- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: rwhois
by Ron Muir 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

I have asked that a discussion of rwhois and ARIN's current and future support of rwhois be discussed at the next ARIN members meeting on October 16, 1998. This item has been added to the agenda for that meeting. I will be glad to present any questions/points/items about the future of rwhois, please email me privately with this information. Thanks, Ron |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\ Ron Muir IP Administration BellSouth.net .net 770-522-6363 ron.muir(a)bellsouth.net - ---------- > From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell(a)dimension.net> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: rwhois > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 8:16 PM > > > I know quite a few of you were interested in my rwhois > script, and I have exchanged a lot of e-mail with some of you > individually. I think it's time I gave a bit of a summary. > > First off, it's definately the right idea. Properly > executed this could provide a seamless, distributed method for > looking up whois data from all the registries. If we could get > past the problems below it would be a dream for network operators. > > Of course, there are problems. I'll enumerate these > in the order of importance in my mind, others may disagree. > > 1) Data is missing/inaccurate. root.rwhois.net only reliably > provides Internic data, and that data is older than whois > data. ARIN does not yet participate in rwhois, and as I > understand it RIPE and APNIC have not yet tied in. There > is no .US data in rwhois either. > > Without the right data in here it's useless, regarless of > all other problems. > > 2) The server is not completely developed. There are features > in the server that are not fully implemented. Nuff said. > > 3) There is no distributed scheme set up. The Internic runs > one "root" rwhois server. This is no better than whois. > There should be 5-10 distributed across the network to > provide redundancy. > > 4) The rwhois protocol needs a caching server. It should be > possible for any ISP to set up a caching/mirroring rwhois > server with a relatively few steps so they can have their > own local server to query. This allows scripts to pound > on the data without affecting people outside of that ISP. > > So, the net result is I don't see how an ISP could > use rwhois today. With one server at the same location as > the whois server it's no more "reliable", and the data is > definately behind. Plus they actually have tigher limits > (eg number of results returned) on the rwhois server than the > whois server. > > I really think some people should get behind rwhois > and push it forward, as it is a reasonable solution, and is > probably 90% of the way developed. If only it could be > deployed and supported. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)dimension.net > Network Engineer (CCIE #3440) - Dimension Enterprises > 1-703-709-7500, fax, 1-703-709-7699

1 0

West Orange
by Sean Donelan 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

>http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/bust/ess.htm sez: > >Essex WEST ORANGE MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION426 EAGLEROCK >AVE 94-08-01-1446 0205111 NFA-A BUSTC 12/6/9 DFB > >Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Is it any wonder the FBI is having fits over the EPA's plan to release toxic chemical site information? Underground fuel storage tanks often indicate "interesting" sites with large backup generators. Although the FBI's efforts are a bit late, anyone with a LEXIS account can do a property search and locate most 'owned' sites. Now that InternetMCI/C&W is a co-locate tenant, its actually harder to find their sites. Although for the near-term future it shouldn't be too hard to guess :-) Property easements for cable routes are on file too, but I don't know of a comprehensive commercial database for them yet. However, you can get a pretty good idea by picking up any atlas of railroad routes. On the other hand, now there is a single toll-free number you can call, and a helpful person will come out and mark their exact location at no charge. Both the EPA toxic information and the One-call cable marking are the result of laws passed by the US federal government. The law of unintended consequences takes on a whole new meaning. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: rwhois
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

[snip] Leo, Have you been by http://www.rwhois.net/rwhois/ or the rwhois(a)rwhois.net mailing list? There exist a few different clients and servers. The current/draft spec is at http://www.rwhois.net/rwhois/rwhois1.5/rwhois-1.5.txt, if I recall correctly. 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>

2 1

Error log of VIP board?
by Seon Kim 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

Hello forks! Does anyone know the meanning of below error log of Cisco VIP borad? I think this malfunction makes our border router to be restarted frequently. Any comment is greately appreciated. Thaks. Seon Kim/frogi(a)nuri.net --------------error log----------------- BR1>sh cont vip 1 logging

