RFC1928 Rant
I would appreciate pointers to good RFC 1918 rants. Thanks. - James R. Cutler, EDS 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098 1 248 265 7514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Muir, Ronald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2003-06-04, Wednesday 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Christopher J. Wolff Subject: RE: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP It is about time for the semi annual RFC1918 rants. ;-(
Gender and other protocol issues
A famous Internet personality is alleged to have said, approximately, "Be liberal in what you accept. Be exact in what you emit." 'Seems like this continues to be sound advice. :-) JimC
RE: scope of the 69/8 problem
RE: "If the roots and gTLDs are truly unwilling to help..." The cost of installing entirely new root hints files on every Internet-attached name server around the world is ridiculously large. It has nothing to do with willing. Perhaps, if the problem were defined in proper terms, and a solution involving moving, for example, .net or .org to the blackballed space were made to the registry/DNS owners, a discussion of real possible events could ensue. In the meantime, most of the discussion in this thread is wasted time and going to the wrong targets. - James R. Cutler, EDS 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098 1 248 265 7514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2003-03-10, Monday 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: scope of the 69/8 problem FS> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:41:56 -0500 FS> From: Frank Scalzo FS> Moving all root-servers WOULD fix the problem. Although I doubt FS> anyone is really going to be willing to make the news by causing FS> that much of an outage. I'm eager to see stats indicating how large the problem is. If the problem is this severe, it seems all the more wrong to let innocent third parties suffer due to what IP space was bestowed upon them. If the roots and gTLDs are truly unwilling to help, and a handful of entities can't cooperate, I have serious concerns why they have been handed responsibility for such a critical piece of infrastructure. I'd expect "it's too hard to be a good netizen" whining on other lists... but NANOG? Roots and TLDs? Perhaps this is an omen of the Internet yet to come. Oh joy. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)
"Well-managed...profitably." leaves out a lot of companies. Also >>is there a forthcoming section on criterium for demonstrating >>reformation by the sp and/or 'offending' user? > >The criterion is stated: no more complaints Implies that a simple "j'accuse" is enough to create a denial of service. I prefer the US to Napoleonic codes, where an accusation is insufficient to prove guilt. - James R. Cutler, EDS 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098 248-265-7514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Peter Galbavy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:06 AM To: Dr. Jeffrey Race Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment) quote: > Well-managed, ethical members of the internet industry already conduct > their businesses, successfully and profitably, according to the > principles specified in the Practice. The proposed Practice simply > aims to raise the entire industry to the level of today's best > players. I object to this wording; even without reading *any* other part of your document, I am already very cautious about it's contents simply because of the implication of your statement above. This is very much one of those political "you're either with us or against us" declarations. So - if you don't so it 'our way' then you must be unethical and badly-managed. At least. Peter
RE: DNS records for routers
Pete, Since I do NOT believe in "Security through Obscurity" as effective, I name every address and publish both A and PTR views of this relationship. This applies to all network-addressable entities. CNAME records may be added to taste. Naming should facilitate maintenance of good network operation. So, it depends on how you like to operate. In addition, most automated IP management systems provide both A and PTR entries without extra work, so it becomes a question of "Why not?" for the A records. Round-robin does not seem (to me) to provide any particular business value. - James R. Cutler, EDS 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098 1 248 265 7514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Kruckenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2003-03-01, Saturday 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DNS records for routers Any passionate opinions about DNS record conventions for routers? Or recommendations? I'm not particularly concerned about device naming conventions (we have that down), I'm more interested in what makes sense for public-viewable DNS names (so I can put those beautiful fully-compliant names where people can see them). Some traces show individual interface names, some just show device names. Any particular reason to go one way or the other for PTR records (doing a single device name for every interface seems easier and less-likely to screw up to me)? What about A records? A matching one per PTR, or just one A per device? Or no A records in the public DNS? Would round-robin A records (an A record for every interface address, all using the same device name) break anything (like performance measurement tools or network management tools)? Thanks. Pete.
RE: Stumper
MTU on the PC's -Original Message- From: Mark J. Scheller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 2003-01-21, Tuesday 5:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Stumper The Linksys does have an MTU setting, and I've had my users try some lower settings to see if it made any differences. One user set the MTU on the Linksys as low as 1200 with no noticeable improvement. Anything else I should look at? mS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Earthlink SMTP for Mobile Users
Jim, Yes, SMTP settings will to have to be changed to match whatever service, different from Earthlink.net, that you happen to use. As an outlook user, I simply created multiple profiles which referred to the same local mail store. This technique even works with the VPN to the corporate Exchange system. I just click the correct shortcut (alias) to activate the correct configuration for my connection status. My experience with Earthlink.net using several domains has been quite positive. My understanding is that Earthlink can support this because the subscriber connection itself is authenticated, giving the required traceback to the end user for UCE policy enforcement. JimC --On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:37 PM -0700 "Rowland, Alan D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see: > > http://help.earthlink.net/port25/ That's very helpful! Thank you! One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using SMTP AUTH, from anywhere, or only from within your network? I observe, for instance, that the instructions for Outlook 2000 (Windows) does not have them check "my [outgoing SMTP] server requires authentication". If the former, great! I'll inform my affected customers. If the latter, they'll have to fool with settings as they move around -- which you no doubt already know is asking too much of 99% of the population. :-)
