- Test - lists.nanog.org

Remote Whois
by Brandon Handeland 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Has anyone seen a Rwhois server for Windows NT available out on the Internet. I have been looking for months and have yet to find one. Any suggestions are appreciated. Brandon Handeland Systems Engineer wyoming.com LLC NOC(a)wyoming.com Network Operations Abuse(a)wyoming.com Email Abuse Complaints (SPAM) Postmaster(a)wyoming.com Mail Administration NOC (307) 856-4220 x 117 FAX (307) 856-1499 ~~ Opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of wyoming.com LLC~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------

1 0

Installation Services ????
by Jan Czmok 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Does anybody of you offer installation services at MAE - EAST and MAE-WEST. Specifically, we would like to install our new B-STDXes there and switch some lines from T1 to DS3 (simply re-wiring and also new-connecting). Ascend is offering that service, but the $$$ is much too high. (Otherwise i have to travel to the states from germany) Timeframe: within next 4 Weeks Please respond via email to: czmok(a)ipf.de Jan -- Jan Czmok, IPF.NET Senior Network Engineer email: czmok(a)ipf.de, Phone +49 69 17084-52

2 1

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

> Why not use rwhois and distribute the load like DNS is? Let registerants > decide if they want to provide rwhois support for their own domain(s) or > if they want to delegate the task to the InterNIC to handle it. > > Gee... imagine being able to update data about your DNS domains immediately > instead of having to wait for the InterNIC to process the request. > > Just my $0.02. > > -- > Dan Watts > Vitts Networks > dwatts(a)vitts.com Actually, you could kill two birds w/ one stone by keeping the data in your inverse delegations. There has been some thought on this which could double as a distributed IRR, esp. for those who have trouble getting to/through those centralized databases. A brief note on how this might be done may be found at: http://www.isi.edu/div7/people/bmanning.home/inet98.html if I might toot my own horn here. Note that this is similar to, but does not go quite as far as the presentation given at a recent NANOG mtg. --bill

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Matthew Silvey 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

So what happens when someone like Microsoft implements an 'extended information' feature in their SiteServer package that does whois queries on the domains that hit the webserver, and also implement this in SiteServer Express? Do they build their own whois server? Or do we all end up absorbing the cost? just blabbering really. Matthew Silvey Systems Consultant msilvey(a)thorn.net

1 0

Re: September Effect
by Paul Vixie 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM (Sean Donelan) writes: > So what is going on? > > Internet growth has slowed. > > Internet growth is being constrained by some factor. [...] The most recent doubling, and most of the one before it, was "the fad thing." CB radio had a similar pair of doublings, but ultimately it got back to the point where only people who had a use for it, used it. The Internet is more useful than CB radio, but on the other hand when you consider that pornography is more than half of the non-interactive traffic (according to the log files I gathered from a worldwide product rollout in the transparent caching space) it's not clear how many more times we'll need to double the bandwidth of the backbone as the fad effect drops off. So perhaps the factor constraining the Internet's growth is "good taste." -- Paul Vixie La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around <paul(a)vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)

