- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Stealth Blocking
by Paul Vixie 23 May '01

23 May '01

Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu writes: > This is *so* bass-ackwards it isn't funny. You want facts, yet you read NANOG? To call what's been posted to this thread "wildly inaccurate" would give it far more credit than it has earned. (Not picking on Valdis in particular, he and I are on the same side after all.) > Open relays were the norm until people realized that they were getting > abused. The clueful were already closing their relays back then. Vixie > started providing the MAPS service because clueful people wanted to protect > themselves against idiots. The list that netside found itself listed on was MAPS RSS, which was originally created by Al Iverson under the name RRSS. MAPS gave it, and then later Al himself, a new home. Vixie (that's me) was never personally involved -- MAPS is a limited liability company founded by Vixie (me again) and Dave Rand. > Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that both ORBS and the now-defunct > DorkSlayers databases actually pre-date the MAPS project. ORBS is the name Alan Brown switched to when I complained that calling his project the DorkSlayers RBL was leading a lot of people to send hate mail to MAPS (the original "RBL") about sites that were actually on Alan's list. > So obviously there was a demand for the service before Vixie started it up. Vixie (me, still) started the RBL as an independent project shortly before MAPS was cofounded by Vixie (hi!) and Rand. RRSS was created independently by Al Iverson at about the same time as Alan Brown started DorkSlayers. RRSS became the MAPS RSS some time afterward. > And as was already pointed out, spam-l and news.admin.net-abuse.email are > probably more appropriate fora for this discussion... Right. On the other hand I don't read those since I'm not a day to day part of MAPS or indeed of the anti-spam community. Dave Rand is MAPS's executive director now (following his resignation from MFN/Abovenet a while back) and while he reads the spam fora I don't think he's on NANOG any more. Comments about the MAPS RSS, or indeed anything else about MAPS, should most likely be sent to him (dlr(a)mail-abuse.org) if you want to be sure he reads them.

1 0

RE: NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: Alan Clegg [mailto:alan@clegg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:32 AM > > Unless the network is lying to me again, John Palmer (NANOG > Acct) said: > > > > NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS > > But is rabbit.net a member? > > AlanC {is this too obscure a reference?} Yep.

1 0

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 AM > > > Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of > the policy > > business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for. > > True. And it should also get out of the operations biz, > but that is another kettle of fish. The problem there is that there is no place for operations discussions, AFAICT. This may be an oversight on part of the ICANN conceptual framework. Most of the rest of us assumed (yeah, I know) that the IETF would handle that. Agreed, this may be in error. But, it is an error without a solution. Ignoring operations issues is not an option, IMHO. For the sake of expediency, IETF should continue to deal with operations issues until such time as ICANN organization can be modified to handle the new org. Considering the outstanding (higher priority) issues wrt @LArge and /DNSO/IDNHC, this could take some time (years) and operational issues need to continue to be discussed now. In short, it doesn't have another home, let's keep it fostered, under IETF, until such time as it gets a home.

2 1

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM > > > > There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private > > > use TLD. > > > > Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with > ICANN/DNSO. It is > > the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the > IETF. In order > > tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make > attempts to > > surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, > ICANN doesn't > > know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. > I'm very much > > involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, > in the DNSO. This > > effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want > to catch a LOT > > of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need > to widen the > > visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy > directly and IETF > > isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO. > > The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work. Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of the policy business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for. > Clearly > there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do > not believe that others have considered the impact of > entry points in the DNS That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of involvement and communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit. Yet, they do not and cannot recommend TLDs to the DOC. Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks that ARE supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware of. Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that ARE supposed to make them, and we then have a cat-fight. > and that they have exclusive understanding of the > ramifications of controlling this space. That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there ;) > See RFC 2606 Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.

2 1

NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 23 May '01

23 May '01

NEW GROUP FORMED FOR UNOFFICIAL INTERNET TLD OWNERS A GROUP OF Internet TLD (top-level domain) holders have formed a nonprofit association to prevent what they fear will become a splintered Internet domain naming system. The new group, the Top Level Domain Association (TLDA - http://www.tlda.org) announced Wednesday that it will begin accepting membership applications Saturday from an estimated 200 operators of some 500 TLDs around the world. For the full story: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/05/17/010517hntld.xml?0518frpm If you would like to become a member, go to http://www.tlda.org to apply online.

2 1

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:02 PM > > > Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use > of INT internally > > would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT > TLD from the > > clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions > it has been > > suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for > internal use only. Let > > me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My > personal preference > > is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The > next question is; > > should this be an RFC? > > > INT was originally earmarked for multinational > organizations. It > was then inclusive of INTernet infrastructure and only > later was > the multinational charter clarified to restrict these groups to > international treaty organizations. > > There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private > use TLD. Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with ICANN/DNSO. It is the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the IETF. In order tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make attempts to surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, ICANN doesn't know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. I'm very much involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, in the DNSO. This effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want to catch a LOT of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need to widen the visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy directly and IETF isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO. -- ROELAND M.J. MEYER /USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN/DNSO member

2 1

<OT> OPNET information...
by Bulger, Tim 23 May '01

23 May '01

Does anyone have any experience with OPNET Technologies products? I'm particularly interested in the ITGuru package. Please send responses off-list.. TIA, Tim Bulger EA.com Network Engineering (650) 628-5178 ___________ Minimalism is the fine balance between what is necessary and what is unnecessary -- Richie Hawtin

1 0

Re: Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs
by Danny McPherson 23 May '01

23 May '01

This is one of the reasons some folks opt to avoid the route servers (i.e., the data and control plane aren't congruent). -danny > NANOG members, > > I have a question to the group regarding how best to avoid blackholing > routes to peers on an ATM NAP when using route servers. > > There is a case wherein my peering partner and I both have active PVCs to > the route servers, but the PVC between my peering partner and my router is > down. Thus, we both see routes from the route server with each other's IP as > next-hop, but since our direct PVC is down that next-hop is no good. > > It'd like a way to automatically and efficiently detect loss of next-hop and > discard routes accordingly. Are folks generally using OAM keepalives, and if > so, any parameters for OAM interval time and dead/alive count that seem > practical? > > Thanks, > > -- > Reid Knuttila > Network Engineer > Onvoy

1 0

Re: More demand or less supply?
by rs＠seastrom.com 23 May '01

23 May '01

Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> writes: > Why is 2 to 3 times more capacity offline this year compared with previous > years? I don't know. It appears the "supply" shortage is not due to > increased demand, or even the lack of new power plant capacity; but due > to the shutdown of existing capacity by generation companies at a higher > rate than normal. My understanding is that there is a seasonal "online / maint" cycle for the generation plants, and that many of them were not taken offline for normal PM several months ago because of energy usage _then_... my unsubstantiated guess would be that just like letting your car go 30,000 miles between a pair of oil changes, procrastination of the maint cycle eventually comes home to roost and that's what we're seeing now. ---Rob

25 28

Traffic per Prefix Length
by Paul G. Donner 23 May '01

23 May '01

does anyone collect stats that would facilitate the derivation of the number of packets forwarded per prefix length (per unit time) in the routing table or per prefix length range? percentages would work too.

5 5