- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Unacceptable Delay
by Brett D. Watson 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

we've just received a bunch of nanog mail here at genuity that was delay *eight* hours between the time it reached merit.edu, and the time our mx host recieved it from merit, according to the headers. we've received external mail from all over the place all day with no apparent delay. has *no* one else seen any great delays in the messages from nanog? i don't think the packet loss has been that bad for 8 hours. :) -brett > I would say a lot of the delay is in packet loss.. with MW down, ME is > really loaded at this time.. I get as much as 60% packet loss just pinging > across the Ring. OUCH! > > Eric > > > _______________________________________________________ > Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - > ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group > 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Rodney Joffe wrote: > > > It's interesting to note the delay in the NANOG mailer. I don't know if > > there's any manual operation involved, but according to the headers, Rob > > posted this at 7:43, it was received at 7:43 pdt by MERIT, and shipped > > out at 8:15 pdt. > > > > I guess we're lucky this isn't an operational list, where time might be > > important ;-) > > > > Can we improve this? > > > > > > Rodney Joffe > > Chief Technology Officer > > Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company > > http://www.genuity.net > > > > Received: from postal1.genuity.net by x-files.genuity.net with SMTP > > (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1458.49) > > id 3T51M8BZ; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:15:13 -0700 > > Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) > > by postal1.genuity.net (Sendmail G2.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id > > PAA19251; > > Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:15:28 GMT > > Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) > > by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15550; > > Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:49:59 -0400 (EDT) > > Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:43:51 > > -0400 > > Received: (from majordom@localhost) > > by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15338 > > for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:43:49 -0400 (EDT) > > Received: from elite.exodus.net (rob(a)elite.exodus.net [209.1.115.69]) > > by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15331 > > for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:43:41 -0400 (EDT) > > Received: (from rob@localhost) by elite.exodus.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id > > HAA04422 for nanog(a)merit.edu; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:43:52 -0700 > > From: Robert Bowman <rob(a)elite.exodus.net> > > Message-Id: <199707111443.HAA04422(a)elite.exodus.net> > > Subject: It's always fun > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT) > > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > > > > >

2 1

Cisco 12000 aka BFR aka GSR
by Peter Leppik 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Apologies in advance for a non-operational question, but... Has anyone had the chance to get their hands on a real, live Cisco 12000 yet? I saw the plexiglass wonder at InterOp, and I'm wondering when there might be an actual box that real people can kick the tires on (even in beta). Thanks, -Peter

1 0

Re: NSPs and filters (fwd)
by smd＠clock.org 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)inorganic5.fdt.net> writes: > Unless I'm mistaken, forged UDP requires root access and (at the volume we > received) was likely from a host with T1 or better > connection to the net. You just described nearly every PeeCee at nearly every higher educational institution in North America and northern Europe, and several parts of Asia, too. Sean.

3 3

Kaspia E-mail to the group
by William B. Norton 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Hi all - Here is an apology from Kaspia for the e-mail sent to the individuals on the nanog mailing list. It appears to have been an unintentional error. Bill >To all NANOG members who attended the NANOG confererence in Florida last >month: > >It has been brought to my attention that Kaspia Systems has sent an >unsolicited email to many of you who did not attend our reception at the >show in Florida. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for >this breach of internet protocol, and to assure you that it was a case not >knowing the rules vs. willfull violation of the rules. > >I was lead to believe that we were sending a personal email to the 40 or so >of you that attended our reception, an action I approved. What actually >happened was that our telemarketing group apparently decided that if 40 was >good, 400 must be great, and proceeded to email everyone on the NANOG list, >one at a time. This action I do not approve of, nor does Kaspia Systems >believe that unsolicited email is a proper use of the internet. > >Please accept my apologies on behalf of Kaspia Systems and be assured that >this will not happen again. > >Jeff Erwin >President & CEO >Kaspia Systems >(503) 644-1800 > =========================== Offending Message=============================== >From: psprague(a)kaspia.com (Pam Sprague) >To: <XXX(a)XXX.XXX.XXX> >Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:15:48 -0700 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Priority: 3 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Message-ID: <19970702202132694.AAP219(a)Sales.kaspia> > >July 2, 1997 > >Dear XXXXXXXX, > >We very much appreciate the enthusiasm shown our product by all of you >at the cocktail reception we sponsored at the Hyatt last month. Many of >you commented about Kaspia's significance and relevance after seeing the >excellent presentation "Introduction to Network Performance >Measurement" given by Daniel McRobb of ANS. > >Dan's presentation stressed the importance of collecting, reducing and >trending various network statistics in order to perform capacity >planning and trouble-shooting. This is the best way to get the greatest >return from the two biggest costs of operating a network: Bandwidth and >Personnel. Most organizations do not have the resources to provide for >comprehensive network performance management; Kaspia was designed >specifically to meet that challenge. > >We already have meetings scheduled with several of you to determine your >specific requirements and to arrange for a comprehensive on-site >evaluation of our capability. For those of you that could not attend >our reception and would like to arrange for an individual presentation, >please contact us at http://www.kaspia.com/prod_info.htm ; we will >have an account team schedule a session with you, at your location, at a >time that is convenient for you. Also, if you would like one of our hats, >we're making more! > > >Thank you again for you enthusiasm and we look forward to being of >service. > >Sincerely, > > > >William H. Ross >Product Manager > >408-353-5764 >408-353-5765 FAX >bross(a)kaspia.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 764-9430

1 0

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by smd＠clock.org 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Stephen Balbach <stephen(a)clark.net> writes: > Routes the first packets and switches the rest based on > "flows". How is this conceptually different from cisco fastswitching wherein the slow path is used for the first packet towards a destination and all subsequent packets use a cache-based fast path? In both cases you have a slow cache-set-up path and a finite cache. There are significant disadvantages to using a cache in core routers (look up Dennis Ferguson's comments in your local NANOG archive, nobody I can think of can improve on them). The only principal advantage to cache-based routing is when you haven't got the power to process all packets through the same path without drops or mishandling of things like options and filters, but you do have the power to do some sort of hashed cache lookup. With luck, this will not be the case in future routers. Sean.

1 0

Re: NSPs and filters
by smd＠clock.org 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)inorganic5.fdt.net> writes: > A certain minimal level of network security should be a part of any > responsible network. Out of curiosity, do you yourselves do source-based IP filtering at all your edges? (Dialups, dedicated customers, gateways to your own PeeCee/Workstation gear, and so on and so forth) I don't disagree with you: everyone *ought* to filter out bogus source addresses, and this *ought* to happen as close to the edge as possible, so that a reasonable "tree of trust" would assist in tracking down where any given source-spoofing attack could *not* be coming from. Without this "tree of trust", the farther away you get from the valid origin of any given prefix, the less reliable your decision to filter or not filter a packet that claims to be originated there will be. This gets awkward for large providers, since they probably don't want to cause outages to customers or customers' customers, or customers' customers' customers... On the other hand, in a purely PA-addressed Internet, this is very simple, so much so that filtering could even be done on very large amounts of traffic, even without routers which are specifically designed with source-based filtering in mind. However, once again the addressing shortcomings of IPv4 (and these are duplicated in IPv6) get in the way of building a scalable, reliable, secure Internet without involving NAT devices. > Somewhere in the internet food chain, it is > very much practical to install filters, and someone needs to make sure > they are in place. Yes: if from your perspective you are certain that a particular interface should only generate source addresses within a certain prefix, or conversely you can guarantee that the only valid source for packets originated with that prefix is across a particular interface or small set of interfaces, then building safety-providing filters that do not cause unwanted disconnectivity is easy. The problem is in the certainty... Sean.

1 0

Bavards
by jan.novak＠aliatel.cz 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Sorry, may be my question is not appropriate. But are all of you already reading all messages here ?? I am in several of lists and trying to follow the problematics, which is interesting to me.....

1 0

who owns "internic"? (was Re: Domain Name NASA.COM)
by Carl Oppedahl 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

