May 1997 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: We've been hit by the spammers, please have mercy
by Sanjay Dani 06 May '97

06 May '97

>Meanwhile our real public mail server is vulnerable because >it runs Netscape mail (netra runs solaris 2.4 until SunSoft >gets our copy of 2.5.1 application server off back order; Solaris sendmail may be older, the latest one is 8.8.5: ftp://ftp.sendmail.org/ucb/src/sendmail/sendmail.8.8.5.tar Its sendmail.cf is slightly different from the stock Solaris. If you don't have the time to build, you may get a 2.5.1 sendmail binary (note, it's risky to download binaries, no guarantees … [View More]

1 0

RE: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by David Whipple 06 May '97

06 May '97

MSN does not have a "peering agreement" with UUNET. We "BGP peer" with them simply to allow us to somewhat load balance with our other carriers. We do pay for transit, like any other UUNET customer. Thanks. David Whipple, Microsoft Internet Engineering. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew James Gering [SMTP:mgering@ricochet.net] > Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 8:44 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms? > > MSN does not peer … [View More]

1 0

We've been hit by the spammers, please have mercy
by dhudes＠graphnet.com 06 May '97

06 May '97

Folks, Over the weekend someone decided to use our (Graphnet/globalis.net) mail server for sending spam. We are in the process of dealing with this and some internal network outages all at once. FYI, our mail server is running the very latest Solaris 2.5.1 + patches but the software is Netscape Mail server which replaces Sendmail with its very own. I thought they claimed it could not be used for transit mail but apparently either the claim was false or I misunderstood. Our small staff is … [View More]

2 2

PR Battle Continues...
by rbenn＠clark.net 06 May '97

06 May '97

A few interesting statements in the press today concerning the domain name battle, including PSI, eDNS, & The White House. You can link to them from: http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn/naming.html Randy Benn

1 0

sorry for the earlier blank message
by Jeff Young 05 May '97

05 May '97

regarding my suggestion (although terse) with regard to set community no-export. my box ran out of space and mh ate the message (delivered a blank). i would let it go, and continue to look stupid, but i've recieved quite a few messages to let me know that my message was a blank, so to say thank you, please stop now, and to look perhaps even more stupid... :-) press d now or forever conceal your boredom:-), to re-cap, someone described the need to use a purchased connection to sprint (… [View More]

1 0

Looking for commentators for "State of the Net"
by ISP-TV Main Contact 05 May '97

05 May '97

Have you ever wanted to tell _your_ side of the Internet world, unfiltered by confused reporters and voracious editors? ISP-TV is looking for network engineers and operators for a new Internet video show called "State of the Net." This show will allow the people who really run the Internet day-to-day to talk about what is _really_ going on concerning important issues such as spamming, the real story on Net outages, packet loss at the MAEs, peering, transition to IPV6, the future of DNS and … [View More]

1 0

Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Dwight Ernest 05 May '97

05 May '97

At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: >On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote: >> Hi. I'm a root name server operator. [snip] Paul operates f.root-servers.net. >>I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0. > >Really? > >Explain this trace please. [snip] >Nice try. What's your point? generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net. traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, … [View More]

