- Test - lists.nanog.org

AS discovery tools / CAIDA
by curtis l owings 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

A while back I saw a demo of an applet that would display AS number as they connect to each other and a color indication of the number of route flaps within each AS. But, of course, my memory is too poor to remember which NANOG conference it was or what the name of the tool was. I'm specifically looking for a tool that will show an AS and what other networks connect to it (I don't really care about route flaps). I've done a quick scan of the NANOG site and CAIDA, but didn't find it. ____________________________________________ Curtis Owings phone: 913-534-2322 Sprint Broadband cell: 913-706-6157 BSC Engineer page: 1-800-724-3508 OP, KS <clowings(a)sprintparanet.com> ____________________________________________ "Your enemy is not evil in his own mind."

6 6

Read an email, lose your privacy
by Henry R. Linneweh 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

http://www.sunworld.com/sunworldonline/swol-01-2000/swol-01-silicon.html -- Thank you; |--------------------------------------------| | Thinking is a learned process so is UNIX | |--------------------------------------------| Henry R. Linneweh

3 2

Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
by Sean Donelan 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

On Mon, 10 January 2000, "Forrest W. Christian" wrote: > Remember, that the purpose of this is for someone to be able to find the > "correct" server to provide the services which a roaming user will find at > different locations depending on where they are dialing in, thus, a > config for a user would be: > > DNS Servers - varies by location > SMTP server - varies by location > pop3/imap server - always home isp > time server - varies by location > > etc.... > > Thus the table would only list those services which should vary based on > where the user is dialing in/connecting. I disagree. You are making the assumption that servers are identical except for location, or that "local" users are always allowed to use the servers.

1 0

Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion
by Hank Nussbacher 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

At 10:42 10/01/00 -0500, wb8foz(a)nrk.com wrote: > > >Section8er said: > > >> I've already spoken with FBI about juridiction. FBI considers crimes >> against US computers to be US crimes, even when initiated from foriegn >> countries. They can extradite for this. > >OK. Call us back when you can tell us the flight number and arrival >time for the folks in handcuffs. I'll get friends in the media to >show up to see same. Why not just get the flight number and punch it into: http://flight.thetrip.com/flightstatus/ and then decide whether you want to wait till he lands or not. :-) -Hank > >Until then, go back to what you were smoking, and be sure it hide it >when the census taker knocks at the door; I bet DEA pays them >bounties for likely targets. > > > >-- >A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com >& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX >Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 >is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > >

1 0

Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
by Vadim Antonov 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

Randy Bush wrote: >> I hear it was one of the first Internet's ideas - to declare well-known >> addresses in addition to the well known ports. > and notice that, in general, it did not catch on. and in the few places it > did, it's been a continual pain in the ass. bad-idea fairy strikes again. Well, the idea to attach FQDNs to services, not to computers, is pretty sound; and could (if implemented) concievably replace lots of ad-hockery like MX RRs, "virtual" HTTP servers, etc, etc. WKS RRs weren't doing that - the boundary between host names and service names was still in place; so WKS RRs were simply redundant. Following the logic of lazylution they quietly died off. --vadim

3 2

Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion
by Shawn McMahon 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

You better hope a court strikes that interpretation down, Dean. If it holds, then it would mean that the reverse could also be true. Imagine one of your users posts something defamatory to the Chinese government on their web site, and a Chinese web browser picks it up. Congratulations, your network just sent information into China that violates Chinese law. Better hope we don't sign an extradition treaty with them any time soon. Similar crimes, albeit with less nasty punishments, could happen with countries with which we *DO* have extradition treaties. This is a can of worms that will bite us all in the ass, if opened. Fortunately, I doubt that you'll get far. I sure hope you don't. I'd hate to see what happens if, say, somebody uses my email server to send a death threat to, say, the President of France. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Anderson" <dean(a)av8.com> To: "Adrian J Close" <adrian(a)esec.com.au> Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion > I've already spoken with FBI about juridiction. FBI considers crimes > against US computers to be US crimes, even when initiated from foriegn > countries. They can extradite for this. That it originated from NZ isn't > an issue. While the FBI agreed that these were indeed violations, my > initial complaint was not prosecuted because we could at the time only come > up with $900 in damages. We are closing on the $100K mark, where I'll make > an updated complaint, which I hope will get more attention.

