- Test - lists.nanog.org

A Real Technical Question (RAdB)
by John M. Brown 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Well I have a real operational / technical question for this list. I hope it will keep a few people from crying! :) We are needing some help and advise on route-registery stuff. Background: It looks like we will be adding customers to our network that have legacy (read pre-arin, circa '89-'93) address space. They do not wish to renumber and would like us to advertise their routes via BGP v4. What I know: Getting the routes to be announced via BGP v4 is not a big deal. We can add the correct statements to our IOS routers and bounce the session. To get these routes excepted by other providers, I need to register them with a route registery. I have choosen Merit's radb. I have created a MAINT, AS and Route, object. What I dont know(and need help with): Have I done this correctly? Can I add routes to this single location and have all (ANS, CW, et al) pick them up and add them to their configs, etc. Or, do I have to register with each registery, which would sorta defeat the purpose of a registery.??? Can anyone give me a quick Route Object / Policy 101, or point me to something for the slightly less clued :) I want to get this right and make sure I don't FUBAR things... Any sushi eating people that help will be compensated in sushi, the next time I see you (NANOG or ARIN meetings) Thanks Back to your regularly scheduled BA or is that BS ?? jmbrown(a)ihighway.net AS 7850

2 2

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by Bob Allisat 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Larry writes: > You say that with a little too much chutzpah. I think you may be > jumping the gun a bit. As long as your Bill of Rights includes > provisions that allows the privacy of innocent netizens to be invaded > there *will* be no Bill of Rights, IMHO. > > I'm betting on Paul :). If you will carefully examine the Digital Bill of Rights it garuantees the privacy and security of citizens. I quote: + The right to security and protection from forged + messages, covert message deletions and other illicit + obstructions. + + The right to protection, should we so choose, from + mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested + file or data transfers and similar harassments. *If* and only *if* the person (as in the individual) chooses to protect themselves. To do so without the knowledge or consent of the person is illegitimate. I understand some system which impliment RBL allow their clients to choose setting the defaul to OFF. That is completely reasonable. However I understand that most systems install RBL as the default. This is unethical and unacceptable in my opinion. As for whether or not this matter effects network operations I suspect anyone unfairly placed on the RBL list may argue otherwise. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

2 1

Re: NSI policy on lame delegations
by John Fraizer 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

You're kidding, right? It becomes a matter of disservice when I stop/start a nameserver so we can add "im-cool-i-have-my-own-domain-now-what-do-i-do-with-it.com". It flushes the caches and causes dns lookups for our clients to take longer, not to mention the fact that it increases traffic on the global net. If every isp/nsp did this, the entire cacheing function of DNS would be moot. Noone would have a live cache. When someone signs up for hosting services with us, they are not told "your zone entry will be live in our servers before I hit the send button on your domain app." They wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about to begin with. Secondly, until the app is processed, my servers AREN'T authoritative for the domain. More than once, I have sent in a registration for a domain that was available in whois only to have it rejected. Some other person beat me to the punch by a few minutes and the domain was awarded to them. At 04:40 AM 11/21/98 -0800, Randy Bush wrote: >> The reason I say this is that some folks automatically reload their >> nameservers which have tens of thousands of domain names once a day and >> have clients that want domains registered on the same day they request >> them. (queuing is not an option.) > >if they intend to serve those clients, as opposed to pretending to do so, >then they should load thier servers when they are pretending to do so. > >randy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

2 1

Operational issue: mae-west loss
by dlr＠bungi.com 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

The links between AMES and San Jose Mae-west seem to be very toasted. MFS is advising customers to reboot routers (I don't THINK so...) Heads up, folks. Dave Rand -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

1 0

Re: ORBS: Another Vigilante Group
by Bob Allisat 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Lawrence writes: > You can stop junk mail with one stroke of the pen, the only difference > here is that there are hundreds of thousands of electronic "post > offices", each with it's own postmaster. Unless all postmasters agree > to one set of rules governing UCE and spam the RBL will always be viewed > as a positive thing, except by spammers, that is. I'll take it the way > it is until something better comes along. The problem is the people who are deciding are niether elected nor in any way sanctioned by any authority or remotely democratic process. It is vigilante network operations. This situation will change. Largely because of the gross incompetance of Vixie, these dorkslayer dorks and the rest of the Sysadmin despots. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

Re: Digital Bill of Rights
by Paul Vixie 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Please note the reply-to on this message and respect it. Someone has gone to the trouble and expense of creating a new mailing list just for the rbl discussion; we should use it. If you reply to other messages on this thread within nanog, please do the same "reply-to" thing I'm doing in the headers of this message. > Noone is treading on your rights, and what Paul is doing is not > the act of a vigilante. Paul has not forced anyone to subscribe to his > service. Paul could charge for this service. The fact that he chooses > to provide this service for free (at significant personal expense, I might > add) is testament to his community-mindedness. A vigilante is someone who > takes the law into their own hands without consent of the effected parties. It's not so much a testament to my community-mindedness as it is a testament to my unwillingness to manage another business. Once MAPS, LLC (yes, we did incorporate it recently) gets an executive director (applications welcome!) we will start charging fees to recover the costs of that person's salary and also the costs of full time people to track down spammers, write a web-based database (with deeper access allowed for paying subscribers than for lurkers), and answer the endless stream of telephone calls from people who want to get off of the list. And of course we need to buy some insurance. Again, please note, respect, and emulate the reply-to of this message. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

