January 1998 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: ISPs in Bombay India
by Barry Raveendran Greene 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

VSNL - http://www.vsnl.net.in/ Let me know if you need specific E-mail contacts. Barry On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 12:36 AM, Geoff White [SMTP:geoffw@precipice.v-site.net] wrote: > > > Can anybody point me to an ISP in Bombay that can supply ISDN or Frame > Relay into the internet. > > > Thanks > Geoff White >

1 0

Re: [nanog] Re: Microsoft offering xDSL access
by Jim Shankland 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

> We are part of the Bell Atlantic ADSL trial in Northern VA - > basically BA has 6 CO's with terminating ADSL modems. This is > aggregated onto a FDDI ring between each CO on cisco's. One of the > CO's has a port into the BA SMDS cloud which is the interconnect > with participating ISP's who also have a port on the SMDS cloud. > So basically, packetize the data as early as possible to get the > 20x plus economies of scale vs hauling channelized circuits. Of course, this is orthogonal to xDSL; the same economies of scale would apply with T-1 local loops. Seems to me that for the RBOCs, the big disadvantage of xDSL is losing all those fat, high-margin T-1 local loop fees. The advantage is getting a shot at taking over the Internet business. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc.

13 19

Re: MAC address assignments
by Phil Wood 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

00:20:af is registerd to 3com. See: http://ftp.cavebear.com/CaveBear/Ethernet/ > > > Folks, > Where can I find a list of MAC (ethernet) address assignments. > i.e. blocks of addresses were assigned to various companies. > for example 8:0:20:xx:xx:xx is most likely a Sun machine > 00:c0:7b:xx:xx:xx is some form of ascend router. > > > I'm trying to track down someone who is using an IP address that > they should not be using and all I have is their MAC address > (00:20:af:f2:2c:79) > > I can take my answer off line > > geoffw > > >

2 1

Re: MAC address assignments
by Pat Darisme 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

Try http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/Ethernet/vendor.html Once upon a time, Geoff White arranged the electrons in @Home's private BackBone to write: > Subject: MAC address assignments > (Jan 26, 3:32pm) > > > Folks, > Where can I find a list of MAC (ethernet) address assignments. > i.e. blocks of addresses were assigned to various companies. > for example 8:0:20:xx:xx:xx is most likely a Sun machine > 00:c0:7b:xx:xx:xx is some form of ascend router. > > > I'm trying to track down someone who is using an IP address that > they should not be using and all I have is their MAC address > (00:20:af:f2:2c:79) > > I can take my answer off line > > geoffw > > End of included message written by Geoff White on Jan 26, 3:32pm, > _____________________ Pat W. Darisme pat(a)noc.home.net Network Analyst Offering High Speed Internet Access @Home Network to millions of homes across North-America _____________________ at a lower monthly cost than your dial-up ISP. (http://www.home.net/home/pricing.html) | ,@ __|-. ,_~o/ \/ | Through the router, off the switch, |/ | down the cable, nothing but net. / > | ' ` | The @Home slam dunk | www.home.net _____________________|

1 0

Re: Reporting Little Blue Men
by Dean Anderson 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

These are crimminal statues, and apply to "providers of wire communications services". Read these: Definitions: (Wire communications) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2510.shtml Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.shtml If you operate a service available to the public, the rules are much different than if you operate a private company's internal mail system. So far as I know, these laws haven't been repealed. But cornell says they use the January '96 CD. Maybe they have been repealed. If you're not a provider of wire communication services according to the definitions, they don't apply. Anyway, my original point was to explain why the FBI is unresponsive to DoS reports. I think we can stop insisting that "these laws don't apply to me". Maybe they don't. If not, then don't worry. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7 13

Re: MAC address assignments
by Ron Johnson 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

http://shadowland.cc.utexas.edu/oui.html Semi painless OUI to manufacture table. -- Ron Johnson ---------------------------------------------- Strange, but true..... Hostmaster, Genuity. (1-888-GENUITY) rjohnson(a)genuity.net ----------------------------------------------

1 0

MAC address assignments
by Geoff White 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

Folks, Where can I find a list of MAC (ethernet) address assignments. i.e. blocks of addresses were assigned to various companies. for example 8:0:20:xx:xx:xx is most likely a Sun machine 00:c0:7b:xx:xx:xx is some form of ascend router. I'm trying to track down someone who is using an IP address that they should not be using and all I have is their MAC address (00:20:af:f2:2c:79) I can take my answer off line geoffw

3 2

REALLY URGENT! Ski Trip in Jeopardy
by jmbrown＠ihighway.net 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

If you want to go on either Saturday or Sundays SKI / Tour of Santa Fe then you ___ M U S T S I G N U P N O W ___ You have to call the 800 number and make your reservations. iHighway IS NOT making these nor are we dealing with it at NANOG! This can NOT be a last minute thing. If you are interested then __PLEASE__ call 800-999-3109 by THIS Friday. They need 30 reservation on each day, to make that day happen. If they don't have 30 reservations on Sat then no Sat. Same for Sunday. Currently there are only 4 people holding reservations. This is the ONLY message being sent out on this. jmbrown

1 0

Re: [Fwd: FCC to charge by minute for e-mail usage (fwd)
by Nathan Stratton 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, David Lesher wrote: > Nathan Stratton sez: > > Yes, this is last years news, but it is also very important to watch this > > issue to make sure something like this does not go into effect. People > > like the ACTA are pumping large amounts of money into legal battles. The > > fight is sill going on by www.von.org and others. Internet Telephony has > > already been banned in places like India where it is illegal to use PC > > based Internet Telephony or PSTN/IP gateways. > > It is NOT last year's news. > The battlefield has moved, the enemies the same.... I am sorry, I should have worded that better. I meant yes it was last years new because it all started them. You are correct the battlefield has moved and the enemies are the same. As I said, we need to watch this and make sure this does not go into effect. -- Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting www.robotics.net nathan(a)robotics.net > -- > A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com > & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX > Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 > is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 >

1 0

[Fwd: FCC to charge by minute for e-mail usage (fwd)
by NetSurfer 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

Has anyone heard this or it is another cyber-urban myth? - James D. Wilson netsurf(a)sersol.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ranganath Prabhu V V <vprabhu(a)hcla.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <uw-l(a)microserve.net> Reply-To: uw-l(a)microserve.net Subject: [Fwd: FCC to charge by minute for e-mail usage --- snip --- Subject : Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service ***IMPORTANT INFORMATION*** JUST RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE AND IT NEEDS TO BE ACTED UPON ASAP! Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the ---snip --- FCC E Mail address isp(a)fcc.gov This is really important. If we have to pay for e-mail , the cost is going to skyrocket. It's about the only thing now that is cost-effective. Please make your opinions known to the FCC.

6 6