Forum: >>> Magnum BBS <<<

DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defines 1000

From =?utf-8?Q?=E7=A8=8B=E6=99=BA=E5=8B=@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 8 14:47:36 2020

Hi, all

I deployed a cluster of DNS which combined with a master and two slaves recently. I opened the response rate limiting function in slaves, which parameters like below:

rate-limit {
 ipv4-prefix-length 32;
 responses-per-second 250;
 all-per-second 1000;
 min-table-size 1000000;
 max-table-size 5000000;
 log-only no;
};

But even with this configuration, there were still some dns queries dropped cause the RRL. I viewed the rrl.h and noticed the max rrl rate are defined like this:

#define DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE 1000

And "all-rer-second” shouldn’t larger than DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE.

So could anybody tell me why DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defined 1000? And is there any other methods to bypass this limits?

Thanks and Regards, Zhiyong Cheng

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div dir="auto">Hi, all 
 
I deployed a cluster of DNS which combined with a master and two slaves recently. I opened the response rate limiting function in slaves, which parameters like below: 
 
rate-limit { 
    ipv4-prefix-length 32; 
    responses-per-second 250; 
    all-per-second 1000; 
    min-table-size 1000000; 
    max-table-size 5000000; 
    log-only no; 
 }; 
 
But even with this configuration, there were still some dns queries dropped cause the RRL. I viewed the rrl.h and noticed the max rrl rate are defined like this: 
 
#define DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE 1000 
 
And "all-rer-second” shouldn’t larger than DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE.  
So could anybody tell me why DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defined 1000? And is there any other methods to bypass this limits?  
 
Thanks and Regards, Zhiyong Cheng</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Tony Finch@21:1/5 to =?UTF-8?B?56iL5pm65YuH?= on Wed Jul 8 16:45:38 2020

Copy: bind-users@lists.isc.org

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

程智勇 <chengzhycn@gmail.com> wrote:

So could anybody tell me why DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defined 1000?

RRL is designed for authoritative DNS servers. Legitimate queries come
from recursive resolvers with caches. There should not be more than one
query for each RRset from each resolver per TTL. So a normal response rate limit is relatively small - I set it to 10.

If you are hitting 1000 queries per second, that implies either there
are 1000 resolvers behind one IP address (which is VERY unlikely); or the
query traffic is abusive.

Are you sure the dropped traffic is legitimate?

Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Channel Islands: West to southwest 4 to 5, occasionally 6 mid-channel
overnight and Thursday morning, occasionally west to northwest 2 to 4 in the far south of the area. Slight to moderate with a low swell, perhaps occasionally rather rough mid-channel until late morning. Occasional mist and fog, especially overnight rain and drizzle at times, especially from Thursday morning. Moderate to poor or very poor, locally good at times.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Zhiyong Cheng@21:1/5 to Tony Finch on Thu Jul 9 11:38:11 2020

Copy: bind-users@lists.isc.org

Thanks for this reply : )

We are using named cluster in our internal network as the authoritative DNS. So there are no cache servers between clients and named cluster. Maybe we should add one but it is just another story.

There was a strange thing when I tested RRL using queryperf. I generated 10000 qnames to test.txt and every qname queried once. The queryperf’s output pastes below:

Statistics:

Parse input file: once
Ended due to: reaching end of file

Queries sent: 10000 queries
Queries completed: 9820 queries
Queries lost: 180 queries
Queries delayed(?): 0 queries

RTT max: 0.009435 sec
RTT min: 0.000072 sec
RTT average: 0.000503 sec
RTT std deviation: 0.000785 sec
RTT out of range: 0 queries

Percentage completed: 98.20%
Percentage lost: 1.80%

Started at: Thu Jul 9 11:16:03 2020
Finished at: Thu Jul 9 11:16:48 2020
Ran for: 45.300412 seconds

Queries per second: 216.775070 qps

The named rate-limiting logs pastes below:

09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44ed190 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvq.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4414020 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwi.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4518840 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvf.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4552680 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvx.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44dea00 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwa.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4487ca0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anva.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4405890 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwg.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4526fd0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvr.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b446ad80 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvs.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4430f40 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvh.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44227b0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvj.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b450a0b0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvm.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44a4bc0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwe.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4496430 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwh.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32

To my mind the RRL should not limit queries with different qnames from the same client. So is it my misunderstanding or wrong config?

BIND version pastes below:

version: BIND 9.11.4-P2 (Extended Support Version) <id:7107deb>
在 2020年7月8日 +0800 PM11:45，Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>，写道：

程智勇 <chengzhycn@gmail.com> wrote:

So could anybody tell me why DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defined 1000?

