Re: What *are* they smoking?

In the immortal words of Wayne E. Bouchard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > So then now instead of mail to misspelled domains, instead of > bouncing, now goes to /dev/null and you have no idea that your > critically important piece of information didn't get through? You _hope_ it goes to /dev/null. It mig

Many single letter.com/net reserved by IANA now Verisign

Hello, IANA Whois Service Domain: a.net Name: IANA_RESERVED Found a referral to whois.iana.org. IANA Whois Service Domain: a.net Name: IANA_RESERVED a.net has address 64.94.110.11 This goes for many of the single letter .com's and .net's Michael...

Re: certified idiots

I wonder how many robots they get asking for their robots.txt since all mistyped links will lead to the black hole. Or maybe that was what they wanted? BTW, traceroute to 64.94.110.11 goes through from here but port 80 is very flaky. Pete

Re: Patching BIND (Re: What *are* they smoking?)

EBD> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:32:50 + (GMT) EBD> From: E.B. Dreger EBD> I'd actually go for keeping the A RR for '*.net.' and EBD> '*.com.' in an authoritative NS's cache. If any other A RR s,authoritative,resolver, Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth

Re: Patching BIND (Re: What *are* they smoking?)

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:32:50AM +, E.B. Dreger wrote: > > Until then, I guess it's time to null route and check for > circumvention. Is AS30060 used for anything legitimate? we've burned a AS for this, ICK based on the ASNAME, its seems a nice little route-map /dev/null will be real eas

Patching BIND (Re: What *are* they smoking?)

PWG> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:40:33 -0400 PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore PWG> Anyone wanna patch BIND such that replies of that IP addy PWG> are replaced with NXDOMAIN? That solves the web site and PWG> the spam problem, and all others, all at once. I'd actually go for keeping the A RR for '*.

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Matt Larson wrote: > > Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net > zones. The Web Proxy Auto-discovery Protocol (WPAD) is another reason to fear and loathe this change. If your host has a bogus name and makes a WPAD request, they can send your brow

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:31:53 +1000, Matthew Sullivan said: > Worse than that - it's a fixed sequence of responses... > > $ telnet akdjflasdf.com 25 > Trying 64.94.110.11... > Connected to akdjflasdf.com. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 snubby4-wceast Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 ready > sdf

A quick examination of the VeriSign disaster

Okay, it's late and I've only spent about an hour on this, but I've whipped up a quick piece examining this whole mess from VeriSign. I've only *brushed* the surface of the issues that this presents and it's already a pretty long piece already. Questions, comments to me. Send your concerns to

Verisign's New Change and Outdate RBL's

Was playing with a test box here at home. Installed SpamAssassian from a newely cvsup'd ports tree on a FreeBSD box, and was surprised to see messages getting marked as received in blacklists that no longer exist. Most noteably ORBS. Since this was a fresh Install I hadn't gone through and re

Re: What *are* they smoking?

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: -- On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 00:56 +0200 -- Niels Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supposedly wrote: A wildcard A record in the net TLD. $ host does.really-not-exist.net does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 $ host 64.94.110.11 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domai

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

A couple things come to mind -- 1) Does this increase the RAM needed on a caching resolver? I.e. does it take more RAM to cache the 15-minute positive reply, than an NXDOMAIN negative reply? 2) In the "bestpractices.pdf" file, it states the following: "A response server should be configured to

Re: What *are* they smoking?

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > I abandoned them a long time ago, but the big question is, how > can we get rid of them as root servers operators? Sounds like > time to push for more independent servers, and a truly separate > company to handle the root serv

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net > zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from > 10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is > being added now. Well, I h

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, George William Herbert wrote: > This is sufficiently technically and business slimy that > I would null-route that IP, personally. Or direct it to a local server and collect the profit yourself.

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:24:29 -0400, Matt Larson wrote: >10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is >being added now. We have prepared a white paper describing VeriSign's >wildcard implementation, which is available here: > >http://www.verisign.com/resources/gd/sitefinder

Re: What *are* they smoking?

> Yep, and it'll be coming soon to .com. All your typo domain are belong > to Verisign. Ever get tempted to have a 'wet ops' NANOG team?

RE: What *are* they smoking?

There was an article, easily overlooked, in the NY Times this morning. Link below. (free, registration required.) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/technology/15MISS.html This action does call into question Verisign's ability to operate with public, nee international, infrastructure interests.

