SEO

I can no longer access ftp.sco.com over my high-speed Internet
connection (a few months ago I could). I can connect to SCO non-FTP
servers, and to other non-SCO FTP servers.

My high-speed Internet connection is over a wireless system provided
by a local company. As a backup, I maintain a dialup account with
Earthlink.

I can access ftp.sco.com with the dialup.

I can access ftp.sco.com at work (a different ISP), and my friends
with other ISPs in the local area can also access ftp.sco.com.

I've asked my wireless ISP to look into the problem and here is part
of their reply:

We can't log in through the wireless, but we can through a
dialup. We have no answer as to why you could connect
through the wireless a few weeks ago, but cannot do so now. When
we upgraded our T1's in April, we changed the DNS numbers from
Time Warner to NewEdge references. We just don't have an
explanation for why 3 months or so later it would stop working. We
can log into other FTP sites just fine through the wireless. This
tells us that there is something that has changed on SCO's end.

When I read this I come to a different conclusion: something has
changed at the ISP's end, not SCO's. There is a possibilility that the
last time I connected to ftp.sco.com (to download 507's MP1), it was
before my ISP upgraded their T1. Could their changing DNS numbers have
an affect on just ftp.sco.com?

Looking for comments from those that know more about Internet
connections than I do so that I can prepare a sound reply to my ISP.

TIA,

DDinAZ

"Dave Dickerson" <ddinaz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40fe6b93.5975191@news.easynews.com...
> I can no longer access ftp.sco.com over my high-speed Internet
> connection (a few months ago I could). I can connect to SCO non-FTP
> servers, and to other non-SCO FTP servers.
>
> My high-speed Internet connection is over a wireless system provided
> by a local company. As a backup, I maintain a dialup account with
> Earthlink.
>
> I can access ftp.sco.com with the dialup.
>
> I can access ftp.sco.com at work (a different ISP), and my friends
> with other ISPs in the local area can also access ftp.sco.com.

I am having no problem with a DSL connection. Goes like a greased pig.

NM

In article <_QHLc.107861$eO.84683@edtnps89>,
Neil Morrison <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
>
>"Dave Dickerson" <ddinaz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40fe6b93.5975191@news.easynews.com...
>> I can no longer access ftp.sco.com over my high-speed Internet
>> connection (a few months ago I could). I can connect to SCO non-FTP
>> servers, and to other non-SCO FTP servers.
>>
>> My high-speed Internet connection is over a wireless system provided
>> by a local company. As a backup, I maintain a dialup account with
>> Earthlink.

>> I can access ftp.sco.com with the dialup.

>> I can access ftp.sco.com at work (a different ISP), and my friends
>> with other ISPs in the local area can also access ftp.sco.com.

>I am having no problem with a DSL connection. Goes like a greased pig.

In email with the OP I got him connected. It definately appears
to be a problem with his ISP's DNS, as I pointed him to a DNS I
maintain and he was able to get what he wanted.

There are a lot of poorly configured DNS machines out there.

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I19E6z.24s7@wjv.com...

> In email with the OP I got him connected. It definately appears
> to be a problem with his ISP's DNS, as I pointed him to a DNS I
> maintain and he was able to get what he wanted.
>
> There are a lot of poorly configured DNS machines out there.

That's for sure. Sometimes you need the IP address to connect. But my
current ISP seems to have it working OK.

NM

In article <RkULc.107992$eO.5821@edtnps89>,
Neil Morrison <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
>
>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I19E6z.24s7@wjv.com...
>
>> In email with the OP I got him connected. It definately appears
>> to be a problem with his ISP's DNS, as I pointed him to a DNS I
>> maintain and he was able to get what he wanted.

>> There are a lot of poorly configured DNS machines out there.

>That's for sure. Sometimes you need the IP address to connect. But my
>current ISP seems to have it working OK.

I found out the name servers he is using.

They resolve the www.sco.com to 127.0.0.1.

The nameservers are listed as the local nameservers.

I've never seen anyone screw up a DNS like that before. My gut
reaction is that someone at that ISP is part of the anti-sco group
so that no one can get to SCO for whom they provided services.

Queries for caldera.com don't even return an IP address, but
return the list of the top level domain root servers A thru M.

