- Test - lists.nanog.org

PLANE TICKET
by Al Reuben 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hrmph. Turns out one of us nac.net types will not be able to go to NANOG. So, we have a spare ticket. The cost is $166, plus a $75 change fee. The flights: 6/6/98 Leaving Newark (EWR) 9:20am Arriving Detroit (DTW) 11:17am Flight Number: 1749 6/9/98 Leaving Detroit (DTW) 7:15pm Arriving Newark (EWR) 9:00pm Flight Number: 482 If you are interested, call me at 973.366.3000 or 973.989.5600. You'd need to be at Newark Airport at 8:30 am. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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

Re: PPP over Ethernet?
by John Fraizer 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

At 05:40 PM 6/4/98 -0400, you wrote: >> Give me 10 minutes with a sniffer and a few nifty tools and not only can I >> find the PPTP session but, take control. Now, *I* have access to your file >> on that NiceTry Server. > ><http://www.counterpane.com/pptp.html> of course. No, actually, this is a tool that a close friend wrote while working on a test harness for the PPTP protocol. It seems that MS PPTP doesn't quite work as advertized and it was necessary to sniff a ton of sessions to determine the protocol and write the state machine to interface to something other than Winblows as a client or server. I suppose that "releasing" the crack will brings with it notoriety in the community if that's what you're after. Personally, I find it more gratifying to know it can be done and have the prowess to do it than to provide the code to every bored 13y/o on the planet via anonymous ftp. >According to my Microsoft insider, "depends what the client is. If it's >NT and uses the NTLM hash, it's quite secure. If it's 9x and uses the >LM hash, it's easy to crack. Basically the deal is that 9x clients use >a shitty old hash method that's really easy to sniff and crack." The session hijacked was NT<->NT. With 3DES/Blowfish/etc freely available, why does MS feel the need to _attempt_ to write their own encryption? >Supposedly there are patches that close the holes, but PPTP still doesn't >appear to have been designed nicely to begin with. ---START PATCH.BAT--- ;patch.bat echo "Please insert Linux Bootable Installation CD in CD drive." pause "Press <ENTER> when ready." echo "This process may take several minutes depending on the speed of your computer" pause "Please press CTRL-ALT-DEL to begin the patch process..." ---END PATCH.BAT--- ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 5 12:00:00 PDT 1998 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 05Jun98 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 290598 50967 300598 51064 310598 50995 010698 50998 020698 51248 030698 51503 040698 51477 050698 50625 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 3625 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 1747 (923 cidr, 824 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 360 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 1108 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 05Jun98 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS4293 466 240 226 48.5% IMCI AS2493 503 293 210 41.7% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS174 810 622 188 23.2% Performance Systems International AS3602 499 315 184 36.9% Sprint Canada Inc. AS701 1108 929 179 16.2% Alternet AS3749 220 65 155 70.5% TECNET AS3221 112 42 70 62.5% EENet Autonomous System AS5668 115 47 68 59.1% Century Telephone Inc. AS4755 97 30 67 69.1% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS3248 128 61 67 52.3% VIAnet AS10928 108 44 64 59.3% UNKNOWN AS7046 203 141 62 30.5% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS6269 125 66 59 47.2% AT&T NWCS backbone network AS3804 199 141 58 29.1% Bell Solutions AS271 110 52 58 52.7% BCnet Backbone AS549 206 153 53 25.7% ONet Backbone AS4740 374 324 50 13.4% ASN-OZEMAIL (Ozemail Pty Ltd) AS4539 74 24 50 67.6% NETROPOLIS AS1221 274 224 50 18.2% AARNET-AS AS72 85 37 48 56.5% Schlumberger Information Network AS6335 68 20 48 70.6% NTRNET AS1239 541 494 47 8.7% SprintLink Backbone AS4200 144 99 45 31.2% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS852 159 118 41 25.8% AGT Advance Communication AS719 443 404 39 8.8% LANLINK autonomous system AS7657 120 82 38 31.7% The Internet Group Limited AS762 117 80 37 31.6% WELLFLEET-AS AS6181 65 28 37 56.9% FUSE-NET AS803 72 36 36 50.0% SaskNet Backbone AS4763 108 72 36 33.3% Telstra New Zealand For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Does any know what type of wireless
by Al Reuben 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Does any know what type of wireless ethernet will be at NANOG this week? (want to buy a card). TIA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 5

New Government white paper on Domains publsihed this am...
by Joffe, Rodney 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Here is a pointer for the latest and greatest from the US Government regarding the Domain Name Issue. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm