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

Sorry for the double-post folks, I got a bounce and didn't look closely at it. If somebody could check the subscriber list for an address that might result in [EMAIL PROTECTED] filtering really innocent emails (I know this has happened to others too), and contacting the owner, that would be great.

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:29:43 -0700 Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It looks like it broke. Your web server (64.94.110.11) is inoperative. > How about backing out the change Chances are your ISP has null-routed that IP address. Two of the larger ISPs in my area (Ontario, Canada) have,

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, George William Herbert wrote: > Did it occur to Verisign that perhaps this needed some external policy > and technical review before you just went ahead and did this? I wouldn't be surprised if the real motivation is to get the attention of (at least the US) government and

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Alex Lambert wrote: > "The information provided through the VeriSign Services is not > necessarily complete and may be supplied by VeriSign's commericial > licensors, advertisers or others." > > There's something immoral about *shoving it down our throats*, then, > VeriSign.

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

> > In other news, Verisign has a press release on their website announcing > something called "Next Registration Rights Service," where you can place > an order to have somebody else's domain transferred to you if they ever > don't pay their bill. The press release goes on to say that this is a

Re: [Re: Change to .com/.net behavior]

i'm not sure if it could be cached, but i still see verisign pretending to 0wn the net... as is usually suggested on this list, do your talking with your money, pull your zones from verisign, and never do business with them again, file complaints with all relevant state and federal authorities, a

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Jared Mauch wrote: > > I also typed a bit too quickly. > > I'm guessing due to the uprising they've pulled this. > > I was just going to call the dept of commerce tomorrow and > file a complaint myself. perhaps I still will. It appears GTLD servers A-D are

Re: What *are* they smoking?

So then now instead of mail to misspelled domains, instead of bouncing, now goes to /dev/null and you have no idea that your critically important piece of information didn't get through? Neat. On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:17:43PM -0500, netmask wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "

Re: What *are* they smoking?

It's bad enough now; it could be even worse. They could respond on port 443, too, with a legitimate-seeming certificate -- they're *Verisign*, the leading certficate authority. In the security world, we call this a man- (or monkey-)in-the-middle attack, for which the standard defense is crypto

Re: What *are* they smoking?

I abandoned them a long time ago, but the big question is, how can we get rid of them as root servers operators? Sounds like time to push for more independent servers, and a truly separate company to handle the root server portion of .com/.net. They could still exist as a registrar, but with th

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:45:26 -0700 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 04:18 PM 9/15/2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >Even worse of this is that you can't verify domain names under .net > >any more for 'existence' as every .net domain suddenly has a A record > >and then can be used for spamming

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:29:43 -0700 Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It looks like it broke. Your web server (64.94.110.11) is inoperative. > How about backing out the change Chances are your ISP has null-routed that IP address. Two of the larger ISPs in my area (Ontario, Canada) have, a

RE: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Johnny Eriksson wrote: > idea for next virus: after reproducing itself, construct a random domain > name ending in .net and ddos it at a low rate for a day or so. if the > faked up domain is someones real one, you get a small number of packets > to that domain. if a large n

Re: What *are* they smoking?

"The information provided through the VeriSign Services is not necessarily complete and may be supplied by VeriSign's commericial licensors, advertisers or others." There's something immoral about *shoving it down our throats*, then, VeriSign. apl Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg wrote: Can they r

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Chris Adams wrote: > It appears that the most reliable way to detect a wildcard response for > 'somedomain.tld' is to query for '*.tld'; if the results match, then > 'somedomain.tld' doesn't really exist. Just make up a number of fake domains and resolve them. If they return

Re: What *are* they smoking?

- Original Message - From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:34 pm Subject: Re: What *are* they smoking? > > No, it accepts if the from domain exists - but only if it *REALLY* > exists. Anyone want to guess what happens to all those from addr

Re[2]: What *are* they smoking?

I called VeriSign the registrar and got a supervisor, Forsyth. I spoke to him briefly about this filthy practice. He said that VeriSign GRS deals *only* with registrars; customer support at NetSOL (great abbreviation) can't even get in contact with them. It doesn't seem like they have much comm

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

I want my root servers back Matt Larson wrote: Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from 10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is being added now. We have prepared a white paper de

RE: What *are* they smoking?

At 04:18 PM 9/15/2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: Even worse of this is that you can't verify domain names under .net any more for 'existence' as every .net domain suddenly has a A record and then can be used for spamming... so, every spammer in the world spams versign. The down side of this is ... what

Re: What *are* they smoking?

