- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Unsubstantiated Rumor - this is not simply about RBOC ISP Tariff
by salo＠msc.edu 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

> a) The "free peering" relationship is directly analogous to a "bill & > keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies. I suspect that "directly analogous" is neither a legal nor a regulatory term. > b) Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications > Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to > interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications > carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1) It may be worth your while to learn what a "telecommunications carrier" is. (I rather doubt that you are one. I also rather doubt that the people you want to peer with are either.) The telecomreg mail list might be a useful place for you to explore this topic. -tjs

3 3

Unsubstantiated Rumor
by James R. Fisher 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

What appears below is an unsubstantiated rumor, but some rumors are true... -jrf ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Return-Path: bbb(a)acm.org >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 16:41:22 EST >To: fnc(a)web1.hpc.org, lsn(a)hpcc.gov >From: "Bruce B. Bottomley" <bbb(a)acm.org> >Subject: Fw: Telephone charges for Internet > > >Does anybody know if there's truth in this one? The concept doesn't sound >extraordinarily unlikely given the info we received from the FCC rep at FNC >a few months back about central office loading, allocation of costs and >revenues, etc., but the lack of publicity associated with this--if true--is >a bit surprising. > >>Subject: Fwd: Telephone charges for Internet >> >>>I am writing you this to inform you >>>of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local >>>telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute >>>charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will >>>hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that >>>internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per >>>minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, >>>responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to >>>isp(a)fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is >>>in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for >>>litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to >>>everyone you can think of. >>> >>>isp(a)fcc.gov

7 8

RFC1918 conformance
by Pierre Thibaudeau 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

As specified in RFC1918 (ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1918.txt) the netblocks 10.0.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16 have been allocated for "Private Internets". Consequently, these netblocks should not be routed over the Internet. As shown below, they are currently advertised from AS6848 and these advertisements are carried to us (AS6453) through various AS's of the SprintLink system. >sh ip bgp reg _6846$ BGP table version is 9335417, local router ID is 207.45.201.5 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 10.0.0.0 144.228.164.57 0 90 0 1794 1239 1790 6846 ? *> 172.16.0.0/12 144.228.164.57 0 90 0 1794 1239 1790 6846 ? *> 192.168.0.0/16 144.228.164.57 0 90 0 1794 1239 1790 6846 ? [...] AS6846 responsibles should take immediate action to remove these announcements. SprintLink, as any conscientious operator, should take action to filter out these announcements from any of its peers. Regards. __ Pierre Thibaudeau | e-mail: <prt(a)Teleglobe.CA> TELEGLOBE CANADA | 1000, rue de La Gauchetiere ouest | Tel: +1-514-868-7257 Montreal, QC H3B 4X5 | Canada | fax: +1-514-868-8446

8 14

RE: F means filtered ?
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 6:02 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ > On Monday, February 17, 1997 2:27 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.co @ m] wrote: @ > @ @ > @ Jim Fleming writes: @ > @ > Someone claimed that they could not access the public @ > @ > Root Name Server operated by Paul Vixie and supported @ > @ > by the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation @ > @ @ > @ No one claimed that but you. @ > @ > Here is the original mail....from matthew kaufman @ @ Creative editing of your original claim that Paul Vixie was @ "filtering" access to the name servers. @ @ Of course there are times where you can't reach one nameserver or @ another. Connections between any two points on the network are not @ 100% reliable. How you could twist this into the notion that @ Paul Vixie was filtering connections in the network is probably a @ question more for your psychiatrist than for you. @ @ Perry @ @ Per the following Paul has admitted that he does a small amount of filtering...he has not said why. @@@@@@@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] Sent: Monday, February 17, 1997 12:02 PM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Re: F means filtered ? > If someone was to attempt a denial of service attact against > F.root-servers.net I certainly hope Paul would filter the originating > network to protect nameservice for the other 99.5% of the Internet. Actually it would be 99.95% not 99.5%. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I think the main issue is if ISPs and network operators are going to rely on TRUE Root Name Servers for a reliable Internet then those servers should probably be handled by people who are not just volunteers. The Internet has grown from the days when people installed modems in their basements and waited for the phones to ring. The U.S. Government via the NSF/InterNIC is helping to back a serious telecommunications network. I think that most people on the NANOG mailing list understand these issues. They are more than capable of judging which Root Name Servers they use for their operations. In fact, many serious shops now run their own TRUE Root Name Servers to provide better service and better stability. The IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying to move to the TRUE Root Name Server configuration that others have proven works and some experts claimed would fail. I am somewhat surprised that more NANOG members are not at the leading edge of these developments. Such is life. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

3 2

Sprint traffic
by Richard Newcomb 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

If I may intrude... (I'm not a member of NANOG, just an evesdropper..) Does anyone have the email for the NOC @ sprint(link). There seems to be "som'in screwwy" with traffic about their system at Cheyenne. (But I'm no techie) 11:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 610 msec. 12:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 278 msec. 13:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 2644 msec. (WOW!) 14:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 312 msec. 15:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 288 msec. 16:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 397 msec. 17:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 455 msec. 18:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 320 msec. 19:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 296 msec. 20:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 363 msec. 21:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 298 mse Thanks in advance! Richard Newcomb NAMSS, Inc. rnewcomb(a)namss.com

