- Test - lists.nanog.org

Internet coordination effort for the New Year
by Sean Donelan 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

I have a fair amount of participation. Interestingly enough no one reported they were already participating in a reporting channel. I have coverage from ISPs, academic and maybe some data from a few exchange points. I'll be sending out details to those people by the end of November. I would also like to get some coverage from large-scale web hosting people and large-scale multi-play game sites. They both seem to track their network performance closely. Also, does anyone have a contact at Keynote or Inverse? The people I knew have moved on. Perhaps most worrisome is I've seen several "consultants" recommending to customers to shutdown their e-mail over the new year's weekend. Unfortunately this could create a mail jam, and a large traffic load when they turn the e-mail back on the following Monday.

2 1

CISCO ISO version 12.0 (5)
by K. Graham 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

Following Hyun's lead I am also looking for information concerning CISCO ISO version 12.0 (5). At present we are running Version 11.3(8)DB1 on our Cisco 6400. We are using this equipment for our DSL deployment. Due to some implementation issues we need to try a more recent version of software to see if it will eliminate a high CPU utilization which causes a us to reset the blade. Unfortunately we do not have a long testing period, if any, and would appreciate any information you can send our way. Feel free to reply to my directly or to the list. Kim Graham Network Analyst kgraham(a)ican.net

1 0

Re: stability of IOS 12.0(5)T1
by Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

Yes, I know, Paul. But last time when we tried to upgrade to 12.0(7)S, there was some strange thing happened. If you read the previous email that I sent, you can understand the situation. For your convenience, the situation was as follow. We runned IOS 11.2(12a)P on our Cisco 7507. For compatability of new hardware, we tried to upgrade IOS to 12.0(7)S. When we upgraded to 12.0(7)S, there was some abnormal thing happened. Each traffic from the other interface didn't go through another interface. Router doesn't work as router. ;< We tried something, but it didn't work. So we went back to previous IOS version. Basically we put both version to flash PCMCIA card memory. Because of that, it didn't take long time. After that, I got some responses from you guys. It was that IOS 12.0 or 11.0.(?)CC has some unstable fact related to "ip cef" or Routing cache management. Hyun "Paul G. Donner" <pdonner(a)cisco.com> on 11/18/99 10:03:33 AM To: "Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight" <HRyu(a)norlight.com> cc: (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight) Fax to: Subject: Re: stability of IOS 12.0(5)T1 For stability, the best thing to do is contact the TAC. However, turning off caching and CEF will force your router into process switching mode. Process switching mode is the slowest form of forwarding. Do you really want to do this? Then you essentially obviate the need for the 7500 processing power and the only thing left is the benefit of aggregation. You need to look at what features you require and talk with the TAC about this and then find a stable version (if you haven't already done this)... basedon the ffeatures you need and the load you put on the box. Of course, if you don't need the horsepower, then this is a different issue. -Donner At 09:53 AM 11/18/1999 -0600, you wrote: > >Dear folks, > >Thank you for your kind comment about IOS 12.0(7)S. >I got a lot of response from nanog-pals. :-) >According to that comment and Cisco's recommend, >we will try another IOS version, 12.0(5)T1. >Currently we have Cisco 7507 and 2 physical HSSI interface >(one is VIP2 module), 3 HSSI software interface (because of VIP2 module). >And we put the PA-2T3+ card on Cisco 7507 for another connection. >Problem is that PA-2T3+ can be recognized only by 11.1.(?)CC, 12.0(?)T, or >12.0(?)S version. >Cisco guy said that 12.0(?)S version is too early. >So we will try 12.0(5)T1 on monday morning. >Our Cisco 7507 has one RSP4 card with 256MB RAM. > >Is there anyone have experience with 12.0(5)T1? >Is it stable? >If it is not stable, we have only one option remaining, 11.1(?)CC. >Please tell me your experiences. > >Basically we will try to turn off "ip cef" and "ip route-cache" option, >too. > >I appreciate your comment. >Thanks in advance. > >Hyun > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Hyunseog Ryu >Network Engineer/Applications Engineering >Norlight Telecommunications, Inc. >275 North Corporate Drive >Brookfield, WI 53045-5818 >Tel. +1.262.792.7965 >Fax. +1.262.792.7733 > > > Paul Donner Consulting Engineering Office of the CTO Internet Architecture ciscoSystems, Inc. Hyun

1 0

stability of IOS 12.0(5)T1
by Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

