- Test - lists.nanog.org

What Happened to Netscan?
by Henry Linneweh 25 Mar '99

25 Mar '99

hmm this is not good. www.netscan.org no longer responds to access from the web Henry

4 5

Network Topology
by Victor Alba 25 Mar '99

25 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? I need some convincing arguments for him to understand, can anyone help? -Victor

8 7

Maybe the government has a clue after all?
by Jay R. Ashworth 25 Mar '99

25 Mar '99

http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/001971.htm (via slashdot) "The government is demanding an explanation from the company that assigns most of the world's Internet addresses, after it moved quietly to steer customers of an important Web directory to its private commercial site." 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

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