- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: UUNet/Chicago
by Lee Watterworth 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

BB1.TOR2.uunet.ca is fuxored as well. I shut down my link to uunet canada. 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 10.1.1.4 2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 10.1.0.20 3 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 206.51.26.1 4 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 207.176.255.21 5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 205.150.242.81 6 * * * Request timed out. 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 * * * Request timed out. 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * ^C -----Original Message----- From: nicholas harteau [mailto:nrh@ikami.com] Sent: March 9, 2001 5:00 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: UUNet/Chicago In case anyone didn't know but was interested: a customer aggregation router failed, it's being replaced, eta of 1hr. nicholas harteau wrote: > > anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the > noc is not being very helpful. > -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 0

mail.yahoo.com, "missing A records" and squid proxy
by Jim Mercer 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

we have a squid proxy set up as transparent. a few days ago users started complaining because sometimes they would get a message like: ------------------------------------------ The requested URL could not be retrieved While trying to retrieve the URL: http://mail.yahoo.com/ The following error was encountered: Unable to determine IP address from host name for mail.yahoo.com The dnsserver returned: No Address records This means that: The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL. Check if the address is correct. ------------------------------------------ poking in the DNS, i find: Name: login.yahoo.akadns.net Addresses: 64.58.76.98, 64.58.76.99 Aliases: mail.yahoo.com, login.yahoo.com so, mail.yahoo.com isn't an A record, but a CNAME pointing to something at akadns. we are thinking there might be some issue with some dynamic nature of yahoo's dns. are we barking up the right tree? -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.ca ] [ Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood ] [ aka jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ]

5 4

UUNet/Chicago
by nicholas harteau 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the noc is not being very helpful. -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 2

RE: UUNet/Chicago
by Doane, Andrew 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

DS3 to UUNet on GW3/CHI6 Translating "www.uu.net"...domain server (208.203.56.201) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.uu.net (63.111.61.6) 1 500.Serial0-1-0.GW3.CHI6.ALTER.NET (157.130.113.173) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 113.ATM2-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.82) [AS 701] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 291.at-2-0-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.254) [AS 701] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 4 106.at-6-1-0.TR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (146.188.142.33) [AS 701] 36 msec 36 msec 36 msec 5 0.so-7-0-0.XR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.230) [AS 701] 36 msec 36 msec 32 msec 6 193.ATM6-0.SR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.121) [AS 701] 36 msec 32 msec 36 msec 7 * * * 8 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.alter.net (198.5.128.2) [AS 11486] 36 msec 36 msec 36 msec 9 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.alter.net (198.5.128.2) [AS 11486] !A Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.amazon.com (208.216.181.15) 1 500.Serial0-1-0.GW3.CHI6.ALTER.NET (157.130.113.173) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 113.ATM2-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.82) [AS 701] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 3 291.at-2-0-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.254) [AS 701] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 4 106.at-6-1-0.TR1.POR3.ALTER.NET (146.188.141.226) [AS 701] 48 msec 48 msec 48 msec 5 197.ATM7-0.XR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.105.1) [AS 701] 52 msec 52 msec 52 msec 6 195.ATM4-0.GW8.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.105.217) [AS 701] 52 msec 52 msec 56 msec 7 amazon-oc3-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.178.2) [AS 701] 52 msec 52 msec 52 msec 8 208-226-122-16.amazon.com (208.226.122.16) [AS 7224] 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 157.130.113.173 4 701 580629 5319 1401232 0 0 3d12h 98165 Appears to be ok over here. -Andrew -----Original Message----- From: nicholas harteau [mailto:nrh@ikami.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:46 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: UUNet/Chicago anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the noc is not being very helpful. -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 0

