Re: Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

> Alas, as anyone who has ever watched Internap when they go flappy flappy > can attest, BGP does not handle an excessive number of transit paths very > well. I'd really hate to picture the size of the boom that would happen if > people WERE to exchange transit paths with each other on anythi

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

Brad, I suspect and google confirms, that you know a whole lot more about this than I do, so please have a little patience explaining this to me. Brad Knowles wrote: At 8:49 AM -0500 2005-03-29, Joe Maimon wrote: 1) Registrars being required to verify Authority in delegated to nameservers (will

Re: Telcordia report on ICANN .net RFP Evaluation

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:24:52 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A summary of the report and a link to the full report can be found at: > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28mar05.htm > > So now you know. VGRS, NS+, AF, ranked 1, 2, 3; D

Re: Telcordia report on ICANN .net RFP Evaluation

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:51:52 -0500 "Patrick W Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would that ICANN had the integrity to avoid not just impropriety, > but the appearance of impropriety. :( Would that ICANN had some *incentive* to avoid both of those. -- Richard

Re: ICANN on the panix.com theft

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Galvin wrote: > > > --On Saturday, March 26, 2005 4:58 PM -0500 David Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> ICANN Blames Melbourne IT for Panix Domain Hijacking > > > Unfortunately, the agenda for the next ICANN meeting: > >

Re: Telcordia report on ICANN .net RFP Evaluation

On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: Oki all, A summary of the report and a link to the full report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28mar05.htm So now you know. VGRS, NS+, AF, ranked 1, 2, 3; DE and CORE ranked 4 & 5. Given

FYI/OT: AV8 zombie listing in SORBS & the rantings of Dean A

Dean Anderson wrote: Hi folks. A few points about Sorbs (I've also started a web site www.iadl.org to track abuse of the internet for defamation purposes. The web site isn't finished, yet.) 1) Someone said Sorbs is just Matthew Sullivan. Well, _Sullivan_ said it isn't just him. Yeah, sure, that has

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:57:51PM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote: > > If they exchanged full routes, wouldn't that be mutual transit, not peering? Settlement free transit? Sounds like the wave of the future to me. Oh wait it's only March 29th, we're still 3 days away. :) Alas, as anyone who has ever

Re: OT: Chasing spam.

Thanks for the speedy responses, gang. All my suspicions are confirmed, and I'm putting an edge on my cudgel. =) - billn On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bill Nash wrote: I'm chasing after some spam that appears to have been built from a nanog post culling, and am looking for anyone else who may have reci

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:27:56PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote: > I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is > where AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit > from A. Peering is where A & B only advertise their network and, possibly, > the net

OT: Chasing spam.

I'm chasing after some spam that appears to have been built from a nanog post culling, and am looking for anyone else who may have recieved some mail a few weeks back, relevent info looks like: Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:01:59 -0800 From: Steve Gladstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Register for

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Mar 29, 2005, at 3:27 PM, John Dupuy wrote: I guess I'm looking at this too much from the point of view of a BGP Admin. Yes, if you are looking at this from the point of view of payment, then the top ISPs do not pay each other. I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Tra

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, John Dupuy wrote: > I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is where > AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit from A. > Peering is where A & B only advertise their network and, possibly, the > networks that stub or purc

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

I guess I'm looking at this too much from the point of view of a BGP Admin. Yes, if you are looking at this from the point of view of payment, then the top ISPs do not pay each other. I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is where AS A advertises full routes to AS

Re: phishing sites report - March/2005

And I appreciate Gadi's efforts. I hope they will soon be willing to make this methodology public, as their work continues. And to take down some phishing sites of course :) - Dan On 3/29/05 8:12 AM, "Gadi Evron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We provided Daniel with all the information he reque

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

--- John Dupuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But by the technical description of a "transit free > zone", then 701 is not > tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where > many AS are transversed > between 701 and other networks, not just a peer of a > peer. Unless, by > "transit free zon

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

My apologies to UUNet/MCI, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are useful to the discussion. But by the technical description of a "transit free zone", then 701 is not tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where many AS are transversed between 701 and other networks, not just a peer o

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

When I reported this the bug/feature was changed but I noticed a while back (late 8.x maybe 9.0) that it is back. So if the purp can get you to the wrong server only once it may be possible to keep you there. It was actually fixed in 9.2.3rc1. 1429. [bug] Prevent the cache getting lock

Re: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:35:55 GMT, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An interesting article & interview with Houlin Zhao, > director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization > Bureau (who would like very much for the UN to become > more involved in "Internet Governance

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Mar 29, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Tom Vest wrote: On Mar 29, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, i checked with renesys and their data has 701 with 5200 adjacencies followed by 1239 with 3500 anyway i care enough to have snipped the data. Does anyone know how many of these a

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:17:21 +0100, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said: > however alex, you do highlight an excellent point - things are not as simple > as > 'tier1, tier2', there are complicated routing and financial arrangements in > operation, which brings me back to my earlier point: does it matter what

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:23:06AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > > 701 is not the most connected, it has only customers and a restrictive > > set of peers? > > Ok, I'm just bored enough to bite. but not as bored as bill, randy or pa

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > and if you peer with all networks in the 'transit free zone' then you too > > become > > transit free also. > > > > er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with everyone these are not the words of someone hating to rain on me!