Dear folks, Thank you for your kind comment about IOS 12.0(7)S. I got a lot of response from nanog-pals. :-) According to that comment and Cisco's recommend, we will try another IOS version, 12.0(5)T1. Currently we have Cisco 7507 and 2 physical HSSI interface (one is VIP2 module), 3 HSSI software interface (because of VIP2 module). And we put the PA-2T3+ card on Cisco 7507 for another connection. Problem is that PA-2T3+ can be recognized only by 11.1.(?)CC, 12.0(?)T, or 12.0(?)S version. Cisco guy said that 12.0(?)S version is too early. So we will try 12.0(5)T1 on monday morning. Our Cisco 7507 has one RSP4 card with 256MB RAM. Is there anyone have experience with 12.0(5)T1? Is it stable? If it is not stable, we have only one option remaining, 11.1(?)CC. Please tell me your experiences. Basically we will try to turn off "ip cef" and "ip route-cache" option, too. I appreciate your comment. Thanks in advance. Hyun ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hyunseog Ryu Network Engineer/Applications Engineering Norlight Telecommunications, Inc. 275 North Corporate Drive Brookfield, WI 53045-5818 Tel. +1.262.792.7965 Fax. +1.262.792.7733

2 1

Re: TrACESroute 6.0 release
by Martin Cooper 18 Nov '99

18 Nov '99

Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> wrote: > Announcing the All New TrACESroute 6.0 GOLD! > > At the suggestion of several nanog readers, my traceroute 2.9.4 has been > renumbered to The All New TrACESroute 6.0 GOLD. Note that this is a > higher revision level than either Netscape 4.8, IE5, or AOL 5, and is > therefore the clearly superior software.* [...] > * In the United Kingdom, please consider this superiour software. Annoyingly perhaps, it's still "superior" at Hyde Park corner... ;-) M.

1 0

Fiber fights back
by David Lesher 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

The Precision Backhoe Team is back. This afternoon, they hit a 2" diameter natural gas line outside a DC Public School building. The school was already closed for parent-teacher conferences; they were cancelled. -- 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

Port 43 Whois Announcement
by Newell, Tom 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

An FYI of an operational nature....... --Tom Director of gTLD Programs NSI Registry ########################################## Redirecting Port 43 Whois The following change is being made to comply with the recently negotiated and signed agreements between the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN, and NSI. Effective December 1, 1999 Network Solutions will be redirecting port 43 (rs.internic.net) Whois from the NSI Registrar Whois to the NSI Registry Whois. The NSI Registry Whois can currently be found at whois.nsiregistry.net. After this occurs, port 43 Whois will show the following information: domain name, registrar, Whois server, registrar referral URL and the names of the name servers associated with the domain. To obtain registrant and domain name contact information, users will need to refer to the Whois service provided by the registrar for the domain name. Send questions or comments to whois(a)nsiregistry.net.

7 6

Re: Port 43 Whois Announcement
by Dean Anderson 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

This isn't nonsense. Its a necessary part of having multiple registrars. This whois is used to avoid namespace collisions between registrars, as well as find the appropriate registrar for a domain. My question (should just test I suppose) is if the rwhois client will automatically query the delegated whois server for the rest of the information. Now that might be useful... --Dean Around 03:40 PM 11/16/1999 -0500, rumor has it that William Allen Simpson said: > >What nonsense is this? > >The registrant and contact information should be in the same >records as the name servers. After all, that's why we called >it "whois", not something else. We want the "who" part, so that >we can contact them! > >Please quote the exact language in the MoU that describes removing >the "who" from whois? > >"Newell, Tom" wrote: >> >> An FYI of an operational nature....... >> >> --Tom >> Director of gTLD Programs >> NSI Registry >> >> ########################################## >> >> Redirecting Port 43 Whois >> >> The following change is being made to comply with the recently >> negotiated and signed agreements between the U.S. Department of >> Commerce, ICANN, and NSI. >> >> Effective December 1, 1999 Network Solutions will be redirecting >> port 43 (rs.internic.net) Whois from the NSI Registrar Whois to >> the NSI Registry Whois. The NSI Registry Whois can currently be >> found at whois.nsiregistry.net. After this occurs, port 43 Whois >> will show the following information: domain name, registrar, Whois >> server, registrar referral URL and the names of the name servers >> associated with the domain. To obtain registrant and domain name >> contact information, users will need to refer to the Whois service >> provided by the registrar for the domain name. >> >> Send questions or comments to whois(a)nsiregistry.net. > >-- > >WSimpson(a)UMich.edu > Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: Port 43 Whois Announcement
by nicholas harteau 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

