The Cidr Report

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 7 23:00:00 PDT 2002 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. Check http:

Re: Ren Nowlin's Saturday Expedition

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:56:02PM -0400, David Diaz wrote: > > Anyone driving over to the docks from the Sheraton hotel tomorrow AM? > Willing to split a cab otherwise. I was supposed to have sent out mail about this, but I forgot. Then Joe Provo & Ren were supposed to, but I guess they forgo

Re: Bogon list

[ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 15:28:56 (-0400), Stephen Griffin wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Bogon list > > I agree, however, most folks want to see the topology, some just choose > to violate RFC1918 in order to do it. Sometimes even I stoop so low! :-) # bloody rogers routers use these nets for in

Ren Nowlin's Saturday Expedition

Anyone driving over to the docks from the Sheraton hotel tomorrow AM? Willing to split a cab otherwise. -- David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Pager] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons

Last Call: NANOG Peering BOF

Hi All - At the Peering BOF Monday evening, so far I have Peering Coordinators lined up from Adelphia, CableVision, Comcast, Cox, DACOM Korea, Equinix, GNAPs, ICG, ISC, Japan Telecom, Merit, Powered, Shaw, TELUS, T-Systems, Videotron, Yahoo! and C&W. We can take another 5-7 folks on the agen

www.worldnet.att.net routing problems

Does anyone have information why ATT's Worldnet portal is being routed through Splitrock, UIUC and NCSA? It seems to have pretty much taken the Worldnet site off the net. > nslookup www.worldnet.att.net Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 Non-authoritative answer: Name:www.worldnet.att

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Gary E. Miller wrote: > Yo John! > > There is an easy tool I use to fix that. Just put up a zone file for > them on your NS that points their www to www.playboy.com. This gets > action fast! I think pointing it to www.poopsex.com would be far more entertaining. Charles >

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:48:24AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote: > Yo John! > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote: > > > Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD > > servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112 > > domains in .com alone

Re: Bogon list

In the referenced message, Stephen J. Wilcox said: > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > > > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > > > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > >

RE: Portable Fire Suppression

I just want to say THANK YOU to everyone that responded to this request. I received some great information on portable units. Here is a summary for those who might be interested in a portable fire suppression system. http://www.ceasefire.com http://www.westmarine.com/ http://www.eaglefireprote

RE: Portable Fire Suppression

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ] Greetings; ] ] I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote ] location with some variety of fire suppression device. I ] imagine that ] some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle ] that ope

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Yo John! On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote: > Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD > servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112 > domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at > my nameservers. There is

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD > servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112 > domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at > my nameservers. @ MX0 lame.delegation.to.. * MX0 lame

Re: Portable Fire Suppression

>> This specific 'unattended server enclosure' is sitting outside >> in the middle of the desert. How will you protect it from gunshots: http://sadtomato.net/mojave.html They removed that phone booth a couple of years ago: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/May-23-Tue-2000/news/13631118.html

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:36:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd settle for a requirement that dns servers have *basic* configuration > correct - I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in > the SOA or NS records? Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation

Re: Bogon list

Well, the biggest offender in this respect by far was @home, and you know what happened to THEM... -C On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:55:08PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > [ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 10:26:53 (+0100), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Bogon list > > > > RFC1918 does no

Portable Fire Suppression

>From the first few responses I believe some clarification is in order...This specific 'unattended server enclosure' is sitting outside in the middle of the desert. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com Greetings; I would like to protect an unat

RE: Portable Fire Suppression

Title: RE: Portable Fire Suppression     Well, aren't fire extinguishers supposed to explode anyway upon high temperature? Rick Cheung NPI IT Wan Team, CCNP -Original Message- From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:00 PM To: [EMAI

Portable Fire Suppression

Greetings; I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote location with some variety of fire suppression device. I imagine that some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle that opens at a preset temperature (i.e. exploding head). Thank you in advan

Re: Bogon list

[ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 10:26:53 (+0100), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Bogon list > > RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho.. So, in other words inappropriate use of RFC 1918 does not break Path MTU Discovery! You can't still have your cake and have eaten it

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in > the SOA or NS records? apparently -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

Re: Bogon list

Indeed, and that is one of the reasons why I agree IXPs and P2P should not use RFC1918 My point was merely that using RFC1918 on links does not break P-MTU, whether it should be used or not was another question... Steve On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Daniel Senie wrote: > > At 05:26 AM 6/7/02, Stephen

Re: Cisco quality

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:08:08AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS > > 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works > > fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPo

Re: Bogon list

At 05:26 AM 6/7/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > > > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > > > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > > > If IXes n

RE: NAS filed chp 11

>> now someone will surely step up to the plate in their defence and rant >> about how this is all a good thing for NASC and how they will go on to >> reemerge next year as a lean, mean, bigger & better company. > I think at this point we are all long past the innocent stage and > rapidly approac

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:18:19 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > sure, you could take those sections as a starting point. But why > stop at TLDs? Why not make this applicable to -ALL- dns servers? Mighty fine pharmaceuticals you got there. ;) I'd settle for a requirement that dns serve

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> number and distribution of registrations maybe - that comes down to number > and sizing of servers and geography/network diversity, the others are at best > operational concerns for the backend, not for the "frontend" DNS servers. backend/frontend? > Taking RFC 2870, why wouldn't all

Re: Bogon list

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses

Re: LINX-accredited certs

And you know what ? Just like all the other attempts at 'professional' qualifications in this industry, they will prove you can pass an exam and still not know anything... Peter - Original Message - From: "Neil J. McRae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: LINX-accredited certs

> I was pointed in the direction of this after making my post on said > thread. I have seriously been considering these courses (and know > other people in the same position). > > If anyone here has done or has comments about the courses I'm sure > we'd all be grateful...otherwise I'll get so

Re: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Hallo Sabine, lange nichts gehoert ... On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote: > > > > At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such > > infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their > > customers would benefit from it. >

Re: Updates to the root zone Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> This is not a political question, only operational process. > > Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly > change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if people > need to change which name servers are handling the ccTLDs. Last year, > some o

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> . They have an AS of their own, which is free to > peer with, in which a number of crucial services are located, for ...as long as you provide transit for free. Which I don't see why you wouldn't. Even Tier-1 providers (and ex- such..:) ) do this. Best regards, - ku