March 2002 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Anti-spammers...
by Terence Giufre-Sweetser 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

Anyone interested in formalizing an affiliation with the various anti-spam lobbies around the globe, and set up branch of CAUCE? or CaUBE.au? http://www.caube.org.au/join.htm --- Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ | TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 | | 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 | | PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 | | Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au | +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

New Prefix List
by James Tyson 26 Mar '02

26 Mar '02

Hi Folks. Just letting you all know that we will be doing some major work on the Attica/Callplus network over the easter weekend, and you can all expect to see your APE and WIX peering sessions die at some stage in the early hours of Saturday morning. Also, here is our current prefix-list if your interested: ip prefix-list callplus-networks contact noc(a)noc.attica.net.nz ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 5 permit 202.14.252.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 10 permit 202.49.62.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 15 permit 202.49.82.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 20 permit 202.49.250.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 25 permit 202.50.60.0/22 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 30 permit 202.50.170.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 35 permit 210.55.111.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 40 permit 210.55.158.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 45 permit 210.55.254.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 50 permit 202.180.116.0/24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 55 permit 202.180.64.0/18 Joy! -- Cheers. --- James Tyson Moebius Systems Ltd http://www.moebius.co.nz/ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 1

NZNOG, UniForum and the Conference
by Donald Neal 25 Mar '02

25 Mar '02

The UniForum NZ board met on Saturday, 16th March, and spent most of its time discussing matters related to the upcoming conference. NZNOG has been proceeding on the basis that it is going to be holding a gathering which is to take the form of a stream at that conference, to be held in Auckland in July. NZNOG seems to me to have a strong programme lined up, and there have been many expressions of interest in attending. But given the fact that we've never done this before, it is hard to be precise about how many people we can expect to turn up. At which point things have the potential to get a bit more complex. Two views were expressed at the meeting of the relationship between UniForum NZ and the conference. The majority view held that UniForum holds the conference in part to attract membership. Also, a surplus made on the operation of a conference for a society's members is not taxed, while a surplus made on a conference attended by non-members has a tax status which is not clear. UniForum NZ has in the past included a year's subscription in the non-member registration rate for its conferences, so that in fact only members attended. The minority view - held by me and by one other board member also from outside Wellington - held that UniForum NZ exists primarily in order to provide the conference. Since NZNOG's involvement contributes substantially to the conference, it is therefore a good thing. Attracting UniForum membership is good, but not the purpose of the conference. The board decided that all attendees at the upcoming conference should be members of UniForum NZ. This has the potential to be a problem, but it is not yet clear to me how large a problem. No final decision has yet been made on registration charges for this year's conference, but a figure for ordinary registrants of around $200 per day including morning and afternoon teas and lunch seems likely. Arrangements regarding dinner are still being considered. An "early bird" registration offer of noticeably less than that is planned. At present, UniForum NZ's annual subscription is $85 including GST. To add this figure to the sort of registration charge previously discussed on this list would make a noticeable difference to the amount people are being asked to pay. Among the issues now being considered by UniForum NZ is what sort of organisation it wants to be. If it decides to take something like the minority view of itself, it has the option of cutting its overheads and reducing its annual subscription to something low enough that bundling it in with a conference registration would not be a problem. This will be considered in the next couple of months, but I cannot predict the outcome of that consideration. This discussion came as something of a surprise to me, but it appears that Linux User Group members with whom this has been discussed do not have a problem with this level of registration charge. The first question then becomes how much money NZNOG people are willing to part with to attend. $200 per day is not bad when compared to commercial training of any kind, but is significantly more than the amounts that have been discussed on this list in the past. A rate well below that is to be available to those who register early. I'd like to hear (to me, not the list please) from anyone who'd plan to attend at a cost of around $200 for two days but have a problem paying more than that, and from anyone who'd attend at a cost of around $300 for two days but have a problem paying more than that. And what happens if I hear from lots of people? I'm not sure. For now I simply intend to see how many people get back to me over the next couple of days. -- Donald Neal Special Operations Network Delivery Telecom New Zealand Ltd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." ============================================================================== - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Spoofed mail
by Matt Camp 21 Mar '02

21 Mar '02

Is anyone else getting strange spoofed mail from saarinen.org, or mail from there destined to lists with your own address as the spoofed source? Email to Juha isn't getting any sort of response, so I figure he's either been hax0red, or needs a beating with the clue stick. (possibly both?) Either way, Make It Stop. Now. ---------------- Return-Path: <owner-nznet-gargoyle-noise-gargoyle=noise.net.nz(a)noise.net.nz> Delivered-To: gargoyle-noise-gargoyle(a)noise.net.nz Received: (qmail 28603 invoked by uid 30); 20 Mar 2002 22:16:36 -0000 Delivered-To: nznet(a)paradise.gen.nz Date: 20 Mar 2002 22:16:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20020320221636.28602.qmail(a)tombstone.b.org.nz> From: gargoyle(a)tombstone.b.org.nz Cc: recipient list not shown: ; Received: (qmail 28590 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 22:16:33 -0000 Received: from saarinen.org (HELO ehlo) (203.79.82.14) by tombstone.paradise.gen.nz with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 22:16:33 -0000 test Sender: owner-nznet(a)noise.net.nz Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nznet(a)noise.net.nz Return-Path: <testy(a)test.com> Delivered-To: gargoyle-noise-gargoyle(a)noise.net.nz Received: (qmail 11126 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 01:50:48 -0000 Received: from saarinen.org (HELO helo) (203.79.82.14) by tombstone.paradise.gen.nz with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 01:50:48 -0000 test --- Matt Camp - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 4

