- Test - lists.nanog.org

A little funny.
by Derek Elder 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Ok -- one last post about the 'root name server'. While responding to the email address of Bob Allisat <tor(a)wtv.net>, I got the following bounce: The original message was received at Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:14:20 -0500 from djelder(a)mtvernon1.accessus.net [204.248.93.5] ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- <tor(a)wtv.net> (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 MX list for wtv.net. points back to presence.lglobal.com 554 <tor(a)wtv.net>... Local configuration error ----- Original message follows ----- [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] The newest net revolutionary can't even setup sendmail and he expects us to take him seriously? Bob, you really, really, should add wtv.net to the sendmail.cw on your mail server. *chuckles politely* | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder(a)accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |

1 0

Re: First? TRUE Root Name Server On Line
by tor＠wtv.net 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Derek Elder wrote: >Perhaps you should move this drivel to a list populated by 31337 warez >dudes. You may find your revolution there -- however, I have serious >doubts that any of them even know what bind is, let alone how to changed >root.cache. And I have serious doubt you understand any of the millions of people now rushing onto the internet media. Once the inevitable transfer of Internet to television and smart box is completed your roles as info-czars will be finished. By clueless people like me. Your gang is treading on thin ice now. Very thin, cracking ice with the sun coming out. Bob Allisat PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670

2 1

Re: FW: First? TRUE Root Name Server On Line
by Joel M Snyder 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

The ONE TRUE ROOT SERVER? Why, I'M RUNNING that! All BOW DOWN and WORSHIP at the ALTAR of the TRUE ROOT SERVER! These other servers are FALSE and you must NOT heed them! The ONE TRUE ROOT SERVER is MINE! YOUR server is FALSE! You WORSHIP FALSE SERVERS! Your PACKETS will ROT IN IPX if you DO NOT REPENT! YOUR data will be ENCAPSULATED! Your CHECKSUMS will NOT CHECK if you continue in THIS HERESY! The SERVER, the ONE TRUE ROOT SERVER, ... (you get the picture) jms Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One

2 1

Bah.
by Derek Elder 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Sorry for the cross-emails on the last CC. Got a bit overzealous responding to the idiot^H^H^H^H^H^Hgentleman that keeps harping on the root server joke. | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder(a)accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |

1 0

Re: First? TRUE Root Name Server On Line
by tor＠wtv.net 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Paul A Vixie wrote: >Your desire to make a distinction between "popular" and "actual" is >dishonest, misleading, ugly, and rude. There are exactly nine root >name servers. Not "popular" root name servers - 9 SERVERS, total: Paul - your peculiar brand of orthodox and narrowly defined reality are not in line with the fluidic and creative nature of the Internet IMHO. Should the people choose to circumvent these silly bottlenecks they will. And then you can rave all you want. My experience is that the citizans of the internet like revolution and love change. And you're sounding awful reactionary and even counter-revolutionary, Paul... Bob Allisat PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 (416) 588-0670

2 1

new text
by Vadim Antonov 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

I posted a white paper text explaining how to build a terabit router in a basement :) Check http://www.pluris.com If you visited the site recently, your browser may show you an old copy of the page. If you do not see a link to the new text, click on "reload" or clear the disk cache. --vadim

1 0

RE: First? TRUE Root Name Server On Line
by Jim Fleming 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