1 0

RE: US West and RADSL (fwd)
by Chad Skidmore 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Actually, they are not cross-marketing in ALL 14 states. The Washington Association of ISPs managed to work with the Utilities Commission in Washington to put language in the tariff that prevents/limits cross-marketing. Take a look at the tariff at http://tariffs.uswest.com and check the Washington MegaBit tariffs. Some of the language from that tariff could be incorporated into other state tariffs to prevent this kind of cross-marketing. If you know of any cross-marketing please let us know. The WUTC would love to hear as well. --------------------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. http://www.nwnexus.com 1-888-NWNEXUS > -----Original Message----- > From: Dax Kelson [mailto:dkelson@inconnect.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 2:31 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: US West and RADSL (fwd) > > > > Doesn't look like her email made it to the NANOG list. > Co-marketing of an > ILEC ISP along with the DSL circuit is going to be a big issue as the > ILECs rollout DSL nationwide. DSL is coming probably faster then you > think, we turned up the first DSL connection in Utah a couple > weeks ago. > > Dax Kelson > Internet Connect, Inc. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:18:39 -0600 > From: Marianne Granoff <granoff(a)nm.net> > To: dkelson(a)inconnect.com > Cc: jarneault(a)inet-solutions.net, nanog(a)merit.org > Subject: US West and RADSL > > [snip] > >I could go on and on about the VERY APPALLING situation here > with USW and > >DSL and Internet access, about regulated and unregulated > services, etc, > >etc. > > > >Dax Kelson > >Internet Connect, Inc. > > The preceeding message was forwarded to me by one of our NM > ISPs. US West > has been co-marketing its Internet service _with_ its RADSL > service in all > of its 14 states > (http://www.uswest.com/com/customers/interprise/dsl/) > Actions by ISP groups in Oregon and New Mexico may provide > some relief to > local ISPs there. > > I have just put up a listserve for ISPs in the US West states > to use in > sharing information. Technet has had one for the NM ISPs for > several years > - it has been a big help in getting out the word about some of these > actions. How about uswisp(a)lists.nm.net? Please feel free to > send this out > to any interested ISPs. > > To subscribe, just send an empty note to: > > uswisp-subscribe(a)lists.nm.org > > I believe that all the RBOCs/ILECs have taken or will be > taking similar > actions. Even Sprint's new ION services are part of this > trend. In my > opinion, this is anti-competitive behavior by monopoly > organizations. I > think that many local ISPs will be severly hurt by such > actions, and more > than a few will close their doors. > > As I see it - the biggest problem is that local ISPs are not > organized and > do not know how - or have the forums - to work together to > fight actions by > a company the size of US West (or other RBOC/ILEC). My > company, New Mexico > Technet, is one of the larger ISPs in NM. We wholesale > Internet access to > other ISPs. We have intervened in the NM tariff filing for US West's > Megabit services (see http://www.technet.nm.org/press.htm) to > attempt to > correct some of the things that are very anti-competitive about the > proposed tariff. So far it has cost us over $30,000 in legal > fees and we > have not even had the hearing yet. Most local ISPs cannot do > this. Most > local ISPs do not know how to take the actions with the FCC > or with the > state public regulatory agencies so that their concerns can > even be heard. > Frankly - most ISPs are not members of CIX or of ISP/C - and > many of them > do not even know about those organizations, or understand why > they should > care. > > In NM, the local ISPs come in mostly 2 flavors: those that serve urban > areas (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos) who > "may" be affected > by what US West does but are not sure, and those in rural > areas who do not > feel they will ever be affected by these actions, and so do > not care. In > much of US West's 14 state territory - I suspect that this is > similar. The > local ISPs in the urban areas have mostly seen the other local ISPs as > competitors, not collaborators. They have seen US West (or > the RBOC/ILEC) > as a vendor, not as a competitor. Most local ISPs worry > about retribution > from US West (or other RBOC/ILEC) (delayed service, > unresponsiveness on > outages, unfilled orders) if they come on too strong in criticizing a > company that they are _so_ dependent on. I am not sure that > their concerns > are not valid. > > The local (state) regulatory agencies are overworked and > underfunded in > this age of telecommunications transition/revolution. It is > not that they > don't care. It is that they simply have too much on their > plates already. > Few states provided extra funding to handle all the _new_ > issues raised by > the 1996 Telecommunications Act at the _state_ regulatory > agency level. No > one is championing any of this in most states. I think > probably because it > is not considered a problem by the vast majority of ISP > _customers_. I had > one of my customers tell me to "just get out of the way" and > let US West > introduce the high speed service because the customer needed > it right away > and I was just holding it up. They never saw that US West > owned some of > the blame in the constant delays, counterfilings, > interrogatories, motions > to compel, and other actions that have caused this > intervention to drag on. > Unfortunately, this person is more typical of ISP customers > than local > ISPs want to believe. > > The saddest aspect of this is that unless something changes, > US West and > the other RBOCs/ILECs will likely dominate the supply of > Internet access in > large urban areas in a few years - and the rural areas will > have a great > deal less Internet access than they do today. > > I think the answer is that the local ISPs _and their > customers_ have to > come together if they want to have choices about ISPs in the > future. It > will take some of the larger ISPs reaching out to the smaller > local ISPs to > help them get _all_ of their respective customers informed of > the issues. > It will take the larger ISPs intervening in more state and > FCC proceedings. > It will take constant email, listserves, and newsgroups > spreading such > information - and reaching customers - not just ISPs. It > will take some > national politicians to "champion" this cause - some who are > not worried > about losing RBOC/ILEC campaign contributions - which are > considerable. It > will take involvement by media organizations that are not > worried about > losing the RBOC advertising revenues - which are also considerable. > > It will take every local ISP who is harmed by US West actions calling, > writing, or emailing their local and national politicians and > letting them > know that they have informed all of their own customers about > the actions > by US West or other RBOC/ILEC and informing their customers > of the fact > that the politician has not responded to these > illegal/unethical/anti-competitive actions. > > In NM, it is now other internet professionals and businesses that have > joined ISPs in questioning the actions of US West. Web > designers, web page > hosting services, internet trainers, web-advertising services > and other > businesses are starting to realize that US West wants to take their > Internet-based business as well. This is a start. > > Regards, > > Marianne > > Marianne Granoff > Director of Operations > New Mexico Technet, Inc. > 5921 Jefferson NE > Albuquerque, N.M. 87109 > Ph: (505) 345-6555 > FAX: (505) 345-6559 > email: granoff(a)nm.net or granoff(a)technet.nm.org > >

