- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

RE: F means filtered ? (fwd)
by Bradley E. Reynolds 17 Feb '97

17 Feb '97

> The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the > primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet > is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, > stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government, the large number of > Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information > Superhighway. > > Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The > U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). > Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the > IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains > that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar) > > Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped > to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government > needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and > money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of > people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the > Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation > (NSF). <http://www.nsf.gov> > > In summary, I think that U.S. citizens should be proud that their > great country developed much of the technology and infrastructure > for the Internet. I also think that the world population should be aware > that the hundreds of years of government development in the U.S. > has resulted in a system that has the proper agencies to not only > help to foster increased growth of the Internet but also to help > ensure that citizens around the world are able to compete in this > marvelous advancement on a playing field that is fair and level. > Hmm, I am not sure how on-topic this is. (because it is more an opinion than a statement). It is true that the internet was developed in large part by the government..There is not refuting those facts. But as anyone who has had experience with any government agency or division knows, they are nowhere near the level of efficiency found in the private sector. The internet has also been moving towards the private sector because the private sector is better structured to handle its exponential growth (irregardless of what direction that growth is in). It is time to move away from the anachronistic "governmental control" view of the internet and into today. Mr. Vixie has come under fire for what he is doing. I personally think that he is right in his measures (i.e. to educate more than regulate) but that has no influence on the point that we have no need to invite the government back into this arena in any fashion. Let the industry decide. The rationing power of that aforementioned almighty dollar has a lot of influence in the internet of today. I think that Mr. Vixie will continue doing what he is doing irregardless of what anyone has to say about it. Don't let the government restrict his opinion on this matter. If the people that are affected by his actions have enough power, they will fix matters for themselves. -Bradley Reynolds Harbor Communications breynolds(a)harborcom.net ... ber(a)cwru.edu

1 0

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

17 Feb '97

On Monday, February 17, 1997 8:56 AM, Robert E. Seastrom[SMTP:rs@bifrost.seastrom.com] wrote: @ @ I have J and K in my named.ca file, but not L and M. It is reasonable @ to assume that they are not available for public use yet, as they are @ not listed in the currently-available named.root file available from @ the InterNIC. @ @ ---Rob @ @ PS: No, I was referring to the incorrect root name servers which you @ promulgate. @ I see that you are falling into line and following the orders of the U.S. Government and the NSF/InterNIC. That seems to be the way most network administrators choose to go. It is interesting that the IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. have been working hard to keep up with the leading edge Internet research that has been pioneered by people who advocated changes to the Top Level Domains. Once the IANA was able to establish the IAHC to provide adult supervision to keep a lot of people busy, they were able to roll up their sleeves and to get something done. Everyone has a lot of work to do in the next year. Hopefully, the IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. will be able to keep pace with the changes on behalf of the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation. After all, that is what they are contracted and paid to do. I am sure that they will keep you posted of those changes as they occur and it is good to see that you are falling in line as those changes happen. Keep up the good work... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1