At 08:57 AM 5/29/98 -0400, jeyers@ialn.com wrote:

-----Original Message----- From: Eric Germann [mailto:ekgermann@cctec.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 8:09 AM To: John Fraizer Cc: Mr. Dana Hudes; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ingress filtering

At 02:32 PM 5/28/98 -0400, John Fraizer wrote:

...

Actually it has nothing to do with WINS. If all the ISP's would implement

Bzzt. Thank you for playing, though. If it were not for WinS, there wouldn't be a second packet being sent, no matter what junk is the payload.

Buzz, again. Try reading about WINS. It is a manifestation of a NetBIOS name server as defined in RFC 1001/1002. If it were using WINS for this, it would NOT hit the target machine, but the WINS server. Also, if DNS can resolve the in-addr.arpa mapping, the second packet is never sent. Ergo, it has nothing to do with WINS.

...

solid in-addr.arpa reverse mappings, this would go away. Microsoft's DNS resolver has been extended, when DNS lookups fail, to do a reverse NETBIOS query against the target machine so it can use its name when displaying stuff via NBTSTAT, etc. It was designed this way, before the Internet became popular.

Excuse me? I was using the Internet way before Microshaft was a dream in Bill's head. The RFC's you quote were rammed into existance by DARPA to provide early ecanpsulation techniques so that companies like MS could say they were IP/Internet compatible, (instead of using a real protocol) and get away from Novel slamming them for non-routable protocol support only. All they did was to take the same non-routable junk and throw it inside an ip packet and call it "internet" compatible. The RFC's quoted provide a way to make that encapsulation work, they do not recommend conversion to that as a standard. To encourage that kind of conversion would be a major leap backwards. (Wow! let's all abandon our routeable protocols and use a non-routed local segment only, encapsulated protocol. Yippee!)

Now I agree ISP's should do better DNS resolution, but every MS box plugged into the net sending a second packet adds up to a lot of junk packets eating up expensive bandwidth. MS catches the blunt of the critisizm because they are the only ones to have adopted such a lame networking scheme, and then forced it down others quotes.

Again, do solid reverse DNS and the problem goes away. It only does it iff reverse DNS fails. Period. As for timing, MS didn't give a shit about IP at the time they were written. MS wasn't even directly in the business at the time. Repeat after me, NetBIOS is a programming interface, not a protocol. Write it 100 times and them come back and play the game. NetBIOS is neither inherently routable or nonroutable. It depends on the underlying transport protocol, be it XNS, IPX, IP, OSI or proprietary NetBEUI. As for forcing it down others "quotes", the industry picked it. MS networking will run quite happily over any of the above mentioned transport protocols. Your customers selected it. Do your reverse DNS right, and you won't have the problem. ============================================================================= Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider