- Test - lists.nanog.org

ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Henry R. Linneweh 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy the problem as it exists. Henry

4 3

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Patrick Greenwell 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > That is not entirely true. > > I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think > that there will be a change in the root server > operators or placement of servers. As an operator > I've been paying attention to this and think I understand > whats going on. Certainly. First, operation of the "A" root server is going to be turned over at the direction of the Department of Commerce. Second, at present one or more root server operators is refusing to sign a contract with ICANN. Third, it is my understanding that the current "l.root-server.net" server is(was?) being designated as the new authoratative "A" server(corrections welcome.) > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead > > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you > > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. > > mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of > root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the > "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they > may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot > like a hash to me... Umm, he who controls the root servers, controls domain names. I'd say they're pretty related issues. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

1 0

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Patrick Greenwell 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Henry R. Linneweh wrote: > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > the problem as it exists. I am going to stick to the operational comments: ICANN plans on taking control of the root servers. It is my understanding that the current "l.root-servers.net" server is being designated as the new authoratative source server. NSI is under contract to turn over the A root server at the order of the Department of Commerce which they have said they will do. I have links to news articles and such at: http://stealthgeeks.net/background.html /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

1 0

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Patrick Greenwell 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > the problem as it exists. > > > > Henry > > As I understand it, the root servers will stay put, > where they are and operated by the current group of operators. That is not entirely true. > Methinks the reporter here has a serious misunderstanding of > the issues. As to the "problem that exists", I can only hope that > you are right and we only have a single "problem". I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

1 0

Ham radio & Major Outages (Was: Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX)
by George Herbert 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

John Fraizer <John.Fraizer(a)EnterZone.Net> writes: >Joe Shaw wrote: >>This is why HAM radios and the appropriate licenses can come in very >>handy, especially in cases of emergency or natural disaster. Does anyone >>in the business use RF for backup communications? > >You mean we're not ALL licensed amateurs? ;-) While it's a useful thing for people to have, keep in mind that amateur radio has significant limitations. While you're allowed to do more or less anything you have to during an emergency situation with lives at stake, supporting your commercial activities using ham bands is a no-no, even in a widescale "emergency/outage" situation... If anyone wants tactical comms for your company during a complete telco outage, then get some commercial radio sets and a frequency allocation. It's relatively painless. The new cellphones that have direct phone-to-phone capabilities *may* stay up if their cell service goes down, but I don't know the mechanism in detail so check with your resident expert. Using "CB" bands and walkie-talkies may work, if they don't get innundated with other people trying to do the same thing. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com KD6WUQ

1 0

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > > the problem as it exists. > > > > > > Henry > > > > As I understand it, the root servers will stay put, > > where they are and operated by the current group of operators. > > That is not entirely true. I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think that there will be a change in the root server operators or placement of servers. As an operator I've been paying attention to this and think I understand whats going on. > > Methinks the reporter here has a serious misunderstanding of > > the issues. As to the "problem that exists", I can only hope that > > you are right and we only have a single "problem". > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot like a hash to me... > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com > (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f > "This is our time. It will not come again." > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --bill

1 0

911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by Sean Donelan 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

At the last NANOG several folks chuckled when I pointed out that many real emergency plans include sending a FAX as a backup when the phones don't work. I thought I would pass this news story along. http://www.cjonline.com/stories/070399/com_phonesout.shtml -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

8 7

Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by John Fraizer 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

At 02:22 AM 7/4/99 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote: > > >This is why HAM radios and the appropriate licenses can come in very >handy, especially in cases of emergency or natural disaster. Does anyone >in the business use RF for backup communications? You mean we're not ALL licensed amateurs? ;-) ------------ John Fraizer ------------ mailto:john.fraizer@EnterZone.Net http://www.EnterZone.Net http://www.EZ-Hosting.Net http://www.EZ-IP.Net ------------------------------------------ | __ _ | | | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice | | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU | | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation | | | | ------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by Sean Donelan 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

michael(a)memra.COM (Michael Dillon) writes: >So as part of your New Year's Eve plans this year, all NOCs in buildings >with elevators should make arrangements with their building >superintendents for one of those keys that allows you to lock an elevator >open at a specific floor. I've done this before. Even have a 500ft spool of terminated telephone cable from Radio Shack just for running down hallways and shafts. However, its a really bad idea. The maintenance key on the elevator overrides the fireman(person)'s recall circuit, and cause problems if a real emergency happens in the building. Besides, don't you people have butt sets anyway? I'm a bit disappointed no one picked up the real lesson about using FAX as a means to distribute emergency notifications. The lack of receipt confirmation in the Topeka case. Most EOC's have multiple ways to reach the media from the emergency alert system (This is a test...), or dispatching a police cruiser to courier the message to the media. If you use a 'BlastFax' product to distribute your media alerts, you need to check the log to see which ones failed. You also need to follow up with key editors and station managers to make sure someone actually picked up the fax off the machine. If you can't make contact via one method, you try the next contact method. There are lots of different contact methods. Each of their advantages, and their drawbacks. HAM radio works better during the recovery phases than during the alert/warning phase. Even radio networks like STORMWATCH have activation problems for unexpected severe weather. Satellite phones have vulnerability in their earth-based switches. AP newswire and CNN do better on national/international events, but aren't so good for communicating with smaller interests. Even the military systems have had interesting failures. Most of us are aware of the vulnerabilities affecting pagers, cell phones, wirelines, etc. The goal is to have a mix of contact methods, in the hope they won't all be out of service at the same time. One key thing to remember about using less common communication methods is the difficulty of training your staff on a long-term basis. If you've never acted as an observer for a disaster or disaster drill, you won't believe how confused even trained people become trying to use some of these systems. Things which change how they are used when in 'backup' mode (e.g. phones on the PBX which switch to direct lines when the PBX fails) are very confusing because they 'work' but not how people are used to them working. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid is the rule. Although folks keep referring to what they are doing on December 31, that really isn't a good enough reason to spend the time or effort on this. Some other disaster is just going to come along and do you in on some other date you weren't expecting. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: NSI/Internic operational announcement list
by Dean Robb 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

At 07:18 PM 7/3/99 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: >On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Dean Robb wrote: > >> >> Now, Paul...you KNOW that customer service and NSI are mutually exclusive >> terms. >> >> I'm still waiting for their 'Internet Ombudsman' to be named. How long can >> it take to find someone to do it? > >Is this a position where someone gets to take all the comments and >criticisms as to how NSI is screwing up and pass them along? > >Sign me up. :-) That's the theory, anyway. It was announced a couple of weeks ago on the DOMAIN-POLICY list by an open letter from the new CEO of NSI (whose name escapes me at the moment). Supposedly this person will have unfettered access to the Top Brass and will bring to them issues we in the user world have as well as solicit feedback on NSI plans. I'm taking a very wait-and-see attitude on this one - I've heard far too much hot air from NSI to believe it until I see it. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of ICANN?" Dean Robb Owner, PC-EASY (757) 495-EASY [3279] On-site computer repairs, upgrades and consultations Lead SimOps columnist/reviewer on http://WWW.TheGamers.Net

2 1