- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
by Johnny Eriksson 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

J.A. Terranson wrote: > The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what? PROCMAIL > is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics (ADV, Make Money, > etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of this trash into the > bitbucket. Oh, so it is OK to filter incoming mail if it contains ADV in the Subject: line? Why, then, is it not OK to filter on a list of IP addresses? --Johnny

7 9

CCNP Switching
by Andy Grosser 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

A little off-topic... Has anyone on the list recently taken the Cisco CCNP Switching 2.0 (640-504) exam? I'm taking it very soon and I'd like to get an idea of what to expect. I hear it's quite different from Switching 1.0. Please reply off-list to keep spam to a minimum. Thanks in advance, Andy

2 1

granitecanyon.com network unreachable?
by Bob K 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

The network that ns1.granitecanyon.com is on appears to be down; traceroutes die at ge-1-2-0.a01.enwdco01.us.ra.verio.net (129.250.26.147) . Anyone know what's going on with that? -- Bob <melange(a)yip.org> | Yes. I know. That is, indeed, *not* mayonnaise.

6 8

Net-block issues
by Roeland Meyer 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

In this text, I typo'd a cost issue; Net-block cost $1US/month/IP-address. A /24 will cost $256/month, minimum. |> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr] |> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:58 AM |> The rivers of comments has been sent out about domain |> names, there is a dangereous silence about IP numbers. It is with wry amusement that I have been following the MAPs debate, on NANOG, recently. Then you make this comment, it couldn't dove-tail more beautifully. Those that do not know what MAPs is, please review http://www.mail-abuse.org/. The fundimental function is to create blacklists used for various filtering of IP blocks. While this sounds innocuous on its face, MAPS has recently announced intention of charging for their service, in order to raise money for legal fees (they are under legal attack). Until now, Paul Vixie has been the main funder of MAPs. The problem is that MAPS was distributing the lists and there were many local copies, within places like EarthLink and AOL. As long as those copies are maintained by MAPS, this is not a serious problem. They have an efficient and timely distribution mechanism. The result of an net-block being listed in MAPS is that entire chunks of the Internet cannot reach that net-block. This is done at the provider level. The effects are global in that they over-ride ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC. The problem arises when there are stale entries in the black-list. In fact, the danger has always been, the issue of stale entries. The effect, given MAPS market-share, is that a net-block can be issued, to a new business, that may be perfectly useless and neither the ISP or the business knows about it until it is too late. I might point out that a similar problem can occur with DNs, so it is not entirely an PSO issue. There are now stale entries, in abundance, because many providers are still evaluating the new cost issues. Meanwhile, they have disconnected from the distro system and aren't having their black-lists updated. Ergo, they have stale entries. What this, in effect, does is to over-ride various registry policies. Names and net-blocks that are issued may not, in fact, be issued. Names are not a serious cost issue and they can, with some logistical difficulty, be re-issued. However, net-blocks cost over $1US/month (at the ISP level), or $2500/year from ARIN (the US registry), and they are not all that plentiful. The fundimental process disconnect here is that, IMHO, the various registries should be performing the MAPS function as part of their policy enforcement mechanism. This is not written into any of the registrar/registry agreements. If anything argues for a centralised systems approach, the MAPS functionality does. IMHO, this makes it an ICANN issue. Yes, this also politicizes it somewhat. No, some NANOG denizens won't like it and that is guaranteed. -- R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R Managing Director Morgan Hill Software Company t:01 925 373 3954 c:01 925 352 3615 f:01 925 373 9781

3 2

OSPF Network design
by jan Huizinga 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Hello, I have a question regarding OSPF design. I have a customer which has a hub and spoke topology, in the main site the have 5 routers and every remote site is using 3 routers and a 1/4 class C addresses. There are 8 remote sites. They have created for every site an area, so in total 9 areas + an area 0 makes 10 areas. Is this a typical OSPF design? At this moment this network is a 100% VoIP network (H.323). In the future they want also to give Internet access to their customers (dial-up and leased lines). The remote sites are connected with 1MB links, and some of them shall be upgraded to 2MB links. Any ideas? Or does some one have a good reference to a site or a book that deals with the designing of a (OSPF) network. I have books about OSPF but they talk all about the protocol, and don't give real world examples how to design this. Thanks, Jan

