Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On Tue, 9 August 2005 14:54:39 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: on this side of the puddles, i think most folk use /126s for p2p links. I like /124 a lot. No need to argue, I think, but you can apply it both on small Ethernet links as well as on p-t-p links to customers over POS - one linknet size mostly fits it all, especially if the customer wants some 5 to 10 hosts only and play with it. /127 on POS links is no good... Also I cannot help but like how it can be organised with a brain that still works on IPv4 or so. 2^4 is 16, so ::zzx0 up to ::zzxf and, yeah, the next linknet is then ::zzy0 to ::zzyf, with y being just x+1. It just seems strange that when establishing POS links with an all- native v6 providers they won't do it as it *has* to be /64. I hate this whole discussion just universally by now. Anyway, maybe someone could use that in any way. /124 may be nice in some aspects. Alexander
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
It just seems strange that when establishing POS links with an all- native v6 providers they won't do it as it *has* to be /64. my upstream v6 native links are /126 randy
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Koch) wrote: [/124] Also I cannot help but like how it can be organised with a brain that still works on IPv4 or so. 2^4 is 16, so ::zzx0 up to ::zzxf and, yeah, the next linknet is then ::zzy0 to ::zzyf, with y being just x+1. I second that. I get thoroughly confused every time, there's an xxxa coming up after a xxx9. I tend to use xx10 first, then see that it doesn't work, then remember. Currently we're using /126s on p2p, but I believe a migration would be in order, considering the small amount of addresses we are using anyway. I definitely abstain from /64s. This is wasteful. Yours, Elmi. -- Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren. (PLemken, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) --[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 2:54, Randy Bush wrote: on this side of the puddles, i think most folk use /126s for p2p links. this has been endlessly and loudly debated, but it still seems extremely strange to use 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for a p2p link. Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs. thanks anyway
Re: Fwd: Cisco crapaganda
What techniques are you referencing? The technique Lynn demonstrated has not been seen anywhere in the wild, as far as I know. He, nor ISS, ever made the source code available to anyone outside of Cisco, or ISS. What publication are you referring to? Didn't Lynn come out and say flat out that he'd found a lot of information on a Chinese website (with the implication that the website had even more information than what he presented)? A black hat who is not Chinese has published some slides with far more explicit step-by-step details of how to crack IOS using the techniques that Lynn glossed over in his presentation. This person also claims to have source code available on his website for download but I didn't look to know for sure. As for the Chinese connection, there is a fairly long document circulating on the net from a couple of years back. It is translated from Chinese and it is about modern techniques of information warfare. I think a lot of people interested in network security are aware that lots of Chinese hackers are at work out there and that they are good at what they do. Since all blackhats tend to communicate with each other to share ideas and to brag about their exploits, it is entirely possible that this Cisco exploit began in China. It is a nice myth to believe that a company like ISS does all their own work in-house and that their employees are all super gurus. But I would hope that most of you realize this is not true. Companies like ISS leverage the work of blackhats just like any hacker does. That's why I don't think gagging Lynn or ISS or the Blackhat conference will have any positive effect whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that this legal manouevering has had a net negative effect because it has now been widely published that Cisco exploits are possible. This means that many more hackers are now trying to craft their own exploits and own Cisco routers. Of course, in the end, Juniper is also vulnerable. Nortel is vulnerable. Every manufacturer of routing/switching equipment is vulnerable. Modern electronic devices are all built around embedded computers with complex software running on them. The root of all these vulnerabilities is our inability to write complex software that is free of bugs. Now I believe that Open Source software techniques can solve this root problem because many eyes can find more bugs. This doesn't just mean *BSD and Linux. There are also systems like OSKit http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/ and RTAI http://www.rtai.org/ that are more appropriate for building things like routers. --Michael Dillon
Real-time WHOIS for .COM
Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar? This is helpful if you have to pull a delegation in order to mitigate a particular threat. Going by the name servers listed in DNS isn't particularly helpful if it points to end-user dial-up space. 8-(
Re: Cisco crapaganda
Given the term Crapaganda I couldn't help but share this when I ran across it today: http://www.cisco.com/edu/peterpacket Enjoy :) Also, Of course, in the end, Juniper is also vulnerable. ... Now I believe that Open Source software techniques can solve this root problem because many eyes can find more bugs. This doesn't just mean *BSD and Linux. There are also systems like OSKit http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/ and RTAI http://www.rtai.org/ that are more appropriate for building things like routers. But in some ways, aren't those Open Source software techniques also assisting Juniper, as JunOS is based in no small part on FreeBSD? Perhaps their hybrid of Open-Source adoption and proprietary development will take the benefits from both worlds and prove an effective method for maintaining a high level of software security. Also, what about DoD Orange Book certification? Can this kind of testing methodology be applied to routing systems as well, such as IOS? In recent years Microsoft has been releasing code for internal security audits to special customers such as large corporate partners and government. I wonder if infrastructure customers should, or could be getting similar treatment from Cisco in regards to IOS, for them to better protect their customers. (Government would apply here too.) -- Regards, Chris Gilbert IO Interactive A/S
