- Test - lists.nanog.org

GATED q?
by alex＠nac.net 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

I have machines that have several /32's on the backen loopback for a variety of reasons. I am trying to get a Cisco to learn that via OSPF (running gated on the unix host). Anyone got a quick gated.conf they could shoot me that runs OSPF on an ethernet and tells others about it's directly connected interfaces? Thanks in advance. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex(a)nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 0

Re: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd)
by Dean Robb 01 Mar '99

01 Mar '99

At 06:48 2/27/99 -0500, Special FX Communications wrote: I do not choose to engage in private communciations with you on this matter. As you mailed me without prior contact, I feel fully justified in publicizing this email AND hope that others will take note of the relevant law when the next jerk threatens them. >The information on that page is inaccurate because the is no reason or >proof why it is there. Any one can put out a list but with out anything to >back the information the list is just garbage... There is no examples or >proof that there was any e-mail bombing from our serers. Without proof >that page is just hearsay, slander and libel. Show us the proof... If you >people weren't so narrow minded you would see the point and remove or >modify the page. If you can't show the proof then remove the page... The page in question is an archive of a post. You cannot hold the archivist responsible for the contents of the archive. This was explicitly placed into law in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The relevant portion of § 230 states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This section of the law was upheld by the 4th Circuit Court in ZERAN v AMERICA ONLINE INC (Case No. 97-1523) November 12, 1997, affirming upon appeal a decision of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As long as the website owner merely posted what someone else had said, you have no recourse against the website owner. In short, go piss up a rope and learn the law before you start threatening people with it. > >On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dean Robb wrote: > >> At 07:12 2/24/99 -0800, Eric Germann wrote: >> > >> >Dear NANOG readers, should I edit the archives and the search engine? >> >Should I become an "offensive material editor" for any and all parties >> > >> >Eric >> > >> >> Uh, no. They're full of male bovine fecal matter. IF they could convince >> some shyster to file a suit, it'd never make it...archivists are >> well-protected under US law. >> >> Ignore them. Nobody probably would have looked at the allegedly offensive >> page if they weren't making a production number of it. "Small minds can only contemplate small ideas".....Unknown Dean Robb Owner, PC-EASY (757) 495-EASY [3279] On-site computer repair, upgrades and consultations Read my game reviews/columns in SimOps on WWW.TheGamers.Net

1 0

Re: Why don't people learn...?
by Jay R. Ashworth 28 Feb '99

28 Feb '99

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 02:32:29PM -0800, Mikey Wilsker wrote: > >"Warever Corp. this week released Legion, an Internet utility that > >looks up IP addresses, puts them in a hosts file, and categorizes them." > >http://www.internetnews.com/prod-news/article/0,1087,9_74021,00.html > > Its for the end user. The utility basically eliminates the need for the > general user to ever have to look up 'cnn.com' again. Its nothing more > than a caching DNS for Win95, etc. > I didn't see anything about expiring the cache, though, so one can only > wonder about the new wave of tech support calls because sites change > ip's/names. Precisely my point. This is going to hose operators who make use of the technologies I mentioned failry badly. "The general user" never needs to "look up cnn.com", anyway. That's what DNS is for. :-} And, based on what the story said, no I didn't get the impression it was merely "a caching DNS". It seemed much more unintelligently malevolent than that. 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

Why don't people learn...?
by Jay R. Ashworth 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Here we go again. If you get reports of problems that appear to be DNS weirdness, _this_ could be the reason why: "Warever Corp. this week released Legion, an Internet utility that looks up IP addresses, puts them in a hosts file, and categorizes them." http://www.internetnews.com/prod-news/article/0,1087,9_74021,00.html Round robin? Load balancing? Provider replacement(!)? Why would anyone want to do _those_ things...? Cheers, -- jr '204.198.80.3' a -- 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

