- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: genieweb.com answering for COM
by Wheeler, Jesse W 03 Jul '97

03 Jul '97

Kinda makes you worried about the stability of the DNS system if someone so small on the "food chain" can create such instablility. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ Jesse W. Wheeler QA/Systems Analyst Reynolds & Reynolds Healthcare Systems Division Email: Jesse_Wheeler(a)reyrey.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- >---------- >From: Rodney Joffe[SMTP:rjoffe@genuity.net] >Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 10:46 AM >To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: FW: genieweb.com answering for COM > ><<File: ATT16935.ATT>> >This has been corrected temporarily. With brute force ;-) > >Genieweb is a downstream customer of Los Nettos, one of our customers. >No-one has been able to reach the company or the contact, so their T1 >was just taken down. I expect a call rather soon, so we can get them to >fix their mistake. > >But it does bring up an interesting point.... is it that easy to create >chaos? They are so far down the food chain, and yet.... > > > >Rodney Joffe >Chief Technology Officer >Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company >http://www.genuity.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: seanl(a)literati.org [SMTP:seanl@literati.org] >> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 9:59 AM >> To: nanog(a)merit.edu >> Subject: genieweb.com answering for COM >> >> com. 304 SOA genieweb.com. root.genieweb.com. ( >> 11 ; serial >> 10800 ; refresh (3 hours) >> 3600 ; retry (1 hour) >> 604800 ; expire (7 days) >> >> This was cached on one our name servers. Sure enough, dig any com >> @genieweb.com shows: >> >> ;; ANSWERS: >> com. 86400 SOA genieweb.com. root.genieweb.com. ( >> 11 ; serial >> 10800 ; refresh (3 hours) >> 3600 ; retry (1 hour) >> 604800 ; expire (7 days) >> 86400 ) ; minimum (1 day) >> com. 86400 NS genieweb.com. >> >> ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: >> com. 86400 NS genieweb.com. >> >> ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: >> genieweb.com. 86400 A 198.147.97.23 >> >> I wonder if this is what has been causing random COM domain lookups to >> fail for random people at random places. >> >> The time I can see this affecting a name server is if it does a lookup >> for a domain that's lamely delegated to genieweb.com, and then caches >> the 'com' reply. >> >> I've already left voicemail for the genieweb people. >> >> >> -- >> Sean R. Lynch <seanl(a)literati.org> > >

1 0

Re: URGENT! Root Servers not updated
by Carl Oppedahl 03 Jul '97

03 Jul '97

At 12:31 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >has the basic problem that paul vixie complained about been solved? > >I called a knowledgable source last night. That person was aware of the >change and said that the proper IANA people had been informed in advance >and had (he thought) not disagreed. the change he believed was not for any >of the reasons that paul feared. So there is some *good* reason why the root level servers of the Internet should be out of synch with each other, slightly over half of them carrying data that is out of date by almost a week? Did your source happen to address this issue?

1 0

Re: URGENT! Root Servers not updated
by David Stoddard 03 Jul '97

03 Jul '97

Hank Nussbacher writes: > On a related note, how do people these days determine who is the owner of > an AS# that is registered with Internic? All attempts for the past 2 > months with commands like "whois -h whois.internic.net asxxxx" result in > totally corrupted data. Leave off the "as" in the front of the number and it should work just fine. If you prefix it with "as" it thinks you are looking for a NIC handle. Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs(a)us.net

2 1

Re: Another UUNET Explanation
by Joe McGuckin 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

I've noticed that several of the larger networks use frame-relay. Why? Our experience with frame-relay with the local telco has had mixed results. What technical advantages does a frame-relay network have over an IP routed network? Thanks! Joe

11 14

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Dennis Simpson 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

> To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > From: smd(a)clock.org (Sean M. Doran) > Date: 01 Jul 1997 11:02:25 -0400 > > randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) writes: > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do many (not all) of the large backbone providers > > > establish their face to the web (their corporate webserver) on slow, > > > badly positioned machines? > > > > Because it is done by marketing, not engineering? > > In my opinion, this alone should reduce the Value Number > of any given provider. I can't imagine valuing more highly, any company whose marketing department runs the place with enough sway, that their own promotion devices are technically better than their competitor's (including many highly respected organizations) by large factors. You don't suppose that might be related to Compuserve's ranking first, then getting out what appears to be the first advertising based on the results? Nah, couldn't be. Thx, dennis

1 0

Re: FW: UUNET Current Network Status
by Neil J. McRae 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 08:49:15 -0500 James Saker <jsaker(a)intellitek.com> wrote: > didn't see this here yet... first cisco problems, now cascade? > What ever it is, they are flapping like crazy its a PITA. Neil -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil(a)DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>

