the OSS support in them? I would be interested in the subscriber management models especially. Any known literature available in the public domain? I do understand that the majority of the current DSLAMs implement common denominator function (that is to restrict their funcitonality at switching or teminating ATM PVCs.) PPP and PPPoE, designed to preserve dialup experience and capital investment of ISPs on dial up infrastructure, will be processed at the competitive or non-competitve ISP domains. Regards, Srihari Varada

2 1

Re: Slightly OT: Anyone know of a concise port list
by Fred True 21 Nov '01

21 Nov '01

> Anyone know of a concise port/port range list for profiling various client > code out their (no /etc/services isn't the end all). Looking for ranges for > Napster, Audio Galaxy, BearShare, etc, besides the WKP's. We've been tracking this dynamically for a while in order to make sense of flow data traces - using a plethora of reliable (as well as dubious!) sources - including running some of the more popular p2p apps to see what ports they choose. Of course, there are many problems with using tcp/udp ports to identify apps - some apps use randomly assigned ports (sometimes after negotiating the connection on a well known port; like most streaming video protocols); some apps allow users to override ports, which many users do in order to circumvent firewalls; and there is much duplication across ports. But, try the attached lists (one by port, one by app, and one shows a grouping we use for "common application classes" e.g. "mail" or "peer to peer" etc.). I'd greatly appreciate fixes or updates. [NOTE: attachments not sent to nanog-post - if you want them, email me privately.] Of course if you really want to accurately account for traffic by application, there is no substitute for passive sniffing of full headers (not scaleable, and certainly can raise privacy issues). -fred

2 1

BT network outage
by Sean Donelan 21 Nov '01

21 Nov '01

The joy of single provider service. British Telecom lost most of its national IP backbone on Tuesday affecting DSL and Dialup service across multiple ISPs in the UK. According to news reports, this affected almost all DSL service in the UK. What happened to BT? Is this a unique "feature" of the UK marketplace or can the same thing happen in the USA?

3 2

win95 and IEAK6.0
by Bill Larson 21 Nov '01

21 Nov '01

It appears that without telling anyone Microsoft decided the Internet Explorer Admin Kit version 6.0 which generates a custom IE web browser for ISP's would no longer support Windows 95. I do not know about the rest of you however, I have many Windows 95 users still signing on to my service. I think it is time to let Microsoft know our displeasure about this clear abuse of their monopoly position. Once someone else confirms this behavior, I intend to raise a stink with the national news media, the federal government and the nine states that are still suing Microsoft. Bill Larson Network Administrator Compu-Net Enterprises

8 10

Re: BT network outage
by Fearghas McKay 21 Nov '01

21 Nov '01

At 7:41 pm +0000 21/11/01, Ryan O'Connell wrote: >I don't call 800ms+ RTTs to major exchange points "fixed". "Less broken" >perhaps. Most of our customers would leave with this sort of latency! Fortunatly I am not buying my bandwidth from them - just the local ADSL loop:-( <traceroute:194.153.169.194> www.complicity.co.uk Hop Sent Received Seconds IP Address Name 1 YYY YYY 0.003 212.20.247.49 adsl.forthview.net 2 YYY YYY 0.048 212.20.242.1 212.20.242.1 3 YYY YYY 0.049 195.97.221.121 olivefe1-0.onyx.net 4 YYY YYY 0.068 195.97.199.73 willows2-1.onyx.net 5 YYY YYY 0.065 213.166.3.185 213.166.3.185 6 YYY YYY 0.059 195.149.20.77 lon1-2.nildram.net 7 YYY YYY 0.12 195.149.20.141 lon1-10.nildram.net 8 YYY YYY 0.080 193.203.5.81 lonap-gw.jump.org.uk 9 YYY YYY 0.065 194.153.169.194 look-to-windward.complicity.co.uk f

1 0

Slightly OT: Anyone know of a concise port list
by Eric Germann 21 Nov '01

21 Nov '01

Anyone know of a concise port/port range list for profiling various client code out their (no /etc/services isn't the end all). Looking for ranges for Napster, Audio Galaxy, BearShare, etc, besides the WKP's. Doing traffic custom traffic profiling with NetFlow and trying to get a concise list. Thanks eRic ========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 "It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an interesting problem, and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade interesting problems :)" -- Vadim Antonov <avg(a)kotovnik.com> on NANOG

3 2

RE: win95 and IEAK6.0
by James Smith 21 Nov '01

21 Nov '01

It may be instructive to look at the windows update website (windowsupdate.microsoft.com) and note the fine print towards the left of the page. Check out the Win95 Legacy page it references. P.S., you have to be running Win95 to find it. The browser lets the site know what platform you are running on, and "customizes" what you can see. For instance, I cannot find that page browsing from IE6/NT4. James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Tim Winders [mailto:twinders@SPC.cc.tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:45 PM To: Bill Larson Cc: isp-tech(a)isp-tech.com; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: win95 and IEAK6.0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The problem is that IE6 does not support Win95. You need a minimum of Win98 to install IE6... ********************************************** Tim Winders, MCSE, CNE, CCNA Associate Dean of Information Technology South Plains College Levelland, TX 79336 Phone: 806-894-9611 x 2369 FAX: 806-894-1549 Email: TWinders(a)SPC.cc.tx.us ********************************************** On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Bill Larson wrote: > It appears that without telling anyone Microsoft decided the Internet > Explorer Admin Kit version 6.0 which generates a custom IE web browser for > ISP's would no longer support Windows 95. I do not know about the rest of > you however, I have many Windows 95 users still signing on to my service. I > think it is time to let Microsoft know our displeasure about this clear > abuse of their monopoly position. Once someone else confirms this behavior, > I intend to raise a stink with the national news media, the federal > government and the nine states that are still suing Microsoft. > > Bill Larson > Network Administrator > Compu-Net Enterprises > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Today on ISP-Planet > Hot business, marketing & tech tips for the ISP community > http://www.isp-planet.com/ > > _____________ The ISP-TECH Discussion List _____________ > To Join: mailto:join-isp-tech@isp-tech.com > To Remove: mailto:remove-isp-tech@isp-tech.com > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-tech/archives/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OSF1) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iEYEARECAAYFAjv8BEwACgkQTPuHnIooYbyi+QCgkL4b+a0aeEqPn8JgH8/EaSdd yhQAoJRakUsStK7qb5myQ7skwaYTnDNg =ZhP0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0