- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Router gets hurt!
by John Fraizer 24 Nov '98

24 Nov '98

Thats Bills way of saying, "You all think you're hot snot with this IP stuff, don't you? Well, check this out!" It is a good idea to start with but, I don't think that microsoft ever thought about what would happen in the event that there were tons of boxes on the network where the "election" was held. You can do the same thing with a couple of *nix boxes running samba if you really want to do so. At 10:01 PM 11/23/98 -0800, Jason Weisberger wrote: > >Discovered today that NT has the built in ability to drown your network >and stomp on the routers cpu. Seems if someone sets up 2 NT domain masters >or whatever that Netbios garbage is called, they attempt to "hold an >election." The election is comprised of slamming every machine it can find >and then every broadcast address it can think of with udp on port 137. > >After a few minutes of it an RSP4 gets real tired and you start losing >packets as well as the switches all falling apart after trying to forward >the zillion mbits/sec of useless data. > >Anyone else seen anything like this? > >-- >Jason Weisberger >Chief Technology Officer >SoftAware, Inc. 310/305-0275 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

1 0

Router gets hurt!
by Jason Weisberger 24 Nov '98

24 Nov '98

Discovered today that NT has the built in ability to drown your network and stomp on the routers cpu. Seems if someone sets up 2 NT domain masters or whatever that Netbios garbage is called, they attempt to "hold an election." The election is comprised of slamming every machine it can find and then every broadcast address it can think of with udp on port 137. After a few minutes of it an RSP4 gets real tired and you start losing packets as well as the switches all falling apart after trying to forward the zillion mbits/sec of useless data. Anyone else seen anything like this? -- Jason Weisberger Chief Technology Officer SoftAware, Inc. 310/305-0275

2 1

Re: NSI policy on lame delagations
by Paul Vixie 24 Nov '98

24 Nov '98

> Yet having the advantage that when your SQL- or other-based database > fails, your nameservers don't. I don't disagree with this. There's certainly a mode where BIND should be able to create its own b-tree by loading all of a zone and then managing it through a memory window. But there's also a more sparse mode where you just don't want to have another copy of your zone data, nor the resource consumption of having to make that copy, nor the delay between the times you pick to make that copy. Right now there's no choice since there's no zone API. One is coming, but not in 8.1.2++. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: WebTV.Net: Censorship Central?
by Eric Germann 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

If Paul will add 208.222.122.40 to the RBL and Merit will use the RBL I'll bet many NANOG readers would buy a WebTV unit just to get rid of Bob... Bob, many pray that you would be added to the RBL, nightly as a matter of fact, before supplications for ones own health. Drop it. ---Bob Allisat wrote: > > > <http://fcn.net/no> > > Microsoft's Web TV Network, with hundreds of thousands of subscribers, > uses the real-time black hole list censorship software. Very disturbing > since it niether tells it's clients their mail and WWW is being censored > nor offers them the choice as to whether or not to allow this censorship. > Outside their lame anti-spam statement there is no indication of any > censorship anywhere else <http://www.webtv.net/antispam/>. > > Perhaps the people using WebTV would appreciate knowing the fact that > Web TV censors their access. Or, even better, maybe Web TV could offer > them the choice as to whether their black list is off or on (default > to off). I'd be royally pissed off if I used WebTV and found out every- > thing I did was behind some one fellow's idea of right and wrong. Shame > on Web TV Networks! More info at: > > <http://fcn.net/no> > > Paul Vixie writes: > <http://maps.vix.com/rbl/webtv.html> > > If you received an error while trying to send mail to WebTV, > > please click here. > * (next page) > > Having problems sending to WebTV? > > > > Although WebTV�(webtv.net) uses the RBL, they also have their own > > list of IP addresses they reject mail from. Just because they > > reject mail from a site does not mean that site is on the > > MAPS�RBL. > > > > You can check to see whether your IP�address is on the RBL by > > checking <URL:http://maps.vix.com/cgi-bin/lookup> ; enter your > > IP�address in the form. > > > > If you do not know what your IP�address is, please contact your > > system administrator or ISP. Complaining to us about WebTV's > > actions is, unfortunately, largely useless, as we have no control > > over how they (or anyone else) runs their systems. > > > > Please contact WebTV�for information on why your address block is > > on their list, and how to get it removed. > > Bob Allisat > > Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net > http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft > > > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Anyone know...
by Dean Anderson 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