5 5

UPDATED ATTENDEE LIST
by Pam Ciesla 05 May '97

05 May '97

I have updated the attendee list for the June 5 & 6 NANOG Meeting to be held in Tampa, FL. I you should be on this list and are not please contact me. Remember to book your hotel rooms at the Hyatt by May 15. Info about the NANOG Meeting can be found on the nanog.org web page. The attendee list is as follows: The following people have registered for the Summer '97 NANOG meeting. Looking forward to seeing you! < < Attendee Organization Adelson, … [View More]Jay Digital Internet Exchange Ahlstrand, Dave Minnesota Regional Network Ahuja, Abha Merit Network, Inc. Ansboury, Mark Virtual Communications, Inc. Auger, Ulysses CAIS Barber, Stan Academ Consulting Services Barr, Dave Applied Theory Communications, Inc. Barrows, Jeff UUNET Ben-Oni, Golan IDT Corporation Bergman, Chris PSINet, Inc. Bergum, Dave Minnesota Regional Network Boeth, Richard Sprint Multimedia Bogovic, Tony Bellcore Bool, Adrian U-NET Ltd. Borchers, Mark InfiNet Borkenhagen, Jay AT&T Worldnet Bownes, Bob Intermedia Communications Boyles, Jeff PSINet, Inc. Broscius, Al Bellcoretd> Brown, John M. iHighway.net, Inc. Bush, Randy Verio, Inc. Campbell, Tom Global Internet Capo, John IRBS Engineering Capshaw, Sean Advantis/IBM Global Network Cassels, Peter MCNC Cerveny, William Advanced Network & Services, Inc. Cheng, Che-Hoo The Chinese University of Hong Kong/HKIX Clark, Henry BBN Planet Cleary, Mike Utah Education Network Cnota, Mark Ameritech Advanced Data Svcs. Collie, Bob Telalink Corp. Collins, John Rutgers Universtiy Correia, Wayne D. Electronic Frontier Foundation Curado, Dave Verio Davis, Peter TIAC, The Internet Access Company, Inc. Della, Marcos InterNex DeLong, Owen ConXioN DeMarche, Chris Verio Desko, David PSC International Donelan, Sean DRA Donner, Paul Cisco Systems, Inc.t Donovan, Regis Microsoft Dorsey, Chris @Home Network Dugan, Jon NCSA Dunn, Bradley Harbor Communications Dykes, Barry Genuity Eastgard, Tom NorthWestNet England, Kent W. Six Sigma Networks Fakler, Paul Minnesota Regional Network Farrelly, Jeff GoodNet Feldman, Steve WorldCom Ferguson, Paul Cisco Systems, Inc. Fitzgibbons, William Kaspia Systems, Inc. Frohling, Ted University of Arizona Fuller, Vince BBN Planet Gainer, John Verio Garcia, Joseph Hewlett-Packard Gerich, Elise @Home Network Germaine, Andrew Advantis Greanias, Robert Hewlett-Packard Green, Bill Aimnet Corporation Guidry, Lawrence Cable & Wireless Internet Exchange Gutierrez, Esteban US Army Corps of Engineers Gutierrez, Robert Internex Information Services Hall, Bradshaw Epoch Networks Haney, Craig Cando Consulting Hares, David Autonet Harris, Susan R. Merit Network, Inc. Harrison, Laura Intermedia Communications, Inc. Hays, Ken Florida State University Heagerty, Denise CERN Heasley, John Verio Heiliger, Jonathan GlobalCenter Heiman, Rick Sprint Multimedia Helser, Gordon Advantis/IBM Hetzel, Dorn Epoch Networks Hines, Stphen Gridnet International Hodovance, Derek SuperNet, Inc. Hogarth, Jonathan Intermedia Communications Horne, Mike Verio Houle, Art Florida State University Hubbard, Kim Network Solutions, Inc. Hudes, Dana Graphnet, Inc. Icide, Chris Nap.Net, L.L.C. India, Vincent CyberGate Ishiguro, Kumihiro Digital Magic Labs, Inc. Joffe, Rodney Genuity, Inc. Johnson, Ron Genuity Jordt, Dan NorthWestNet Jung, Jaeyeon Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology Junkins, Doug NorthWestNet, Inc. Kaul, Surbhi Technology Infrastructure Services Kavi, Prabhu Cascade Keagy, Scott Cisco Systems, Inc. Kern, Ed DIGEX Khoo, Andrew Aussie.Net Kim, Dorian CICNet King, Link GoodNet Kingett, Delzon AT&T Klein, Joseph Tittania Corporation Kline, Peter AGIS Krinos, Dimitri IBM/Advantis Krupnik, Bob AT&T Labovitz, Craig Merit Network, Inc. Lai, Elaine Pacific Internet