- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: DECNet over IP?
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

GRE tunnel's are the best. We used that for over a year to tunnel Banyan Vines across our IP Network.... It works great.... Spencer **************************************************** Spencer Wood, Network Administrator Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us Phone: 614.644.5422/Fax: 815.361.0714 **************************************************** Simon Lockhart <simonl(a)rd.bbc.co.uk> Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu 03/14/2001 11:30 AM To: "Stillman, Kevin" <STILLMKT(a)sysadm.suny.edu> cc: "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: Re: DECNet over IP? >Has anyone had any experience successfully getting native DECNet packets >encapsulated in an IP packet and transmitted over an IP network? The >solution I am trying to create will allow VAXes to continue to talk DECNet >on their LANs and have the ability to communicate with DECNet areas on a WAN >via IP. Essentially we are try to remove the DECNet protocol from our >intranet while not disrupting location's DECNet configurations. I've not tried it, but my gut reaction would be to use GRE tunnels. Have you looked on cisco.com for sample configs? Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart(a)bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/

1 0

Forgery! ...
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

... and I thought NANOG folk were above playing these games. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:greenwell_is_a@corporatedirtbag.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:03 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > Patrick, you are a k00k! I'm tempted to blackhole you completely. > > NANOG, > > I recommend you add this to your .procmailrc NOW: > > :0: > *^From.*patrick(a)cybernothing.org > /dev/null > > HAND Mr. Greenwell, nice knowing you!

1 0

DECNet over IP?
by Stillman, Kevin 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Perhaps this question is not appropriate here... but I'm grasping at straws. Has anyone had any experience successfully getting native DECNet packets encapsulated in an IP packet and transmitted over an IP network? The solution I am trying to create will allow VAXes to continue to talk DECNet on their LANs and have the ability to communicate with DECNet areas on a WAN via IP. Essentially we are try to remove the DECNet protocol from our intranet while not disrupting location's DECNet configurations. If anyone has any info, please response off list. Thanks. Kevin Stillman SUNYNet, State University of NY

3 2

Re: new.net
by Patrick Greenwell 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Amen Brother! You would think, with all of us being network operators, or at least claiming to be as such, that we would work on ways to *reduce* the brokenness of the modern-day Internet instead of reducing more brokenness to it. Do you guys *really* like to work that hard? Don't we have enough things to fix? New.net must die!!! ---------------------------------------------- Original Message From: "Stephen Kowalchuk"<skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com> Subject: Re: new.net Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:14:30 -0500 > >Sounds to me like at its core new.net is taking advantage of the obvious >frustration that some of us feel with the techno-political "establishment", >using the discontent as a springboard to an eventual hijack of the root zone. I >don't think they have any intention of seeing themselves as an alternate. It >seems the ticket is to muddle the issues by labeling every argument for one root >"political", thus "unsavory" and offensive to many folks' more-egalitarian >vision of the Internet. > >new.net offers "freedom from oppression", but in its own right is nothing but an >old spin on an old play. Create enough FUD about the establishment, then get a >few partners to commit to the "new.net" namespace, and if you have enough >subscribers you can negotiate with ICANN. > >It seems new.net is taking lessons from Microsoft: > - berate the common standards > - create lots of dust > - rape the standards of their essence > - create exclusivity with proprietary extensions to the standards > - appeal to the lowest common denominators of human expression (in this > case, .xxx says it all) > - partner with like-minded souls seeing the same pot of gold at the end > - fight like hell to get a critical mass of subscribers to the idea > (through any means possible) > - negotiate the altered standards back into the mainstream > >Why do this? Money. Position. Microsoft is an excellent model for building a >profitable business. > >Only one problem. Rape the DNS, and the whole house comes down. You might as >well be running IRC. > > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com >Diamonex, Incorporated > >...learning cannot be controlled; it is out of control by design. Learning >emerges spontaneously, it proceeds in an individualistic and unpredictable >way, and it achieves its goal in its own good time. Once triggered, [it] >will not stop--unless it is hijacked by conditioning. -- Roger Fouts >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0

Re: new.net
by Stephen Kowalchuk 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Sounds to me like at its core new.net is taking advantage of the obvious frustration that some of us feel with the techno-political "establishment", using the discontent as a springboard to an eventual hijack of the root zone. I don't think they have any intention of seeing themselves as an alternate. It seems the ticket is to muddle the issues by labeling every argument for one root "political", thus "unsavory" and offensive to many folks' more-egalitarian vision of the Internet. new.net offers "freedom from oppression", but in its own right is nothing but an old spin on an old play. Create enough FUD about the establishment, then get a few partners to commit to the "new.net" namespace, and if you have enough subscribers you can negotiate with ICANN. It seems new.net is taking lessons from Microsoft: - berate the common standards - create lots of dust - rape the standards of their essence - create exclusivity with proprietary extensions to the standards - appeal to the lowest common denominators of human expression (in this case, .xxx says it all) - partner with like-minded souls seeing the same pot of gold at the end - fight like hell to get a critical mass of subscribers to the idea (through any means possible) - negotiate the altered standards back into the mainstream Why do this? Money. Position. Microsoft is an excellent model for building a profitable business. Only one problem. Rape the DNS, and the whole house comes down. You might as well be running IRC. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com Diamonex, Incorporated ...learning cannot be controlled; it is out of control by design. Learning emerges spontaneously, it proceeds in an individualistic and unpredictable way, and it achieves its goal in its own good time. Once triggered, [it] will not stop--unless it is hijacked by conditioning. -- Roger Fouts --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Patrick Greenwell 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Patrick Greenwell wrote: >Is this some scripture to quote? :-) 1 strike. > >> And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world >> will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and >> what will that achieve? > >I think that you would find that capitalists tend towards effective market >solutions(that is in fact why most of them are capitalists.) As can be evidenced by the very healthy US stock market in regards to tech stocks at the moment. > >> Stick to the single root, stand firm on this policy and new.net wont get >> far! Most definitely! >Suddenly, I feel like I should be grabbing your hand and engaging in a >rousing rendition of "Kumbayah my lord." Strike 2. >Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your >breath until they go away? Strike 3. PLONK! I swear to GOD, this list has gotten worse than alt.flame. Patrick, you are a k00k! I'm tempted to blackhole you completely. NANOG, I recommend you add this to your .procmailrc NOW: :0: *^From.*patrick(a)cybernothing.org /dev/null HAND Mr. Greenwell, nice knowing you! _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