4 3

NANOG Summary
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

Here is a summary of recent events on NANOG regarding Root Name Server problems. 1. People are complaining about Root Name Server corruption, etc. 2. Some people hypothesize that people unhappy with the IAHC outcome are causing trouble. 3. During that discussion, someone noted they could not get to the server run by Paul Vixie. 4. I asked if Paul "filters" traffic to that server. No answer. 5. A few people tried to twist that and to take a simple question regarding filtering and make more out of it. Paul finally sort of admitted that he filters a small percentage. 6. I summarized the situation and noted that the IANA and Network Solutions were making changes to the Root Name Server arrangements and suggested, that could be the cause of the problems noted in #1 above. 7. George Herbert claimed these changes have corrupted the H root server and that these changes should cease and desist. 8. I pointed out that Jon Postel (the IANA) is making those changes.... ...now there is silence at NANOG...I guess all of the Root Name Server problems have either disappeared or have been solved.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: F means filtered ?
by Jim Fleming 18 Feb '97

18 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 2:27 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ > Someone claimed that they could not access the public @ > Root Name Server operated by Paul Vixie and supported @ > by the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation @ @ No one claimed that but you. Here is the original mail....from matthew kaufman "Root nameserver F is not reachable from my network." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:47:28 -0800 (PST) From: matthew(a)scruz.net (Matthew Kaufman) Message-Id: <199702140347.TAA02409(a)scruz.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: root servers more debug data Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Status: O At present I am able to reach root nameservers A, B, C, D, E, G, I and receive valid replies to a name request. Root nameserver F is not reachable from my network. Root nameserver H is responding to all my requests with the 4-bit Response Code field set to the value 0x03 ("Name error") This is confusing a fair number of things. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net ps. this is clearly the wrong list for this, but the only one I am on and successfully receiving mail from. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The rest of your message has been deleted and noted for future reference. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: Major Global Telecommunications Firm Runs the ALTERNIC root.db!
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 9:32 AM, Jim Radford[SMTP:jradford@lightrealm.com] wrote: @ On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ Jim, did you forget to take your prescription today? @ @ > There is much work to do.... @ > Have you ever considered helping the IAHC ? http://www.iahc.org is an excellent starting point. Check back when you have something to report. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 4:41 PM, Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net] wrote: @ On Monday, February 17, 1997 4:04 PM, George Herbert[SMTP:gherbert@crl.com] wrote: @ @ @ @ @ @ >Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG @ @ >people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers @ @ >is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root @ @ >Name Servers ? @ @ @ @ If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it @ @ for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net @ @ and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network @ @ and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated @ @ that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do @ @ something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will @ @ likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes. @ @ @ @ You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a @ @ few days ago. I would hope this is the case. @ @ @ @ @ @ -george william herbert @ @ gherbert(a)crl.com @ @ @ @ It's time for another run of my occational disclaimer: @ @ I have not been a CRL employee for over 2 years now and in no way @ @ am associated with it at this time except as a end-user of shell @ @ account services. @ @ @ @ @ @ George...this may help... Do you want Jon Postel to "cease and desist"...? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: two new root only servers From: postel(a)ISI.EDU Date: 1997/01/22 Message-Id: <199701230146.AA05565(a)zen.isi.edu> Sender: owner-Namedroppers(a)internic.net X-To: NameDroppers(a)lists.Internic.net X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set sender to owner-Namedroppers(a)internic.net using -F X-Cc: iana(a)ISI.EDU X-Received: by rip.psg.com Precedence: bulk Organization: none Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dns.std Hello: We are exploring the possible evolution of the root servers to machines independent of and separate from the servers for any particular TLD. As a first step, a new version of the root zone is now available with two additional servers. --jon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are now two more root servers root servers serving ".". The names of these two machines are: j.root-servers.net 198.41.0.10 k.root-servers.net 198.41.0.11 The latest root servers list will be found at: ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.ca Checksum: MD5 (named.ca) fca1cea22445a95ac66c50d58d345d35 These machines are temporarily housed at NSI till their suitable home is found. Two additional machines will placed temporarily at ISI in the very near future. All four will eventually be moved to various international locations that are "close" to the center of the internet. All four new machines (j, k, l, and m) will only run "." in a non-recursive mode. This is being done as an experiment with running "." on separate machines from the existing iTLD's. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Postel Internet Assigned Numbers Authority c/o USC - ISI, Suite 1001 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 Talk: +1-310-822-1511 Fax: +1-310-823-6714 EMail: IANA(a)ISI.EDU @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: New Root Name Servers
by Jim Fleming 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 4:04 PM, George Herbert[SMTP:gherbert@crl.com] wrote: @ @ @ >Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG @ >people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers @ >is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root @ >Name Servers ? @ @ If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it @ for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net @ and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network @ and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated @ that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do @ something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will @ likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes. @ @ You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a @ few days ago. I would hope this is the case. @ @ @ -george william herbert @ gherbert(a)crl.com @ @ It's time for another run of my occational disclaimer: @ I have not been a CRL employee for over 2 years now and in no way @ am associated with it at this time except as a end-user of shell @ account services. @ @ @ This is very interesting.... The activities that I have been referring to are being coordinated by Mr. Jon Postel (IANA) and Network Solutions, Inc. I guess you need to check with Mr. Postel if you want to accuse people of being a "menace to the network".... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0