Re: Cisco crapaganda
On Aug 10, 2005, at 6:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What techniques are you referencing? The technique Lynn demonstrated has not been seen anywhere in the wild, as far as I know. He, nor ISS, ever made the source code available to anyone outside of Cisco, or ISS. What publication are you referring to? Didn't Lynn come out and say flat out that he'd found a lot of information on a Chinese website (with the implication that the website had even more information than what he presented)? A black hat who is not Chinese has published some slides with far more explicit step-by-step details of how to crack IOS using the techniques that Lynn glossed over in his presentation. This person also claims to have source code available on his website for download but I didn't look to know for sure. I, desperately, hope you are not referring to Raven Adler's presentation at Defcon following Black Hat. If so, I think far more explicit step-by-step is quite an over characterization of what she presented. If not, once again, I'd ask you to cite sources rather than make broad sweeping statements about what is already available. Appealing to some anonymous authority in order to claim the sky is falling is hardly endearing. Since all blackhats tend to communicate with each other to share ideas and to brag about their exploits, it is entirely possible that this Cisco exploit began in China. That's a fairly bold statement. I'd also hesitate to label Lynn as a black hat as his actions, notification of vendor, confirmation of a patch, and release, are not characteristic of a black hat. I'd suggest that generalization is incorrect in any case, researchers of any hat, in my experience, keep their secrets amongst a small group. It is a nice myth to believe that a company like ISS does all their own work in-house and that their employees are all super gurus. But I would hope that most of you realize this is not true. Companies like ISS leverage the work of blackhats just like any hacker does. That's why I don't think gagging Lynn or ISS or the Blackhat conference will have any positive effect whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that this legal manouevering has had a net negative effect because it has now been widely published that Cisco exploits are possible. This means that many more hackers are now trying to craft their own exploits and own Cisco routers. I agree that this was a very large public relations blunder on the part of ISS and Cisco. Their actions caused undue attention to be placed on this issue and put both groups on the wrong side of a very public argument. On the other hand, Lynn is exactly the sort of guru you describe. Riley Eller said it best If you put him and a (Cisco) box in a room, the box breaks. Having spoken with him throughout development of this technique, I can assure you that it was not developed, and further, not propagated to anyone outside of ISS with Lynn's knowledge. He has taken every care possible to ensure that this did not leak. That's not to say it will not, certain members within ISS were keen on originally releasing this to the public before informing Cisco which prompted Lynn to resign on the spot before he was talked into returning after they dropping the subject of uninformed public release. Now I believe that Open Source software techniques can solve this root problem because many eyes can find more bugs. This doesn't just mean *BSD and Linux. There are also systems like OSKit http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/ and RTAI http://www.rtai.org/ that are more appropriate for building things like routers. Many eyes can find more bugs implies several things. It implies that a large group of people are investigating bugs, and that the are qualified to find bugs of this nature. I would argue that the number that meet both criteria is small in the open source world. That is not to imply that there are untalented people in the FOSS community, only that they are not interested in locating bugs or ensuring security of a specialized routing operating system as their primary function. It boils down to the following question: Do you think benefit or releasing the source code for IOS, allowing independent researchers access to the source code in order to locate flaws, outweighs the costs of that release, allowing criminals access to the source code in order to locate flaws and forfeiting trade secrets? In the case of Cisco, I'm sure the latter weighs more heavily in their mind.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: on this side of the puddles, i think most folk use /126s for p2p links. this has been endlessly and loudly debated, but it still seems extremely strange to use 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for a p2p link. jumping in late :) with less than I'd like of v6 experience :) I think the debate goes something like: use /64 cause autoconf works! (and it's in the spec as 'lan' links get /64's) and the other half is your debate of 18 million billion addrs for a ptp sonet link is craziness (and wasteful) and /126's work fine since we never autoconf things we are going to ping monitor. -chris
Re: Cisco crapaganda
I, desperately, hope you are not referring to Raven Adler's presentation at Defcon following Black Hat. No, I am referring to something that was published 3 years ago and describes substantially the same exploits and techniques as Lynn described except the 3 year old document has much more technical detail and offers a URL where source code for the exploits can be acquired. Maybe Lynn rediscovered this independently. Maybe he heard rumours of an exploit in blackhat communications and this guided him where to look. But if my memory serves me correctly, Lynn himself claimed that his work was based on the work of a blackhat. --Michael Dillon
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 15:06, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs. and you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the link-locals?) You don't. I don't think the point of link-locals has much to do with pinging customers... But since IPv6 routing protocols work over link- locals you don't need global addresses. If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them. BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6. Thoughts?
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
On 10 Aug 2005, at 06:36, Florian Weimer wrote: Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar? whois.crsnic.net?
