- Test - lists.nanog.org

InterNic Responds
by Henry Linneweh 26 Jan '99

26 Jan '99

Speculators Inundate InterNIC http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17522.html Henry R. Linneweh

1 0

RE: SMURF amplifiers
by David Alejandro Hernandez Alonso 26 Jan '99

26 Jan '99

Also check http://www.netscan.org David. --- David Alejandro Hernandez Alonso INFOSEL Network Operations Center Tel.- +01 52-8 318-8777 dhernand(a)infosel.com.mx PGP Key/ID 1024/0xF6172E65 Fingerprint: 0016 CD82 63C8 47D2 841B AD36 8E29 DDF7 -----Original Message----- From: Martin, Christian [SMTP:CMartin@mercury.balink.com] Sent: Lunes 25 de Enero de 1999 2:57 PM To: 'Alex P. Rudnev'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: RE: SMURF amplifiers www.powertech.no/smurf > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex P. Rudnev [mailto:alex@Relcom.EU.net] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 10:55 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: SMURF amplifiers > > > Hi > > Someone here have collected the list of smurf amplifiers? I > have got a > list used by the working hacker (and can send this list by > e-mail) if you > need more addresses into your collection. > > Alex. > > Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow > (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 > 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) > (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax) > > --- David Alejandro Hernandez Alonso INFOSEL Network Operations Center Tel.- +01 52-8 318-8777 dhernand(a)infosel.com.mx PGP Key/ID 1024/0xF6172E65 Fingerprint: 0016 CD82 63C8 47D2 841B AD36 8E29 DDF7

2 1

aads renumbering rumor and implications
by Randy Bush 26 Jan '99

26 Jan '99

i am told that aads seems to be planning to renumber, seemingly as there is some service charge for the address space they do not wish to pay. please correct/confirm. should this be true and a real issue, o will folk be happy renumbering at larger exchanges? o does anyone see why the exchange address space needs to be globally routable? randy

12 14

The .COM People...
by Bryan A. Ignatow 26 Jan '99

26 Jan '99

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Did anyone else receive the 4 sheet, color, advertisement from NSI (The .COM People) customized in three places with a domain name that you should register with them? Did anyone else's say that you should hurry up and register the domain name for your company before someone else does? Did anyone else get one for a domain that was already registered (and shows up in whois)? Did anyone else get this at their home address rather than their work address? Does anyone else think that NSI should have run their list of domains they were sending out against their database and remove the ones that were already registered? Just wondering... - --- Bryan A. Ignatow Sr. Technical Analyst ignatow(a)sprintparanet.com Sprint Paranet (Intranet Only) http://general.srv.paranet.com/~baignato -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQEVAwUBNqyIq9nHymeMoGNHAQEeZAf/YXGQbVtUA3phe/bFNPnmQlkkSVxLDBdu /FHZZwajxZtrriVP/yIhLkuy3Rohk2r7Z9k7JoZA+aEf5kDYBDHjrdLZ2uOuzUrO D2bBeuobzPpY/ro3Ip/rnQJRW27/U4T7DCo4AhLYxf554EEBMILCpfiXh8/hprf0 ISv67HSR2W+nfkrANS9sVcbY4/9pRXgbmhW9zhpx12+bxEpo63mGbiWvXRwTLfIV UHb2eystLyfnK7R4IFHA5CpGXObry8kmbXPt0Itery8X0R7Gd/yCosfXcF5gqwIm y9qMvj8gJpwAvNtVMzMWw544fvE6tb5wWmspUfvXqfORhjl0gUUGqA== =ROU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
by Dean Anderson 25 Jan '99