FYI: A quick look shows 14 TLDs that appear to have wildcard records: ac cc com cx mp museum net nu ph pw sh tk tm ws The following TLDs answer for '*.tld' but do not appear to have wildcard records: bz cn tw It appears that the most reliable way to detect a wildcard response for 'somedomain.t

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 07:39:20PM -0500, Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg wrote: > Yeah, speaking too quickly. > > *hides* I also typed a bit too quickly. I'm guessing due to the uprising they've pulled this. I was just going to call the dept of commerce tomorrow and file a c

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg wrote: Looks like they pulled it now. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/log$ host rarrarrarrarblah.com rarrarrarrarblah.com does not exist (Authoritative answer) Nah, just zone propagation issues. Some gtld servers still have old zone data. /mjt

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg wrote: > > Looks like they pulled it now. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/log$ host rarrarrarrarblah.com > rarrarrarrarblah.com does not exist (Authoritative answer) They haven't implemented it on .com, only .net . -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Networ

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

Yeah, speaking too quickly. *hides* Thanks -a- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg Appleton: 920-738-9032 System Administrator ExtremePC LLC-=- http://www.extremepcgaming.net On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Jared Mauch wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 a

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 07:28:51PM -0500, Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg wrote: > > Looks like they pulled it now. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/log$ host rarrarrarrarblah.com > rarrarrarrarblah.com does not exist (Authoritative answer) ; <<>> DiG 8.4 <<>> any rarrarrarrarblah.com. ;; res options: ini

Re: What *are* they smoking?

http://www.verisign.com/corporate/about/contact/index.html Give 'em hell. apl Niels Bakker wrote: A wildcard A record in the net TLD. $ host does.really-not-exist.net does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 $ host 64.94.110.11 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinde

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Haesu wrote: > > Before I figure out this BIND thing, for now.. > > > > box02jp5-cr01.twdx.net# set routing-options static route 64.94.110.11/32 di$ > > Please do no do that. You, or your users, will end up having > TONS of undeliverable bounces for f

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

Looks like they pulled it now. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/log$ host rarrarrarrarblah.com rarrarrarrarblah.com does not exist (Authoritative answer) thanks, -a- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg Appleton: 920-738-9032 System Administrator ExtremePC

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

It looks like it broke. Your web server (64.94.110.11) is inoperative. How about backing out the change Matt Larson wrote: Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from 10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildc

RE: What *are* they smoking?

"Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any kiddie group already planning to "take down" the advert server ? > It's just 1 IP to take out a *lot* of domains, anything you can mistype ;) > "Look mommy we took down .net, now you see it now you..." idea for next virus: after reproducing itself

RE: What *are* they smoking?

Can they realistically enforce a TOS on a site like that, and how can they provide a remedy for it? I, for one, do not agree to their terms of service. Thanks -a- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg Appleton: 920-738-9032 System Administrator Extr

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

Haesu wrote: [] Before I figure out this BIND thing, for now.. box02jp5-cr01.twdx.net# set routing-options static route 64.94.110.11/32 discard; Please do no do that. You, or your users, will end up having TONS of undeliverable bounces for forged/bogus domains sitting in mail spools... /mjt

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

You mean you have been studying a way for more people to buy domain through you. I also am modifying BIND to convert your wildcard #$%^^% to NXDOMAIN. Between the domains that I have with you and all the problems we've had with it each time you 'change' your web interface, I've already made my d

RE: What *are* they smoking?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:18:26AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > Even worse of this is that you can't verify domain names under .net > > any more for 'existence' as every .net domain suddenly has > a A record > > and then can

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Vadim Antonov wrote: > I'm going to hack my BIND so it'll discard wildcard RRs in TLDs, as a > matter of reducing the flood of advertising junk reaching my desktop. Please share your hack ! == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Daniel Roesen wrote: > VeriSign: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? > > And don't try to tell us that you want to "help" users who mistype > addresses. You want to make money with typos, that's all. Any "Site > Finder" stuff is absurd by itself. and their list of justifications for w

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

Did it occur to Verisign that perhaps this needed some external policy and technical review before you just went ahead and did this? Have you formally or informally asked ICANN, the US DOC, etc. for policy approval? If so, where and when? Did you consider that nonexistent domains returning an

Re: Change to .com/.net behavior

I'm going to hack my BIND so it'll discard wildcard RRs in TLDs, as a matter of reducing the flood of advertising junk reaching my desktop. I think BIND & resolver developers would do everyone a service by adding an option having the same effect. Thank you, VeriSign, I will never do business wi