As Derek _very_ politely pointed out, I am, in fact, retarded. Derek J. Balling wrote: > I don't know about that... did you follow the directions they thoughtfully > provided for you? > > $ whois -h whois.nsiregistry.net. =wisc.edu > > Whois Server Version 1.1 > > Server Name: WISC.EDU > IP Address: 128.104.30.27 > Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. > Whois Server: rs.internic.net > Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com > > > > Domain Name: WISC.EDU > Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. > Whois Server: rs.internic.net > Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com > Name Server: CS.WISC.EDU > Name Server: DNS.CS.WISC.EDU > Name Server: DNS2.ITD.UMICH.EDU > Name Server: DNS2.CS.WISC.EDU > > > NSI can hardly be responsible if WISC.EDU wants to name a host WISC.EDU in > the database. > > I'll let you point out your own mistake on the list, if you so choose. :) > > D > > > > At 06:13 PM 11/16/99 -0600, you wrote: > > >I think they've still got some bugs to work out: > > > >[nrh@squig ~] whois -h whois.nsiregistry.net. wisc.edu > > > >Whois Server Version 1.1 > > > >WISC.EDU > >WISC.EDU > > > >To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the > >of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up > >with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record. > > > > >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 16 Nov 99 01:16:23 EST <<< > > > >The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and > >Registrars. > > > > > >Newell, Tom wrote: > > > > > > An FYI of an operational nature....... > > > > > > --Tom > > > Director of gTLD Programs > > > NSI Registry > > > > > > ########################################## > > > > > > Redirecting Port 43 Whois > > > > > > The following change is being made to comply with the recently > > > negotiated and signed agreements between the U.S. Department of > > > Commerce, ICANN, and NSI. > > > > > > Effective December 1, 1999 Network Solutions will be redirecting > > > port 43 (rs.internic.net) Whois from the NSI Registrar Whois to > > > the NSI Registry Whois. The NSI Registry Whois can currently be > > > found at whois.nsiregistry.net. After this occurs, port 43 Whois > > > will show the following information: domain name, registrar, Whois > > > server, registrar referral URL and the names of the name servers > > > associated with the domain. To obtain registrant and domain name > > > contact information, users will need to refer to the Whois service > > > provided by the registrar for the domain name. > > > > > > Send questions or comments to whois(a)nsiregistry.net. > > > >-- > >nicholas harteau > >nrh(a)ikami.com -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 0

RE: Port 43 Whois Announcement
by Newell, Tom 16 Nov '99

16 Nov '99

Bill Simpson asked: "Please quote the exact language in the MoU that describes removing the "who" from whois?" The requirement for changing Port 43 whois responses is detailed in Amendment 19, Para 3A as available at the ICANN web site at: http://www.icann.org/nsi/coopagmt-amend19-04nov99.htm 3. InterNIC A. Within six months from the effective date of this amendment (the "Transition Period"), NSI shall transfer the internic.com, internic.org and internic.net SLD names to the Department of Commerce. Beginning within twenty-one days of this amendment and until NSI has completed such transfer, NSI shall provide port 43 Whois access to registry data through rs.internic.net. Such Whois service shall return, in addition to the requested registry data, a message stating: "Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information." This requirement was inserted at the request of the registrar community to the ICANN board. The NSI Registry is committed to working within the IETF process towards a more ubiquitous solution (ala draft-faltstrom-whois-02.txt). --Tom -----Original Message----- From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:wsimpson@greendragon.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 3:40 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: whois(a)nsiregistry.net Subject: Re: Port 43 Whois Announcement What nonsense is this? The registrant and contact information should be in the same records as the name servers. After all, that's why we called it "whois", not something else. We want the "who" part, so that we can contact them! Please quote the exact language in the MoU that describes removing the "who" from whois? "Newell, Tom" wrote: > > An FYI of an operational nature....... > > --Tom > Director of gTLD Programs > NSI Registry > > ########################################## > > Redirecting Port 43 Whois > > The following change is being made to comply with the recently > negotiated and signed agreements between the U.S. Department of > Commerce, ICANN, and NSI. > > Effective December 1, 1999 Network Solutions will be redirecting > port 43 (rs.internic.net) Whois from the NSI Registrar Whois to > the NSI Registry Whois. The NSI Registry Whois can currently be > found at whois.nsiregistry.net. After this occurs, port 43 Whois > will show the following information: domain name, registrar, Whois > server, registrar referral URL and the names of the name servers > associated with the domain. To obtain registrant and domain name > contact information, users will need to refer to the Whois service > provided by the registrar for the domain name. > > Send questions or comments to whois(a)nsiregistry.net. -- WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

3 2