- Test - lists.nanog.org

Geektools
by Rodney Joffe 25 Mar '99

25 Mar '99

One of the neat requests we've had to add to www.geektools.com is a national/international listing of Hotels that have something better than in-the-room dial up connectivity to the net. If anyone has any hotel suggestions, with details, or is aware of a link or source, please email me directly... It will be real useful for engineers who have to go on the road to be able to choose neteng friendly hotels.... /rlj

1 0

Re: more Internic nightmare
by John Fraizer 25 Mar '99

25 Mar '99

Actually, I don't like this "solution" to the problem. First of all, not only does the InterNIC have to keep track of all the contact handles but, so do we, the domain owners. Now that we have no way of listing more than 10 records in whois (Thanks NetSOL... No, really. Thanks. .!..) if you happen to lose the contact information for a domain, you're screwed. You won't know who which contact to send any modifications from. Well, so much for that argument. They have changed their policy again. The whois now lists more than 10 records again. (Thanks NetSOL... No, really. Thanks. .!..) They have taken the following away from us though: root@Overkill primary]# whois "server NS17904-HST" [rs.internic.net] No match for server "NS17904-HST". It worked a week ago, now, it doesn't. The simple fact is that NetSOL is out of control. They seem to have the notion that they OWN the database. They are stewards of the database, not the owners. Until the community as a whole expresses their outrage of NSIs heavy-handed actions towards the community, they are going to continue down this path. BTW: Where did ds.internic.net go? How about ftp.internic.net? I'll tell you... [root@Overkill primary]# host ftp.internic.net ftp.internic.net is a nickname for ftp.ds.internic.net ftp.ds.internic.net is a nickname for shutdown.ds.internic.net shutdown.ds.internic.net has address 198.49.45.29 [root@Overkill primary]# traceroute ftp.internic.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 209.41.244.2 @ eth0 traceroute to shutdown.ds.internic.net (198.49.45.29), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 Border-Core0-Fast-eth1.Columbus.EnterZone.Net (209.41.244.1) 4.276 ms 66.212 ms 1.805 ms 2 core1-eth0-ENTERZONE.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.127.21) 29.598 ms 12.102 ms 0.998 ms 3 core1-eth0-ENTERZONE.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.127.21) 0.995 ms !H * 1.188 ms !H It's time to drop a clue-bomb on VA. At 02:10 PM 3/23/99 -0800, you wrote: > >Simple. Set up one of your domains to map admin.*(a)example.com to >admin.contact(a)enterzone.net, billing.*(a)example.com to billing-contact, >etc. and just send the e-mail to register foobar.com FROM the fictitious >admin contact of, say, admin.foobar.com(a)example.com. > >If InterNIC wants to be anal-retentive, let their Contacts database get >full, too. > >And sure you can say "that's abuse, and you shouldn't condone it", but if >you think that the speculators aren't going to turn to this very same >procedure, you need to lay off the crack pipe. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ML.ORG is gone. Check out http://www.EZ-IP.Net - It's *FREE* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your *FREE* Parked Domain account at http://www.EZ-Hosting.Com ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Fraizer | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation PGP Key fingerprint = 7DB6 1CA2 DAA6 43DA 3AAF 44CD 258C 3D7E B425 81A8

15 24

Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by Jeff Weisberg 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

| > in theory, anyone running BGP ought understand the RADB, understand | > BGP (and routing in general), and be able to spell their own name. | > | Some people prefer not to use RADB so as to make their routing | infrastructure less dependent on non-controllable (administratively) | outside entities. As a matter of corporate politics. I didn't say they need to use it, only that they ought understand it, know what it is, and know how to use it. I make no comment on what to do with, or whether to use that knowledge. and I certainly wouldn't advocate depending on the RADB for anything. I merely advocate non-ignorance. --jeff

2 1

Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by Vadim Antonov 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Some people prefer not to use RADB so as to make their routing infrastructure less dependent on non-controllable (administratively) outside entities. As a matter of corporate politics. We already have NetSol to handle a (less critical) part of the infrastructure, thank you. --vadim > | Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know > | how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the > > In theory, or in practice? > > in theory, anyone running BGP ought understand the RADB, understand > BGP (and routing in general), and be able to spell their own name. > > in practice, the customer hires a consultant who is sufficiently > skilled to cobble together a working BGP config from docs on the > cisco website, at which point it is turned over to Mr. Pointy Hair. > neither Pointy Hair nor the consultant can even spell RADB let alone > ever heard of it. Pointy Hair can spell his own name. usually. > > > --jeff