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
* Joe Abley: On 10 Aug 2005, at 06:36, Florian Weimer wrote: Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar? whois.crsnic.net? Since a couple of others have also suggested similar approaches, here's the actual problem (implied by the real-time part of the subject line 8-): Last update of whois database: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:12:49 EDT In other words, this database lags considerably behind DNS. Someone has suggested to query all known registrars for the domain and hope that one of them has already updated its WHOIS server. This reduces the delay a little bit for some registrars, but is of course no general solution.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them. Having just done an IPv6 rollout, I went for a block of addresses which I would use just for p2p links, split it into chunks for peers, customers etc, then used a /126 for each link. Seems to work fine and (I think) seems to be what most people are doing. BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6. Thoughts? The current recommendation for a /48 for any customer (pretty much) does initially seem to me to be a bit wasteful, though that's perhaps because I keep thinking in IPv4 terms. Having said that, I think that perhaps a /48 for home users isn't _really_ necessary. How many domestic appliances can you connect to the net :) StewartB -- Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual) Level3 Snr IP Engineer *** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 *** Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
In a message written on Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:55:32PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current recommendation for a /48 for any customer (pretty much) does initially seem to me to be a bit wasteful, though that's perhaps because I keep thinking in IPv4 terms. Having said that, I think that perhaps a /48 for home users isn't _really_ necessary. How many domestic appliances can you connect to the net :) That's not really the question you want to be asking. The current mantra is a /64 per subnet. Now, we can argue that point separately, but taking that as a given for now (so autoconfiguration will work) what a /48 is really telling you is that a home user gets 65536 subnets. IPv6 allocations in the host portion (with /64 boundaries) are sparce, even for the largest networks. The number of hosts becomes unimportant. The question we need to ask is how many independant subnets will they need. This is why many people are proposing a /56 for home users, as it gives you 256 subnets. Still more than most people will need. Others have proposed /52 and /60, since many want to claim DNS is easier if done in nibbles. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgpKVSuTn3nLh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Florian Weimer wrote: Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar? This is helpful if you have to pull a delegation in order to mitigate a particular threat. You can ask Verisign (NOT networksolutions) directly, but as far as I know they do updates of whois once/day and it is not real time and no other options are available. Note that registrar information should be current in internic whois because registrar data can not be changed in real-time and transfers are done once or twice a day (as far as I know, this may have changed now too). Best you can get is to do query using whois.completewhois.com since by default our server will do both whois query to internic and dns query to find current deligated dns servers. If they are different you will see this info after nameserver saying [from dns where as whois nameserver will be indicated with [from whois. This can be helpful with some domains that change nameservers often (domains used in phsh emails in particular seem to be used this way). -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:22:23AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control? regulation, ISTM. Just like before the Big Bell Breakup. With govt- sanctioned virtual monopolies. Hmmm. Relevance to MS case? Except w/o any regulation, in that case. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
I think the implied querstion may have been how to find registrar for newly registered domains (24 hours). In that case you're out of luck - there seems to be no way to do that - and yes, I've asked this particular question from somebody @verisign before and he said they will consider how this info can be made available (but nothing has been done so far and there was no promise to do it - so keep asking them maybe if they hear enough requests they will move on it). On somewhat similar problem, I've also asked them to provide public access to deltas of nameserver changes (i.e. what changes to nameservers had been done for domain within say last 24 hours)and nothing so far either (this is also very helpful when investigating phishes). On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Florian Weimer wrote: Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar? This is helpful if you have to pull a delegation in order to mitigate a particular threat. You can ask Verisign (NOT networksolutions) directly, but as far as I know they do updates of whois once/day and it is not real time and no other options are available. Note that registrar information should be current in internic whois because registrar data can not be changed in real-time and transfers are done once or twice a day (as far as I know, this may have changed now too). Best you can get is to do query using whois.completewhois.com since by default our server will do both whois query to internic and dns query to find current deligated dns servers. If they are different you will see this info after nameserver saying [from dns where as whois nameserver will be indicated with [from whois. This can be helpful with some domains that change nameservers often (domains used in phsh emails in particular seem to be used this way). -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco crapaganda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If not, once again, I'd ask you to cite sources rather than make broad sweeping statements about what is already available. Appealing to some anonymous authority in order to claim the sky is falling is hardly endearing. I think that people who specialise in security know what I am referring to. I won't say any more publicly since there are black hats reading this list. If they don't already know about this stuff, I'm not going to help them. Get a grip, Michael. Any black hat who reads this list already knows this information (if indeed it exists; acting mysterious isn't gaining you any credibility with the cynical among us, and of course you aren't even providing enough detail for people with clues to discern what the bloody heck you're referring to). All you're doing is withholding data from the non-black-hats. ---rob
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 18:03, Leo Bicknell wrote: IPv6 allocations in the host portion (with /64 boundaries) are sparce, even for the largest networks. The number of hosts becomes unimportant. The question we need to ask is how many independant subnets will they need. This is why many people are proposing a /56 for home users, as it gives you 256 subnets. Still more than most people will need. Others have proposed /52 and /60, since many want to claim DNS is easier if done in nibbles. And the extra precision offered by the intermediate values isn't really required at this point in the discussion. :-) I'm very much oppossed to /56 because it's still more than most users need. In and of itself that doesn't matter, but it's also less than what some users need. This creates the situation where people try to make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. I.e., /56 provides too much potential for shooting yourself in the foot. I think we should go for /60 for (presumably) one-router networks. That's still 3 to 5 times as many subnets as most of those will need. Anyone else should get a /48.
