- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: F means filtered ?
by Justin W. Newton 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

At 07:48 PM 2/16/97 -0500, Avi Freedman wrote: >It seems to me, Jim, that a reasonable person would assume that he allows >access to the services that it's supposed to provide (DNS), but reserves >the right to 'F'ilter services that are immaterial to the DNS functionality. I think actually the question that Jim was asking is whether Paul filters access to the root name server he runs based on his Spam Blacklist. It seems to be a valid question. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services

9 9

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 20 Feb '97

20 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 9:51 AM, Todd Graham Lewis[SMTP:lists@reflections.mindspring.com] wrote: @ Jim, I really have to ask. @ @ Doesn't acknowledging them as TRUE root name servers serve as little more @ than fodder for The Man's giant propoganda machine? By referring to them @ as TRUE nameservers, aren't you just lending those bastards at the IANA et @ al. more credibility? After all, a noted net.koo^H^H^Hpersonality such as @ yourself must be careful which labels he gives institutions on the @ network. Others are surely likely to modify their estimation thereof in @ light of your opinions, are they not? I know I sure have been. @ @ __ @ Todd Graham Lewis Mindspring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com @ @ @ The people on the NANOG list seem to have missed much of the action for the past few months. I am not sure that can be quickly solved. TRUE Root Name Servers are Root Name Servers that do not also do double-duty as TLD Name Servers. The AlterNIC, Root 64, Root 128 and other movements pioneered the notion of TRUE Root Name Servers. The IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying to play catch up. The U.S. Government via their NSF/InterNIC has been actively blocking the development of competing TLD registries by preventing companies from having entries in the Root Name Servers they operate. There is now a process in place to make sure this changes. I am sure you are going to see a lot of press about it starting tomorrow. (Today is a government holiday) As shown here on the NANOG list, people falll in line behind the U.S. Government and do what they tell them to do. Some people at the NSF would like people to think they are not involved. That is clearly not the case, Dr. George Strawn of the NSF is chair of the FNC and he was also a member of the IAHC. For companies that need to clearly show that the U.S. Government is standing in the way of progress, it is important to establish that an important group like NANOG follows the orders of the U.S. Government via the NSF/InterNIC. That was recently confirmed. If you like, you can probably do a survey. There is a little more than one year left on the InterNIC contracts with AT&T and Network Solutions, Inc. There is a lot of work to be done. Clearly, the next steps are to get IN-ADDR.ARPA in order. It is currently a mess. That would be a good challenge for NANOG to address. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

5 4

RE: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by Jim Fleming 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

On Tuesday, February 18, 1997 12:05 PM, Brett L. Hawn[SMTP:blh@nol.net] wrote: @ On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Matt Ranney wrote: <snip> @ @ Or better yet, to teach the idiots at NSI how to maintain a database. @ @ @ [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] @ [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] @ [-] 713-467-7100 [-] @ @ @ Wait a minute....please completely read the following before you start calling people idiots.... @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/feb97/registry.html "What It Means To Be a Registry" ... @@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

3 2

ANS nad RADB updates ?
by Javier Gonzalez 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Hello all, I'm sorry if this is a too stupid question, or if this is not the appropiate forum to ask these kind of questions, but I'm a beginner on that and still have a great lack of knowledge. I would like to know what are the days and hours that ANS, RADB or other american organizations choose to update their database information from RIPE Database. I need to know that in order to minimize the effect of a BGP configuration change that also means a change in the RIPE Database. I'd highly appreciate any information on this point. Thanks a lot ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nombre/Name: Javier Gonzalez Vela. Empresa/Company: Telefonica Transmision de Datos // IBERNET E-mail: jgonz(a)ibernet.es Telefono/Phone: + 34 1 584 08 18 Fax: + 34 1 523 44 99 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