25 Jan '99

Ok, I thought I would stay out of this. It must be off topic. "Pay-First" isn't a simple solution. I'll explain why. First, what do speculators do? They register a domain and watch the news for companies or products that might be able to use the domain. If they find such a target company, they pay for the domain and try to sell it to the target. If not, they let the payment slip. Perhaps in 30 days, they re-register the domain if it still looks attractive. Second, the current system evolved because of the requirements to reject duplicates, and immediately notify the registrant about a duplicate and allow registrations to go forward before "the check clears". Duplicates might come in seconds after the first registation. Thing are done on the "internet" time scale vs. the "telco" time scale. Third, the idea that it only takes minutes or a few days to process a payment is wrong. It takes up to eleven business days to clear a check. A week to mail, and a week to process is not unreasonable, which quickly adds up to about 30 days. Credit card payments can take 60 days to clear, since they can be refuted when it appears on your bill. So, with that in mind lets look at what it would take to implement the "pay first" idea. To make sure that payment is received, all registrations would have to wait until the check cleared, or the credit card charge wasn't refuted. That means you might wait 30 to 60 days for the registation. That would be unacceptable. No one wants to wait until the check clears. Also note that this restriction doesn't affect speculation at all. Speculators don't care if the domain can't be registered for 30 days. They want 30 days to decide whether to keep it or not. But what net user wants to wait 30 days for a registration? Probably very few. Ok, so we rule that out. Lets say we modify that a bit, and give the first registrant the domain right away, and then if payment doesn't clear in 30 days, you revoke it. The second registrant is notified immediately of a conflict. (You might recognize this as the current system) This delay can be used by speculators to speculate on useful domains. So we aren't quite happy with this. Lets modify this a bit further, and say we keep a queue of registrants. If the first registrant doesn't pay, it goes to the second registrant. Now the second registrant would have to wait 30 days to know whether they get the domain or not. In that time, they probably would change their mind and select a new name which can be registered right away. So they might not want it in 30 days. The third registrant would have to wait 60 days. Now NSI has the expensive logistical overhead of keeping track of this queue for each registration. Have speculators been limited? No. Speculators can still form chains of organizations to make multiple registrations of the same domain. This would work very well unless someone got in the middle of this chain. This is probably even better for speculators, since now they can "reserve" a domain for as long as they want, merely be creating a chain of companies to register the domain many times. Lawyers are good a creating a chain of companies. So, is it possible to have immediate notification of duplications, registration before payment completes, and still reject speculation? It doesn't appear so. I'll go on record here that in my opinion, speculation is a unavoidable "feature" of the system, which may be somewhat undesirable but one that cannot be removed. The reason it cannot be removed is because of the delay involved in completing the financial transaction, and the possibility that such transactions can be terminated. We can't change the banking system to prevent domainname speculation. Further, there are legit activities the look very much like speculation. I don't know how many of you have been involved with startups, but I have advised a few. Its a very hectic time as the principals try to select and register a name. Figure out trademark conflicts, etc. Often the business idea, image, and focus change greatly during this initial period. They typical register a dozen domains or more. Some are rejected. Others they get. Once they select one that they got, they usually don't want the others. My point is that there is a lot of legitimate "register, cancel-no pay" activities. It is precisely these same activities that speculators use for speculation. While speculation may produce some additional load on NSI, there was also a time when people only bought and sold stock with the intention of buying or selling a company, rather than speculating about its future stock value. So speculators produce tremendous load on stock exchanges. However, in doing so, they now provide much of the capital to finance business. I don't expect domain speculators to become the equivalent of stock speculators, but they really aren't any different from speculators in land, bonds, currency, grain, or anything else. They are part of the market system. Speculators in other areas don't enjoy the gratitude of the "regular users" of those areas either. Farmers generally hate land speculators. But they realize they have to live with that. So I think the solution is to build a system that scales well to millions of transactions per day, regardless of the ultimate purpose for those registrations. The per transaction cost becomes trivial, and the cost of speculation is likewise minimized. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5 4

RE: SMURF amplifiers
by Martin, Christian 25 Jan '99

25 Jan '99

www.powertech.no/smurf > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex P. Rudnev [mailto:alex@Relcom.EU.net] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 10:55 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: SMURF amplifiers > > > Hi > > Someone here have collected the list of smurf amplifiers? I > have got a > list used by the working hacker (and can send this list by > e-mail) if you > need more addresses into your collection. > > Alex. > > Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow > (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 > 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) > (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax) > >