@Home's 119 domain names up for sale
I know this is horribly off-topic, but seeing a reference to @Home kind made me a little nostalgic. :-) [snip] Apparently former high-speed Internet provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] once felt likewise. But At Home Liquidating Trust, successor to the once high-flying Internet darling [EMAIL PROTECTED], said Wednesday it is selling the former broadband company's 119 domain names. [snip] http://news.com.com/ExciteHomes+119+domain+names+up+for+sale/2100-1030_3-5826807.html - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
I'm very much oppossed to /56 because it's still more than most users need. In and of itself that doesn't matter, but it's also less than what some users need. This creates the situation where people try to make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. I.e., /56 provides too much potential for shooting yourself in the foot. ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6 is pretty much a myth? --bill
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 18:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This creates the situation where people try to make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6 is pretty much a myth? Renumbering hosts in IPv6 is a breeze. You just change some settings in the routers and the rest happens automatically. It's more renumbering information in the DNS and filters and such that's a problem, regardless of IP version.
re: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
re: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale Interesting that you'd bring this up. The federal pork trasfer of $1 Billion that was announced on Sunday to bridge the digital divide references an [EMAIL PROTECTED] program as a part of its underpinning. From: http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/679032.html ---snip: LISC/NEF and One Economy Launch $1 Billion Initiative to Bridgethe Digital Divide; Sen. Hillary Clinton Helps Unveil Initiative Sunday, August 07, 2005 Contact: Leslie Kerns of Solomon McCown Co., 617-933-5013 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Susan Sheehan of Vogel Communications, 503-449-1666 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW YORK, Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Efforts to close the technological gap between America's haves and have-nots will get a boost this week. Local Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC) and its subsidiary the National Equity Fund (NEF) are partnering with One Economy to launch [EMAIL PROTECTED], a $1 billion initiative that will build more than 15,000 affordable homes with high-speed digital Internet connectivity and provide low-income families personal access to computers and technology services. The initiative expects to connect nearly 100,000 people to the vast advantage of the Internet. ---end snip It makes for some interesting reading for those of you tracking where your tax dollars are going. I'd be interested in reading some comments on this initiative, either on the board or by email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] = On Wed Aug 10 16:44 , Fergie (Paul Ferguson) sent: I know this is horribly off-topic, but seeing a reference to @Home kind made me a little nostalgic. :-) [snip] Apparently former high-speed Internet provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] once felt likewise. But At Home Liquidating Trust, successor to the once high-flying Internet darling [EMAIL PROTECTED], said Wednesday it is selling the former broadband company's 119 domain names. [snip] http://news.com.com/ExciteHomes+119+domain+names+up+for+sale/2100-1030_3-5826807.html - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ ==
RE: Cisco crapaganda
Title: RE: Cisco crapaganda Lynn refered to FX from phenoelit's presentation at blackhat 3 years ago. Http://www.phenoelit.de -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 8/10/2005 6:14 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Subject: Re: Cisco crapaganda I, desperately, hope you are not referring to Raven Adler's presentation at Defcon following Black Hat. No, I am referring to something that was published 3 years ago and describes substantially the same exploits and techniques as Lynn described except the 3 year old document has much more technical detail and offers a URL where source code for the exploits can be acquired. Maybe Lynn rediscovered this independently. Maybe he heard rumours of an exploit in blackhat communications and this guided him where to look. But if my memory serves me correctly, Lynn himself claimed that his work was based on the work of a blackhat. --Michael Dillon
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:54:10PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 10-aug-2005, at 18:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This creates the situation where people try to make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6 is pretty much a myth? Renumbering hosts in IPv6 is a breeze. You just change some settings in the routers and the rest happens automatically. It's more renumbering information in the DNS and filters and such that's a problem, regardless of IP version. so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering out of a /124 into a /112 how? renumbering - regardless of version is hard... primarly becuase application developers insist that the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, not where it is in the routing topology. renumbering hosts is a breese in either version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend. Or if you want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use the RA/ND stuff in IPv6. - regardless, renumbering from one address range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse. --bill (ex chair of the IETF PIER wg)
RE: Cisco crapaganda
Title: RE: Cisco crapaganda Sorry 2 years ago (2003) http://www.blackhat.com/html/bh-multi-media-archives.html#USA-2003 FX - More (Vulnerable) Embedded Systems Lynn also refered to a Chinese Hacker group that was reviewing pieces of stolen IOS code for the sole purpose of shovleing shell code into IOS. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Maness, Drew Sent: Wed 8/10/2005 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Cc: Subject: RE: Cisco crapaganda Lynn refered to FX from phenoelit's presentation at blackhat 3 years ago. Http://www.phenoelit.de -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 8/10/2005 6:14 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Subject: Re: Cisco crapaganda I, desperately, hope you are not referring to Raven Adler's presentation at Defcon following Black Hat. No, I am referring to something that was published 3 years ago and describes substantially the same exploits and techniques as Lynn described except the 3 year old document has much more technical detail and offers a URL where source code for the exploits can be acquired. Maybe Lynn rediscovered this independently. Maybe he heard rumours of an exploit in blackhat communications and this guided him where to look. But if my memory serves me correctly, Lynn himself claimed that his work was based on the work of a blackhat. --Michael Dillon