RE: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 19:35, ken emery wrote: > According to the article in the link posted from cbronline.com this has > been done by NeuStar who runs the .biz and .us domain registries. The > company which runs this service for NeuStar claims to be able to > differentiate between http and other

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Anyone wanna patch BIND such that replies of that IP addy are replaced with > NXDOMAIN? That solves the web site and the spam problem, and all others, > all at once. I took a look at the Bind 8.3.4 code this afternoon, but couldn't readily find w

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Mark Vallar wrote: > > This is sufficiently technically and business slimy that I agree completely. Verisign marketing practices are getting worse by the day with introduction of redeption period, fees for non-working international domains, prevention of domain transferes, e

Re: What *are* they smoking?

Once upon a time, Christopher X. Candreva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > This also blows away the whole idea of rejeting mail from non-existant > domains -- never mind all the bounces to these non-existant domains when the > spammers get ahold of them. Boy, I hope they have a good mail server > respo

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 07:17:59PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > This is sufficiently technically and business slimy that > > I would null-route that IP, personally. > > Nah, just route it to a Linux box with transparent proxy and show your > own 'Websites-R-Us' page to your customers. Or a

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:18:26AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Even worse of this is that you can't verify domain names under .net > any more for 'existence' as every .net domain suddenly has a A record > and then can be used for spamming... > > From: Spammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: You <[E

Re: What *are* they smoking?

-- On Monday, September 15, 2003 19:30 -0400 -- Mark Vallar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supposedly wrote: The bigger issue is DNS troubleshooting.what a nightmare when a query of the *.gtld-servers.net servers does not return an error. What happens when they change the IP because of null-route'ing of

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Chris Adams wrote: > Someone has already brought up the idea on the BIND list of modifying > BIND to recognize this response and converting it back to NXDOMAIN. That would be me -- I posted to comp.protocols.dns.bind, not realizeing it was a mailing list gateway. This also

RE: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Tim Wilde wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Niels Bakker wrote: > > > > > > > > A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > > > > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > > > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.11

Re: What *are* they smoking?

-- On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 00:56 +0200 -- Niels Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supposedly wrote: A wildcard A record in the net TLD. $ host does.really-not-exist.net does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 $ host 64.94.110.11 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinder-i

Re: What *are* they smoking?

> >> A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > > >It's Verisign's return shot at the web browser "couldn't find this page" > >searches. Doesn't seem to have much by way of advertising yet, but I'm > >sure that'll change. I heard about this coming from somewhere last week, > >though I don't recall

RE: What *are* they smoking?

> It's Verisign's return shot at the web browser "couldn't find this page" > searches. Doesn't seem to have much by way of advertising yet, but I'm > sure that'll change. I heard about this coming from somewhere last week, > though I don't recall where. Probably Wired or the WSJ. Verisign want

Change to .com/.net behavior

Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from 10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is being added now. We have prepared a white paper describing VeriSign's wildcard implementation, whi

Re: What *are* they smoking?

Once upon a time, Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote: > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 > > I would say time to null route this horribly inappropriate scam, but it

RE: What *are* they smoking?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim Wilde wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Niels Bakker wrote: > > > > > A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 > > > > $ host 64.94.110.11 > > 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 07:11 PM, George William Herbert wrote: A wildcard A record in the net TLD. It's Verisign's return shot at the web browser "couldn't find this page" searches. Doesn't seem to have much by way of advertising yet, but I'm sure that'll change. I heard about

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On 9/15/03 3:56 PM, "Niels Bakker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 > > $ host 64.94.110.11 > 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinder-idn.verisign.com >

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote: > > A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 > > $ host 64.94.110.11 > 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinder-idn.verisign.com >

Re: What *are* they smoking?

Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 > > $ host 64.94.110.11 > 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinder-idn.verisign.com > > It eve

Re: What *are* they smoking?

>> A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > >It's Verisign's return shot at the web browser "couldn't find this page" >searches. Doesn't seem to have much by way of advertising yet, but I'm >sure that'll change. I heard about this coming from somewhere last week, >though I don't recall where. Pro

Re: What *are* they smoking?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Niels Bakker wrote: > > A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > > $ host does.really-not-exist.net > does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 > > $ host 64.94.110.11 > 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinder-idn.verisign.com > > It even responds on po

What *are* they smoking?