Re: Suggestion: Add contact entry to whois
by Pat Myrto 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Lon R. Stockton, Jr. has declared that: > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Pat Myrto wrote: > > > In terms of the larger number of issues we see these days, the contact > > info from whois tends to be woefully inadequate (and often out-of-date) at > > times. > > [...] > > The added contact info I suspect would be quite a timesaver once in place. > > Riiiight....it'll be a timesaver because unlike the rest of the > contact records, the Abuse contact will always be complete and up-to-date. They would be if some real requirements were in place. The effort required should be small (just a couple of added fields), and especially if the template made the requirements of the entries clear, I fail to see how it could hurt. > And unlike the Tech contacts which aren't technically literate, the Abuse > contact will of course always have the power and the technical ability > to assist. Last time I looked (been awhile), the templates give no real clear indication as to what the contact(s) are supposed to be able to handle - just that a kinda vague something is in the space (except for the billing contact, thats gotta be valid of course or the domain goes away at billing time)... :-) > I do believe that an Abuse contact may very well be a good idea...on > paper. I also believe that in the real world, it'll be a waste of time. > Most sites (at least at provider level) have an abuse contact (sorta for some that remain nameless). Usually its either abuse(a)spam.com, or postmaster(a)spew.com. Its working contacts for real technical issues that I find appealing - routing issues, bad announcements leaking out, broken DNS entries, and the like. One will never know if people dont even want to bother to give it a try, but give up on it right out the chute, unless of course, someone has a better idea to achieve the desired result. Lacking that, perhaps its worth a try. Bemoaning lousy contact info w/o being willing to try some remendy seems kinda pointless. Hell, if even a few more sites just provided honest tech contact info in good faith, it would be helpful. Even more so if the template instructions would spell out some _requirements_ about contacts, such as making _working_ contacts as one of the conditions to get the domain or IP space allocated, whatever the case might be. ISPs requiring good contact info for their customers domains would help, too. If contacts later turn out to have bogus or /dev/null type entries, perhaps it could result in suspension of the domain involved (removal of NS entry from root servers till its fixed, etc. would get the admin's attention I bet). Perhaps thats too extreme, but I'm sure someone could think of an appropriate remedy to accomplish the desired end. Role type entries would be fine for those who dont want to give up a real name/email, as long as it reachs _somebody_ that can deal with the issues in a timely manner. If such a scheme or requirement or something similar were in place, I am sure the number of bogus/useless entries would have a sharp decline. How does one tell if the contact is bogus? Well, if you send mail to the contact, and it bounces, and the phone contact comes back with an intercept msg, or the party at the other end has no idea what a domain or route is, for example, its probably not a valid/useful contact... :-) Also, while I am thinking about it, an automated response w/o a real followup in short order is not a valid contact, either, IMO. Some seem to spit out an automated response while routing the actual message to /dev/null. Might as well be a bounce, at least thats more honest. Pat M > -- #include <std.disclaimer> Pat Myrto (pat at rwing dot ORG) Seattle WA What the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms really is: Our Freedom Insurance. Don't let the Statists or 'Those Who Know Best' elitists succeed in continuing attempts at diluting or nullifying it with claims that 'people' really means 'state', or that "You don't need it".

1 0

FCC ruling
by Moe Allen 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Anyone got any thoughts on the FCC deal and how it can be handled. Morris Allen VidcomNet, Inc.

2 1

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Feb 26 12:00:00 PST 1999 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 26Feb99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 190299 56528 200299 56373 210299 56116 220299 56354 230299 56456 240299 56506 250299 56299 260299 56598 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 4611 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 2304 (1234 cidr, 1070 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 357 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 867 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 26Feb99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 355 144 211 59.4% BCnet Backbone AS2493 270 153 117 43.3% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS174 641 529 112 17.5% Performance Systems International AS11305 116 8 108 93.1% UNKNOWN AS4755 158 78 80 50.6% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS1267 107 29 78 72.9% IUNET-AS AS3749 140 63 77 55.0% TECNET AS4293 218 144 74 33.9% IMCI AS7545 112 48 64 57.1% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS4200 165 101 64 38.8% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS1221 423 360 63 14.9% AARNET-AS AS4740 385 324 61 15.8% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS7046 258 200 58 22.5% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS1239 529 471 58 11.0% SprintLink Backbone AS72 89 37 52 58.4% Schlumberger Information Network AS10928 102 50 52 51.0% UNKNOWN AS577 222 172 50 22.5% Bell Canada Backbone AS7657 142 93 49 34.5% The Internet Group Limited AS7496 78 29 49 62.8% Power Up AS719 460 414 46 10.0% LANLINK autonomous system AS803 78 34 44 56.4% SaskNet Backbone AS852 177 137 40 22.6% AGT Advance Communication AS701 867 828 39 4.5% Alternet AS5674 64 27 37 57.8% PBI-NET-BLK AS7745 39 4 35 89.7% BIGSKY-AS AS7122 112 77 35 31.2% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS1785 249 217 32 12.9% NYSERNet Backbone AS1 505 473 32 6.3% BBNPLANET AS6332 94 63 31 33.0% TELNOR AS549 163 132 31 19.0% ONet Backbone For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

3 2

Re: Suggestion: Add contact entry to whois
by Dean Anderson 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Well, he has a point. In this case, you can always 'ring up' his upstream provider, who can either turn off the whole connection or block the offending host(s). Or your upstream provider. I don't see this as being much different from "no-support" dialin services. They may not be manned at all. Most ISP's are planning for unmanned POP's. It might not be all that long before we have providers with near total lights out except for bean counters and maintenance people who replace failed parts in fault tolerant equipment now and then. Some might say we have that now ;-) Many places aren't 24 hour, and 24 hour staff doesn't really buy all that much if the Noc operators can't make changes anyway. So what use is a phone number? Indeed, I recall that not so long ago people talked about taking contacts away completely to prevent them from being used 'inappropriately', which I think they meant as 'contact info is public to other NOC's only, and only for NOC use, not customer support or anything else' What people should really start thinking about is automated systems to do these things, and authentication/trust relationships for other Nocs to make changes and some kind of penalty for abuse of that system. --Dean At 02:27 PM 2/26/1999 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote: >On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Bob Allisat wrote: >> FCN gives no contacts for the Domain names >> registered here. It is no-one's business who >> registers with us. We are not in the business >> of acting as snitches for overly snoopy and >> prying computer system administrators. If any- >> one has a problem they can contact the police >> and, accompanied with an appropriate court >> order we will be happy to comply with any real, >> legitimate investigation. Otherwise fork off, >> nosey nerds, it's none of your darned business. > >So in other words if an fcn host is found to be originating denial of >service attacks, you suggest we contact the local police and FBI rather >than ringing you up and asking you to disable their ongoing attacks. > >And in the time it takes to process a court order you will continue to >allow those hosts to originate smurf/pingfloods etc. > >Gotcha. So noted. > >So we now know that when an fcn host is conducting denial of service >attacks, we should immediately start the paperwork filing for criminal >negligence and punitive damages ahead of time. > >-Dan > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: Mail "HACKs"
by Martin Cooper 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

