- Test - lists.nanog.org

Root Server Problems
by Justin M. Wilson 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

Did they lose a little bit of their database over the weekend? Exhibit 1 (Database Record Showing Existing Domain): Domain Name: JSJ4.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com Name Server: ORION.SRA.COM Name Server: PYXIS.SRA.COM Exhibit 2 (Lookups Showing Working DNS On Both Nameservers): > server orion.sra.com Default Server: orion.sra.com Address: 151.200.85.103 > www.jsj4.com Server: orion.sra.com Address: 151.200.85.103 Name: www.jsj4.com Address: 151.200.85.114 > server pyxis.sra.com Default Server: pyxis.sra.com Address: 151.200.85.111 > www.jsj4.com Server: pyxis.sra.com Address: 151.200.85.111 Name: www.jsj4.com Address: 151.200.85.114 Exhibit 3 (Response of Sample Root Server): > jsj4.com. Server: f.root-servers.net Address: 192.5.5.241 *** f.root-servers.net can't find jsj4.com.: Non-existent host/domain Exhibit 4 (Ordinary Response of Root Server, When Encountered With Working Domain): > cavtel.org. Server: f.root-servers.net Address: 192.5.5.241 Name: cavtel.org Served by: - DNS01.CAVTEL.NET 205.160.16.10 cavtel.org - DNS02.CAVTEL.NET 205.160.17.10 cavtel.org ---- Justin M. Wilson justin(a)justin.net justin(a)cavtel.net justin.wilson(a)vcu.edu

3 2

Independent rating service of colocation facilities
by Sean Donelan 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Is there an independent rating service of colocation and hosting facilities. For example, when a hosting company claims they have "Class A" space (whatever that means), does anyone actually check? Or if there isn't, would people be interested in such a service similar to what Underwriters Laboratories or Factory Mutual does for alarm monitoring central offices; but for Internet colocation and hosting facilities?

2 1

through puts
by Tatsuya Kawasaki 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Hi nanog, Say customer has 64K connection, what is consider acceptable "real" speed? I know it seems that because of compression, you get higher speed. Does anyone has any info on this. Tatsuya /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Tatsuya Kawasaki Allegiance Telecom Unlock the Power of the Internet http://www.kivex.com Phone 301.215.6777 Fax 301.215.5991 Affiliation given for identification not representation /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

1 0

Re: remember the lesson of the sendsys bomb
by Sean Donelan 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

On Tue, 04 January 2000, "Alex P. Rudnev" wrote: > What was you talking about? Wait a few days and compare the bills; don't wonder > seen '290% fee or 1024 hours/day', or 'we can not measure your login time'. > > Real problems are waiting for us yet. How will you be able to tell? Some companies have never sent me a correct bill on the first try the entire time I was a custoemr. I doubt they will suddenly be able to send me a correct bill just because its now the year 2000. There will be small glitches in various systems, but you will never hear about them because most will be fixed before too many customers notice. More likely things will get blamed on Y2K which are really dumb operator errors.

2 1

Agenda topics for NANOG18
by Susan R. Harris 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Greetings everyone - here are topics we've lined up so far for NANOG18 in San Jose (February 6-8). Further information is available on the Web: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0002/ ------------------------------------------------ - State-of-the-Art Multicast: A User's View Dave Meyer, Cisco - Does BGP Solve the Shortest-Paths Problem? Timothy Griffin, Bell Labs - Building an MPLS Exchange Point Steve Feldman, MCI WorldCom - The Need for Improved Connectivity in Tier 2-4 Markets John Brown, iHighway - Sweden in 2005: 5 Mbit to Every Household Peter Lothberg, Sprint - What to Expect from BIND9 Paul Vixie, Internet Software Consortium - Large-scale Mail Server Architectures Hakan Millroth, Bluetail - ARIN Update Kim Hubbard/ARIN staff - NSI Registry Root/gTLD Update Tom Newell and Mark Kosters, Network Solutions - The RIPE-NCC Routing Information Service (or, "Where Would You Have Gone Yesterday?") Henk Uijterwaal and Antony Antony, RIPE-NCC - The RIPE-NCC Test Traffic Measurements Project Henk Uijterwaal, RIPE-NCC - Protection Options for IP over Optical Transport Larry McAdams, Cisco - Exchange Point Updates - Japan Internet Exchange (JPIX): Yoshikazu Ikeda and Toshiki Ueda - PAIX.NET: Paul Vixie - LINX: Keith Mitchell - AADS: Andrew Schmidt - Ames Exchanges: Lance Tatman - Brazilian Internet Exchange (BIX): Reinaldo Penno Filo Sunday Tutorials ---------------- - IS-IS for ISPs (Howard Berkowitz, Gett Communications) - MPLS Traffic Engineering Overview (Robert Raszuk, Cisco) Monday Evening BOFs ------------------ - ARIN Micro Allocations (Cathy Wittbrodt, @Home, moderator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. Phone: 734.936.2100 Senior Science Writer Univ. of Michigan Fax: 734.647.3185 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