A wildcard A record in the net TLD. $ host does.really-not-exist.net does.really-not-exist.net has address 64.94.110.11 $ host 64.94.110.11 11.110.94.64.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer sitefinder-idn.verisign.com It even responds on port 25 (says 550 on every RCPT TO). Gah. -- Niels

Earthlink Connectivity?

Anyone experiencing problems connecting to Earthlink through WilTel ? Tracing the route to 207.217.121.218 1 elpstx1wce2-pos3-1.wcg.net (64.200.226.225) [AS 7911] 12 msec 12 msec 16 msec 2 dllstx1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.210.209) [AS 7911] 96 msec 224 msec 40 msec 3 dllstx9lce1-oc48.wcg.n

Internetwork smarTest

Hi I am looking if somebody has some experience with Internetwork smarTest. Any feedback (preferably off list) would be greatly appreciated. Dean

Re: list thoughts on "unsupported" hardware?

Ah, quite right. It's the RSP2 that EOLd, but of course the RSP4/8/16 can be used in the 7500, so the chassis continues to be supported. Good news in this customer's case, though actually, they do have an RSP2, so are still somewhat affected. RSP2 went away as of 16 Feb 2003, as per http://ww

RE: Cisco IOS Failure due to Virus

Got love nanog.. A nice man from cisco called me, it looked like a lot of packets on my router were being process switched (sh ip cache - displayed A LOT of entries). Anyway, it turns our some of my atm sub-ints inherited a "no ip route-cache cef" from a parent int and well you can see what happ

RE: list thoughts on "unsupported" hardware?

I couldn't find anything that said the 7500 is end-of-life/support/etc... This is all I found on their site regarding the 7500: End-of-Sale/End-of-Life: FEIP2-DSW-2TX & FEIP2-DSW-2FX 09/Jul/2003 End of Sale/End of Life: SA-ENCRYPT Services Adapter 31/Mar/2003 End of Sales - VIP2-50, No. 1868

list thoughts on "unsupported" hardware?

I realize this isn't arguing about Windows patch mechanisms, but recently realized I've never answered this issue to my own satisfaction... How long do we keep upgrading and using network hardware once it's fallen off the support lists? The Cisco 7500 finally went off back in Feb of this year,

RE: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

When I checked last week 1 in 4 packets was an ICMP message, so we rate limited ICMP ECHO and ICMP ECHO-REPLY messages.. And it only bugged PING'ers and windows traceroute users.. All those low memory alarms are now no longer plaguing our NMS. Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Network Planning FCI

RE: Cisco IOS Failure due to Virus

We are seeing the same problem on all of the 6400-nrp aggregation boxes we have in the network. Here is the IOS bug ID - CSCec12495.. Actually by rate limiting icmp on our network the problems have stopped/slowed down a lot. Sorry for the delay.. Was out of the country for a while.. Mark -- M

pathchar servers

Hallo nanogers, would anyone know of any pathchar servers (similarly to traceroute servers)? Fontas PS: clink or pchar would be fine too

Detroit Area

Hallo nanogers, someone out there in the Detroit Area ? Need some information about T1 connection and Watchguard reseller/partner. Please contact me off list -- Best regards, Frank Kuempelmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's there and you can see it - it's RE

Need help with Ex-Pat project

I am helping on several areas for the design, testing, and deployment of a Metro Ethernet network (based on MPLS) in the Pacific rim. If you or if you know anyone interested in working over seas for a year or so drop me an email with contact information. Cheers, Doug Peeples

Re: Microsoft announces new ways to bypass security controls

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > We see that even when we offer POP with SSL and SMTP AUTH with SSL, few > customers wind up using it. That there are continuing problems with the > commercial certificate infrastructure doesn't help matters. > > Examples of

Re: Microsoft announces new ways to bypass security controls

At 03:22 AM 9/15/2003, Mans Nilsson wrote: Subject: Microsoft announces new ways to bypass security controls Date: Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 10:03:32PM -0400 Quoting Sean Donelan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Of course, Microsoft isn't the only one with mail protocol security > weaknesses. > > POP3 is probab

Weekly lamer report

Hi, NANOGers. While noshing on your morning bagel don't forget to check for lame DNS delegations. There are 21771 entries in the lamer report for the week ending 14 SEP 2003. These entries are often indicators of greater problems with name server configurations.

Re: Microsoft announces new ways to bypass security controls

Subject: Microsoft announces new ways to bypass security controls Date: Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 10:03:32PM -0400 Quoting Sean Donelan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Of course, Microsoft isn't the only one with mail protocol security > weaknesses. > > POP3 is probably responsible for more cleartext passwords