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
One question: One article I read when the ruling was announced (can't find it now, sorry) suggested that this only affected access to the ILEC DSLAMs, not the ILEC local loops. If that's the case, then Covad and company aren't totally out of business yet, as they can still demand access to the copper plant. The question, then, is how quickly the ILECs replace copper with fiber, which they have exclusive access to per this ruling. Is that a correct understanding? -C On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote: On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:22:23AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control? regulation, ISTM. Just like before the Big Bell Breakup. With govt- sanctioned virtual monopolies. Hmmm. Relevance to MS case? Except w/o any regulation, in that case. -- Joe Yao -- - This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:11:10AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: ... Best you can get is to do query using whois.completewhois.com since by default our server will do both whois query to internic and dns query to find current deligated dns servers. ... Fedora core test page? Ah - you may have meant to say URL: http://www.completewhois.com/. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
At 09:46 AM 8/10/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 10-aug-2005, at 15:06, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs. and you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the link-locals?) You don't. I don't think the point of link-locals has much to do with pinging customers... But since IPv6 routing protocols work over link- locals you don't need global addresses. If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them. BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6. Thoughts? Where is this being discussed? What sizing is being discussed? I'm expecting in the long run some ISPs will hand out /128s in the hope that this will once and for all keep customers from putting more than one device on a connection (of course that would be followed immediately by implementations of NATv6 if it happened). There is a draft pending in the IETF V6OPS WG (draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt) that relies heavily on the fact that everyone and his dog gets a /48 to justify the reasons IPv6 solves the world's problems that were previously solved to varying extents by NAT boxes. If the /48 thing is being discussed somewhere, that would significantly alter the underpinnings of the draft's arguments. Dan
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
In a message written on Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:51:41PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote: Where is this being discussed? What sizing is being discussed? I'm expecting in the long run some ISPs will hand out /128s in the hope that this will once and for all keep customers from putting more than one device on a connection (of course that would be followed immediately by implementations of NATv6 if it happened). This is a topic of heated discussion at the various RIR meetings, ARIN for most people on this list. Note the next ARIN meeting is with a Nanog, so you might want to stick around (show up early?). In an attempt to be objective, I'll say that there is a line in the sand between the IETF and the RIR's, and right now both groups seem to think the other is stepping over the line, and making the wrong decisions. The IETF seems to think /48 is good, thinks it's extremely unlikely we'll ever run out of space, and considers that if we do in 50 years it's probably ok, time for a new protocol anyway. The RIR's seem to think smaller (/56? /64? /96?) prefixes are good, that we will run out of space under the current plan it's simply a question of when, that deploying a new protocol in 50 years is a bad idea if we can avoid it, and with sane policies we can. Add in operators and their various opinions of NAT, how many addresses a user should get, if auto configuration is good bad or ugly, if you still need DHCP with auto configuration and soforth and you have quite a mess with no group clearly leading in the polls. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp3VgWJ3KbYd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
There is a draft pending in the IETF V6OPS WG (draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt) that relies heavily on the fact that everyone and his dog gets a /48 to justify the reasons IPv6 solves the world's problems that were previously solved to varying extents by NAT boxes. If the /48 thing is being discussed somewhere, that would significantly alter the underpinnings of the draft's arguments. interesting that, after all the cycles of getting the ivtf to stay the bleep out of policy, this is happening yet again. the ivtf needs to wake up and smell the coffee, or become even more irrelevant. people are giving out prefixes as needed, not just the religious /48. randy
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: william(at)elan.net wrote: [...] Best you can get is to do query using whois.completewhois.com since by default our server will do both whois query to internic and dns query to find current deligated dns servers. ... Fedora core test page? Ah - you may have meant to say URL: http://www.completewhois.com/. No. I'm almost certain that he really did mean whois.completewhois.com and that whistling sound overhead is you missing the point. Write out 100 times: the Internet and the web are not the same thing. -- Her virtue was that she said what she thought, her vice that what she thought didn't amount to much. - Sir Peter Ustinov
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 20:13, Randy Bush wrote: the ivtf ? people are giving out prefixes as needed, not just the religious /48. Yes, and ISPs have historically done so well determining what people need. Power to the people.