On Saturday, November 23, 1996 1:58 PM, Jamie[SMTP:jamie@dilbert.multiverse.com] wrote: @ Jim "Beam me up" Fleming wrote: @ > @ > What do you suggest as a constructive solution ? @ > @ > 1. Would TCP wrappers satisfy you ? @ @ It's your network security you have to worry about. Not me. @ TCP wrappers in coordination with the appropriate filters, restrictions, @ etc., are desirable. @ @ > 2. or, do you think those services should not @ > even be in the inetd repetoire ? @ @ Correct. @ @ > Also, have you checked all of the 9 "popular" root @ > name servers ? Do they conform to your requirements ? @ @ Yes. @ @ Here's a little chart from a three minute discovery. @ @ Server chargen echo daytime discard smtp telnet @ a no no no no no no @ b no no no no no no @ c yes yes yes yes no [2] :( @ d no no no no no [3] @ e no no no no yes [2] @ f [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] @ g no no no no no no @ h no no no no no yes @ i yes yes yes yes no yes :( @ @ [1] This service is filtered at the upstream router (Yay) @ [2] Service is running, but wrappered @ [3] Service is running, but with "go away" warnings. @ @ @ > Can you provide a summary of ALL of the requirements @ > that you would like to see for a root name server ? @ @ Not really, but off of the top of my head I can think of a few things.. @ @ - The server should be running a release of its operating system that @ has been tested and is known to be stable. The server should not @ be running an operating system known to have a history of security @ holes, or "new" operating systems. @ @ - The server should optimally have no less than two points out to the Internet, @ and should be on a network no more than two hops from a major backbone. @ @ - The server should not be running "small tcp" or "small udp" services, @ such as daytime, echo, chargen, comsat, etc. @ @ - The server should not be running any larger tcp services, such as @ ftp, exec, r*, uucp, tftp, etc. . If this is a requirement for @ distribution of the data files, hosts allowed in should be filtered @ at the upstream router as well as via TCP wrappers. @ @ - At the upstream, the router should not be running small services, should @ have source routing disabled and access lists to prohibit anyone other @ than people coming from a select list of authorized hosts at the root @ nameserver. The root nameserver also would optimally be on its own @ small subnet to only include the server itself and the default @ route up (255.255.255.252). @ @ - The machine should not be an open machine : All non-essential accounts @ on the system should be removed, and no users other than root domain name @ administrators should be allowed access. @ @ - The machine should have at least one redundant power supply in case of @ emergency, should have an immediate uninterruptible power supply and @ conditioner, and should optimally have some sort of "long term" @ power backup , such as a diesel generator. @ <trim addresses> Jamie, This is truly a fine piece of work. I hope that you continue to refine your analysis of not only the 9 "popular" Root Name Servers but all of the Root Name Servers. The discussion on the "newdom" list, at one time was focused on the simple objective of configuring more Root Name Servers around the world. Maybe this can be a kick-start to help get everyone refocused on that objective. Thanks for the fine work. I am working on a web site to help people learn more about name servers. It is temporarily at the following address, <http://www.unety.net/Platform>. If you do not mind, I will be happy to incorporate some of your points. If you ever develop a web site, showcasing your analysis talents, let me know. I can add a link and I think that everyone would benefit from the work that you have done. Thanks again, for the nice reply. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Re: The Cidr Report
by Paul Ferguson 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Maybe the 'Hall of Shame' approach *does* work after all. ;-) - paul At 12:25 PM 11/23/96 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >> Date Prefixes >> 171196 40844 >> 171196 40868 >> 181196 40933 >> 191196 42076 >> 201196 40674 >> 211196 40583 >> 221196 40525 > >Tony, I suspect that you and your weekly report are, in a large part, >responsible for this. I thank you. Our routers thank you. > >Frank, if you're out there, has the curve changed since Tony started >publishing again? > >randy >

1 0

IS-IS questions
by Bradley Dunn 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Hi. I asked on comp.dcom.sys.cisco a few days ago about the advantages of IS-IS over OSPF. Dave Katz replied that IS-IS has proven to be very extensible while still allowing for backward compatibility. IS-IS was also overhauled around the same time that a lot of ISPs were building their networks. My questions are these. When is a good time to use IS-IS? Should an ISP that wants to build a scalable network go with IS-IS right now? Or is there a certain point where IS-IS becomes desirable over OSPF? Is there ever such a point? I would think it is better to pick an IGP and stick with it. Thanks for any comments. -BD

4 3

Sorry :)
by jamie＠dilbert.multiverse.com 24 Nov '96

24 Nov '96

Sorry for the "colorful metaphors" on the list I sent out earlier. They could have been toned down a bit.. (s/could have/should have). You just get to the "break point" sometimes.. ya know? My apologies. -jamie -- jamie g.k. rishaw | work: jamie(a)multiverse.com | home: jamie(a)arpa.com url-free sig file | multiverse corporate support| work tel: 216 771 0002 "I'm a doctor, not a doorstop!" -EMH, "Star Trek: First Contact"

1 0