Re: Spoofed mail
by Mark Foster 20 Mar '02

20 Mar '02

Amazing the influence 'script kiddies' have had on the way we diagnose problems, isnt it? :P At 14:40 21/03/02 +1200, Matt Camp wrote: >Ok, problem resolved... no script kiddies in sight, just some mail servers >refusing to do TLS happily, and majordomo adding headers when it should >be. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Matt, could you please call me?
by Juha Saarinen 20 Mar '02

20 Mar '02

Do a whois on my domain for the number. Can't email you... Sorry for the OT post, but I have no other way of contacting Matt. -- Juha Take off every sig! - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: The SRS and Lame Delegations
by Ewen McNeill 18 Mar '02

18 Mar '02

NOTE: I've been trying to avoid being drawn into this discussion, as I'm working with the registry implementation team at present, but I feel I should comment on this. In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203191150120.1813-100000(a)belsay.lionra.net.nz>, Andy Linton writes: >I'd argue that unless the name appears in the DNS it shouldn't appear in >the registry as its appearance of the name in the DNS that gives the >registry any authority it has. I'm generally of this view too. While I'm not totally against "database only" registrations, I tend to prefer that registrars that are "parking" names (for want of a description), do so by putting up DNS entries that point at a "this name is reserved for $foo" type webpage. (This also simplifies the code at the registry.) A lot of people typically check for name availability by looking for NS records, or web pages, or MX records for the zone; and I haven't yet seen a strong reason why this should be defeated. >I'd like to see the registry operate on the principle that the names >registered are listed in both the registry's database and the DNS (plus or >minus the next scheduled update). This implies that the nameservers should >be operational and checked at the time of resistration. However it doesn't imply that it should be the registry that does this checking that the nameservers are operational. The SRS (business framework) relies on the registrars Doing The Right Thing (tm) in various instances, and it seems to me that ensuring the nameservers are working is another thing that the registrars should be doing. Much of the "nameserver isn't ready yet" type concerns could be "solved" by simply requiring registrars to ensure that the nameserver is ready by the next zone build. (Then a registrar that is doing a registration against their own nameservers can simply schedule their nameserver reload to happen shortly before the registry zone build happens. Registrations against external name servers would probably need checking before registration, by the registrar, as they are now.) Some appropriate entity (perhaps the registry, but perhaps more appropriately the DNS manager) should be responsible for "quality checking" delegations, by periodically doing a zone walk and looking for lame delegations. When found the DNS manager could take the issue up with the appropriate registrar (in terms of "being a good registrar"). Registrars may wish to walk their own portion of the delegations periodically as part of being a good registrar/keeping their registrants in line. FWIW, I can't help thinking that this has been discussed a few times before in the past. Ewen - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 3

RE: The SRS and Lame Delegations
by Zanetti David 18 Mar '02

18 Mar '02

From: Peter Mott [mailto:peter.mott(a)2day.com] > [1] Registrar should be able to register a name without specifying any name > servers Since Peter has raised this, how does everyone else feel about allowing registars to reserve names on behalf of nameholders in this way. Should the name have no entry in the zone, something explanatory like a TXT record, or should we not allow this at all, and that only fully delegated names be allowed? -- David Zanetti <david.zanetti(a)nzpost.co.nz> Security Engineer, New Zealand Post Desk: +64-4-496-4005 Mobile: +64-25-832-572 "Hope.. is a dangerous thing" This email with any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If it is not intended for you please reply immediately, destroy it and do not copy, disclose or use it in any way. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 5

The SRS and Lame Delegations
by Zanetti David 17 Mar '02

17 Mar '02

Thorny issue I'm sure everyone has a view on: Should the SRS test given nameservers for a name for authorativeness at submission (ie, check for lame delegations), and if so, should it require all provided nameservers to give authorative answers, or a minimum number (suggest please :) ). If it does perform such checks, how often should it repeat them? Agreement by all is not being sought, just arguments either way. -- David Zanetti <david.zanetti(a)nzpost.co.nz> Security Engineer, New Zealand Post Desk: +64-4-496-4005 Mobile: +64-25-832-572 "Hope.. is a dangerous thing" This email with any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If it is not intended for you please reply immediately, destroy it and do not copy, disclose or use it in any way. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

6 5

Re: The SRS and Lame Delegations
by David Farrar 17 Mar '02

17 Mar '02

> Thorny issue I'm sure everyone has a view on: > > Should the SRS test given nameservers for a name for authorativeness at > submission (ie, check for lame delegations), and if so, should it require > all provided nameservers to give authorative answers, or a minimum number > (suggest please :) ). If it does perform such checks, how often should it > repeat them? > > Agreement by all is not being sought, just arguments either way. Would another issue be whether the registry should do this checking at all, or should it be a policy requirement of registrars to check for this? DPF - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0