Pte Ltd Lambert, Michael Pittsburgh Supercomputing Ctr. Lang, James Erols Internet> Langdon, Michael AT&T WorldNet Lanza, Jacob Sprint Multimedia Lapolitio, Joe Verio Leber, Mike Hurricane Electric LeBrun, Ren IBM Global Services Leland, Will Bellcore Leonard, Dan Autonet Liu, Dun Merit Network, Inc. Liu, Xin Merit Network, Inc. Love, Paul Internet Consulting of Vermont Madison, Eric ACSI Mahmud, Faisal Rutgers University Mariano, Reynaldo Pacific Bell Martey, Abe Cisco Systems, Inc. Martin, Kevin pair Networks Matsune, Mio BTNIS McCauley, Bill GeoNet Communications, Inc. McGuckin, Joe ViaNet Communications McIlhenny, Karen BBN Corp. McKee, David Arizona State University McPherson, Danny Genuity, Inc. McQuaid, Jim NetScout Systems, Inc. Menendex, Louis University of South Florida Meyer, David University of Oregon Middleton, Guy UUNET Canada Miller, Brad CAIS Internet Mitchell, Rodney UUNET Technologies Miura, Takeshi International Digital Communications, Inc. Mizukoshi, Ichiro Office AI Mohta, Pushpendra TCG CERFnet, Inc. Mouat, Nikos IXA-Interconnected Associates Murphy, John AT&T WorldNet Nabil, Aaron Laudon Consulting Nakamura, Toshiyuki NTT PC Communications, Inc. Nesser II, Philip J. Nesser & Nesser Consulting Netterfield, Ted University of S. Flordia Nobile, Leslie Dept. of Defense Network Infomation Ctr/SAIC Norton, Bill Merit Network, Inc. Nowlin, Lauren Network Solutions, Inc. Oura, Teruhisa International Digital Communications Inc. Owen, Kraig Cisco Systems, Inc. Pace, Donald Sprint ANS Parks, Lisa Network Solutions, Inc. Partan, Andrew Verio Pennington, Jim Kaspia Systems, Inc. Perez, Mike Sprint Peterson, Alec Erols Internet Petrovic, Mark S. Sprint Multimedia Pettingell, Brian Genuity Pokorney, Dave University of Florida Pulcher, Harold Verio Ramsey, Michael Interpath Retana, Alvaro Cisco Systems, Inc. Reynolds, Bradley Harbor Communication Rishaw, Jamie Internet Access Group Rizzo, Jeff NETCOM Rogers, Joe University of S. Flordia Rolinson, Sean Charm Net, Inc. Ross, William Kaspia Systems, Inc. Rubin, Steve InterNex Information Services Ruth, Greg GTE Laboratories, Inc. Schlapfer, Marcel NASA Internet/Sterling Software Schleifer, Mark DIGEX Schmidt, Andrew Ameritech Schnell, Steven Sprint Scott, Thomas (Rod) ConXioN Sebuktekin, Isil Bellcore Sekioka, Toshinori NTT PC Communication, Inc. Shaver, Gary Hurricane Electric Shultz, Steve NASA Ames Research Center Silliker, Andrew Interlog Internet Services Sims, Ralph Northwest Nexus, Inc. Sjoberg, Daniel Telia NA Skouby, Greg Harbor Communications Smith-Roberts, Ryan IXA-Interconnected Associates Spitale, Denise Department of Defense Network Information Ctr/SAIC Stefansky, Jonathan Goldman Sachs Sterling, Jeff IXA-Interconnected Associates Stringer, Fred AT&T Worldnet Stroud, Danny GES Internet Stuart, Stephen Digital Equipment Corp. Sugeno, Akio TELEHOUSE Swink, Carol Hewlett Packard Tatman, Lance NASA Ames/Sterling Software Torpis, Sharif Pacific Bell Internet Toyama, Katsuyasu NTT Software Labs Tsuboi, Christopher @Home Network Voll, Toivo University of South Flordia Vortherms, Dan Verio Wagner, Dick ACSI Watson, Brett Genuity Inc. Watt, James Newbridge Networks Corp. Wayrynen, Darin GoodNet Wei, Calvin Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Weinsteiger, George Genutiy, Inc. Wells, Chick Virtual Resources Wilkerson, Lisa IXA-Interconnected Associates Williams, Scott @Home Network Williams, Warren Pacific Bell Wilson, Paul UUNET Canada Witt, Mike RAINet Wittbrodt, Cathy @Home Network Wong, William Hong Kong Telecom - Netplus Woodcock, Bill Zocalo Woolf, Suzanne USC Information Sciences Institute Yaguchi, Tomokazu Telecomet, Inc. Yu, Yung AT&T WorldNet Zimmerman, Gary SAVVIS Communications Corp. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [View Less]

