- Test - lists.nanog.org

Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:57 AM > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:22:52 PST, Roeland Meyer > <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> said: > > > 16.1.16.1; I don't > > > Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course. > > > HEX:=="313631313631" > > I think the intended value was 0x10011001 And the signifigance of this bit pattern is ...? [from too many decades doing assembly level communications drivers to handle both ASCII/EIA and EBCDIC. Nothing there is either special or amusing, anymore. Not for decades.] so ... who is Fifi?

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:21 AM > > So the plug-in does *not* change which dns server you query. > if a query fails against your normal name server it > just appends .newdotnet.net or, if that fails, makes stuff up. > > Of course if your regular resolver server was a UDNS server or > Earthlink or an ISP that adopted the new.net TLD's you > would have found an A record for pie.shop with or without > the plug-in. > > This also means that if your reguler resolver server had > your own private .shop zone (perhaps empty), that would > take precedence for regular and plug-in queries for that TLD. This is cute. It also means that, if your zone server carried the ORSC root-zone, the SHOP TLD, in the ORSC root-zone, would take precedence. Simon, maybe you don't have to talk to them at all <evil grin>. The best defense is for ISPs to start carrying the ORSC zone file.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Ron Snyder [mailto:snyder@roguewave.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:48 AM > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:55:26PM -0600, Edward S. Marshall wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:30:19PM -0500, David Charlap wrote: > > > BUT if representatives from a dozen or a hundred ISPs > meet together and > > > choose to blackhole new.net for the explicit purpose of > running them out > > > of business, and then do so, they would be in violation > of US anti-trust > > > laws. > > > > You mean, like the owners and operators of numerous core US networks > > getting together on an archived mailing list like this one, > and openly > > discussing the idea of putting new.net out of business by > various means > > (blackholing them, legally pressuring them, etc)? > > > > You're right, that might constitute violation of anti-trust > law. :-) But > > what do I know? I'm no lawyer. > > I'm no lawyer either, but it seems that intent is a pretty > hard case to make. This isn't all criminal law. Pls reference the OJ Simpson case where he was acquited in the criminal system yet convicted in the civil system. The Civil system only requires a preponderance of the evidence and other evidence is admissible, that would never pass muster in a criminal case. As MS is also finding out, civil liabilities could have more far-reaching financial effects than criminal liabilities. Even if the criminal law case wins, simply defending against the civil liabilities cases may bankrupt the company (presupposing that you actually win those). It is the corporate equivalent of "death by a thousand cuts". Think of it like a high-stakes poker game; You may have a winning hand, but the guy with the deepest pockets may still "buy the pot". -- IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are encouraged to seek legal advice.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:57 PM > Actually, I'm enamoured of someone's idea to just blackhole > new.net and > let them figure out how to sort that. Saves me a whole lot > of trouble, I > just get to ask the customer where they got the idea that > .xxx was a valid > tld. > > If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+] > fraction of this > group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away > soon. An elegant > fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who > blackholed them... Indeed they would. It is even likely that they'd win. Such action wouldn't win ICANN any favours in Congress either.

6 5

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Greg, There are a number of problems with what you have proposed. For one thing, the tinker-factor is too high for production purposes. I have more, but this day is dedicated to BizDev and I can't spare the time right now.. > -----Original Message----- > From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:25 AM > To: Daniel Senie > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > [ On Tuesday, March 13, 2001 at 19:54:00 (-0500), Daniel > Senie wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > We can't. The point, though, is that the Internet needs to > have a GOOD > > way to support multihoming. We presently DO NOT have a good > mechanism > > for this. The IPv6 approach to this does not appear workable either. > > That's because this is a problem that has never existed, not ever. > > Proper *real* multi-homing has *ALWAYS* worked and it's technically an > excellent way to achieve redundant connectivity for a "small" network. > (other risks related to "all your eggs in one basket" type of physical > infrastructure aside, and they can be put aside for many businesses > because if the bricks&mortar part is destoryed the business can't > survive anyway....) > > Given the various simple little tricks I mentioned you don't even need > to put multiple interfaces in every server. > > -- > 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 1

Re: FW: DECNet over IP?
by Kevin Oberman 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:49:03 -0800 (PST) > From: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle(a)oracle.com> > > Kevin, > > I'm surprised to see YOU (an old DECnet person :)) recommending this. You > know he's gonna die if he's running pipes larger than T1s. The > process-switching will eat him alive, no? You can do better than a T-1 with most routers, but I can't argue that it's efficient. If TGV was still around, I'd whole-heartedly recommend it. I should have looked at the current offering from Process. I see that the current version does support DECnet over IP. But even though MultiNet was VERY well written in this area, it is still limited bandwidth. It's just that the bottlenecks are at the end systems and not at the routers. But this is definitely a better way to go. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman(a)es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634

