- Test - lists.nanog.org

PAIX-Central (Dallas)
by William R. Charnock 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Greetings, We have turned up our equipment at the PAIX location in Dallas and it appears that we are the first. I was curious as to whether anyone else will be joining us there soon? Thanks, -- William R. Charnock Director, Core IP Technology Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 469.259.2260

1 0

ARIN overloaded...
by Matt Levine 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Anyone know what's up with ARIN? Are they getting flooded? Been getting this on whois queries for last hour or so: * * WELCOME to ARIN Registration Services * * Sorry, the system load is temporarily too heavy. * * Please wait a while and try again. Thanks * and/or socket times out. Regards, Matt

2 1

Netscan.org? anyone?
by Sehmel, William C. 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Hey, Anyone know what happened to netscan.org? -Bill Sehmel Bill Sehmel Sr. Network Engineer chcs.com Seattle, wa wcs(a)chcs.com "The great nations have always acted like gangsters and the small nations like prostitutes." -- Stanley Kubrick

3 2

test
by John 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

1 0

BGPv5
by John 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Has anyone been involved with the IETF on submitting information on BGP-5? I am trying to understand how congestion control would be best handled. Would it be possible to add something additional in the OPEN message rather than just having MP_NLRI_REACH and MP_NLRI_UNREACH or better yet run them in parallel. If we replace the encoding of the NLRI and then withdraw the routes with these 2 attributes wouldn't that make it work? Thanks John

1 0

Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Patrick Corliss 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Greg A. Woods <woods(a)weird.com> wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2001 4:25 AM (AEST) > [ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 03:38:54 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ] > > Subject: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach > > > > On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001, > > Miles Fidelman <mfidelman(a)civicnet.org> wrote: > > > > > For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards, > > > everyone has to use the same root servers. Otherwise things can rapidly > > > degenerate into chaos. The whole point of law and due process is that > > > a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that > > > everyone use the same root servers. > > > > Sorry, Miles, it's not true. It's just ICANN FUD. > > Obviously you haven't got a friggin clue about how the DNS works either > technically or politically. Hi Greg Interesting you should say that based on what I think is my second posting to this list. And that posting quite fairly quoted both points of view. The argument I'm favouring is that put by Karl Auerbach who is considered by many to be a leading expert on the internet. I see that your partnership specializes in networking and Unix system administration. As you seem to be rather competent, perhaps you could tell me more clearly why you think Karl Auerbach is mistaken in his arguments. They seem rather well thought out to me. Much of Karl's expertise seems rather similar to your own. It includes secure operating systems and secure networks as well as Advanced Internet Architectures with Cisco Systems. You will find it described at http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/karl.html > Read what the man said: "Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into > chaos." They might. Then again they might not. Depends who's in charge. > > Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer, has said that potential > > problems exist for users with any of the several alternative root or domain > > systems on the market. He argues: > > > > "The Internet works because of common protocols. The DNS protocol depends for > > its reliability and trustworthiness on the principle of authoritative > > uniqueness, which requires the use of a single root." > > > > He added "Anything else creates the potential for conflicts." > > > > Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as > > otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways. He is arguing, like > > you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read "ICANN") > > root. > > Now look who's reading between the lines! He explicitly did not say > "ICANN roots". There's no need for ICANN to control the root servers, > and indeed they don't really do so now. All that matters is that there > can only be one true authoritative set of root servers for the public > DNS. You're the one reading between the lines. I didn't say anything about "control". Andrew McLaughlin said a "unique root". Karl Auerbach said "multiple roots". It is clear to me at least that they are inherently different architectures. Regards Patrick Corliss > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods(a)acm.org> <robohack!woods> > Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods(a)weird.com> >

2 4

teleglobe, toronto router or link broken
by Jim Mercer 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

as of 11:00 (eastern), we have only been getting 242 routes from teleglobe.net according to teleglobe tech support, something in toronto is broken. the message was unclear as to whether it was a router or a link, but it said their transmission people were working on it. -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.ca ] [ Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood ] [ aka jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ]

1 0

Test
by Petri Stephen 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Test

1 0

DNS threads
by Susan Harris 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Hi everyone - I'd like to suggest that we end the DNS threads that have cropped up on the NANOG list lately and return to our focus on operations and engineering issues. There are a variety of DNS-specific mailing lists where these discussions would be more appropriate and you'll find a list here: http://www.nanog.org/isp.html#lists Thanks --Susan

3 3

Re: DNS is like radio frequencies
by Patrick Corliss 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Alexei Roudnev <alex(a)relcom.net> wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2001 6:35 PM (AEST) > (you can even live without DNS at all - use search engine instead... It's not > effective but possible yet). Hi Alexei Perhaps what you're talking about here is a "yellow pages" directory structure that bypasses domain names and goes straight to IP addresses. If so, why not? But there are other ways to communicate without domain names and this issue was raised at the ICANN conference in Melbourne by Andrew Pam during the public forum in the afternoon of Tuesday the 13th March. Unfortunately nobody, particularly Vint Cerf, seemed to appreciate the importance of question that was being raised. Later I spoke to Andrew privately and he explained the workings of ICQ. Which I understand is a method of communication that doesn't use the DNS. Best regards Patrick Corliss

2 1