5 5

Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
by J.D. Falk 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

On 01/10/00, Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> wrote: > There exists a DHCP option for specifying the SMTP server for a client > to use (option 69). This could be used in the case of DSL and cable > modems, but I'm unaware of anyone actually using it. I also haven't seen > anything to lead me to believe mail client applications have any way to > get this from the local system should the value be negotiated. Yes, I was about to post this as well. In fact, DHCP has all sorts of room for specifying things like this...but we have yet to see 'em implemented anywhere. The days of upgrading the entire Internet within six months are long, long past. ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> =========--------- | "UNIX is the answer, | | but only if you phrase the question very carefully." | | -- Jonathan H N Chin | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----

1 0

Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
by Joe Abley 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:01:49AM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: > >Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP relAy (SALSA :) > > > An alternative is to provide a method for a mail client to discover a > > suitable local smart relay in some dynamic fashion. This requires some > > ubiquitous, global, standard database which every operator uses... > > ... like the DNS. > > That's much too complicated. What we need are some well-known IP > addresses, analogous to well-known ports, that are not routable on the > global Internet, but that are assigned to standard services within > each network, e.g.: I think that both approaches have some merit, and neither are without complication. For example, the overloaded well-known-address approach might lead to operational confusion in the event that a temporary ISP doesn't provide the well-known service to a roaming user: + outbound packets from the user might spiral off into the default free zone, ultimately never connecting to anything + connection requests might follow the temporary ISP's default out to their transit provider who _does_ support the address, and that relay (correctly) refuses to relay for the user + the real identity of the well-known relay box that a given user connects to might change with time, making it harder to support the user This is going to provide operational confusion, I think. In this respect, at least, the MX idea works more cleanly in the event that there are _no_ MX records to be found. Interesting idea, though; thanks for mentioning it. It seems from some of the mail I have received that there is some interest in this idea. Rather than cluttering up NANOG any further, I'll take it to the roamops wg list at roamops(a)tdmx.rutgers.edu. Joe

1 0

Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
by darcy＠druid.net 10 Jan '00

10 Jan '00

Thus spake John R. Levine > That's much too complicated. What we need are some well-known IP > addresses, analogous to well-known ports, that are not routable on the > global Internet, but that are assigned to standard services within > each network, e.g.: > > 10.255.255.1 - DNS server > 10.255.255.2 - SMTP server > 10.255.255.3 - SOCKS server > 10.255.255.4 - Web proxy > > (Probably it's not a good idea to use network 10 here, better to > reclaim a /24 from the swamp or allocate a fresh one.) > > Now you set up your mail client to use 10.255.255.2 for SMTP, and wherever > you're connected, it'll be the local SMTP server. > > >Advantages > > 0. Works with all existing mail clients, no code changes needed, just a > one-time configuration. Once this is widely accepted, MTAs would > ship with it as the factory default. > > Some people have suggested something similar with a well-known-service > pseudo-TLD that each network's DNS servers would serve up with the > appropriate values for that network, e.g. > > smtp.wks > socks.wks > webproxy.wks > > I like that less because, as previously noted, lots of people never > change their DNS config when they switch ISPs or roam, so they'd get > the info for the wrong network. Better to use IPs which you know will > be routed by the routers for the network to which you are actually > connected. Why not both? Instead of a private TLD, make a real one (wks.merit.edu?) and assign the numbers there. That way it doesn't matter who your DNS server is. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(a){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

3 2

Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion
by Dean Anderson 10 Jan '00

10 Jan '00

Around 11:59 AM 1/9/2000 +1100, rumor has it that Adrian J Close said: >On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Dean Anderson wrote: > >> Umm, for the record, I do make such an accusation. When they probe a >> non-public government computer, they are violating 18 USC 1030 Sections >> 2(b), 2(c), and 3. Those are criminal violations. You simply may not > >These may be criminal violations of US law, but I'm pretty sure New >Zealand is a sovereign nation with its own government, laws and legal >system. I think you'll have some trouble convincing the NZ government to >allow the ORBS maintainer(s) to be extradited, especially seeing as the >"crime" was committed on NZ soil where it likely isn't illegal. I've already spoken with FBI about juridiction. FBI considers crimes against US computers to be US crimes, even when initiated from foriegn countries. They can extradite for this. That it originated from NZ isn't an issue. While the FBI agreed that these were indeed violations, my initial complaint was not prosecuted because we could at the time only come up with $900 in damages. We are closing on the $100K mark, where I'll make an updated complaint, which I hope will get more attention. >This is notionally pretty similar to what ORBS are doing in SMTP-relay >land, which is understandable if you subscribe to their assertion that >third-party relay is a "bad thing". If you need third party relay and >deal with spammers in other ways, then ORBS become pretty annoying. Of >course, you could always just ignore them... We do ignore them. They are pretty ineffective at causing any mail problems for us. Which is another good reason not to use them. However, they enable spammers to find relays. Particularly annoying to me is they enable spammers to find our relay. When ORBS was blocked from 11/24 to 12/15, our relay troubles stopped. Spammers can't relay without a list of relays. ORBS provides that list. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4 3