1 0

RE: Byte Counters on Ciscos
by Martin, Christian 25 Jan '99

25 Jan '99

32 bits unsigned. 4294967296 MAX. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: alex(a)nac.net [mailto:alex@nac.net] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 10:47 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Byte Counters on Ciscos > > > > > I am working on some byte counting stuff, and have a odd question. > > I noticed on my of my routers: > > 2403558863 packets input, 2476827328 bytes > > thats: > > 2,403,558,863 packets input, > 2,476,827,328 bytes > > > which when divided out, comes to 1.03 bytes per packet, which without > saying is obviously in error. > > So, when does a Cisco counter 'flip' ? How many bits is it? > > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > -- -- -- -- -- > 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

Byte Counters on Ciscos
by alex＠nac.net 25 Jan '99

25 Jan '99

I am working on some byte counting stuff, and have a odd question. I noticed on my of my routers: 2403558863 packets input, 2476827328 bytes thats: 2,403,558,863 packets input, 2,476,827,328 bytes which when divided out, comes to 1.03 bytes per packet, which without saying is obviously in error. So, when does a Cisco counter 'flip' ? How many bits is it? -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3 2

Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
by Dean Anderson 25 Jan '99

25 Jan '99

At 08:06 AM 1/25/1999 -0500, Rich Sena wrote: >Screw the speculators - (simply put) - they are leaches - if they did not >register the domain in the first place then that company that they "watch >the news for" would simply register their own frikken domain and not be >gouged by them for their "finders fee". All speculators are leeches. Stock speculators leech on the profits of companies. Land speculators leech the value of farmers and developers. I'm not saying speculators aren't leeches. What I'm saying is that you can't get rid of them without killing your own services. [by metaphor, leeches grow in warm water--poison the water, and you poison yourself] On this, I'm already proven right. NSI took out on-hold information. Who got hurt? Speculators? No. People who service customers domains? (like ISPs)? Yes. You think that by setting up an account with NSI, you can stop speculation. But you can't. I've already shown that you can't get rid of speculation with the changes proposed. I think there is general agreementt that the changes won't eliminate speculation. Further, everyone is in agreement that the real problem is NSI's services, legacy systems, etc. Eliminating speculators doesn't fix this problem. Don't be a sucker for foolish solutions to problems which can't be fixed. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: aads renumbering rumor and implications
by howland＠Priss.com 25 Jan '99

25 Jan '99

The issue of reverse DNS is the only reason for having "unique" exchange point addressing. The fact as I see it is that the exchange point is not a destination. The exchange point addresses are used solely as a transit "space", and it's nice to know what you're hopping accross. The only time that the exchange point as routable space has been and issue for me is when reachability to those network blocks is being readvertized by a peer. There is NO reason that a service provider needs to readvertise an exchange point network block. It's not a destination. Eliminating this specific abuse would be a Good Thing(tm). Since there is no technical reason for an exchange point to be routable, it comes down to whim. I *like* having unique exchange point addresses for troubleshooting purposes, for all the reasons below. That does not mean it's not perfectly reasonable for an exchange point operator to make it non-routable addressing, since it's their exchange point. If it weren't for the RA's, the ATM environment has no need to be a shared network anyway. Might as well make the VC's individually numbered /30's, or 10.254.254.0/24. Why not? Curt- ------------------------------ On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:35:13PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > >> o does anyone see why the exchange address space needs to be globally > >> routable? > > Traceroute. > > as the fabric is used for peering under bi-lats, if we each announce the > mesh to our customers and not to our peers, then i believe you will have > your tracroutes and yet the prefix does not have to be globally routable, > e.g. could be 209.666.42/24. > > randy Holdon, i don't even see the need for that; if you traceroute out, the packets will cross the exchange irregardless of whether you're announcing it to your customers, and a message of TTL exceeded will be generated from the exchange's address.. The important question is, should they be globally UNIQUE for troubleshooting purposes? I think so. Mike ------------------------------

1 0