Re: new.net
by Scott Gifford 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Somebody pointed out that ".tm" is the CCTLD for Turkmenistan. I'm going to act as if it isn't, to simplify the discussion; it can just as easily be replaced by ".trademark", ".rtm", etc. I'm also probably obligated to mention that we're not really on-topic anymore, but I'm enjoying seeing NANOG a bit livelier lately, so I'm going to carry on anyways. :) "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat(a)tmcs.net> writes: > > richb(a)pioneer.ci.net writes: > > > > > Corporate entities should be *required* to register in the flat dot-com > > > namespace, IMHO, and not be *allowed* names in any other namespace. > > > > 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. > > How do you propose to enforce this? It could simply be enforced by the UDRP, as it is currently. But UDRP would not look at trademarks at all outside of the trademarked namespace. That would let me register "gifford.com" without worrying about "Gifford's Huge Company, Inc." suing me for trademark infringement. > What authority will be able to intercede in a trademark lawsuit > involving a domain outside .tm, and put a stop to it? Nobody; that's the point. If you want a domain with your trademark, you should be able to get it in ".tm". > The namespace is the namespace, and infringment is infringment, whereever it > occurs. If infringment occurs, the damaged party should not be prevented > from seeking relief. The problem is ambiguous cases, like the one mentioned above, and the many others previously discussed on this list. I shouldn't have to trademark my name to be able to safely use it as a domain, and sites that want to criticize a trademarked entity should be able to use the trademarked name as part of their domain name (as Fair Use currently allows, but the UDRP does not). I would love a system that stops people from domain squatting, while allowing people with legitimate domain names that overlap with a trademark to use them without worrying about them being taken away. But if such a system isn't possible, I think the above would perhaps work better than what we have now. Maybe just making it illegal to sell domains for more than you paid for them would be a simpler solution. Laws like this currently exist to make ticket scalping illegal, at least in Michigan. But that still doesn't solve the hypothetical case of Burger King registering "mcdonalds.com". Hrm... -----ScottG.

1 0

Re: Namespace conflicts
by Shawn McMahon 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:53:19AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > as others have noted, .townname.nj.us was nabbed by the squatters as well. Sometimes even what _should_ be freely available gets picked off by somebody looking to make a quick buck. Now, that one I'd agree with doing something about. I suspect it would take a couple of emails.

1 0

Re: Namespace conflicts
by Steven M. Bellovin 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

In message <20010309064952.B10940(a)eiv.com>, Shawn McMahon writes: > >On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:27:20PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote: >> More precisely, the courts started getting involved as soon as >> first-come-first-serve stopped working fine. > >No, someone involved the courts when they were second, and the courts >didn't understand so they didn't smack it back at the lawyers "dismissed >with prejudice". > >DNS didn't make the mess, the courts did. In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major problem with first-come, first-served *productive* use of a domain name, but frankly, that's not where the problem has been. The problem has been speculators and cybersquatters. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

6 6

RE: Namespace conflicts
by Mark Borchers 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

> ...right. And Delegation of nameservice is a CUSTODIALSHIP for the end > user organization/entity. The pain in .US was felt when some 3rd-level > delegates took on a custodianship for free and then charged folks > underneath them, a form of delegation-squatting, with no intent of > sheparding the resource until clue was imparted to the > more-appropriate > organizations. That's just wrong, and triggered involvement of legal > entities again. Right on target, Joe. For the historical record, I would add that ISI eventually realized that .US subregistries were using the third-level domains as a cash cow. To deal with this, they imposed a requirement that the city/county government concur in new delegations for their communities. However, by that time the profiteers had swallowed up almost all the .US third level domains that had not been previously registered.

1 0

network availability standards
by Miguel Mata-Cardona 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Hi, we are looking for some standards of network availability for broadband networks. Specificaly for backbone availability, last mile availability, mean time to repair, and so on. We have and HFC network (yes, CATV and cablemodems). These customers range from the home users, SOHO, point-to-point and VPNs. Any pointer to these info would be very appreciated. We are trying to set up a SLA paperwork for commercial and corporate customers. -------------------------- Miguel Mata-Cardona CCI El Salvador mmata(a)sv.cciglobal.net

1 0

Re: Namespace conflicts
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin mailed: > > In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were > > grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had > > absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web > > site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major > > problem with first-come, first-served *productive* use of a domain name, > > but frankly, that's not where the problem has been. The problem has > > been speculators and cybersquatters. > > Uh, why couldn't the town just use <name>.nj.us or whatever the city specific > code was long ago and far way. No. However, they could use ci.<name>.nj.us, and that's where I usually go if I'm looking for a particular city's web site. The reason for this distinction is to support things like: ci.alameda.ca.us City of Alameda co.alameda.ca.us County of Alameda joesshoes.alameda.ca.us Joe's Shoe Shop in Alameda, CA etc. There's an RFC that spells all this out (1680 comes to mind, but not sure that's the right number). Owen

4 3