MCI Accepts Verizon's $7.6 Billion Offer

MCI Accepts Verizon's $7.6 Billion Offer Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:48 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - MCI Inc. said on Tuesday it accepted a revised takeover bid from Verizon Communications Inc. worth about $7.6 billion, rejecting a $8.45 billion offer from Qwest Communications International Inc. MCI

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 08:49, Joe Maimon wrote: > > TIC: Apparently DNS was designed to be TOO reliable and failure resistant. Ya, sometimes security and functionality don't mix all that well. ;-) > As I understand from reading the referenced cert thread, there is the > workaround which is disabl

Re: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace

I love how Zhao thinks the ITU could be involved with SPAM issues. I say they fix the telemarketers first. ;-) -Jim P. On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 14:35 +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > > An interesting article & interview with Houlin Zhao, > director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardi

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:24 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:23:06AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: 701 is not the most connected, it has only customers and a restrictive set of peers? Ok, I'm just bored enough to bite. If we're talking about a contest to see who has the m

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

* Chris Brenton: > In a perfect world, this might be a viable solution. The problem is > there are far too many legitimate but "broken" name servers out there. > On an average day I log well over 100 lame servers. If I broke this > functionality, my helpdesk would get flooded pretty quickly with

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 05:37, Simon Waters wrote: > > The answers from a recursive servers won't be marked authoritative (AA bit > not > set), and so correct behaviour is to discard (BIND will log a lame server > message as well by default) these records. > > If your recursive resolver doesn't

Re: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace

Like I said, interesting article. ;-) - ferg -- Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paul, I worked with Houlin Zhao extensively during 2001, and met with him again at the Rome ICANN meeting. He's a smart guy. Eric -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineeri

Re: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace

Paul, I worked with Houlin Zhao extensively during 2001, and met with him again at the Rome ICANN meeting. He's a smart guy. Eric

The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace

An interesting article & interview with Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (who would like very much for the UN to become more involved in "Internet Governance"). http://news.com.com/The+U.N.+thinks+about+tomorrows+cyberspace/2008-1028_3-5643972.html?tag=

Telcordia report on ICANN .net RFP Evaluation

Oki all, A summary of the report and a link to the full report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28mar05.htm So now you know. VGRS, NS+, AF, ranked 1, 2, 3; DE and CORE ranked 4 & 5. Eric

ICANN Publishes Telcordia Report on their Findings and Rankings for .N ET

FYI, ICANN has published an update on the selection of a successor operator for the .NET registry: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28mar05.htm - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

Chris Brenton wrote: On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 01:04, John Payne wrote: And to Randy's point about problems with open recursive nameservers... abusers have been known to cache "hijack". Register a domain, configure an authority with very large TTLs, seed it onto known open recursive nameservers, u

Re: Ironcore foundry

Le mardi 29 Mars 2005 14:37, vous avez écrit : > Issam Hakimi [ Killix ] wrote: > > I am in the search of documentation on the ironcore generation of the > > routers foundry. All the urls are the welcomes. > > http://www.foundrynet.com/services/documentation/index.html > Thanks, but one does not f

Re: phishing sites report - March/2005

We provided Daniel with all the information he requested in private, and even learned a thing or two. Others are always welcome to contact us. Gadi.

RE: Ironcore foundry

Issam Hakimi [ Killix ] wrote: > I am in the search of documentation on the ironcore generation of the > routers foundry. All the urls are the welcomes. > Thanks. > > Regards, > Issam Hakimi http://www.foundrynet.com/services/documentation/index.html David

abuse & security issues > Israel

Hello. Back in the mid 90th, it has become a fact that Israel was one of the main focal points of Internet abuse in the world, and reaching abuse contacts was very difficult. Today, we no longer hold that title. Also, some of the ISP's in Israel are now very responsive to abuse, it is not true with

Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

> And how, pray tell, does one actually "measure" T1 vs. T2 networks? That's easy. You define a set of criteria by which you can measure the networks on some scale, and then set two thresholds. Networks which exceed the higher threshold are Tier 1, those which only exceed the lower threshold are

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

* Simon Waters: >> This is _nothing_ to do with what you're running on the recursive >> nameserver. It is doing _exactly_ what it is supposed to do. Get >> answers, store in cache, respond to queries from cache if TTL isn't >> expired. > > The answers from a recursive servers won't be marked au

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

* Brad Knowles: > At 12:09 AM +0200 2005-03-28, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I doubt this will work on a large scale. > > It's already been done on a large scale. > >>At least recent BIND >> resolvers would discard replies from the abused caching

Re: DNS cache poisoning attacks -- are they real?

On Monday 28 Mar 2005 4:54 pm, John Payne wrote: > > This is _nothing_ to do with what you're running on the recursive > nameserver. It is doing _exactly_ what it is supposed to do. Get > answers, store in cache, respond to queries from cache if TTL isn't > expired. The answers from a recursive

Ironcore foundry

I am in the search of documentation on the ironcore generation of the routers foundry. All the urls are the welcomes. Thanks. Regards, Issam Hakimi