1 0

rwhois
by Leo Bicknell 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

I know quite a few of you were interested in my rwhois script, and I have exchanged a lot of e-mail with some of you individually. I think it's time I gave a bit of a summary. First off, it's definately the right idea. Properly executed this could provide a seamless, distributed method for looking up whois data from all the registries. If we could get past the problems below it would be a dream for network operators. Of course, there are problems. I'll enumerate these in the order of importance in my mind, others may disagree. 1) Data is missing/inaccurate. root.rwhois.net only reliably provides Internic data, and that data is older than whois data. ARIN does not yet participate in rwhois, and as I understand it RIPE and APNIC have not yet tied in. There is no .US data in rwhois either. Without the right data in here it's useless, regarless of all other problems. 2) The server is not completely developed. There are features in the server that are not fully implemented. Nuff said. 3) There is no distributed scheme set up. The Internic runs one "root" rwhois server. This is no better than whois. There should be 5-10 distributed across the network to provide redundancy. 4) The rwhois protocol needs a caching server. It should be possible for any ISP to set up a caching/mirroring rwhois server with a relatively few steps so they can have their own local server to query. This allows scripts to pound on the data without affecting people outside of that ISP. So, the net result is I don't see how an ISP could use rwhois today. With one server at the same location as the whois server it's no more "reliable", and the data is definately behind. Plus they actually have tigher limits (eg number of results returned) on the rwhois server than the whois server. I really think some people should get behind rwhois and push it forward, as it is a reasonable solution, and is probably 90% of the way developed. If only it could be deployed and supported. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)dimension.net Network Engineer (CCIE #3440) - Dimension Enterprises 1-703-709-7500, fax, 1-703-709-7699

2 1

Re: hearing word of a fiber cut in virgina
by David Lesher 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

> More broadly, I had this idea for a NANOG T-shirt. Under the slogan, > "Don't Get Mad, Get Even" -- the image of a backhoe lined up in the crosshairs > of a weapon... Reliable Sources reported the Info-warfare group of DOD wanted to use a unit badge featuring two crossed backhoes. But senior officers had NO sense of humor about same.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: GTEI/Exodus
by Justin W. Newton 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 04:24 PM 9/15/98 -0700, Tim Wolfe wrote: >On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Joe McDonald wrote: > >> >> Looks like they settled their peering argument?: >> >> GTE Internetworking has joined with Exodus Communications, Inc. to speed up >> their customers' access to the Internet. >> [....] >> http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9809152gte > >Hmm.. not to start another massive thread here, but I wonder if this means >that Exodus is now paying for transit and/or peering? Its actually a cute little press release. It basically says... "We did something." without saying what that something is. Apparently Vapor is an acceptable product these days. Justin W. Newton Got Clue? ISPF 98 http://www.ispf.org

3 3

Re: GTEI/Exodus
by mark＠exodus.net 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

Exodus has been carrying the traffic on our backbone since the beginning. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Zeeff <jzeeff(a)verio.net> To: Tim Wolfe <tim(a)clipper.net> Cc: list(a)inet-access.net <list(a)inet-access.net>; nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 5:05 PM Subject: Re: GTEI/Exodus | |Or perhaps Exodus is evening out the byte miles between source and destination |ISPs by hauling traffic closer to the destination before it leaves |their network. | |> > GTE Internetworking has joined with Exodus Communications, Inc. to speed up |> > their customers' access to the Internet. |> Hmm.. not to start another massive thread here, but I wonder if this means |> that Exodus is now paying for transit and/or peering? *************************************************************************** Mark Tripod - Senior Network Architect - Exodus Communications http://www.exodus.net - (888) 2-EXODUS - support(a)exodus.net ASN 3967 - NASDAQ (EXDS) - Direct: (408) 346-2389

2 1

Worldcom Fibrecut again in VA
by mwinter＠exodus.net 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

Just in case you too see the same old lines from last friday go down again. Worldcom has another nice fibrecut in VA between Fredricksburg and Bowling Green. Same lines as last friday's train derailment for us.... - Martin Winter Exodus Communications

1 0

Re: Hi, I'm from Cable and Wireless and I'm here to help...
by Sean Donelan 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

>In the interest of the free flow of useful and correct information >with regard to the divestiture of internetMCI, please do not believe >anything you hear, rather feel free to ask. There are a number of >ex-MCI'ers listening and we'll be happy to debunk rumors from whatever >source. Basic rule, if it came from anything but a 'cw.net' address >please ask before you jump in. Hi. I'm updating my customer service and NOC phone number lists. Will the InternetMCI still be using MCI exchanges and call centers, or will the phone numbers be changing to C&W exchanges? Thanks, sean. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1