2 1

Whois
by max＠inc.net 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Has anyone else noticed a problem with whois? Seems like any domain I do a whois on returns 2 sets of records. 95% of the time it is the correct information for the domain the last 5% though seems to be a totaly unrelated record. Other than my domains here I have checked netscape.com, aol.com,internic.net among others and all seem to return bad info sporadicly. Here is an example of what I get 1 good record followed by a bad one. [max@gecko ~]$ whois webteam.net [rs.internic.net] Registrant: The Cvikota Company, Inc. (WEBTEAM8-DOM) 2031 S 32nd Street La Crosse, WI 54601 Domain Name: WEBTEAM.NET Administrative Contact: Cvikota, Kris (KC4486) kris(a)WEBTEAM.NET 800 937 2845 (FAX) 608 788 6613 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Administrator, System (AS557-ORG) host(a)WEBTEAM.NET 715/830-7800 Fax- 715/830-7801 Billing Contact: Cvikota, Kris (KC4486) kris(a)WEBTEAM.NET 800 937 2845 (FAX) 608 788 6613 Record last updated on 24-Jul-98. Record created on 24-Jul-98. Database last updated on 2-Sep-98 04:42:00 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: TORGO.WEBTEAM.NET 207.67.50.7 NS1.INC.NET 204.95.160.2 The InterNIC Registration Services database contains ONLY non-military and non-US Government Domains and contacts. Other associated whois servers: American Registry for Internet Numbers - whois.arin.net European IP Address Allocations - whois.ripe.net Asia Pacific IP Address Allocations - whois.apnic.net US Military - whois.nic.mil US Government - whois.nic.gov [max@gecko ~]$ whois webteam.net [rs.internic.net] [No name] (SPG8 ) HOLD-PAY P-U-S-S-Y-C-A-M.COM The InterNIC Registration Services database contains ONLY non-military and non-US Government Domains and contacts. Other associated whois servers: American Registry for Internet Numbers - whois.arin.net European IP Address Allocations - whois.ripe.net Asia Pacific IP Address Allocations - whois.apnic.net US Military - whois.nic.mil US Government - whois.nic.gov [max@gecko ~]$ -Max -- Max Spaulding Internet Connect, INC. max(a)inc.net

4 3

peering analysis
by Jennifer DePalma 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

I have recently put together a brief history of peering arrangements, and am now starting on an economic/political analysis of peering. I'm trying to get in touch with people in the industry and sift through answers to the following questions. If you have time to answer them via email or the phone that would be great. Can you think of other questions I should be asking? I suppose my ultimate question is "Is the market fair, open and free"? I say yes, and economically it's probably fairly easy to prove. Politically is another story... How easy is it to enter the market at different levels? What are the largest start-up costs? How political is it? How do you stay competitive? What are the technical dangers involved in peering? What are the excuses used for not peering? Are they valid? What reasons are smaller ISPs giving for wanting free settlements? Are they valid? Is the claim true that the telco-owned networks use their Internet shares to "force" smaller ISPs to lease their lines? If so, is this unfair? How does it affect pricing and the market in general? Does is produce waste? What percentage of traffic both originates and terminates on Sprint's network, Cable & Wireless, UUNet, etc.? What, if anything, is wrong with nondisclosure agreements? How do they affect the market? How should disputes in the industry be resolved? What are the Pros and Cons of peering? How does the global market figure in? (With so much of the international traffic going through California, is this good, bad, or neutral for US companies?) I'd greatly appreciate any useful input. Thanks, Jennifer ***************************** Jennifer A. DePalma 202.789.5226 202.842.3490 (fax) Research Analyst Telecommunications and Technology Studies Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010
by Bruce Hahne 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Michael Barrow writes: > Who said anything about usage charges? It looks like the proposed work > mentioned by David Holtzman is to control _abuse_ of the whois service. and Derek Balling writes: > What we had then asked InterNIC for was a means of getting > that data WITHOUT using whois. (We knew it was readily available, and > publicly accessible, but wanted to avoid beating on the whois server to get > it when it came time to generate reports). The people we talked to at > InterNIC essentially told us to pound salt. Given that NSI is sitting on what Gordon Cook has suggested is "the motherload of all databases", including full contact information for a large percentage of all Internet engineers on the planet, NSI has every incentive to limit access to that database and bide its time hoping that it will eventually be able to commercially exploit that database. And this pending legislation... > H.R.2652. Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Creates > property right in databases of information, even if public domain > information. Introduced by Rep. Coble (R-NC). Approved by House on > voice vote on May 19. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. [ from http://www.epic.org/privacy/bill_track.html ] will only help that cause. Recent NSI moves to limit "abuse" of whois, where "abuse" will be defined however NSI finds it convenient to define the term, could be interpreted as "being Internet-friendly", or as trying to constrain their operating costs and make more money for their shareholders, or as a means of maintaining their control over the collection of information by preventing others from assembling reasonably accurate replications. Application of Occam's razor to determine which of these three interpretations is more likely, given NSI's historical behavior in the exercise of its monopoly power, is left as an exercise to the reader. As an aside, we've had similar problems with ARIN, which doesn't make its database available for ftp (even though APNIC and RIPE do, though I believe at least one of them doesn't provide the email addresses in the contact records) and refuses to provide copies. We needed a copy of portions of the information for a (non-spamming) in-house application and couldn't get it. But at least ARIN is run as a public trust with voting members who can choose to adjust policy. Perhaps they'll start providing copies in the future. Bruce Hahne hahne(a)netcom.com [I don't work for Netcom]

