Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Joseph Jackson wrote: > Nice troll. Nah, wasn't even entertaining. There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having it done for you without your knowledge and/or consent. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek

RE: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

> Would anyone not filter those routes? Why wouldn't you filter to /7? > > Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from > Cymru ?? > We had some hesitation on putting in a 1/ le /7 filter as these are not mentioned in any docu

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

I'd guess the Cymru team is less likely to be hax0r'ed. But that's just 'cause I'm afraid of them. (Especially if Rob's had coffee recently. Which means I'm always afraid of them. :) Muahaha! :) -- Rob Thomas Team Cymru http://www.cymru.com/ ASSERT(coffee != empty);

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: I'll demur --- I don't much like it, for several reasons. [SNIP - several good points.] Yes, this is better than Sitefinder, because it's not forced on the entire Internet. However, it shares many of the same flaws. I'm not going

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

I'll demur --- I don't much like it, for several reasons. The first is that it *does* present a different view of the One True Tree. I've been saying for years -- among other things, in the context of Sitefinder, alternate roots, and other things -- that the DNS was designed under the assumption

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:56:27 -0500 Jerry Pasker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because you fear that their routers that distribute the feed could > become own3d and used to cause a massive DoS by filtering out some > networks? Someone in the NANOG community, I forget who now, had the sensible su

APRICOT 2007 Call for Papers

Hi All. The APRICOT 2007 call for papers is now open, as per the following. Cheers, Jonny Martin APRICOT Program Committee --- Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) Bali, Indonesia 21st Feb - 2nd March 2007 http://www.2007.apricot.net Call for Pa

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On Jul 10, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Jerry Pasker wrote: Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from Cymru ?? Because you fear that their routers that distribute the feed could become own3d and used to cause a massive DoS by filterin

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from Cymru ?? Because you fear that their routers that distribute the feed could become own3d and used to cause a massive DoS by filtering out some networks? You asked. And I use th

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On Jul 10, 2006, at 10:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:00:11 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: On Jul 10, 2006, at 9:48 PM, WONG, Yuen-Fung wrote: Sometimes earlier this year someone announced this 128/1 and caused heavy loading to our routers to rebuild the CEF. Would a

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On Jul 10, 2006, at 9:48 PM, WONG, Yuen-Fung wrote: Sometimes earlier this year someone announced this 128/1 and caused heavy loading to our routers to rebuild the CEF. Would anyone filter out this route (and other similar routes such as 0/1, 128/1, 0/2, 64/2, up to /4, for example) as

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Jul 10, 2006, at 10:47 AM, David Ulevitch wrote: On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Gerry Boudreaux wrote: For those who have not yet seen this: http://www.opendns.com/ They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you. I'm happy to answer any and all questions off-list but I want to point

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Christopher L. Morrow wrote: :( Seems really, really dumb to me, since everything is NOT (surprised?) a web browser :( I wonder what happens when it tries to correct my enum dns requests? Be cautious that some largish provider's dns cache's might be doing this as well 'soon' despite engineeri

RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Title: RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Nice troll.  -Original Message- From:   Gerry Boudreaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:   Mon Jul 10 06:45:33 2006 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:    Sitefinder II, the sequel... It is not VeriSign this time. For those who have not y

Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

Sometimes earlier this year someone announced this 128/1 and caused heavy loading to our routers to rebuild the CEF. Would anyone filter out this route (and other similar routes such as 0/1, 128/1, 0/2, 64/2, up to /4, for example) as bogus routes? Thanks. --yf

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Gerry Boudreaux wrote: > > It is not VeriSign this time. > > For those who have not yet seen this: > > http://www.opendns.com/ > > They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you. > hurrah :( cause obviously everything in the world using dns is a browser? :( As a note, s

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

Based on this link . . . > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2138772 . . . it would appear that we were successful in correcting the language of the amendment that Snowe and Dorgan presented: Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) proposed an amendment to the

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way -- the "pro-NN" legislative proposals would essentially say similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby authorizing the breaking of the separation of la

OT: Re: Fridays are always good for shock headlines...