5 4

Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
by jlewis＠lewis.org 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

This is getting really annoying. It seems multiple large networks have stolen copies of the MAPS DUL (I wonder if this is the cause or an effect of MAPS going commercial?) which of course are not being kept in-sync with the real MAPS DUL. First it was Earthlink. Today's winner is usa.net. >>><xxxxxx(a)usa.net> >>> (reason: 550 Mail from 209.208.x.y refused. Please refer to >>> http://mail-abuse.org/dul for an explanation.) The address block in question above was removed from the DUL almost 2 weeks ago, but usa.net is still blocking mail from it today, and claiming that they're doing so via the MAPS DUL. How many other networks have stolen copies of the DUL and either nobody maintaining their local copies or bogus sendmail reject messages pointing you to the wrong place (or no place) to get the problem fixed? If you're going to run your own locally maintained email blacklist, at least get the rejection messages right and give out a correct URL for procedures on getting off your blacklist. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis(a)lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

34 56

NOC servers with public/private ip address
by R Z 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Hi, all, We are an ISP with some internet routers. The question is if we should use public or private ip address in NMS/NOC to manage these routers. If we want to save ip address and use private ip address, we need to have private address on the internet routers. Although I am almost religious that internet routers should NEVER have private address in the routing table, I still need more reasons to convince other people. Can someone pls tell me the pros and cons of using private ip address? Is there any issue with private ip address? What is the practice in your network? Your insight is highly appreciated. Richard _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

6 6

FW: Net-block issues
by Roeland Meyer 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

1 0

FW: Net-block issues
by Roeland Meyer 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

1 0

Net-block issues
by Roeland Meyer 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

|> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr] |> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:58 AM |> The rivers of comments has been sent out about domain |> names, there is a dangereous silence about IP numbers. It is with wry amusement that I have been following the MAPs debate, on NANOG, recently. Then you make this comment, it couldn't dove-tail more beautifully. Those that do not know what MAPs is, please review http://www.mail-abuse.org/. The fundimental function is to create blacklists used for various filtering of IP blocks. While this sounds innocuous on its face, MAPS has recently announced intention of charging for their service, in order to raise money for legal fees (they are under legal attack). Until now, Paul Vixie has been the main funder of MAPs. The problem is that MAPS was distributing the lists and there were many local copies, within places like EarthLink and AOL. As long as those copies are maintained by MAPS, this is not a serious problem. They have an efficient and timely distribution mechanism. The result of an net-block being listed in MAPS is that entire chunks of the Internet cannot reach that net-block. This is done at the provider level. The effects are global in that they over-ride ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC. The problem arises when there are stale entries in the black-list. In fact, the danger has always been, the issue of stale entries. The effect, given MAPS market-share, is that a net-block can be issued, to a new business, that may be perfectly useless and neither the ISP or the business knows about it until it is too late. I might point out that a similar problem can occur with DNs, so it is not entirely an PSO issue. There are now stale entries, in abundance, because many providers are still evaluating the new cost issues. Meanwhile, they have disconnected from the distro system and aren't having their black-lists updated. Ergo, they have stale entries. What this, in effect, does is to over-ride various registry policies. Names and net-blocks that are issued may not, in fact, be issued. Names are not a serious cost issue and they can, with some logistical difficulty, be re-issued. However, net-blocks cost over $1US/month (at the ISP level), or $2500/year from ARIN (the US registry), and they are not all that plentiful. The fundimental process disconnect here is that, IMHO, the various registries should be performing the MAPS function as part of their policy enforcement mechanism. This is not written into any of the registrar/registry agreements. If anything argues for a centralised systems approach, the MAPS functionality does. IMHO, this makes it an ICANN issue. Yes, this also politicizes it somewhat. No, some NANOG denizens won't like it and that is guaranteed. -- R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R Managing Director Morgan Hill Software Company t:01 925 373 3954 c:01 925 352 3615 f:01 925 373 9781

1 0