- Test - lists.nanog.org

solar storm
by smd＠clock.org 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

Forgive this temporary segue into a potential operational issue. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/sunspot000714.html I would find it interesting if any outages observed by Sean Donelan or others could be attributed to this solar storm; alternatively, any higher than average incidence of outages and failures would be interesting from a correlation analysis perspective. In particular, if anyone notices unusual errors or outages affecting long copper lines (e.g. DSL), wireless, and very high density integrated circuits (e.g. in high-end routers or workstations), that would be cool to hear about. Sean.

2 1

piracy on parade
by Paul A Vixie 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

Are any mainstream companies signed on with this or is it just chickenboners? ------- Forwarded Message +++++ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE +++++ RNDNETWORK ANNOUNCES NEW TLD REGISTRY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Startup developing new, robust domain registry and registration management system and will operate registries for new gTLDs. +++++ July 13, 2000/San Francisco, CA// Internet and research and development community startup RNDNetwork.com Incorporated today announced the development of a comprehensive DNS registry/registration management system for use with new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). The new system, developed in conjunction with Strategy Partner LLC (http://www.strategypartner.com ), VRx Network Systems (http://www.vrx.net) anycastNET Incorporated (http://www.anycast.net) @quasar Internet Solutions, Inc. (http://www.quasar.net) and several other Open Root Server Confederation (ORSC) and Top Level Domain Association (TLDA) members, will provide for the two basic functions necessary for the operation of new gTLDs for the Internet. Top Level Domains (TLDs) are the right-most portion of identifiers such as "anycast.NET" and "rndnetwork.COM". Generic Top Level Domains are those available for registration globally, as opposed to those reserved for specific groups and organizations, such as .GOV, which is reserved for the U.S. Government and its agencies. Anyone who has recently tried to register a domain name recently has found that there are very few left that are not cumbersome-the most desirable names are long gone. There is therefore a pent-up demand for intelligible domain names on the Internet, and this demand is far greater than the number of names available in the current gTLDs. "There has been significant work over the last few years to establish operating alternative root systems for new gTLDs", said Ged Gasperas, CEO of RNDNetwork.com Incorporated. "Our intention is to build on the work and intellectual property of our partners, while offering them a system to operate and manage their gTLDs" Gasperas also said RNDNetwork.com intends to operate one of the new gTLDs. "We believe there is significant value in creating an Internet community of research and development groups under the ".RND" gTLD. It's a natural for the Internet." Gasperas said the concept came together while discussing the company's business model and how it applies to the Internet. "Several of our board members brought pieces of the concept to the table. Our discussions led us to our partners, some of whom are operating new gTLDs registries and alternative root servers already." Richard Sexton of VRx Network Services, an industry acknowledged expert on DNS issues, commented on the timeliness of the partnerships. "Groups like the ORSC and TLDA, and others before, have tried to coalesce these efforts with limited success. RNDNetwork has brought the right people together in an open working environment to make it real." VRx Network Services has been operating root zone servers for new gTLDs since 1996. "The problems in the past have been of momentum and need. Both are very much in our favor now." @quasar Internet Solutions president Dena Whitebirch also feels the time has come. "A number of organizations, like ours, have invested a great deal of time and effort to implement DNS registry models. The RNDNetwork effort is a welcome approach that will allow our collective efforts to move forward in a cohesive and sensible fashion." @quasar Internet Solutions, Inc. operates the registry for the .MART gTLD. RNDNetwork.com has also announced their intention to participate in the process for acknowledgment of new gTLDs as set forth by the recently formed Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org) ICANN is attempting to define various criteria and methods for the incorporation of new gTLDs into the Internet's principal root system. "Our business model is designed to succeed. We look forward to working with ICANN and the Internet community to make this a winning proposition for all" said Gasperas. ICANN meets this week in Yokohama, Japan to discuss several key Internet issues, including the potential for new gTLDs. Any system that will support new gTLDs must be functional, sound, and capable of handling a potentially large influx of registrations. Estimates vary, but registration rates in excess of 100,000 per month for some gTLDs is possible. "There are many facets to designing a system of this nature", said Anatoliy Prokhorov, president of Strategy Partner LLC. "Scalability and fault tolerance are absolutely essential. The current DNS root system works. Our model must meet or exceed the current model." Strategy Partner has recently designed several high volume transaction systems, including that for OfficeExpress (http://www.officexpress.com) "We are applying our expertise in high-end transaction systems to the design for the system. This is an exceptional opportunity." RNDNetwork expects the system to be in testing over the next six weeks, with an initial operational model in late August or early September. +++++ Contact Information: RNDNetwork.com Incorporated http://www.rndnetwork.com Ged Gasperas, CEO 1071 Dolores Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 285-9787 fax (415) 285-9788 mailto:gasperas@rndnetwork.com All other organizations can be reached through email from their respective websites. +++++ ------- End of Forwarded Message

9 14

Strange things which should never happen (was Re: RFC 1918)
by Sean Donelan 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007141956280.95155-100000(a)overlord.e-gerbil.net>, "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> wrote: > I still have not seen a single compelling arguement which says you gain > one bit more security by filtering RFC1918-source'd packets. It is useless > at best, and disruptive at worst. I don't know my TCP/IP stack well enough, but what happens when a host with multiple interfaces, one of which is assigned an RFC1918 address, receives an packet through another interface with a source address the same RFC1918 address. Are the stacks smart enough to realize the packet is really an external packet, or will they assume the packet came from inside.