2 1

Re: NSI policy on lame delagations
by Paul Vixie 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

> Remember these aren't nameservers that serve 5 domains, figure tens of > thousands. Perhaps I am not being clear. Reloads, even a HUP, cause > named, even the new version, to pause for a while before being able to > serve requests again. That will change in 8.1.2++, btw. "ndc" will use a socket, not signals. > All the relevant nameservers for the domains would > have to be reloaded 300 times a day in this case. It isn't good if named > stops responding that often because it slows access to the web sites > domains by inserting a dropped DNS query timeout every time the reloading > server is queried (50% or 33% depending on 2 or 3 nameservers. If the > reload takes 30 seconds then reloading 300 times == each nameserver is > down for 150 minutes a day. Not good. Not bad, either. This is why we have slave servers. > Or do you suggest delaying client domain name registrations 24 hours? I always put a zone up on the master before I send in the registration. If the slaves take a day or so to catch up I can live with that. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: ORBS: Another Vigilante Group
by Bob Allisat 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Someone wrote: > I test, and block open relays, and I'm damned proud of it. Who gave you permission to do anything of the sort? Short answer: no-one. Long answer: no:one. You are engaging in attacks on people's lively- hoods for no apparent reason with no authority other than than given to you by your mommy. Dangerous ground when dealing with unknown quantities. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

optical/electrical g.703<>bellcore GR-253 IR
by Sean M. Doran 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

Has anyone managed to play with interfacing an electrical-only (g.703 coax) ADM with a Cisco POS line card (LC-4OC3/POS-SM ideally) to be able to recommend a converter box? Sean.

2 1

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by dlr＠bungi.com 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

[In the message entitled "Black Hole Vixie/RBL" on Jun 21, 22:11, Bob Allisat writes:] > > + we got. Because blackholing NSI would be of operational concern to a > + lot of you, I've decided to ponder this question out loud: > + > + >Technically, this is an opt-out customer-relationship spam. > + > > + > I think it is a special case, because _there is no where else to go_. > + > > + > 208.226.58.70 should be RBL'ed, IMHO. Help me. > I've taken the liberty of upgrading Bob's comments from the VIC-20 40 column standard. People taking a position on these comments should read http://www.fcn.net, and http://maps.vix.com/rbl before assesing his (or my) views. > Mr. Vixie and his cohorts increasingly imagine themselves to be the final and > ultimate arbiters in matters of Network integrity. Having them sit in > judgement over the Black Holing of successive and alleged perpetrators > violates numerous protections and freedoms all citizens Citizens implies affiliation with some political area. The Internet isn't affiliated with any one polical area, as far as I can see. With any freedom, comes responsibilty. If there is no responsibility or accountability, freedom quickly turns to disaster. Anyone with children quickly recognizies that. If not Paul sitting in judgement, then who? No one else has stepped forward. No tribunal in Sri Lanka will get any attention of ISPs in Seattle. No commitee-of-5 in Boise will get the attention of a spam farm in Israel. The RBL has a narrow focus. Stopping email spammers. It doesn't care about what kind of spam. It doesn't blackhole "people that Paul doesn't like". It doesn't blackhole competitors of networks that use the RBL. It doesn't blackhole ISP's that don't express distaste for the RBL. And it doesn't blackhole the "Anti-RBL" web pages. It blackholes spammers, and spam support services. And before it does this, it attempts to engage in meaningful dialog with these firms. The RBL is effective _precisely_ due to these facts. If it were not so, it would not be in such wide use. People can _easily_ test this, and do, on a regular basis. If it started blackholing sites based on other criteria, it would quickly be dropped by networks and sites using it, and would lose its effectiveness. And there is _no doubt_ as to its effectiveness. It has caused a policy change _towards people that spam_ on a large number of networks. It has raised the level of awareness about open relays. It has helped people to secure their sites. It has protected networks from large volumes of spam. And _it is painful to be on the RBL_. Which is why everyone involved in the RBL project is very careful about researching sites, and demanding sufficient documentation prior to recommending a site to be RBLed. Some cases are obvious. Some are borderline. Some are just too hard for anyone to figure out, which is why, for the first time ever, Paul went to the public for opinions of everyone. > It is my opinion that these activities have reached their zenith and > something should be done to finally Black Hole Vixie/RBL should they > continue on their renegade mission of uncontrolled and arbitrary censorship. Renegade? Perhaps. Uncontrolled an arbitrary censorship? I don't think so. No site is ever listed on the RBL unless it is participating in UCE/SPAM. No network is forced - ever - to use the RBL. They use it _because it works_. > Maybe it is time to pull the plug on the ultimate plug pullers, black hole > the black holers! Too late. A few months ago, Paul listed maps.vix.com on the RBL himself :-) Took about 18 hours for us to notice, and remove the listing :-) -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

3 2