At 09:26 PM 07/13/97 -0400, Jamie Rishaw wrote: >If I remember correctly, NSI does *NOT* own the name "InterNIC" nor does >it own www.internic.net . > >I forget where I heard it from, but I know it was a NSI employee. There is a US federal trademark registration for "internic", and it is owned by AT&T. DIALOG(R)File 226:TRADEMARKSCAN(R)-US FED (c) 1997 Thomson & Thomson. All rts. reserv. 04402035 INTERNIC INTL CLASS: 35 (Advertising & Business Services) T&T INTL CLASS: 16 (Paper Goods & Printed Matter) 42 (Miscellaneous Service Marks) 38 (Communications Services) U.S. CLASS: 101 (Advertising & Business Services) T&T U.S. CLASS: 38 (Prints & Publications) 100 (Miscellaneous Service Marks) 104 (Communications Services) STATUS: Registered; Intent to Use - Application GOODS/SERVICES: COMPUTER SERVICES; NAMELY, PROVIDING INFORMATION VIA COMPUTER ABOUT THE GOODS AND SERVICES OF OTHERS TO NETWORK USERS; COMPUTER SERVICES; NAMELY, INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL IN THE FIELDS OF COMPUTING CENTERS, NETWORK PROVIDERS, INFORMATION SERVERS, TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES, LIBRARY CATALOGS, DATA AND SOFTWARE ARCHIVES, TRAINING SERVICES AND THE LIKE SERIAL NO.: 74-402,035 REG. NO.: 1,874,125 REGISTERED: January 17, 1995 FIRST USE: April 1, 1993 (Intl Class 35) FIRST COMMERCE: April 1, 1993 (Intl Class 35) FILED: June 11, 1993 PUBLISHED: October 25, 1994 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (New York Corporation), 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY (New York), 10013, USA (United States of America) OWNER AT PUBLICATION: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (New York Corporation), 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY (New York), 10013, USA (United States of America) ASSIGNEE(S): AT&T CORP. (New York Corporation), 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICASNEW YORK, NY 10013 Assignor(s): AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (New York Corporation) Reel/Frame: 1196/0001 Recorded: June 6, 1994 Brief: CHANGE OF NAME EFFECTIVE 4-20-94 SEE RECORD FOR DETAILS FILING CORRESPONDENT: R. A. RYAN, 131 MORRISTOWN ROAD, BASKING RIDGE, NJ 07920-1650

1 0

what's up, AlterNIC?
by kevin brintnall 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

so i hit www.internic.net today, looking for contact information for a customer of mine, and lo and behold, it's some AlterNIC crap! come to find out, my name server has incorrect information for www.internic.net: piglet [~] ? nslookup www.internic.net Server: mixer.visi.com Address: 204.73.178.1 Non-authoritative answer: Name: www.internic.net Address: 207.51.48.15 according to my cache dump, this information came from AlterNIC. $ORIGIN INTERNIC.net. www 146598 IN A 207.51.48.15 ;Cr=addtnl [204.94.42.2] piglet [~] ? nslookup 204.94.42.2 Server: mixer.visi.com Address: 204.73.178.1 Name: aragorn.alternic.net Address: 204.94.42.2 piglet [~] ? whois 204.94.42 ATC dba ALTERNIC.NET (NETBLK-SEANET02-ALTERNIC01) SEANET02-ALTERNIC01 204.94.42.0 - 204.94.42.255 i do not have ANY AlterNIC hints in my root cache. why is AlterNIC poisoning my nameserver? kevin brintnall <kbrint(a)visi.com> network engineer, vector internet E3979560EF3E00B7 36D422A3C0F3741C