Piete Brookes <piete.brookes(a)cl.cam.ac.uk> writes: > It appears that once again you seem to have b*ggered things up with your > mail HACKs, it that you sent messages to "teaching-research(a)cl.cam.ac.uk" > but the RFC 822 headers had: > > From: Martin Cooper <mjc(a)cooper.org.uk> > To: janet-ip(a)warwick.ac.uk > Cc: anne.campbell.mp(a)dial.pipex.com, rpa(a)insnet.net > Subject: Re: relevance of MTCP email to janet-ip > Message-Id: <E10GWjP-0000aI-00(a)nmg2.csi.cam.ac.uk> > Sender: Martin Cooper <mjc64(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk> > > and > > From: Martin Cooper <mjc(a)cooper.org.uk> > To: John.Dyer(a)ukerna.ac.uk > Cc: janet-ip(a)warwick.ac.uk, rpa(a)insnet.net > Message-Id: <E10GWgV-0000aG-00(a)nmg2.csi.cam.ac.uk> > Sender: Martin Cooper <mjc64(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk> > > i.e. no reason at all to go to *every* member of T&R. > > Can you pelase explain what is going on, and what steps you are going to > take to avoid any recurrances ? > > I would have thought after the last incident, you would have taken somewhat > more care ! Piete, I would have thought (and would like to believe) that you (of all people) would recognise the basic absolute human-right to freedom of speech. Distressingly, or so it would seem, you appear unprepared to grant me this basic right (albeit that my emails will attract unwelcome attention, and cause much political weight to be brought to bear upon my head come Monday morning). RFC 822 (as extensively documented by the late Dr. Jonathan Postel founder of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) specifies the "Bcc:", also widely known as the "Blind Carbon Copy" header, intended to allow the (E)SMTP mail sender to specify priviledged recipients to whom an email may be sent, with a view to keeping the nature of such primary recipients of a message unaware of the extent of the distribution of the message, for whatever, tactful, political, or otherwise reasons unknown. If I am required to resign because I express unpopular, or politically non-expedient views, by whatever means, then so be it. I feel that it would not be unreasonable to hope that the wider Internet community would sympathise with me, and permit me to earn my living through my desire to further the goals of that community, by working with whoever may feel minded to give me house room. Martin Cooper Taking much care to express my views, as ever, for myself...

1 0

Re: relevance of MTCP email to janet-ip
by Martin Cooper 27 Feb '99

27 Feb '99

David Roberts of Leicester seems to have implied that my "Mark Thomas Comedy Product" email of earlier this week was not relevant to the list. As no-one has formerly asked the question, I shall ask and answer it myself. Martin - Why are you posting this drivel to this serious academic and research networking forum? Although the JANET community does not generally consist of profit- making organisations, many Universities and Colleges in the community do collaborate with commerce and industry, often in the European as well as the transatlantic regions. Since the end of the Cold War, Menwith Hill's functions have allegedly been moving into commercial spying as part of the UKUSA agreement in the extended national interests of the two countries. Clearly this is in itself of serious concern, however... The likely appearence of the government's Electronic Commerce Bill draft bill by Easter of this year, possibly and probably containing wide-reaching proposals for outlawing strong-crypto, increasing law enforcement agencies powers of interception of communications without a warrant from the Home Secretary, and mandatory crypto key-escrow with so called Trusted Third Parties. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Sun Microsystems have both made formal representations to Stephen Byers, the new secretary of state for Trade and Industry following Peter Mandelson's departure earlier in the year, opposing the key-escrow element of the expected draft bill, and possibly the strong-crypto element(s) as well. As I have said before, any freedom of speech is hard won, particularly academic freedom of speech. Without getting too party political here, the present government does appear to have rather worrying control as well as media manipulation for propaganda tendencies, and I do not wish to see this bill go through without proper debate, in view of the many Members of Parliament struggling to understand the issues involved. I understand that there is a rather good web site recommending the "adoption" of your MP to help them understand these issues if they do not already. It can be found at http://www.stand.org.uk/ I hope the above goes some way towards explaining the context for my earlier email. Martin Cooper Speaking for myself...

1 0