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Dean Anderson 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Actually, I think this issue dates back to when Network Solutions thought they "owned" the database, and had some plans to sell it. There was a lot of pushback to that idea, which they eventually dropped. But they have still resisted letting anyone else have the full database. I don't think they are actually concerned so much with abuse as they are with trying to maintain or establish a proprietary control over the database. Of course, "abuse prevention" is a good cover for proprietary control. --Dean At 11:20 AM 9/2/98 -0500, Derek Balling wrote: >>Who said anything about usage charges? It looks like the proposed work >>mentioned by David Holtzman is to control _abuse_ of the whois service. >>Otherwise, the load on whois will grow without bounds and we'd >>eventually have to pay more in registration fees. Of course, that's just >>my figurin' and nothing official... > >True, that's what his statement appears to say, however, who is to define >"abuse" of the whois service? > >As an example, a company I worked for a while back wanted to generate, on >their statistics reports for their customers' web sites, who each domain >was who was hitting their page, and who it belonged to (e.g. someone >looking just at "ora.com" might not correlate that to "O'Reilly and >Associates"). What we had then asked InterNIC for was a means of getting >that data WITHOUT using whois. (We knew it was readily available, and >publicly accessible, but wanted to avoid beating on the whois server to get >it when it came time to generate reports). The people we talked to at >InterNIC essentially told us to pound salt. My superior at the time had >mentioned that we had two ways of going about this, the "net-friendly" way, >and the "brute-force" way, and that InterNIC was forcing us to use the >brute force way which could cause their servers undue load. > >Was this company "an abuser" because they wanted to do lookups of a useful >nature? (And yes, they put in caching and such so they wouldn't be querying >every domain every time.) Granted, I would define someone harvesting the >whois database for email addresses an abuser, but since I feel the abuse >use had "valid purpose", that it shouldn't be categorized as abuse. I bet >InterNIC would claim it was though. > >It's a customer service issue... We are all (I assume) customers of >InterNIC. We pay them money for domain name registrations, and they are in >turn supposed to provide reliable whois service (among other things, of >course). If they're finding that load on the whois server is higher than >they expect, they might consider (a) finding WHY it is that high? are there >people like my old employer out there doing whois requests to get a single >field from a number of sites, (b) allow others to volunteer to host the >data and serve up requests. > >Just my $0.02 worth, everyone else's mileage is sure to vary. > >Derek > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by David H. Holtzman 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Network Solutions has been seeing increased traffic on whois in the last few months. The number of queries has approximately doubled each month since June. At this time, 40% of our inbound http traffic is whois related. In an attempt to alleviate some of the load on the servers, we have taken the following steps: - Some of the worst offenders (single site, large number of accesses) will be blocked from access starting this week - Replication of the whois data will be started earlier in the evening to allow for more timely updates - Existing whois hosts have had processor and memory upgrades - Local file storage is now being used vice NFS - Medium-term and long-term development efforts are underway to redesign whois for optimal performance. This includes in-memory searches, better parsing and dynamic updates obviating the need for large daily data movements. _____________________________________ David H. Holtzman (dholtz(a)internic.net) Sr Vice President of Engineering Network Solutions, Inc.

11 15