[ppml] Dean Anderson, 130.105.0.0/16 and the future of the IPv4 Internet.]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > > actually, you pretty much lost both of those arguments, and demonstrated
> > > considerable technical ignorance in the process.
> > 
> > Really?  You didn't get AXFR clarify though, and that scheme failed entirely.
> 
> it wasn't my clarification.  i never supported the draft

Really? I have to document this issue, then.  I recall that you (ISC)  
put the protocol changes in BIND, and talked it up on Nanog as having no
effect.  Vixie et al told people it had no effect on the wire protocol,
and that no implementations had to change. My role (with others), was to
point out that there _was_ an incompatible change to the wire protocol,
and that BIND had code to detect this and silently go back to the old
protocol.

The NANOG operators were just misled, and the deception was successful
because NANOG folks were unable or uninspired to do any testing beyond
checking to see if zones transferred. These transfers worked because of
the BIND detection code.  Had the draft been approved, Vixie just had to
take out the detection code from BIND, and then claim that everyone else
(well, everyone except the so-called BIND companies), wasn't RFC
compliant, and reap the profits resulting from people converting to the
"RFC compliant" bind companies software.

[BTW, it is usually the practice that when an RFC is vague, and several
implmentations make the same assumption, the assumption is documented as
the clarification. One doesn't typically, as Vixie proposed, alter the
protocol to something else.]

I think described the scam on the DNSEXT list at the time. I do need to
write up a page about the scam though, especially if you're denying the
whole thing.  Once other implementers got wind of (and verified)  that
the protocol clarify was a wire protocol change, the draft died and scam 
failed.


> > And the Anycast scheme, while you got it through by playing
> > hardball, isn't working, for the reasons I said it wouldn't.
> 
> you didn't understand what "working" would mean, and apparently still don't.

Apparently that's true: Indeed, I didn't know what your term "working"  
would mean.  Many people didn't.  For you, "working" seems to have
something to do with a revenue stream, not with the technical stability
of TCP on Anycast.  I see it _is_ working for you.  Its just not working
for the rest of the internet.

[more frivolous dispute deleted]

> > Just by way of reference, many people will remember Paul Vixie blustering in
> > the 1990s about how he looked forward to a lawsuit to resolve all these
> > questions.
> 
> as i've said, there are lawsuits one welcomes when the nasdaq is above
> 5000 that aren't as welcome when it's below 1500.  being right doesn't
> mean you can afford discovery costs from determined and well funded
> opponents.

MAPS seems pretty well funded, and you seem pretty well funded. Both
MAPS and Vixie provided attorneys in the case. And I _think_ one has to
dispute facts before one can do discovery for anything. MAPS didn't
dispute any of the facts asserted by Exactis.  I know that discovery has
to be relevant to disputed facts.  And I know its not the case that one
gets carte blanch to go through opponents confidential records.

> > ... See http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html
> 
> thanks for reminding me about
> <http://www.dotcomeon.com/emergency.html>.  i had lost the url, and
> somebody recently didn't believe me when i told them i was considered
> responsible for the 9/11 attacks against the world trade center.

And they still shouldn't believe you.  The page doesn't say you were
responsible for 9/11.  It says that you disrupt emergency email
communciations. And you do disrupt emergency and non-emergency email
communications, through MAPS at time the page was written and still do
through SORBS.

> > > > ISC.ORG hosts SORBS.
> > > 
> > > ISC does not host SORBS.
> > 
> > http://www.iadl.org/bm/bill-manning-story.html
> > 
> > 204.152.186.189 still resolves to www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net.
> > 
> > Saying ISC doesn't host SORBS is more dissembling, by the way.
> 
> thanks for the notice.  i've updated that PTR.  now i'm hosting av8
> instead. or is that what you mean by dissembling?

Yes, it is more dissembling, and altering records for the purpose of
deception.  So are you often in the habit of putting in deceptive PTR
records?

Why would you put in the SORBS record if they were never a customer?

At the time of the complaint to Bill Manning, and until just recently,
the forward record also pointed to 204.152.186.189.  The server at that
address performed services for SORBS. But we can see from this that Mr.
Vixie will move servers and alter records to continue a deception.  I'm
sure glad these folks don't have physical access to alter ARIN records.  
Lets make sure they don't ever get the chance.

Oh, and please remove the record pointing to AV8.


		--Dean



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000