- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Root Servers not updated
by Sean Donelan 03 Jul '97

03 Jul '97

>Lastly, it appears irresponsible to fan the flames of "the internic is >trying to get over" via lists like these. How about giving us the benefit >of the doubt? We generally stay silent on these issues, but feel that it >is important to explain what we are doing and why. No, we are not trying >to take over the net. Sorry for the confusion. I'm sorry, I must have missed a message somewhere. On which list did NSI post the announcement about the corrupt zone files preventing the other root servers from updating or the announcement about the changes for those FTPing the zone files prior to Mr. Vixie's message? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Root Servers not updated
by David H. Holtzman 03 Jul '97

03 Jul '97

There's a lot of smoke going around this list and others about the root servers. The internic generated a corrupt zone file on Tuesday which Bind did not load and prevented XFERs to the secondaries. We became aware of it last night and it is currently fixed. New zones will be ready for XFER within the next hour. The issue with requiring a login for retrieving the zone files was designed to help reduce spamming. We are currently experiencing a huge system load due to several individuals who are trying to register recently deleted domain names. The requests are being repeated and fired off every few milliseconds. One individual has over 50,000 templates in the system as we speak. We believe that by requiring an identity to download the zone files we will better protect the community. Note that this ftp policy has not yet gone into effect. Lastly, it appears irresponsible to fan the flames of "the internic is trying to get over" via lists like these. How about giving us the benefit of the doubt? We generally stay silent on these issues, but feel that it is important to explain what we are doing and why. No, we are not trying to take over the net. Sorry for the confusion. David H. Holtzman Senior VP Engineering, NSI dholtz(a)internic.net

3 2

FW: genieweb.com answering for COM
by Rodney Joffe 03 Jul '97

03 Jul '97

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>

2 1

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