If you got mail on saturday, then I think the next reload is monday night. --Dean At 12:41 PM 11/23/1998 -0500, Steven J. Sobol wrote: >why the InterNIC notified me that changes to a domain had been >completed on Saturday, and Whois is updated, but the root servers >still point to DNS on the old site even though there have been two >root server updates since then? Is this related to the problem we were >all discussing last week? > >-- >Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] >Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] >NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] > >Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat." > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: Anyone know...
by Steven J. Sobol 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 10:13:17AM -0800, Lee Henrikson wrote: > Steven, > > I am having the same problem (I am not a poster to nanog). Have been > through the update process on one domamin twice. Will be curious if > anyone knows the answer. I have a feeling I'm not the only one they screwed up. Calls to their customer service desk have resulted in "All lines are busy" messages all day long. -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."

1 0

Anyone know...
by Steven J. Sobol 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

why the InterNIC notified me that changes to a domain had been completed on Saturday, and Whois is updated, but the root servers still point to DNS on the old site even though there have been two root server updates since then? Is this related to the problem we were all discussing last week? -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."

1 0

Re: No longer: NSI policy on lame delagations
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

jzp> Have you thought about moving this to a DNS/BIND related list? Much jzp> better than ranting loonies, but strayed far afield of the orginal jzp> marginally-operational thread that NSI is finally enforcing a long- jzp> standing policy. djb>Actually, a discussion of DNS/BIND implementations falls directly under djb>the charter, as described on the MERIT web site. [snip] djb>Now a specific implementation of DNS/BIND to ensure that domains do not go djb>blank during zonefile reloads and such is DEFINITELY something that djb>"ensures the stability of overall service to the network users". Whatever; we disagree and Merit doesn't lord over the list -beyond Craig's remarks at Atlanta- so others will decide if they participate or not. The existing tools "ensure stability"; even more primative implementations can do it provided they are deployed with some thought. Perhaps details related to packing all DNS service into one box are interesting to enough people here to warrant life staying in the thread. djb>My point: If you want to make this a "router-discussion-only" mailing djb>list, the charter on the website needs to be seriously overhauled, since Nowhere did I invoke "how do i configure my router for this". My point was merely that internals (plugs into your-favorite-database, memory mappings, etc) of essential services are rather interesting, but are fodder for existing lists/newsgroups. Joe "not arguing; I gave up being net.cop when usenet went to hell" Provo -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

No longer: NSI policy on lame delagations
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 23 Nov '98

23 Nov '98

[snip some thread where a finger was pointed at BIND] [snip paul's good details about BIND internals] [snip other's thought and pointers for alternatives related to BIND internals] >Have you looked at [foo] Have you thought about moving this to a DNS/BIND related list? Much better than ranting loonies, but strayed far afield of the orginal marginally-operational thread that NSI is finally enforcing a long- standing policy. Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Sheryl Chapin 22 Nov '98

22 Nov '98

>That's right. It stops the practice of using a sacrificial account, from >AOL or netcom, to spam for a web-site that is otherwise protected. Does it >make a difference that they didn't spam from their own ISP? That customer >is *still* a spammer whether they did it from your site or not. Maybe >you're of the "It's alright as long as they don't do it here" crowd? Well, >that's one of the things that the RBL was built for. The rest of us don't >have to put up with your negligence. I don't see it as "it's alright as long as they don't do it here". I see it as "I have control over my network, but not over anyone elses". I have an AUP that specifically states spamming is not allowed. I have kicked off users who have spammed. However, I do not have an AUP that says "If you ever spam anyone ever in the world on any network anywhere I will disconnect whatever service you have". I don't control the entire internet, just my little piece of it. :-) Sheryl Chapin Senior Network Engineer CommTel Internet 207.377.3508 Winthrop, Maine schapin(a)ctel.net

3 2