remember the lesson of the sendsys bomb
by Paul A Vixie 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

at the 1988 usenix in san francisco, rick adams of uunet ran the uucp bof and told a story of a forged sendsys message intended to melt somebody's inbox. this was timed to coincide with a usenix, since most news admins would be at the show rather than home watching their servers. (shows did not have terminal rooms at that time.) thus the cats were away the mice were at play. (sendsys, for those of you not in the news field, is a 'control message' that used to be used to get a news-neighbor to send their "sys" file via e-mail; this was used for debugging and early access controls on it were nonexistent.) well, most of the news servers by that time were configured to mail all such control messages to their local administrator, who could then approve them by hand if they weren't stupid and abusive (which they almost always were). so the forger's intent of inundating some victim's inbox with thousands of "sys" files from autoresponding systems seemed destined for some frustration. except that so many admins were away and had set up "vacation" autoresponders saying "hi, i'm at usenix, i'll be back on friday" and so few of these vacation robots had enough intelligence to not autorespond to other robotic e-mail such as "sendsys message received - approval required" that the news system ended up melting the victim's inbox ANYWAY. the lesson of the sendsys is that after a 24 or 36 hour period of continuous wakefulness, sean and alan and the rest are going to have to SLEEP. *that* will be the time when some perfectly normal event like a route spew or heavy flap or genetic IOS defect will make itself known, and *that* will be the time when Y2K finally kicks us all in the head. not because of the date change, but because everybody stayed awake too long and upset their normal vigilence.

3 2

Re: Mail problems, not microsoft
by Sean Donelan 03 Jan '00

03 Jan '00

On Mon, 03 January 2000, Simon Lockhart wrote: > >Similar minor problem here. An ancient version of GNU date was still > >in-use, and it didn't seem to like the year. > > > >$ date -d "`date`" > >date: invalid date. > > Indeed, date seems to be one of the things which required patching. On a > retired, unpatched, SunOS 4.1.3_U1 machine, date returned strange things So far most of the problem I've heard about involved people not installing patches for known issues before today. It would be interesting to see the traffic stats for Sun's, Oracle's, Microsoft's etc. download sites today as folks download the patches, which may have been available for a while, today.

1 0

Mail problems, not microsoft
by Sean Donelan 03 Jan '00

03 Jan '00

On Sun, 02 January 2000, Owen DeLong wrote: > I don't even assume that anyone elses mail system works, let > alone that it works this way, or even complies with the RFC's. > > There's way too much MicroSoft stuff out there to believe > any of that. I merely purport that the above is BCP. Actually I haven't heard of any Microsoft mail problems in the last two days. Almost all the problems have been with old UNIX mailers putting "100" as the year on messages.

4 3

Re: mail does bounce (was: Customers down?)
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 03 Jan '00

03 Jan '00

> > I know for certain that Postfix and Smail will immediately bounce a > > message when the domain is authoritatively non-existant. I'd be very > > surprised and dismayed if sendmail and all other true SMTP mailers did > > not do exactly the same thing. > > Sendmail most definitely does not, instead treating the error as a > transient error, issuing an SMTP error code in the 400 series, and > continuing to try to send the mail for up to five days (the default), > or whatever the mail server admin configured for that particular > server. > > I think I like it better that way. Just because both nameservers are > temporarily down doesn't mean the domain doesn't exist. :P Seems to me you're talking past one another. If all nameservers for a domain are down there *is* no nameserver which can say that the domain is authoritatively non-existent. (OK, you could get a negative caching answer from one of the authoritative servers on the level above, but that's a different issue...) I agree with Greg Woods - if a domain is authoritatively non-existent, I'd expect a sane mailer to bounce the message. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

4 3

Normal problems, only from small and medium ISPs
by Sean Donelan 03 Jan '00

03 Jan '00

Yesterday someone commented about the lack of "normal" problems you might expect on any day of the year. As far as I know, no large carrier, ISP or satellite company reported any problems Y2K or otherwise. Nevertheless small and medium ISPs continued to report the usual circuit problems and other issues right through the weekend. There did seem to be fewer trouble than average, but it wasn't zero. This was one of the issues I spoke about with the Feds earlier this summer, and one of the reasons why I pushed so hard to get reporting from small and medium ISPs. After all very few small and medium ISPs own their own facilities, so the circuit problems were likely in facilities owned by the larger carriers even though the carriers reported no problems. By listening to the small and medium providers, they would be more likely to hear about problems in the carrier facilities faster than the carriers would on their own. Last week one major carrier spokesperson was even quoted in an interview they were only going to report things required by the FCC, which as you know does not included any wireless or Internet problems.

1 0