2 1

Thanks Merit!
by Patrik Greenspawn 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Thank you for censoring my email coming from greenwell_is_a(a)corporatedirtbag.com. :) Patrik _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Not that I am advocating that the government should mandate something like IP portability, but if they did, it could force a sufficient rethink so that routing actually becomes much more scaleable because routing is forced to work based upon physical location. Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before the phone call is connected, a translation is made between the logical number and the actual number. The actual number is based upon geography, and consists of country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then physical port number. As a result, the routing tables in telephone networks are small. For example, if you are in the US and need to call the UK, the network only needs one entry for all telephone networks in the UK (plus a few more for redundancy). This is quite a contrast to how IP addresses have been allocated. And therefore, we have 96K and counting prefixes in the Internet with continuing exponential growth. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not a new proposal, and probably could have been implemented years ago. Besides the obvious problems (is there sufficient address space allocatable to make this work), it would require an IP translation lookup at the beginning of each "call" to translate the logical IP address to the physical IP address. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:10 AM > To: Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > At 23:39 14/03/01 -0800, Stephen Stuart wrote: > > > > Do you see many scandals around people who own cool IP > addresses? :) > > > >IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of > 16.1.16.1; I don't > >think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of > the scandal > >remained relatively small. > > Lets see, the US gov't mandated phone number portability. > How long will it > be before they mandate IP address portability? Then everyone > will want > their /32 to be portable. Even Junipers handling of 2.4M prefixes: > http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testing&doc_id=4 009&page_number=10 will begin to buckle. -Hank >(The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.) > >Stephen

2 1

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:22 PM > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > It has to do with refresh rates, just like DRAM. > > It has to do with the way the redundancy is handled in the brain. > Long-term potentiation is not a terribly reliable process. If you ask my wife, she'll catagorically state that short-term potentiation is equally unreliable (yes dear, I promise to remember the milk, next time). > Actually i do not propose any new layers. The "layer" in > question exists > already, in form of address books, hyperlinks and search engines. Okay, I'll grant you that. > > up, you will be assimilated. You have been in retreat for > years. You just > > didn't realize it. > > Actally i am not in retreat. I just have a funny habit of > doing different > things, seeing new things and trying to know what other people are > thinking. I just have a problem with being told what I can do, what I can see, and what is correct to think. The Unified root theology has a bad habit of doing that. > What i learned so far - if technology aims to change human nature, it > fails. It is very naive to assume that brotherhood of > technologists will > stay cooperative when real money gets in. I do not like it > any more than > any other techie, but let's face reality. The control of domain name > space is passing from technologists to lawyers and politicos. Only because there is a single point of control. We need a de-centralized system. > > The real answer was to stop the incursion of trademark > crowd into the DNS. > > You can thank Dave Crocker, Kent Crispin, and their IAHC > for that smooth > > move. > > You can't stop them. They are the guys who are making laws. > The only way > to actually stop them is to organize revolution. Can i opt out? :) I disagree, as I have also disagreed with the ORSC in this. The ORSC has opted out of ICANN involvement. I have not. BTW, there are laws that protect existing business, even a TLD registry. I continually remind my self of the result of Patrick Henry's boycott of the US Constitutional Convention. It happened anyway and he wasn't part of it. > > Now if you think that they'd stop just because you have retreated > > behind yet another layer of abstraction, you are indeed naieve. They > > will come and hunt you out. > > What i am proposing is to remove the contention point. When > "names" do not have intrinsic value, nobody'll fight over them. An identifier on that level will always have some intrinsic meaning. Your plan will only effect the degree of value. > Now, the lawers will keep > hunting trademark violators - but with nothing as tangible as > single name, > they will have to prove the intent to defraud; for now > courts think that > just acquiring a well-known brand name (thus depriving > "rightful" owner of > its use) is an ample proof of such intent. Actually, existing is already that way. UDRP circumvents existing law with contract law. You give up your rights to a court trail, with UDRP. UDRP is administered by WIPO, not ICANN. UDRP decisions often run counter to US trademark law, or anyone elses TM law. UDRP pushes the burden of TM enforcement out to the ICANN, away from the legally designated steward, the TM holder. > > The inclusive root zone efforts, like that of the ORSC and > PacRoot, are > > actually trying to keep the root intact. We saw the > probability of outfits > > like new.net, years ago. We also recognised what it meant. > > It means that the ICANN soapbox is only fine because > Microsoft has bigger > fish to catch. Now imagine they ship an OS with a resolver with > "additional" functionality - conviniently pointing to _their_ > registry if > "public" root didn't yield the result. You cannot charge them > with unfair > competition because this is just an additional convinience to their > customers, and besides they already do similar things with > keyword search > and messaging. If i understand correctly, no O.S. vendor has > a contract > with ICANN specifically prohibiting expansion of search > capabilities. I > think the present new.net scandal is bound to attract their attention. Actually, this has already occurred. Have you taken a good look at Win2K yet? Pay particular attention to Dynamic DNS and Active Directory. > > We spoke the warnings, we spoke them again at the Nov00 > ICANN meeting > > that it is okay to create conflicting delegations. After all, the > > ICANN is doing it ... why can't they? There is no law that regulates > > that. > > Because the current DNS has a single contention point, it is very > vulnerable. It can be very easily taken over by a large > corporate entity. The let's design a better system. > > There's a lot of other stuff behind that, but, I think that > you get the point. > > The Internet is successful precisely because it is > decentralized. There > is absolutely no reason to make the few "natural" central points > vulnerable by having them to dispense what is considered intrinsically > valuable property. (Thanks God, NAT made IP address > allocations somewhat > less critical). > > And if you think .COM fight is nasty... in other places conflicts like > that are sometimes resolved by means of sending goons with guns. I > personally was threatened over a domain name dispute, because of my > affiliation with one popular community resource. Fortunately, > that time > that was merely a bluff.

4 4

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Patrick Greenwell 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

>Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:33 PM -0800 >From: Simon Higgs <simon(a)higgs.com> >To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> >Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. >So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the >help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and >using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else >would help minimize the load on the network help desks? > >I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net >CEO myself. I would suggest that he take a long hot bath with a razorblade. :). _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0