2 1

Re: Network Topology
by Jeff Weisberg 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

| I need the expert advice from all of you in this issue since my experience | is insignificant compared to some of the members of this list. In your | experience what is better in terms of connectivity to the Internet. My boss | wants me to order 4 T1's (maybe 6) to different providers to be | 'completely' sure that our NOC will 'always' be up & running. I've already | got 2 T's right now, I really don't know how' 'wise' it is to add another | 4 or 6 from 'different' providers. Would it be better for us to get them | from the same 2 upstreams we've already got? Would it be better to get a | Fractional T3? it depends. "better" is a very vague problem constraint. better how? as far as the normal everyday happiness factor better, you will be happier with a FT3 than you will be trying to load balance traffic over 6 T1s (unless you are paid by the hour :-)) on the day that the backhoe convention comes to town, you will be happier having N of M functional T1s than experiencing the deafening wail of your users' "Is the T3 down?" as far as your NOC "always" being up, there are important questions you need to ask: is "always" 3 9s? 4 9s? 5 9s? if we are down, how much money do we lose? what are the various modes of failure? how likely are they to happen? how much does it cost to protect against? (there is probably a greater chance of a drunk driver smashing into the utilty pole outside your NOC, than for 3 ISPs to have a router failure at the same time. and an even greater chance that your CLEC's "redundant" sonet ring, isn't.) --jeff

1 0

Court Rules Domain Names Are Property--March 24, 1999
by Henry Linneweh 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

This has some serious implications for speculators of domain names that infringe on someone's business http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_85661,00.html Henry

1 0

Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by Jeff Weisberg 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

| Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know | how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the In theory, or in practice? in theory, anyone running BGP ought understand the RADB, understand BGP (and routing in general), and be able to spell their own name. in practice, the customer hires a consultant who is sufficiently skilled to cobble together a working BGP config from docs on the cisco website, at which point it is turned over to Mr. Pointy Hair. neither Pointy Hair nor the consultant can even spell RADB let alone ever heard of it. Pointy Hair can spell his own name. usually. --jeff

1 0

Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by prue＠ISI.EDU 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Jeremiah, We don't require a written note from the other ISP. We do however require the customer to get the other ISP to send us E-mail saying it is OK. We won't route the prefixes unless we get this. I trust that e-mail won't be forged. If the customer does manage to forge it and I get a subsequent complaint from the ISP, who then asserts they never gave permission, I can always disable the routes and deal with the dishonest customer. You are doing just about the right thing. I think getting written permission is a bit too officious. Walt Los Nettos

1 0

route announcement question (political rather than technical)
by Jeremiah Kristal 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Our present BGP policy states that if a customer has non-portable address space from another upstream ISP, the customer must provide us with an official letter from the owner of the IP address space which authorizes us to re-announce those routes. I feel that this is a reasonable and just policy, but we've been getting quite a bit of flack from customers who claim that nobody else is requiring this. Are other backbone providers really just announcing whatever their customers ask them to announce? Are we unreasonable in requiring permission to re-announce foreign netblocks? Is there any documentation that sets this down as policy or at least a BCP? Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the instructions? I'm getting the feeling that the latest tech briefings for executives are touting the wonders of BGP, 'cause I'm seeing a lot of pointy-haired bosses demanding it. ObNetops: router bgp xxxx neighbor 192.168.100.2 remote-as 64666 neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map cust-do-not-readvertise in neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map out-customer out Jeremiah Kristal Qwest Internet Solutions Manager, Network Services 201-319-5764 x284 internal

3 5

[newsletter@news.internetwk.com: InternetWeek Newsletter - March 24, 1999]
by Jay R. Ashworth 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Oh christ. It's getting worse. You thought "get your .net and .org here" was bad? Read this moron's approach to good network engineering. -----Forwarded message from Internetwk Newsletter <newsletter(a)news.internetwk.com>----- From: Internetwk Newsletter <newsletter(a)news.internetwk.com> Subject: InternetWeek Newsletter - March 24, 1999 [ ... ] Column: Choose Domain Names For Global Business Domain names, as we all know, are the new real estate of the information economy. Your company's domain name and trademarks play a critical role in building brand equity and increasing e-business. Domain-name registration has grown exponentially: By the end of last year, Network Solutions Inc. had registered 3.4 million domain names. On March 9, it passed 4 million with the registration of riedelglass.com. With more than 80 billion possible permutations, there are plenty of domain names left for everyone. Nevertheless, thinking globally in your selection of domain names and trademarks can keep your business on top. At a minimum, get the prospective domain name registered in all the countries in which you wish to do business. Globally, there are 191 countries that accept country-code domain registrations (also called International Web Addresses) and each has different registration requirements. In at least 80 country-code registries, there are no rules about who can register--it's first come, first served. If you want to protect your brand or company name from infringement or customer confusion worldwide, Network Solutions has a service called idNames (www.idnames.com) that can register a domain name associated with a company's product, brand or name with 80 of these countries at once. If you have one .com address that handles global traffic, you can have the country-specific domain names redirected to the .com site. If the name is critically important, such as a new firm name after a merger, be sure to register as many permutations as possible even before you know the final name and definitely before the news of the merger reaches the speculators. One company registered more than 70 domain names and still had some permutations taken by speculators. -- Nick Evans Evans is technical director of PricewaterhouseCoopers' national Internet practice. He can be reached at nick.evans(a)us.pwcglobal.com. ======================================================== -----End of forwarded message----- Might I suggest that each and every engineer here jot down your top three reasons why this will make the Internet useless, look up this guy's number, and politely tell him about them? Remember, 2 flames will have more effect than 10 nice letters... but the wrong way. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary. The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends. Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592

1 0