In message <Pine.GSO.4.31.0103141436410.9269-100000(a)meron.openu.ac.il>, Rafi Sa dowsky writes: > > >Hi Hank > > In this particular case ".XXX" as "generic" suffix is probably not a good >choice - I'm sure someone would pay a lot of money for this particular >gTLD ... I think that that was Hank's point -- the owner of the One True .xxx will make lots of money. > >Regards > Rafi > >On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: >> >> > I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political".Upon careful re-readin >g >> > it boils down to: >> > >> > If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like. >> > >> > If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they > ask. >> > >> > How is this political? >> >> It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical >> end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political >> issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make >> all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up >> with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands. >> >> -Hank >> >> >> >> > > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

Would anyone be interested (SQL/Bind)
by Steve Sobol 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Would anyone be interested in doing some testing if I ported the Bind 8 SQL patches to Bind 9? -- Steven J. Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC | sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net SAY IT LOUD: I'M GEEK AND I'M PROUD! | 888.480.4NET (4638) 216.619.2NET (2638) http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net | http://ClevelandProductions.com http://JustThe.net | Powered by Linux, pizza, Coke, Cuervo, and cheap beer.

7 6

RE: new.net
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

That idea sank in WG-C. I saw it go down. The oil-slick has even dissipated and the survivors have been hauled out of the drink and dried off already. I've been one of the chief opponents to trademarked TLDs and Intellectual Property incursions into this DNS mess. Where were you? I could have used the help. I am very much anti-WIPO and the UDRP is a WIPO brain-fart. Over the past five years, I have occasionally gone through here, trying you get NANOG folk involved, even before the ICANN. However, even this subject matter has been suppressed here for a long time. Now that new.net has come up with some serious capital clout, y'all finally wake up. Well, it's about three years late and a whole lot more than a buck short. Hell, I don't even care if you agree with me or not. The issue is to get involved for the long-term. Technical issues are NOT divorced from politics, as much as you would like it to be so. Like business issues control IT policies, ICANN politics will control the Internet, unless y'all speak up, regardless of what you say. What you say, strongly indicates that you have not been following the issues. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:26 AM > To: Scott Gifford > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: new.net > > > On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:07:15 EST, Scott Gifford said: > > I like the idea of creating a new ".tm" TLD (or something > less likely > > to conflict with a CCTLD), and requiring anybody who wants trademark > > protection to register there; everything else is a > free-for-all, as it > > pretty much is now. Let them have their little trademark disputes > > over there, and let less litigious heads rule in the other TLDs. > > Still broken. > > Trademarks are for use within a given business segment - that's why > you can have an Apple Computer and an Apple Records - one is in the > computer business, and one is in the music business. Apple Computer > *did* have to promise Apple Records to never engage in the > music business > in order to use the trademark (this became an issue when QuickTime and > other similar technologies threatened to blur the distinction). > > You'd need to have a .computer.tm, a .music.tm, a > .automobile.tm and so > on for all the categories recognized by the trademark office... > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Operating Systems Analyst > Virginia Tech > >

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

> From: Clayton Fiske [mailto:clay@bloomcounty.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:52 PM > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 04:14:50PM -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote: > and otherwise -- I (or the author) shouldn't have to go into. If each > root zone is unique (and they would have to be, else they would be > coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing > to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in > another. Well actually, there is. Leah is exploring that with BIZ as we speak. > Hmm. A "60K text file that scales well" seems oxymoronic to > me. It either > scales, or it's 60K. :) > > Forgive the cheap shot there, but there's a point to it: If > client caches > have to get glue from/for as many different sources as feel > like creating > TLDs, that text file won't be 60K for long. There's no reason > it couldn't > end up being 60M eventually. Of course, a hierarchical glue > system could > be established -- oh wait, that would be coordinated. Currently, the ORSC root zone is around 90KB. However, that id seriously dwarfed by the COM zone file. > This is what I'm referring to above about pretend multiple root zones. > Even if you put different pieces of the root zone on > different servers, > operated by different entities, the only way to ensure there are not > conflicts is by coordinating the information contained in each. And if > you're doing that, it's still a singular root zone, just distributed. You may have a point. But that is exactly what's going on with the ORSC zone file. > Where do I point my client cache to get said glue?) No matter how much > you want to distribute elements of the root zone, if conflicts must be > avoided (as they must in this case) then there has to be a final word > from somewhere to eliminate them. His current name is Richard Sexton. However, some efforts are being made to correct that. > > > And sometime in May, we'll have the complaints that IP > addresses are > > > political because they only allow 256 values per octet, and a > > > class-action lawsuit is planned for the number 257, 258, > -3, and all > > > the fractions. > > > > This is a matter of mathematics, not politics. How to get > root glue to all > > clients that need it is a technical topic. Who should be > the distributor of > > that glue is a political topic. This is the crux of the matter. > > So, since 2826 never states who should be the distributor, it's not > engaging the political topic in question... As Patrick pointed out, the 2826 authors are being somewhat disengenious. The timing is entirely too coincidental. Looking at their local context, it is entirely clear whom they meant to be the distributor.

1 0