2 1

Re: RFC 1918
by Michael Shields 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007141956280.95155-100000(a)overlord.e-gerbil.net>, "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> wrote: > I still have not seen a single compelling arguement which says you gain > one bit more security by filtering RFC1918-source'd packets. It is useless > at best, and disruptive at worst. No correct configuration will send me packets with a source address from RFC 1918 space. In a correct world, such filters will have no effect. Only packets from the incorrect world will be hit by these filters. As a matter of network policy, I do not wish to speak to incorrect hosts, whatever their intentions. If being unable to connect to MSRL hosts causes people to fix their incorrect configurations, I am pleased. If it causes them to be upset, I am indifferent. The smoothly running Internet is the set of standards-compliant hosts. We must guard against incorrectness with a steady, ruthless, automated hand. -- Shields.

1 0

RE: Piracy on parade.
by Exiled Dave 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

Geeze paul. People have been dealing with impersonation for eternity. Just because you get impersonated by a few people you want to put the entire list under marshall law? I hope you dont ever run a country. Let YOUR actions speak louder than impersonated words ("Paul would NEVER say that...") Dont you have some bugs to fix in bind or something? Instead of whining about other people's actions, bring yours up to par first. (exiled!dave) http://www.tch.org/~ser/wtf2.jpg (Jason Legate) >Agreed, there is far too much impersonation happening >on this list, I am >sure that Bandy Rush would agree with me as well. To >have malicious people >abuse our good names is just unacceptable. > >Vaul Pixie - vaul(a)wayabove.net > >>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:24:42 -0400 >>From: Dmitri Krioukov <dima(a)krioukov.net> >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: RE: piracy on parade >> >>wouldn't it to be a right time >>to get list moderated? >> >>thanks, >>-- >>dima. >_____________________________________________________>_________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

2 1

The state of NANOG
by Richard A. Steenbergen 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

<rant> At the risk of generating more useless traffic that noone cares about, could please try and show a little more maturity on NANOG? The occational diversion is nice, but noone wants to sort through spoof mails from "Vaul Pixie" or "Bandy Rush" every day to fill someone's #nanog or #cisco vanity fix. Noone wants to hear about the personal tales and tribulations of .god and the little roach that could. Noone wants to hear the latest rant about the moral righteousness of someone's spam or RFC1918 filters. NANOG is NOT the replacement for whois and a phone book, if you can't get ahold of someone from some of these company's you havn't tried hard enough (for example, if you're looking for an abovenet engineer, why don't you try mailing noc(a)above.net, I'm sure you'll find one), and if you want to post messages and then ignore your private responses you don't need to tell us about it. And for the love of god, if you can't read a book, try asking your Alcatel coworkers about your beginner questions before you make a useless post to NANOG. If we wanted to read these things we'd subscribe to inet-access. Please, no reply's to this (cc'd 4 times) with "I agree", no ensueing debate on making NANOG moderated, no spoofed CERT advisories about the insecurities of "Vaul Pixie", just realize that its time to knock it off, and maybe stop to think before you open your mail composer. </rant> -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

None
by Vaul Pixie 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: piracy on parade
by Vaul Pixie 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

Agreed, there is far too much impersonation happening on this list, I am sure that Bandy Rush would agree with me as well. To have malicious people abuse our good names is just unacceptable. Vaul Pixie - vaul(a)wayabove.net >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:24:42 -0400 >From: Dmitri Krioukov <dima(a)krioukov.net> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: RE: piracy on parade > >wouldn't it to be a right time >to get list moderated? > >thanks, >-- >dima. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

None
by Vaul Pixie 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: RFC 1918
by Michael Shields 15 Jul '00

15 Jul '00

In article <20000714194722.AD3EA35DC2(a)smb.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(a)research.att.com> wrote: > No -- 1918 addresses would only break PMTU if folks did ingress or > egress filtering for 1918 addresses. It is easy to argue that using interface 1918 addresses and PMTUD are incompatible with connecting to the Internet, for PMTUD requires sending an ICMP message with the source address of the interface, and using 1918 space on the Internet is not allowed. RFC 1918 section 3: "In order to use private address space, an enterprise needs to determine which hosts do not need to have network layer connectivity outside the enterprise in the foreseeable future and thus could be classified as private. Such hosts will use the private address space defined above. [...] However, they cannot have IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise." "Indirect references to such addresses should be contained within the enterprise. Prominent examples of such references are DNS Resource Records and other information referring to internal private addresses. In particular, Internet service providers should take measures to prevent such leakage." -- Shields.

3 2