1 0

Peering/Interconnection on the Internet as a Telecom Carrier
by David Holub 05 May '97

05 May '97

I apologize for the long list of recipients. I'm certain many of you will join in related discussion within your respective forums. I am attempting to get largely the same statements/thoughts out to wide variety of interested parties, many of which have been asking for a statement from me or have put related material online in an effort to receive comments. For those of you on the nanog list, this material is not strictly operational in nature, but I feel it is sufficiently related to the … [View More]operations of the Internet to merit posting. The information contained herein is not proprietary information and can be assembled through a variety of public sources. Nothing contained herein is to my knowledge covered under any non-disclosure or proprietary information agreements to which I am currently or have been previously bound. What follows are some of my thoughts on the matter of Peering/Interconnection on the Internet as a Telecommunications Carrier/Internet Service Provider (hereafter ISP). For the last year I have been actively working to forge a future as a Utility/Telecommunications Carrier for the ISP business that I started nearly four years ago. Throughout this process I have had the privilege of working with Mr. David Simpson of Young, Vogl, Harlick, Wilson and Simpson LLP of San Francisco. Much of what I will discuss about peering has been shaped by what I've learned from Mr. Simpson. Unlike Mr. Simpson, I have no license to practice law and thus legal questions that arise from this discussion are best forwarded to him. (His address is: das(a)yvhws.com) Beyond my work with Mr. Simpson in this area, as a daily matter I have been directly involved in all aspects related to the engineering, maintenance, operations, purchasing and contract negotiations necessary to produce Internet connectivity over multiple Internet Exchange Points (often called NAPs or MAEs but hereafter referred to as "IXPs") for the last two years. Universal reachability is a fundamental tenet in public networks. It is assumed that if you the customer pay for a connection to a public network all points within that public network are reachable by you the customer. This is true of both the Internet and the more traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (hereafter referred to as the "PSTN"). As most of us know, these networks are not single entities but are comprised of many networks that connect together and cooperate to produce universal reachability. To do this they must interconnect and exchange their respective traffic. The notion of "free peering" is directly analogous to a "bill & keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies, pursuant to which Carrier A agrees to accept and terminate - at no charge - all of the traffic originating on Carrier B's network which is destined to Carrier A's customers in return for Carrier B accepting and terminating - at no charge - all of the traffic originating on Carrier A's network which is destined for customers of Carrier B. The other method of interconnection between Common Carriers is called "reciprocal billing". It works the same as the relationship above except replace the phrase -for a negotiated sum- for the phrase -at no charge- . In the Internet we would call "reciprocal billing" "settlements". In this age of telecommunications deregulation, it is very common for there to be significant differences in the size of networks during the phase when one carrier is the incumbent and other carriers are entering the market. It has been argued for years (often by these new networks) that the public is better served by a competitive marketplace and that given the impact of the incumbency of some networks certain inequities between the new networks and the incumbents will need to be accepted for a period of time, in order for that competitive marketplace to emerge in a meaningful way. As a practical/business matter, it is logical "free peering"/"bill & keep" interconnection relationships are formed when there are not substantial differences in the associated costs for Carrier A and Carrier B. However it is common that there are substantial differences in these costs for some period of time and they are either negotiated with money or time until parity can be achieved or new negotiations take place. Most importantly, as with other Utility interconnection issues, there exists an established non-discriminatory framework for these negotiations and the resulting interconnection agreements with time limits for specific phases, procedures for arbitration, required public disclosure and regulatory approval for the outcome. In the context of peering, many mid sized ISPs have currently or have been willing to build out their networks to exchange traffic with the largest networks in multiple geographically diverse points only to find that these larger networks will neither exchange traffic once these competitive networks have arrived at these points, nor will these large network operators even disclose under what criteria they would exchange traffic over these geographically diverse points. This refusal even to make public their criteria for interconnection is at the heart of a very serious threat to the continued growth and openly competitive nature of the Internet. It is also, as discussed below, illegal. Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1). A companion obligation under Section 251 (a) of the act is to "refrain from installing network features or functions that violate the guidelines and standards of Section 256 of the Act". Section 256 mandates "non-discriminatory accessibility by the broadest number of users and venders of communications products and services to public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service." In Section 3 (43) In The term "telecommunications", as used in the Act means "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received". On a State level, the California Public Utilities Commission (hereafter "CPUC) has made clear on numerous occasions that public telecommunications utilities must provide reasonable, non-discriminatory interconnection to other telecommunications carriers. (See, e.g. Decision No. 95-12-056 at page 16 issued in the CPUC's local competition proceeding, R. 95-04-043/I.95-04- 044 "We will review proposed interconnection contracts for unfair discriminatory terms and will deny approval or