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Florian Weimer wrote: Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar? This is helpful if you have to pull a delegation in order to mitigate a particular threat. Near-real-time Whois for com/net is not available today but is coming: it will be in place by April 1, 2006, per the new .net registry agreement (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/net-registry-agreement-01jul05.pdf, FWIW). Our registry customer service group reads mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 hours per day, so if it's a real emergency you can always contact them or activate the bat signal with a posting on NANOG, which is also read here throughout the day. Matt -- Matt Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 19:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering out of a /124 into a /112 how? Having a /60 or a /48 is better than a /56 or a /48 because: 1. Most people who are going to encounter the problem realize that a / 60 isn't enough and go for the /48 immediately 2. Going from a /60 to a /48 would happen earlier than from a /56 to a /48 so there is less to renumber. renumbering - regardless of version is hard... Not hard, inconvenient. primarly becuase application developers insist that the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, Disagree. There are two issues: the DNS and access restrictions and similar based on IP addresses. The DNS can be fixed with some searching and replacing and/or dynamic DNS updates, but using literal IP addresses, especially in filters and such, isn't easy to solve because there are no reasonable alternatives in many cases. renumbering hosts is a breese in either version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend. That friend will kill all your sessions when you get a new address. DHCP implementations in IPv6 aren't ready for prime time either. Or if you want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use the RA/ND stuff in IPv6. How is that less robust and does it imply a semantic overload? - regardless, renumbering from one address range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse. I agree. All boundaries between different parts of the address must be flexible. That includes the boundary at the end of the address. But I guess we have to save something for IPv7.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 19:51, Daniel Senie wrote: BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6. Thoughts? Where is this being discussed? All over the place. IETF IPv6 wg, RIRs... What sizing is being discussed? The observation is that with the 80% HD ratio (= waste 1 bit in 5 because of administative boundaries in the addressing hierarchy) and a /48 per customer we'll get awfully close to using up 128 bits several decades from now. (3 bits are given for the global unicast space, 80 for the customer = 45, 80% = 36 bits ~= 64 billion /48s for some 10 billion people. Not immediately problematic, but a few more bits margin just in case wouldn't be a bad idea.) So we can change the HD ratio, change the /48 or change the /64. IETF will 99% sure veto changing /64 because it's in a lot of RFCs and implementations, so that leaves increasing the HD ratio or rethinking giving _every_ customer a /48. I'm expecting in the long run some ISPs will hand out /128s in the hope that this will once and for all keep customers from putting more than one device on a connection That only makes sense if they can give out more /128s on demand for a price to make more money. But I don't see it happening anyway. (of course that would be followed immediately by implementations of NATv6 if it happened). Yeah right, the whole industry is going to spend man-years just because one ISP does something weird? (Don't underestimate the crap that goes on below the surface to make NAT work for stuff that isn't simple TCP/client-server.) There is a draft pending in the IETF V6OPS WG (draft-ietf-v6ops- nap-01.txt) that relies heavily on the fact that everyone and his dog gets a /48 A quick scan doesn't show this.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 10-aug-2005, at 20:13, Randy Bush wrote: the ivtf ? Internet Vendor Task Force -- Randy's term for the IETF. people are giving out prefixes as needed, not just the religious /48. Yes, and ISPs have historically done so well determining what people need. The ISPs have apparently done well in determining what people will pay for. At least those that still exist. Power to the people. One of the nice things about IPv4 was that pretty much nobody cared about it other than the folks who were trying to get things working. The people who were specifying the protocol were also the folks who were running the network. But that's the past... Rgds, -drc
Re: Real-time WHOIS for .COM
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:33:16PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: william(at)elan.net wrote: [...] Best you can get is to do query using whois.completewhois.com since by default our server will do both whois query to internic and dns query to find current deligated dns servers. ... Fedora core test page? Ah - you may have meant to say URL: http://www.completewhois.com/. No. I'm almost certain that he really did mean whois.completewhois.com and that whistling sound overhead is you missing the point. Write out 100 times: the Internet and the web are not the same thing. Good heavens, I'm becoming one of Them! You're quite right, I've said exactly that myself, too many times. My only defense is that 'whois' does not work from where I'm sitting, and the Web interface was needed. [But a simple 'ssh' would have fixed that.] -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 22:04, David Conrad wrote: the ivtf ? Internet Vendor Task Force -- Randy's term for the IETF. :-) I was in the session where Randy threw his final fit as AD. Good times... people are giving out prefixes as needed, not just the religious /48. Yes, and ISPs have historically done so well determining what people need. The ISPs have apparently done well in determining what people will pay for. At least those that still exist. There is not enough choice and/or information for the capitalist system to work its magic here. Power to the people. One of the nice things about IPv4 was that pretty much nobody cared about it other than the folks who were trying to get things working. The people who were specifying the protocol were also the folks who were running the network. That's exactly the reason why the IETF has such a hard time moving forward: whatever way of abusing IP you can think of, someone is doing it today, and breaking that feature will gravely upset them. It's the age old battle between the irresistible force (progress) and the immovable object (users) I guess.