> You hear that right folks. About 30% of the nameservers which supposedly > are authoritative for .COM domains are either: > 1) Non-existant (they don't resolve to an IP address) > 2) Unreachable > or 3) Don't know what "." is (!) > > Now, if it turns out that the number of so-called delegations which aren't > really backed by authority records is also 30% of the listing, then that > means that of the 790,000+ domains in the COM zone, only about 265,000 are > "real", in that they have both a nameserver online AND a proper authority > record on that nameserver. > > This is a direct result of NSI accepting applications for domains, and > listing them, without checking for authoritative SOA records before issuing > the records in the COM zone! > > I'm apalled at these numbers. For once we agree. NSI should have stopped this practice long ago. You'll be pleased to hear that there are other name registries (for instance the one serving the "no" (Norway) TLD that actually perform this check. Note that checking when an application is received isn't really enough. In Norway we run regular (monthly) checks of all the second-level domains under "no", and we always find a number of name servers which have ceased being authoritative in the time since last check. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

7 13

Sprint filters
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

I have an organization which I allocated 147.237.0.0/16 from my country block. They then wanted to subnet and hand out /24s and /23s to the dozens of offices they have scattered thru the country and to allow each office to connect to whatever ISP they wish. I told them that Sprint would block the announcements of /24s and the like when coming from 147.237.0.0. They said, then why does Sprint allow its customers to announce /24s from their nets? They gave me as examples: 148.212.0.0 and 145.248.0.0. I checked and sure enough here is what I found: *>i148.212.1.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.2.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.3.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.4.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.5.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.6.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.7.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.8.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.9.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.10.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.11.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.12.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.13.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.14.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.15.0/24 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.16.0/20 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i *>i148.212.32.0/20 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 1292 i I didn't have a good answer. Can anyone tell me what I should tell this organization? Thanks, Hank

4 3

Re: root server update
by NSSI_2＠nssi_2.frontier.com 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

The root name servers each take between 500 and 1000 queries per second. So testing them from time to time isn't going to hurt much. However, we don't need to test them from very many places, since we would just overload the trouble reporting system, which tends to be biologically limited. How about if each root name server just implements RFC 2010 and does their own monitoring, and InterNIC does the fallback monitoring, and we stop arguing about global issues on a north american mailing list?

1 0

Re: root server update
by NSSI_2＠nssi_2.frontier.com 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

The root name servers each take between 500 and 1000 queries per second. So testing them from time to time isn't going to hurt much. However, we don't need to test them from very many places, since we would just overload the trouble reporting system, which tends to be biologically limited. How about if each root name server just implements RFC 2010 and does their own monitoring, and InterNIC does the fallback monitoring, and we stop arguing about global issues on a north american mailing list?

1 0

24.0.0.0 and Sprint/AGIS filters
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

How is @Home managing to pass these nets pass Sprint and AGIS with their prefix filtering rules? *>i24.0.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6172 i *>i24.0.0.0/14 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6172 i *>i24.1.0.0/17 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6172 i *>i24.48.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1673 1677 ? *>i24.64.0.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1794 3602 3602 3602 6327 6327 i *>i24.64.32.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1794 3602 3602 3602 6327 6327 6327 i *>i24.88.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 i *>i24.96.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1791 6541 i *>i24.108.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 577 852 i *>i24.112.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 1793 6463 i *>i24.112.32.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 2493 8 *>i24.113.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 6177 i *>i24.113.32.0/19 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 2493 812 i *>i24.124.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 i *>i24.128.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 560 7015 i *>i24.129.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 7017 i *>i24.131.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 5638 7016 i *>i24.131.128.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1 7756 i *>i24.192.0.0/18 192.121.156.41 100 0 1800 1239 3561 1221 i Hank Nussbacher

2 1

Re: root server update
by NSSI_2＠nssi_2.frontier.com 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

The root name servers each take between 500 and 1000 queries per second. So testing them from time to time isn't going to hurt much. However, we don't need to test them from very many places, since we would just overload the trouble reporting system, which tends to be biologically limited. How about if each root name server just implements RFC 2010 and does their own monitoring, and InterNIC does the fallback monitoring, and we stop arguing about global issues on a north american mailing list?

1 0