direct parties to renegotiate any unfairly discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable terms where necessary". The conduct of certain telecommunications carriers with regard to these current peering/interconnection issues also raise broader legal questions of Anti-Trust. This is true, especially given that the most anti-competitive of these Carriers are the very same telecommunications Carriers that own and operate the IXPs in which most of the public and private interconnection/peering takes place. This is a situation directly analogous to the control of and manipulation of costs and flows in railway switching yards during an earlier "industrial" revolution. The behavior of the owners and operators of these yards were an integral part of the reasoning behind the creation of Anti-Trust Law in the first place. There too economic justifications were made for the discriminatory and anti- competitive behavior of large business combinations. The key to non-discrimination and open competition is disclosure. By definition, the non-disclosure of peering/interconnection requirements and agreements, especially the non-disclosure and fair application of criteria for establishing or maintaining peering between networks is the engine of this discriminatory and anti-competitive behavior. Many of us in this industry have heard for years from the largest networks in our business that they will not establish/maintain peering with our networks nor will they disclose their criteria for establishing or continuing peering. It is largely for this reason that I confess, I am a proponent of some level of regulation in the Internet as soon as possible. I think this minimal level of regulation is critical to the Internets open and unrestricted development. As an entrepreneur and a professional in this industry, I urge some minimal level of immediate regulation such that the application of accepted telecommunications law and practices are upheld. If they are not, I fear we will suffer the consequences of the accumulation of all the economic power over the Internet in to a very small number of hands. To me this is a very big problem, perhaps one even worth losing your job over. As these issues unfold there are several arguments that will be used by those that resist what I am suggesting and I'd like to address them forthwith. As with all good arguments there is some truth in what is said by those that see this issue differently. I submit that the facts are being manipulated to mislead the public, obscure the anti-competitive motives and cover-up the refusal to abide by the law which calls for non-discriminatory interconnection. By way of example. 1) It has been said that some ISPs are "looking for a free ride". This may be true of a few, though I know of none. The more relevant fact is that there are scores of mid-sized ISPs that are willing to pay or are currently paying all the costs required for interconnection at current or future traffic levels between them and those that claim that they are "looking for the free ride". 2) As ridiculous as it sounds I have heard it said that "Internet Traffic is not telecommunications, it is rather an "Enhanced Service". This is particularly absurd in the light of the Telecom Acts definition of "telecommunications", which, as quoted above, by its own broad terms, easily covers Internet traffic. 3) I have heard that in order to negotiate these interconnection/peering agreements it is necessary to enter into highly restrictive long term non-disclosure arrangements. The history behind the negotiation of interconnection does not support this view. To the contrary, this practice of enforcing "secrecy" will only result in discriminatory results. 4) It is argued by the largest ISPs that they are not Telecommunications Carriers and therefore under no obligation to interconnect with other ISPs, who likewise are not Carriers under the Telecom Act. This argument lacks merit for two reasons. First the large ISPs making this argument are themselves wholly owned subsidiaries of self-acknowledged, FCC-licensed carriers. These ISPs are fully-integrated technically, financially, personnel-wise and infrastructure-wise, into their Telecom corporate parent. No regulatory agency in the country would accept the fiction that the ISP "business" of the carrier is somehow separate and distinct from the telecommunications business of that same carrier. And, of course, from a marketing perspective, all these carriers are billing their Internet services as merely one element of their bundled, integrated service offerings. Second, the "you're not a carrier" argument can't apply to Whole Earth, because it is a licensed carrier - it has a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (just like Pacific Bell/TCG, etc.) to provide facilities-based local and long-distance telecommunications services. Even if we didn't have this particular status it seems clear that the definition of Carrier within the Telecom Act (above) would include all ISPs. On a personal note, as some of you are aware there has been some turmoil over these issues for me and for Whole Earth Networks LLC. Words alone are not sufficient to express the appreciation I have for the support I have received from the employees, customers, friends and other industry professionals over these tumultuous days. Recently the ownership too has been more supportive. I am beholden to all of you and simply can't express how deeply appreciative I am. These extraordinary circumstances have produced such unqualified support and admiration of my efforts in this area that I have been moved to tears on more than one occasion. I am thankful to the employees of Whole Earth for their commitment to stay at work and produce the services that we are all proud of. I remain convinced that Whole Earth Networks LLC is a Company with a bright future and I endeavor to ensure that future. David S. Holub [View Less]

1 0

Re: Peerage versus Peering
by William Allen Simpson 05 May '97

05 May '97

I'll try not to belabor the point too much, since this fellow copied my previous message in its entirety in his reply (I do wish folks would learn how to use a MUA), but.... > From: "Jeff Young" <young(a)mci.net> > webster certainly never contemplated this form of 'peer' so > it is useless to quote him. i agree with peter, in this > form 'peer' means a network of equal or similar size. in > the current state of technology, peer to me means capable > of asymmetry. > … [View More]

1 0