1 0

60 Hudson NYC
by Mr. Dana Hudes 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Anyone else in 60 Hudson st nyc interested in peering with our multinational IP network send me a note. We're on the 10th floor. Plenty of Ethernet 10/100 ports available. Dana Hudes Internet Engineering Manager Graphnet.

3 2

Re: Beyond DNS...
by Dean Anderson 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

>> I think you have something else messed up. That message should only come >> out when you have a CNAME record that points to another CNAME. Check that >> you put the trailing dot in. > >There are a few different messages: > >"%s has CNAME and other data (invalid)" (bind-8.1.2/src/bin/named/db_update.c) >"dangling CNAME pointer" (bind-8.1.2/src/bin/named/ns_resp.c) > >-Phil Ahh. I see. According to Chris Cappuccio this has been turned off in bind 8, and is apparently non-standard behavior. We are in fact running bind 4.9.3. Sorry for the confusion. But you can still have multiple A records, which does the failover part that the original poster wanted. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP/DCE http://www.av8.com We Make IT Fly! (617)242-3091 x246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

rules for assignment of IPv6 identifiers
by Michael Dillon 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

If you check ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-tla-assignment-03.txt you will see that IPNGWG has some thoughts on what rules should be followed by registries to allocate IPv6 identifiers somewhat analogous to ASNs and IPv4 netblocks. The idea of publishing an Internet draft is that if you feel that it needs to be changed or corrected in some way, you can communicate that to the Working Group before it becomes an RFC. The elegant way to make your voice heard would be to to join the IPNG mailing list by sending a "subscribe ipng" message to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com after browsing the last month or so of the archive at ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/mail-archive The crude but effective way would be to join the IETF mailing list by sending a "subscribe" message to ietf-request(a)ietf.org. They would like you to include "subscribe" in both the message body and the Subject line. And I suppose if you feel like wasting your breath you could make suggestions on this list where it won't do any good and the WG won't be able to hear your ideas. *sigh* :-( -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

1 0

Re: PPP over Ethernet?
by John Fraizer 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

At 10:53 AM 6/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >Cygnus has tools that let you build SHH on WinNT. > >At 10:14 AM 6/4/98 -0700, Dave Siegel wrote: >>> Nah, They never heard of virtual circuits. >>> >>> Seriously, PPP over IP is a way of building a cheap VPN. The thing is that >>> SSH already does that job much better. >> >>SSH does not allow me to access file on the corporate NT server. >> >>PPTP (ala MS VPN) does. Give me 10 minutes with a sniffer and a few nifty tools and not only can I find the PPTP session but, take control. Now, *I* have access to your file on that NiceTry Server. I have yet to see or hear about this being done with an SSH tunnel. Perhaps you would like to put a unix box on your network to do SSH tunnels with and from there, mount your SAMBA share from the NiceTry box. Or then again, maybe you trust MS. <sic> ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

2 1