I may be wrong, but I can see no way someone could accidentally do
that.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I1A9uB.rq6@wjv.com...
> In article <RkULc.107992$eO.5821@edtnps89>,
> Neil Morrison <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
> >
> >"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message
news:I19E6z.24s7@wjv.com...
> >
> >> In email with the OP I got him connected. It definately appears
> >> to be a problem with his ISP's DNS, as I pointed him to a DNS I
> >> maintain and he was able to get what he wanted.
>
> >> There are a lot of poorly configured DNS machines out there.
>
> >That's for sure. Sometimes you need the IP address to connect. But my
> >current ISP seems to have it working OK.
>
> I found out the name servers he is using.
>
> They resolve the www.sco.com to 127.0.0.1.
>
> The nameservers are listed as the local nameservers.
>
> I've never seen anyone screw up a DNS like that before. My gut
> reaction is that someone at that ISP is part of the anti-sco group
> so that no one can get to SCO for whom they provided services.
>
> Queries for caldera.com don't even return an IP address, but
> return the list of the top level domain root servers A thru M.
>
> I may be wrong, but I can see no way someone could accidentally do
> that.

I can't ping sco.com at the moment. The DNS says it's 216.250.128.21 but it
times out so I assume there's some sort of redirection going on. And
caldera.com returns 216.250.128.12 as the address but the same results - no
ping. However I can go to the web site fine! Go figure.

NM

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:56:11 GMT, "Neil Morrison" <nowrite@to.me>
wrote:

>
>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I1A9uB.rq6@wjv.com...

>> I found out the name servers he is using.
>>
>> They resolve the www.sco.com to 127.0.0.1.

<snip>

>> I may be wrong, but I can see no way someone could accidentally do
>> that.

I normally don't blame malice when there's a chance that incompetance
is invloved, but that does look REAL shady. It would be interesting to
see the output of a "dig" on www.sco.com against one of those
nameservers.

>I can't ping sco.com at the moment. The DNS says it's 216.250.128.21 but it
>times out so I assume there's some sort of redirection going on. And
>caldera.com returns 216.250.128.12 as the address but the same results - no
>ping. However I can go to the web site fine! Go figure.

That's actually not uncommon. A lot of places block ICMP echo as a
security measure. A lot of clueless places block *all* icmp, a policy
which breaks all kinds of things.

JS

In article <v%%Lc.47552$2i3.13579@clgrps12>,
Neil Morrison <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
>
>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I1A9uB.rq6@wjv.com...
>> In article <RkULc.107992$eO.5821@edtnps89>,
>> Neil Morrison <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message
>news:I19E6z.24s7@wjv.com...
>> >
>> >> In email with the OP I got him connected. It definately appears
>> >> to be a problem with his ISP's DNS, as I pointed him to a DNS I
>> >> maintain and he was able to get what he wanted.
>>
>> >> There are a lot of poorly configured DNS machines out there.
>>
>> >That's for sure. Sometimes you need the IP address to connect. But my
>> >current ISP seems to have it working OK.
>>
>> I found out the name servers he is using.
>>
>> They resolve the www.sco.com to 127.0.0.1.
>>
>> The nameservers are listed as the local nameservers.
>>
>> I've never seen anyone screw up a DNS like that before. My gut
>> reaction is that someone at that ISP is part of the anti-sco group
>> so that no one can get to SCO for whom they provided services.
>>
>> Queries for caldera.com don't even return an IP address, but
>> return the list of the top level domain root servers A thru M.

>> I may be wrong, but I can see no way someone could accidentally do
>> that.

>I can't ping sco.com at the moment. The DNS says it's
>216.250.128.21 but it times out so I assume there's some sort of
>redirection going on. And caldera.com returns 216.250.128.12 as
>the address but the same results - no ping. However I can go to
>the web site fine! Go figure.

Many place disable ping responses to help elminate DDoS events. So
no response to ping means nothing. I've seen some places that
turn off all ICMP messaging so you can never tell what is wrong.

It's a mis-guided attempt at security IMO.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

In article <4100f46b.3052852730@news.radix.net>,
John Schmidt <js@radix.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:56:11 GMT, "Neil Morrison" <nowrite@to.me>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I1A9uB.rq6@wjv.com...
>
>>> I found out the name servers he is using.
>>>
>>> They resolve the www.sco.com to 127.0.0.1.
>
><snip>
>
>>> I may be wrong, but I can see no way someone could accidentally do
>>> that.

>I normally don't blame malice when there's a chance that incompetance
>is invloved, but that does look REAL shady. It would be interesting to
>see the output of a "dig" on www.sco.com against one of those
>nameservers.


; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @209.218.76.2 www.sco.com
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 3849
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; www.sco.com, type = A, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.sco.com. 1D IN A 127.0.0.1

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
sco.com. 1D IN NS localhost.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
localhost. 1D IN A 127.0.0.1

;; Total query time: 84 msec
;; FROM: bilver.wjv.com to SERVER: 209.218.76.2
;; WHEN: Fri Jul 23 11:26:16 2004
;; MSG SIZE sent: 29 rcvd: 84


Two servers that gave this earlier now don't respond.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com