1 0

Re: Another UUNET Explanation
by Wolfgang Henke 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

> Well sorry for the "delay" but I was in Paris for > some time ... > OK .. "delay" IS THE ISSUE! > Voice over IP ... etc can not take the long delay > times that ATM and Frame Relay may inccure. > It's the same reason high earth orbit sat comm is not > good for that type of communication. ........ > The "delay" of my exported X based Mailtool over a 64K > line between the US and Netherlands is driving me crazy! Here are some approximate light speed latencies: silicon valley to Chicago 40 milliseconds silicon valley to East Coast 60 milliseconds East Coast to Europe 110 milliseconds Via geostationary satellite 260 milliseconds Wolfgang http://www.whnet.com

1 0

FW: UUNET Current Network Status
by James Saker 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

didn't see this here yet... first cisco problems, now cascade? -----Original Message----- From: UUNET Network Operations [SMTP:noc@UU.NET] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 1997 3:17 PM To: alter-ops(a)UU.NET Subject: UUNET Current Network Status July 01, 1997 Dear UUNET Customer, Please accept our apologies if you have experienced any service interruptions over the past 24 hours. The cause of these problems has been traced to a software defect within our Cascade Frame Relay network. UUNET is working closely with Cascade to fully understand the cause and effects of these problems and is in the process of identifying a permanent fix. This may include rapidly deploying new software into the network. We will provide periodic updates throughout the day as further information becomes available. Routing instabilities may continue at a diminished capacity over the next 24-48 hours as switches receive updates. Thank you for your patience during this period. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience which these outages may have caused you or your customers. Sincerely, UUNET Technologies, Inc.

1 0

Routing vs Switching (was Re: Another UUNET Explanation)
by smd＠clock.org 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

Alex Rubenstein <alex(a)nac.net> writes: > Ummm.. Maybe you are missing my point. Those of us that do not have > bottomless pockets to pay for a "EVERY ROUTET HAS A CONNECTION TO EVERY > OTHER ROUTER (VIA PPP -- added by me). Hmmm... a router that is connected to every other router via PPP has precisely the same problems as a router connected to every other router by PVCs using some kind of CBR-like service. If I had bottomless pockets I would still design a maximally hierarchical network. Some routers would be connected to long-haul point-to-point circuits. Other routers would talk either via some sort of LAN thing or if money were no object, probably via POSIP. The idea would be to create a tree-like fan-out from the "backbone" routers (the ones with the long-haul circuits) to the "customer aggregation" routers, aggregating traffic and reachability information upwards from many customers towards a set of crunchy boxes with relatively few (but very fat) interfaces. The idea is to conserve the amount of work any given router has to do with respect to convergence, since that's a poorly-scalable hot-spot. In the past the hot-spot may have been the amount of traffic through a box, such that so few fat interfaces could be used that it was economically compelling to move that particular load into some sort of L2 switch and take the lumps wrt inherent routing scalability problems and the lack of conservation of configuration effort. Since there are existence proofs that this hot spot is now no longer economically insurmountable, and some much crunchier boxes are on the near horizon, the argument for using smart L2 fabrics at all is becoming weaker. > I never said it was the catch all / fix all. But, it is cheaper, and n our > environment, works well and affordably. Backhoes can only do so much > damage, and that is why one has backup ISDN or some > other means. ISDN does a lousy job of backing up 140Mbps worth of traffic... However, as I said in another message, I buy the argument that tariffs and vendor pricing (particularly cost/port for low-speed interfaces, modulo things like the CT-3 card) make fast-packet L2 fabrics attractive. What I don't understand is the "why route when you can switch?" assertion, and I'd love someone to explain it to me in simple terms. > In a high scale network (like BlueBlue Net), they have > several DS3 Frame Relay trunks leaving each PoP, so that > dismisses the backhow bit also. Something has to do the converging when the underlying physical topology changes, no? Sean. (out-of-touch former network hack) - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)ab.use.net> "Boy, you obviously don't have a clue!" -- Chad Skidmore, Datasource L.L.C.

2 1

Re: Another UUNET Explanation
by mmiller＠CBIS.COM 02 Jul '97

02 Jul '97

Well sorry for the "delay" but I was in Paris for some time ... OK .. "delay" IS THE ISSUE! Voice over IP ... etc can not take the long delay times that ATM and Frame Relay may inccure. It's the same reason high earth orbit sat comm is not good for that type of communication. ........ The "delay" of my exported X based Mailtool over a 64K line between the US and Netherlands is driving me crazy! |]

1 0