- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

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

MAE West - Can anyone help
by Paul King ＠work 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Can anyone help me? I'm trying to find out names and contact details for Telco's who can provide me with an incoming only PSTN line into MAE West for dial-up access onto our router there. Any suggestions? Apologies if this is an inappropriate list for this request. Thanks in advance. Paul K... --------- Paul King, Engineering Manager - Network Tel: +44 1483 251 773 Telewest Data Services / Cable Internet Mailto:pking@cableinet.net Fax: +44 1483 251 810

1 0

Re: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble? (fwd)
by Paul A Vixie 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Someone asked me privately: > Hey, in case you /dev/null Karl: The 5ms at 1200 req/s criteria in > RFC2010 refers to the latency of a request from the local network, right? > The RFC doesn't make that clear, and in fact would make it sound like it's > supposed to be able to do 5ms over wider areas. RFC2010 did not intend to amend the universal constant "C".

2 1

Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by Karl Denninger 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

Hi folks, Just joined over here.... probably rather belatedly... What's this about root server problems? For what its worth, I haven't seen any. Then again, I don't run here with the IANA roots -- I run eDNS. Perhaps those who are unhappy with the stability of the IANA roots these days should try them... http://www.edns.net has a rather simple way to do this (yeah, it doesn't win any artistic design awards, but the information is there.... the page is brand new, just put up this afternoon) We've been running on eDNS now for something like seven months, and have had ZERO operational incidents recorded by our NOC which have been related to root server failures or problems. Now .COM servers -- that's another story. We had the problem with the bad data a couple of months ago like everyone else. But this wasn't a root server problem (and never was traced to the roots)..... Give it a shot folks. I know lots of you have political dislikes for the eDNS concept and implementation, but if your nameservice is unreliable now, having trouble, and you can *FIX IT* for your customers by using eDNS instead, isn't finding and using a better mousetrap what your customers all pay for you? Think about it! -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info(a)mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

7 14

Re: Just got on this thing (perhaps very belatedly) - root server trouble?
by crusso＠alink.net 19 Feb '97

19 Feb '97

At 5:23 PM 2/18/97, Karl Denninger wrote: [...] >What do you think happens to the nameservers on the net when they're asked >for a domain that doesn't have functional servers, and they sit and churn >trying to resolve the names? > >BTW, churn is the right word. Its taking anywhere from 5-10 *seconds* to >come back as NXDOMAIN on each request for those that fail to resolve, and >this is from the IANA roots. > >This IS a functional problem - and worse, all those non-existant zones and >the VM churn they generate on the COM TLD servers is probably the REASON >that we're looking at this kind of horrid performance! Churn shmurn. Those domains are probably ones that have been paid for (to the InterNIC), but aren't yet being used. Who's accessing those unused domains and doing all this needless churning? We should find 'em and string 'em up. Seems like most of the churning would be caused by spammers and testers like yourself. I'd be interested in seeing actual machine statistics on how much performance degredation can be attributed to lack of responses. Without those statistics, I can't see how the InterNIC fees aren't covering this scenario. As was mentioned before, you shouldn't have to pay an ISP to have a domain name reserved. Chris Russo ------------------------------------------------------------------ A-Link Network Services (408) 720-6161 http://www.alink.net This space for rent. ------------------------------------------------------------------

6 5