the problem was not on
our end.
Send Harvard/MIT jokes to me offlist
Back to the subject at hand is anyone else seeing the same issue with the
.MIL domain
Thanks in advance - Scott
with the
.MIL domain
Looks ok here :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ host www.army.mil
www.army.mil has address 140.183.234.10
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ host www.navy.mil
www.navy.mil is an alias for WWW.NAVY.M7Z.NET.
WWW.NAVY.M7Z.NET has address 64.156.240.36
WWW.NAVY.M7Z.NET has address 64.156.240.43
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot.
Anyone able to shed any light on this?
Any advice/feedback appreciated.
Regards,
Steve
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Steve Waddington wrote:
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot.
Anyone able to shed any light on this?
note, I don't work for the DoD (.mil owners) BUT, this isn't the first
time
Thus spake Steve Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot.
Anyone able to shed any light on this?
US DoD has a longstanding policy of blocking all addresses which appear
--On Friday, May 30, 2003 21:15 +0800 Steve Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot.
Anyone able to shed any light on this?
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null routes
to large sections of international address space. Good luck getting them
removed
as this means they have a different definition of the internet than
the one to which i, and i suspect others, are used, why should i
--On Friday, May 30, 2003 11:00 -0700 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null
routes to large sections of international address space. Good luck
getting them removed
as this means they have a different definition of the internet
On Fri, 30 May 2003, John Payne wrote:
--On Friday, May 30, 2003 21:15 +0800 Steve Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot.
Anyone able to shed any light
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2003, John Payne wrote:
--On Friday, May 30, 2003 21:15 +0800 Steve Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null routes
to large sections of international address space. Good luck getting them
removed
as this means they have a different definition of the internet than
the one to which i, and
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
In another context, someone claimed that zone managers should be able
to create zone-specific semantics, for something unique to that context.
Eventually, the recieved wisdom available to that particular context
was that zone-specific semantics would
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tony Rowley wrote:
I can't and won't speak for others, but when i was handling abuse issues
I never once had a problem making contact with responsible people at .mil
sites to get issues addressed. 9 times out of 10 it took all
Thus spake Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null
routes to large sections of international address space. Good luck
getting them removed
as this means they have a different definition of the internet than
the one to which i, and
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tony Rowley wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tony Rowley wrote:
I can't and won't speak for others, but when i was handling abuse issues
I never once had a problem making contact with responsible people at .mil
sites to get
Precedent, Randy, Precedent !
UUnet and few others a long time ago had a differing definition of
peering that most of us thought, at the time...
But were so BIG, we accepted their routes, anyway.
* shrug *
A secret black list is a real bugger if:
No one is allowed to mention it exists.
At 01:15 PM 30/05/2003 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
For the same reason anyone else accepts their routes -- because they want to
be able to reach them. If they don't want to reach _you_, that's their
choice.
As Sean Donelan pointed out, the fact that 2 of the root name servers are
inside their
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 01:15 PM 30/05/2003 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
For the same reason anyone else accepts their routes -- because they want to
be able to reach them. If they don't want to reach _you_, that's their
choice.
As Sean Donelan pointed out, the
If the .MIL network can't provide International Internet service, is it
time to move the g.root-servers.net and h.root-servers.net off their
current .MIL hosts to better locations to serve the entire Internet.
Otherwise .MIL policies reduce the robustness of the overall Internet.
Heck, even when
Suggestion: migrate the current MIL root servers to the DREN
network. Thus they would be easily accessible from DoD's
networks, while residining in front of any MIL filters or
blackhole routers relative to the rest of the Internet.
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 01:15 PM
One already is. The H server resides at the Army Research Lab, which is
connected to DREN (AS668).
FWIW there is not a single homogeneous .mil network. There are several
DoD networks that provide service to customer organizations, and some of
the major public DoD sites are also directly
Cough, bad idea, cough. From past experience I don't think that you'll
find the DREN to be substantially more reliable as far as reachability
and blocking policies go than most of the rest of .mil. It USED to
be more open, but there were some policy changes, some peering arangements,
and
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Tancsa
Subject: RE: .mil domain
Suggestion: migrate the current MIL root servers to the DREN
network. Thus they would be easily accessible from DoD's
networks, while residining in front of any MIL filters or
blackhole routers relative to the rest of the Internet
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 01:28:01PM -0700, Mike Damm wrote:
Counter: leave everything as it is. If they are willing to provide the
hardware, bandwidth, and administrative costs to run root servers, they can
block whoever they want. Just like if you run a web server you can block
anyone from
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
I guess you were lucky then, the addresses we were smurfed from had no
related website, and the phone # on the whois was outdated.
When I finally did manage to get a hold of a network engineer they didnt
seem particularly
David Lesher wrote:
Your escalation route goes to the OSD-CIO (Office of Secretary
Defense) in the 5-sided building. That was Art Money's office but
I don't know if he's still there. I'd cc: the Inspector General
for whichever branch as well...and the FTC.
In other words, when one can't get a
Let me say this:
I am former military.. Worked in Military IT.
AND worst case situation, use www.cert.mil
Or if not that bad.. Call the public affairs officer at the branch
of service..
Tell him you need help, tell him to put you in contact with the
local Info systems type. and away u go..
I
I just stumbled across something I thought was interesting. All the .mil
domain names used by the U.S. Military are served by one single root
server. I thought that was a bit odd. I'm sure that one server is more than
enough to handle the queries for all the .mil domains with no problem
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:46:22 EDT, Vinny Abello [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I just stumbled across something I thought was interesting. All the .mil
domain names used by the U.S. Military are served by one single root
server. I thought that was a bit odd. I'm sure that one server is more than
Abello wrote:
I just stumbled across something I thought was interesting. All the .mil
domain names used by the U.S. Military are served by one single root
server. I thought that was a bit odd. I'm sure that one server is more
than
enough to handle the queries for all the .mil domains
the .mil domain has an master source, just like .com or your tld here
it has a list of authoritative servers, just like .com or your tld here
You are reading your response incorrectly. your dig query ask for the
default, which is an A record. .MIL has no A rr at the apex. The
authority
% dig +norec a.root-servers.net. mil. ns
; DiG 9.3.0s20020722 +norec a.root-servers.net. mil. ns
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 17626
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 11, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 11
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;mil.
[jabley@peppermill]% for n in a b c d e f g h i j k l m; do
for dig ${n}.root-servers.net ns mil. | egrep -qi '^mil.*NS' \
for cmdand echo ${n}.root-servers.net provides a delegation for MIL.
for done
man doc
randy
regards,
_
Alan Rowland
USAF, Ret
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Vinny Abello
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: .mil domain root only hosted by one server??
I just stumbled
34 matches
Mail list logo
