- Test - lists.nanog.org

usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

I just received a fishy call from a guy a usdns.org. Bottom line is they want to bill for .US domain registrations and give us a kickback for the .US subdomains that we host. What do any of you know about this group? -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

10 9

Re: Which RFC?
by Roger Fajman 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

> Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for > specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster > for mail problems, noc for technical problems and requests, and peering > for peering request/problems etc. If anyone remembers what is is, > could you please email it to me? (I do not wish to furthur muddle up the > list.) It was published last month as RFC 2142.

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

>a peek at their web page indicates they are *not* related to ISI. i am >not aware of anything that would give them the right to charge for .us >registration. sounds like a big scam to me. > >On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Eric Kozowski wrote: > >> >> I just received a fishy call from a guy a usdns.org. Bottom line is they want >> to bill for .US domain registrations and give us a kickback for the .US >> subdomains that we host. >> I just received an US domain template from usdns.org for a 3rd level domain that we delegate for. So, I called the listed contact and asked him if the Name Consortium was charging him for the registration. He said they were charging him "something like $10". I let him know it was really free (he didn't know that) and pointed him to the ISI page. Hey ISI/IANA, you might want to take a look at these characters. -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

1 0

Re: Which RFC?
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

>Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for >specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster [snip] I haven't looked sinnce then, but in Feb, it was still an I-D, draft-crocker-stdaddr-02. Cheers, -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 800.763.8111 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc. <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: multihoming without BGP
by Vadim Antonov 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> wrote: >Shorter AS paths are a silly way to choose a path for a connection. *IF* >BGP carried all the end-to-end bandwidth and delay stuff that EIGRP does, >it might be possible to make this decision intelligently. But only if all >nets described by a routing element were internally homogeneous -- that is, >only one exit gateway rather than different exit gateways in each region. Unfortunately, EIGRP-style "physical" metrics are patently useless in the real networks where traffic is engineered. Also, there are theoretical results in multicommodity flow routing basically showing that "physical" metrics do not do much good; some exponential function from "renormalized" load is needed to achieve useful load distribution. Unfortunately, nobody knows how well it works together with cooperative congestion control schemes. >None of these requirements hold in the case of BGP. While BGP is a fine >way to route packets, it's a horrid way to select paths for connections. BGP lacks real metrics. I'm still waiting for people to understand that. The protocol is not important. What's important is how it compares different paths. --vadim

1 0

Re: Automotive Nextwork Certification Doc?
by abbas＠UU.NET 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

I believe the work was done by BellCore for ANX. It was done by the folks at the Internet Architecture Research Lab in Morristown, NJ. You might try contacting somebody there... Ahmar Abbas UUNET Network and Systems Management. > From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Wed Jun 11 15:12:25 1997 > From: mcquaidj(a)netscout.com > X-Lotus-FromDomain: FRONTIER > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:42:13 -0400 > Subject: Automotive Nextwork Certification Doc? > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > Content-Length: 583 > > > > > From: Jim McQuaid@FRONTIER on 06/11/97 12:42 PM > > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > cc: > Subject: Automotive Nextwork Certification Doc? > > At the Tampa NANOG someone commented that the ANX document calling out the > network metric specifications was now available (for purchase) from them. > I don't see this on their standard catalog / web site. Any clues about > who/where/how to get this document? > > Thanks, > > > > Jim McQuaid > > > > NetScout Systems, formerly Frontier Software (508) 244-4001 x 1456 > > mcquaidj(a)netscout.com / www.netscout.com > > mcquaidj(a)frontier.com / www.frontier.com still works! > > > > >

1 0

RE: multihoming without BGP
by Rodney Joffe 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul A Vixie [SMTP:paul@vix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 11:35 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: multihoming without BGP > > <snip> > > The way I think of this is that BGP describes reachability, and > clients need > to know about topology in order to select the right web server, and > these two > (reachability and topology) are necessarily unrelated to each other. > > I think that there is another important element or metric that is not > served by either - packet loss across the path. You know a server is > reachable - BGP tells you. If you know the topology, you know it is > "close". But looking at a typical day at MAE East, for example, when > you take into account the packets that end up being dropped, it may > *not* be the 'best' path. > > > Rodney Joffe > Chief Technology Officer > Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company > http://www.genuity.net >

1 0

Which RFC?
by Cameo Wood 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster for mail problems, noc for technical problems and requests, and peering for peering request/problems etc. If anyone remembers what is is, could you please email it to me? (I do not wish to furthur muddle up the list.) Thanks in advance! Cameo

1 0

Ascend GRF
by Peter Leppik 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

I've been hearing conflicting stories about the Ascend GRF lately. Cisco claims that it doesn't really work as advertised in "realistic networks," but Ascend says this is because Cisco's routers melt down when the GRF feeds them routing table updates, so the GRF has to be throttled back to work in a mixed environment. Does anybody have any real experience here? Any information, pointers, anecdotes, or wild rumors would help. Thanks, -Peter

3 2

Re: more routes than normal
by Alex Rubenstein 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

Definately: 48312 network entries (92279/171242 paths) using 10756148 bytes of memory But I don't see the strange routes you are; what networks? At 10:21 AM 6/11/97 +0100, Andrew Bangs wrote: >Sorry for waking you all before breakfast, but is anyone else seeing >~5000 more routes than normal this morning ? > >Just a sample of some unusually long ASPaths I'm seeing here > > >Jun 11 10:03:41 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code ASPath(2): 174 2041 3789 1323 1323 1323 > 1323 1323 1323 1673 1239 1792 2907 2498 > >Jun 11 10:03:41 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code ASPath(2): 174 2041 3789 5646 1793 1239 > 3561 4574 > >Jun 11 10:05:45 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code ASPath(2): 174 2041 3789 1323 1323 1323 > 1323 1323 1323 1673 3561 577 549 > >Jun 11 09:57:59 BGP RECV flags 0x40 code ASPath(2): 174 2041 3789 1323 1323 1323 > 1323 1323 1323 1673 5378 5459 > >(and it isn't just PSI we're seeing these from, just that that was the >log I looked in. 2041 3789 seems a common factor though. ) > > >GateD-beech.router.demon.net> show ip routes >100 IP radix tree: 97679 nodes, 50773 routes >GateD-beech.router.demon.net> > >This is looking horribly familiar. > > > Regards, > Andrew >-- >Andrew Bangs, Senior Systems Administrator, Demon Internet Ltd >andrewb(a)demon.net http://www.demon.net/ http://www.demon.nl/ >

2 1