RRL is designed for authoritative DNS servers. Legitimate queries come
from recursive resolvers with caches. There should not be more than one
query for each RRset from each resolver per TTL. So a normal response rate limit is relatively small - I set it to 10.

If you are hitting 1000 queries per second, that implies either there
are 1000 resolvers behind one IP address (which is VERY unlikely); or the query traffic is abusive.

Are you sure the dropped traffic is legitimate?

Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Channel Islands: West to southwest 4 to 5, occasionally 6 mid-channel overnight and Thursday morning, occasionally west to northwest 2 to 4 in the far south of the area. Slight to moderate with a low swell, perhaps occasionally rather rough mid-channel until late morning. Occasional mist and fog, especially overnight rain and drizzle at times, especially from Thursday morning. Moderate to poor or very poor, locally good at times.

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div dir="auto">Thanks for this reply : ) 
 
We are using named cluster in our internal network as the authoritative DNS. So there are no cache servers between clients and named cluster. Maybe we should add one but it is just another story. 
 
There was a strange thing when I tested RRL using queryperf.  I generated 10000 qnames to test.txt and every qname queried once. The queryperf’s output pastes below: 
 
Statistics: 
 
 Parse input file: once 
 Ended due to: reaching end of file 
 
 Queries sent: 10000 queries 
 Queries completed: 9820 queries 
 Queries lost: 180 queries 
 Queries delayed(?): 0 queries 
 
 RTT max: 0.009435 sec 
 RTT min: 0.000072 sec 
 RTT average: 0.000503 sec 
 RTT std deviation: 0.000785 sec 
 RTT out of range: 0 queries 
 
 Percentage completed: 98.20% 
 Percentage lost: 1.80% 
 
 Started at: Thu Jul 9 11:16:03 2020 
 Finished at: Thu Jul 9 11:16:48 2020 
 Ran for: 45.300412 seconds 
 
 Queries per second: 216.775070 qps 
 
The named rate-limiting logs pastes below: 
 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44ed190 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvq.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4414020 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwi.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4518840 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvf.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4552680 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvx.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44dea00 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwa.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4487ca0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anva.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4405890 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwg.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4526fd0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvr.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b446ad80 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvs.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4430f40 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvh.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44227b0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvj.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b450a0b0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anvm.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b44a4bc0 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwe.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
09-Jul-2020 11:16:54.055 rate-limit: info: client @0x7f83b4496430 10.0.0.10#38722 (anwh.internal): view xxxx: rate limit drop all response to 10.0.0.10/32 
 
To my mind the RRL should not limit queries with different qnames from the same client. So is it my misunderstanding or wrong config?  
 
BIND version pastes below: 
 
version: BIND 9.11.4-P2 (Extended Support Version) <id:7107deb></div> </div>
<div name="messageReplySection">在 2020年7月8日 +0800 PM11:45，Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>，写道： 
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-color: grey; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; margin: 5px 5px;padding-left: 10px;">程智勇 <chengzhycn@gmail.com> wrote: 
<blockquote type="cite"> 
So could anybody tell me why DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defined 1000? </blockquote> 
RRL is designed for authoritative DNS servers. Legitimate queries come from recursive resolvers with caches. There should not be more than one query for each RRset from each resolver per TTL. So a normal response rate 
limit is relatively small - I set it to 10. 
 
If you are hitting 1000 queries per second, that implies either there 
are 1000 resolvers behind one IP address (which is VERY unlikely); or the query traffic is abusive. 
 
Are you sure the dropped traffic is legitimate? 
 
Tony. 
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ 
Channel Islands: West to southwest 4 to 5, occasionally 6 mid-channel overnight and Thursday morning, occasionally west to northwest 2 to 4 in the 
far south of the area. Slight to moderate with a low swell, perhaps occasionally rather rough mid-channel until late morning. Occasional mist and 
fog, especially overnight rain and drizzle at times, especially from Thursday 
morning. Moderate to poor or very poor, locally good at times.</blockquote> </div>
</body>
</html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Tony Finch@21:1/5 to Zhiyong Cheng on Thu Jul 9 19:11:44 2020

Copy: bind-users@lists.isc.org

Zhiyong Cheng <chengzhycn@gmail.com> wrote:

We are using named cluster in our internal network as the authoritative
DNS. So there are no cache servers between clients and named cluster.
Maybe we should add one but it is just another story.

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear: I was not saying that your authoritative servers should have a cache. I was saying that all the legitimate clients
of your servers (the resolvers at ISPs areound the Internet) have caches.

To my mind the RRL should not limit queries with different qnames from
the same client. So is it my misunderstanding or wrong config?

If you are querying for nonexistent names then RRL will treat the NXDOMAIN responses as equivalent, so it will rate-limit them. RRL limits responses,
not queries. You can configure a different `nxdomains-per-second` limit if
you want.

Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Rockall, Malin: Northwest 4 or 5. Moderate. Showers. Good.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Zhiyong Cheng@21:1/5 to Tony Finch on Fri Jul 10 20:15:31 2020

Copy: bind-users@lists.isc.org

在 2020年7月10日 +0800 AM2:11，Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>，写道：

Zhiyong Cheng <chengzhycn@gmail.com> wrote:

We are using named cluster in our internal network as the authoritative DNS. So there are no cache servers between clients and named cluster.
Maybe we should add one but it is just another story.

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear: I was not saying that your authoritative servers should have a cache. I was saying that all the legitimate clients
of your servers (the resolvers at ISPs areound the Internet) have caches.

All of these authoritative servers are only serve for our private clients. So there won't have ISPs' resolvers.

I read the Bv9ARM again and noticed a hint in it:

This mechanism is intended for authoritative DNS servers. It can be used on ecursive servers but can slow applications such as SMTP servers (mail receivers) and HTTP clients (web browsers) that repeatedly request the same domains. When possible, closing "open" recursive servers is better.

So it implies that I just should not use RRL in my authoritative servers. Because all clients in my IDC internal queries my authoritative servers directly. But RRL is not for this scenes.

To my mind the RRL should not limit queries with different qnames from
the same client. So is it my misunderstanding or wrong config?

If you are querying for nonexistent names then RRL will treat the NXDOMAIN responses as equivalent, so it will rate-limit them. RRL limits responses, not queries. You can configure a different `nxdomains-per-second` limit if you want.

That’s it! All of my queries are treated as equivalent. Thanks for your patience :)

Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Rockall, Malin: Northwest 4 or 5. Moderate. Showers. Good.

Zhiyong Cheng

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageReplySection">
<div dir="auto">在 2020年7月10日 +0800 AM2:11，Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>，写道：</div>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Zhiyong Cheng <chengzhycn@gmail.com> wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid;">
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(230, 126, 34); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid;">
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(230, 126, 34); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">We are using named cluster in our internal network as the authoritative</
blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid;">
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(230, 126, 34); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">DNS. So there are no cache servers between clients and named cluster.</
blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid;">
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(230, 126, 34); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Maybe we should add one but it is just another story.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"> </blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Sorry, I wasn't completely clear: I was not saying that your
authoritative</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">servers should have a cache. I was saying that all the legitimate clients<
/blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">of your servers (the resolvers at ISPs areound the Internet) have caches.<
/blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"> </blockquote>
<div dir="auto">All of these authoritative servers are only serve for our private clients. So 
there won't have ISPs' resolvers.  
 
I read the Bv9ARM again and noticed a hint in it: 
 
 This mechanism is intended for authoritative DNS servers. It can be used on 
 ecursive servers but can slow applications such as SMTP servers (mail 
 receivers) and HTTP clients (web browsers) that repeatedly request the same 
 domains. When possible, closing "open" recursive servers is better. 
So it implies that I just should not use RRL in my authoritative servers.  
Because all clients in my IDC internal queries my authoritative servers directly. But RRL is not for this scenes. </div>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid;">
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(230, 126, 34); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">To my mind the RRL should not limit queries with different qnames from</
blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid;">
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(230, 126, 34); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">the same client. So is it my misunderstanding or wrong config?</
blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"> </blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">If you are querying for nonexistent names then RRL will treat the
NXDOMAIN</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">responses as equivalent, so it will rate-limit them. RRL limits responses,
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">not queries. You can configure a different `nxdomains-per-second` limit
if</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">you want.</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"> 
That’s it!  All of my queries are treated as equivalent. Thanks for your 
patience :) </div>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"> </blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Tony.</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">--</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(26, 188, 156); margin: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Rockall, Malin: Northwest 4 or 5. Moderate. Showers. Good.</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"> 
Zhiyong Cheng </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Who's Online
Recent Visitors
- Keyop
  Thu Apr 25 21:14:50 2024
  from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire via SSH
- Cronus
  Thu Apr 25 18:32:15 2024
  from Provo, Ut via SSH
- Cronus
  Thu Apr 25 18:24:38 2024
  from Provo, Ut via SSH
- Michal Wronka
  Thu Apr 25 14:02:21 2024
  from Wroclaw, Poland via SSH

System Info

Sysop:	Keyop
Location:	Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK
Users:	296
Nodes:	16 (2 / 14)
Uptime:	59:02:27
Calls:	6,653
Calls today:	5
Files:	12,200
Messages:	5,331,273

DNS_RRL_MAX_RATE defines 1000

Who's Online

Recent Visitors

System Info