Re: Fwd: Cisco crapaganda
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:13:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The root of all these vulnerabilities is our inability to write complex software that is free of bugs. Inability? I'd rather say it's an economic question. Would you want to pay for proven bug-free software? Think twice (and look at some expense figures for such software first). :-) Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
Iljitsch That's exactly the reason why the IETF has such a hard Iljitsch time moving forward: whatever way of abusing IP you can Iljitsch think of, someone is doing it today, and breaking that Iljitsch feature will gravely upset them. It's the age old Iljitsch battle between the irresistible force (progress) and the Iljitsch immovable object (users) I guess. And on that vein perhaps it's prudent for people using network prefixes longer than /64 to take care to ensure that the bit positions in the IPv6 address that should correspond to the u and g bits in the modified EUI-64 interface ID (according to RFC 3513) are both set to zero. -roy
Re: Cisco crapaganda
I will say is also about development time. We are continuously asking for new features (some times somehow artificially generated by the market or the vendors ?), so they need to work faster, test faster ... Regards, Jordi De: Daniel Roesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:31:04 +0200 Para: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu Asunto: Re: Fwd: Cisco crapaganda On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:13:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The root of all these vulnerabilities is our inability to write complex software that is free of bugs. Inability? I'd rather say it's an economic question. Would you want to pay for proven bug-free software? Think twice (and look at some expense figures for such software first). :-) Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: Cisco crapaganda
On 8/10/05, Chris Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in some ways, aren't those Open Source software techniques also assisting Juniper, as JunOS is based in no small part on FreeBSD? For clarification: We took the networking part in the FreeBSD software, threw it away, and replaced it with our own specialized software. That way, we don't have to worry about file systems and process management and all the operating features that the OS community is better at doing. We focus on adding our value to the networking part. - http://www.hyperchip.com/Coverage/ICD/router_makers_speak_out.htm aaron.glenn
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:26:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 10-aug-2005, at 19:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering out of a /124 into a /112 how? Having a /60 or a /48 is better than a /56 or a /48 because: we are not talking better/worse, we are talking the issues with renumbering... and the only credible argument you make is... 1. Most people who are going to encounter the problem realize that a / 60 isn't enough and go for the /48 immediately 2. Going from a /60 to a /48 would happen earlier than from a /56 to a /48 so there is less to renumber. less to renumber. which argues that folks should be given just the amount of space they need, not more. right? :) renumbering - regardless of version is hard... Not hard, inconvenient. inconvient/hard ... regardless of versioning (v4 or v6) it is not trival to renumber a network that is managable. primarly becuase application developers insist that the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, Disagree. There are two issues: the DNS and access restrictions and similar based on IP addresses. The DNS can be fixed with some searching and replacing and/or dynamic DNS updates, but using literal IP addresses, especially in filters and such, isn't easy to solve because there are no reasonable alternatives in many cases. ok, you disagree. clearly we do not have the same understanding of global networks, end-system configuration and maintaince, and the demand for reliable, auditable logs. renumbering hosts is a breese in either version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend. That friend will kill all your sessions when you get a new address. Sniff. Tear. your DOA w/ IPv6 as well and IPv4 in a renumbering event. You want to maintain session awareness over a renumbering event? IPv6 is not going to help. You need HIP. DHCP implementations in IPv6 aren't ready for prime time either. that statement could be made of so many applications. Or if you want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use the RA/ND stuff in IPv6. How is that less robust and does it imply a semantic overload? DHCP is a protocol that has a long interoperability history. RA/ND does not. DHCP has many fine host configuration features .. some of which are being added to the RA/ND suite. Hence my claim of less robust. Semantic overload... hum... I want my router to route. infrastructure services should come from service boxes... in much the same way i want the police to direct traffic, not do my produce shopping, then take the goods home and prepare my meals. The police should do police work, routers should route. YMMV of course. Some people LIKE running their router, RA/ND, DHCP, and DNS, NTP, and WEB server off a single platform. Or due to cost constraints they bundle-up... I'm of the opinion that functional seperation is a good thing in the provisioning of network services. - regardless, renumbering from one address range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse. I agree. All boundaries between different parts of the address must be flexible. That includes the boundary at the end of the address. But I guess we have to save something for IPv7. IPv7, IPv8, and IPv9 are all registered w/ the IANA. then IPX is a Novell trademark so i think the next step would have to be IPv11.. --bill
Long walk off a short PIER revisited [Was: Re: IPv6 Address Planning]