6 6

Domain Name NASA.COM
by jamie＠intuition.iagnet.net 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Here we go with the InterNIC. I've been a longstanding cheerleader for the NIC, but I have to put all of that aside on this one. Today, without notice, the InterNIC turned "off" the domain name NASA.COM, a domain which had been registered now for over two years. In the letter that follows, the InterNIC claims that the registration of NASA.COM violates the Space Act of 1958. The Space Act of 1958, which is found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/amendact.html , states: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 310. (a) No person may...knowingly use...the letters 'NASA'...as a firm business name in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such firm or bueinss has some connection with, endorsement of or authorization from, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration...or...use (the NASA ackronym)...with any product or service being offered...to convey (endorsement or affiliation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration). (b) Whenever it appears to the Attorney General that any person is engaged in an act or practice which constitutes or will constitute (a violation of the above), the Attorney General may initiate a civil proceeding in a district court of the United States to enjoin such act or practice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clearly NASA.COM and its content (which had nothing to do with space) was not violating the Space Act of 1958. I'm extremely disappointed. The action taken by the InterNIC also violates their own dispute policy, found at ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic/internic-domain-6.txt . Revision 02, effective Sept 9 1996, quoted: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Second-level domain names are registered on a first-come, first-serve basis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. NASA.GOV was registered on Jan 7, 1986. NASA decided at that time that GOV was the most appropriate domain name, and chose NOT to register NASA.COM. This was over nine years ago. .. NASA.COM was registered on June 25, 1995 - over two years ago. A domain name existed for over two years, and after ONE DAY the InterNIC pulls the plug. No dispute policy. No questions. domain policy paraphrased: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Revocation. Registrant agrees that Network Solutions shall have the right in its sole discrection to revoke a Domain Name from registration UPON THIRTY DAYS PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE, OR AT SUCH TIME AS ORDERED BY A COURT... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. Again, NSI violating its own policy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Third Party Dispute Initiation. Registrant acknowledges and agrees that Network Solutions CANNOT ACT AS AN ARBITER OF DISPUTES ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. (except when they feel like making exceptions). .. NSI also states throughout section 6 of the dispute policy that it will request information and wait 30 days upon any formal complaint. The letters that NSI received were dated July 10 and 11, respectively. They didn't even *bother* to ask. The slide at http://rs.internic.net/presentations/dont/dcisoc/tsld015.html clearly states that a domain name has value and that the policy buys time for dispute resolution. The InterNIC played Judge, Jury and Executioner in this highly irrational and ill-thought move. I welcome comments. Here is the letter sent from Dave Graves. Dave Graves' title is listed as "Contracts Administrator" in NSI's IPO filing. It is listed as "Business Manager" in "THE" 1995 press release announcing the $50 annual fee. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 16:24:34 -0400 > From: "Graves, Dave" <GravesD(a)US-Herndon-NSI.mail.SAIC.com> > To: "'operations(a)host.net'" <operations(a)host.net>, > "'hostmaster(a)host.net'" <hostmaster(a)host.net> > Subject: Domain Name NASA.COM > > July 11, 1997 > > > SENT VIA EMAIL operations(a)host.net <mailto:operations@host.net> AND > hostmaster(a)host.net > AND FEDERAL EXPRESS > > The Epicenter Network > 1344 Broadway, Suite 211 > Hewlett, NY 11557 > > SUBJECT:Domain Name NASA.COM > > Dear Domain Name Registrant: > > Network Solutions, Inc. (Network Solutions) is in receipt of a July 10, > 1997, notice from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration > (NASA) regarding your registration of the domain name NASA.COM. NASA > has alleged that Network Solutions is "aiding and abetting this > registrant to maintain [your] domain name registration", and has > demanded that Network Solutions "cease and desist allowing the > registration of the Internet domain name NASA.COM." A copy of NASA's > letter is enclosed for your information. > > As the registrar of domain names, Network Solutions has neither the > knowledge of, nor the authority or responsibility to police the content > of registrants' web sites. Accordingly, Network Solutions has no > comment upon, nor does it consider relevant, NASA's demand as it > pertains to the content of your web site. > > Network Solutions is seriously concerned, however, that The National > Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, clearly prohibits the > knowing use of the letters "NASA" in connection with a product or > service "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that > such product or service has the authorization, support, sponsorship, or > endorsement of [NASA] which does not in fact exist." The enclosed > letter clearly sets forth NASA's opinion that the registration and use > of the domain name NASA.COM, without the authority or approval of NASA, > constitutes a violation of United Stated federal law. See 42 U.S.C. > 2459(b). > > In addition, Network Solutions is in receipt of a July 11, 1997, letter > from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding your registration of > the domain name NASA.COM. The FTC holds the opinion that the "continued > registration and use of NASA.COM . . . in [its] current format is likely > to mislead consumers in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act." > It is also the FTC's opinion that "it is inappropriate and perhaps > unlawful for [Network] Solutions to continue to provide domain-name > assistance to [the registrant], knowing that current use of [this name] > likely violates federal law." A copy of the FTC's letter is enclosed > for your information. > > Network Solutions neither violates federal statues, nor acts in any > manner which does, or creates the appearance that Network Solutions aids > and abets such violations. Accordingly, in response to the notice > provided in the enclosed letters and upon advice of counsel, Network > Solutions is immediately deactivating the domain name NASA.COM. > > Sincerely, > > > David M. Graves > Internet Business Manager > > Enclosures (with Federal Express only) > > Cc:Philip Sbarbaro, Esq. (w/o enclosures) > Alan Kennedy, Esq. (w/o enclosures) > Paul Luehr, Esq. (w/o enclosures) -- jamie g.k. rishaw dal/efnet:gavroche Internet Access Group 'whois JGR2' for PGP keyID/Fingerprint __ Network Operations/TSD DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800.637.4IAGx5455 "The machine's fine. It just doesn't work." -dan(a)nic.net

12 13