On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Barry Shein wrote: The NY State Supreme Court last week tossed gay marriage as being compelled by the state's constitution. One of the reasonings shot down was the assertion that there is any problem with discrimination because the result forbids both straights an

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 09:06:20AM -0700, Rick Wesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 49 lines which said: > OpenDNS is not SiteFinder; Give them a try, the DNS resolution is > blazing fast For the typical NANOGer, yes, but remember that the Internet is larger than that. From France, t

Re: Fridays are always good for shock headlines...

I apologize, my note (appended below) was intended for another list which was also discussing this article. I hope no one was seriously injured. -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said: > (2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges > a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact > provide access to the Internet in accord with the above > definition, regardless whether

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Niels Bakker wrote: Also, sitefinder created a wildcard DNS record where none existed before, breaking all kinds of applications in the process, openDNS doesn't do this. Wrong. Asking their "big caching nameserver" for gibberish returns "IN A 208.67.219.40" instead of NXDOMAIN. Same br

Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

Hello folks, please consider endorsing this legislative proposal on net neutrality. It's a bit different from the others you may have heard of . . . > http://www.dpsproject.com This bill focuses on net neutrality in terms of the IP protocol, rather than the "equal treatment" and "nondiscrimina

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Wesson) [Mon 10 Jul 2006, 21:08 CEST]: Personally I think openDNS is an idea whose time has come and that Dave Ulevitch and is crew are going to hit one out of the ballpark with this. Have you switched your company over yet? yes, and the thing that pisses me off, is

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Personally I think openDNS is an idea whose time has come and that Dave Ulevitch and is crew are going to hit one out of the ballpark with this. Have you switched your company over yet? yes, and the thing that pisses me off, is that it does seem faster. -rick

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Jeftovic) [Mon 10 Jul 2006, 15:55 CEST]: I think the openDNS approach is far different from the Verisign sitefinder debacle if only for the important reason that using openDNS is voluntary and using sitefinder wasn't. Correct. OpenDNS is not abusing a monopoly posit

Re: Fridays are always good for shock headlines...

On July 8, 2006 at 03:04 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fergie) wrote: > [snip] > > The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet > service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance > and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for > eavesdroppin

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Gerry, I sat on the Security and Stability committee for ICANN and was part of the folks that reviewed SiteFinder. OpenDNS is not SiteFinder; Give them a try, the DNS resolution is blazing fast and they do fix up the most common typos. One thing massively different between openDNS and S

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Gerry Boudreaux wrote: For those who have not yet seen this: http://www.opendns.com/ They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you. I'm happy to answer any and all questions off-list but I want to point out one aspect that hasn't quite been messaged correc

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Gerry Boudreaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is not VeriSign this time. It is not even remotely the same as SiteFinder either. It requires people to make a conscious decision to use different nameservers than the ones they're currently using, and is likely to get the same or less level of

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Gerry Boudreaux wrote: It is not VeriSign this time. For those who have not yet seen this: http://www.opendns.com/ They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you. I think the openDNS approach is far different from the Verisign sitefinder debacle if only for the important reason tha

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Jul 10, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Gerry Boudreaux wrote: It is not VeriSign this time. For those who have not yet seen this: http://www.opendns.com/ They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you. From their FAQ: -- Why is OpenDNS smarter? We fix typos in the URLs you enter when

Sitefinder II, the sequel...

It is not VeriSign this time. For those who have not yet seen this: http://www.opendns.com/ They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you. From their FAQ: -- Why is OpenDNS smarter? We fix typos in the URLs you enter whenever we can. For example, if you're using OpenDNS cr

Re: [address-policy-wg] 91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users

Hi Jeroen, Jeroen Massar wrote: On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:50 +0200, leo vegoda wrote: Dear Colleagues, At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User networks. Any link to the slides which might co

Re: [address-policy-wg] 91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:50 +0200, leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from > our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User > networks. Any link to the slides which might contain the expected increase

91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users

Dear Colleagues, At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User networks. We have reclaimed and recycled space from closed Local Internet Registries to meet this demand, but we are nearing the point wh