Perhaps it's time to revisit PIER? Hey, it's only been ten (10) years, but perhaps it's worth consideration? Remember this: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1995-08/msg00239.html [and] http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/papers.html I think my name is on a few of those papers... ;-) - ferg -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:26:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 10-aug-2005, at 19:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering out of a /124 into a /112 how? Having a /60 or a /48 is better than a /56 or a /48 because: we are not talking better/worse, we are talking the issues with renumbering... and the only credible argument you make is... 1. Most people who are going to encounter the problem realize that a / 60 isn't enough and go for the /48 immediately 2. Going from a /60 to a /48 would happen earlier than from a /56 to a /48 so there is less to renumber. less to renumber. which argues that folks should be given just the amount of space they need, not more. right? :) renumbering - regardless of version is hard... Not hard, inconvenient. inconvient/hard ... regardless of versioning (v4 or v6) it is not trival to renumber a network that is managable. primarly becuase application developers insist that the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, Disagree. There are two issues: the DNS and access restrictions and similar based on IP addresses. The DNS can be fixed with some searching and replacing and/or dynamic DNS updates, but using literal IP addresses, especially in filters and such, isn't easy to solve because there are no reasonable alternatives in many cases. ok, you disagree. clearly we do not have the same understanding of global networks, end-system configuration and maintaince, and the demand for reliable, auditable logs. renumbering hosts is a breese in either version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend. That friend will kill all your sessions when you get a new address. Sniff. Tear. your DOA w/ IPv6 as well and IPv4 in a renumbering event. You want to maintain session awareness over a renumbering event? IPv6 is not going to help. You need HIP. DHCP implementations in IPv6 aren't ready for prime time either. that statement could be made of so many applications. Or if you want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use the RA/ND stuff in IPv6. How is that less robust and does it imply a semantic overload? DHCP is a protocol that has a long interoperability history. RA/ND does not. DHCP has many fine host configuration features .. some of which are being added to the RA/ND suite. Hence my claim of less robust. Semantic overload... hum... I want my router to route. infrastructure services should come from service boxes... in much the same way i want the police to direct traffic, not do my produce shopping, then take the goods home and prepare my meals. The police should do police work, routers should route. YMMV of course. Some people LIKE running their router, RA/ND, DHCP, and DNS, NTP, and WEB server off a single platform. Or due to cost constraints they bundle-up... I'm of the opinion that functional seperation is a good thing in the provisioning of network services. - regardless, renumbering from one address range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse. I agree. All boundaries between different parts of the address must be flexible. That includes the boundary at the end of the address. But I guess we have to save something for IPv7. IPv7, IPv8, and IPv9 are all registered w/ the IANA. then IPX is a Novell trademark so i think the next step would have to be IPv11.. --bill -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
it is not trival to renumber a network that is managable. this is the key point, e.g. why autoconf is useless in the real ops world. until interfaces have long-lived identities other than their ip addresses, real networks will bind to real ip addresses which must propagate far enough to get to very remote management stations and aggregators. systems where dynamic assignment is pushed from a database, e.g. dhcp, which can be accessed from the management system are just starting to being used. the rest of the real managed world is still static. those are the only two games in the managed town, of which i am aware. the rest of the brilliant ideas are managable-ops-clue-free fantasies, propaganda, or both. e.g. auto-conf is a non-starter except on a small home network. link local is a non-starter. ... randy
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
Roy Badami wrote: And on that vein perhaps it's prudent for people using network prefixes longer than /64 to take care to ensure that the bit positions in the IPv6 address that should correspond to the u and g bits in the modified EUI-64 interface ID (according to RFC 3513) are both set to Is there any known use for those bits? - Kevin
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
Kevin Is there any known use for those bits? Not that I know of, but it seems dangerous to assume there never will be, and it's easy to avoid... -roy
Weird traffic from data393.net [AS29863]?
Sent e-mails, etc. Anyone else seen BGP probe traffic claiming to be from Savvis? - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN
Anyone else having issues with UUNET connectivity in MSP? We were seeing slowness, now we see no traffic flow at all...we make it one hop, then nothin'. Erik AmundsonA+, N+, CCNA, CCNPIT and NetworkManagerOpen Access Technology Int'l, Inc.mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email and any attachment(s) contain confidential and/or proprietary information of Open Access Technology International, Inc. Do not copy or distribute without the prior written consent of OATI. If you are not a named recipient to the message, please notify the sender immediately and do not retain the message in any form, printed or electronic.
Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN
traceroute or ping or end-node ip on your end... or did you call the customer support crew and ask them? --Chris (formerly [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ### ## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ## ## Some Security Engineering Group ## ## (W)703-886-3823 (C)703-338-7319 ## ### On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Erik Amundson wrote: Anyone else having issues with UUNET connectivity in MSP? We were seeing slowness, now we see no traffic flow at all...we make it one hop, then nothin'. Erik Amundson A+, N+, CCNA, CCNP IT and Network Manager Open Access Technology Int'l, Inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email and any attachment(s) contain confidential and/or proprietary information of Open Access Technology International, Inc. Do not copy or distribute without the prior written consent of OATI. If you are not a named recipient to the message, please notify the sender immediately and do not retain the message in any form, printed or electronic.
Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:42:58AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: traceroute or ping or end-node ip on your end... or did you call the customer support crew and ask them? There was apparently a very serious fire at one or more of the Chicago area hubs MCI manages. They have a ticket #204 from today's date tracking this. I've been seeing reachability issues from the mid/west coast to my sites in NYC and NJ. I also have several Internet T1's down in both MN and Cleveland, OH. -- Mike Sawicki ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
