August 2001 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Covad, Chapter 11 !
by Roeland Meyer 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Some bond-holders can agree in principle. But, it takes a judge to allow them to go to *their* backers and help *them* pitch the deal. > From: Christopher A. Woodfield [mailto:rekoil@semihuman.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:06 AM > > I think the one exception to the rule in Covad's case is that > Covad seems > to have their reorg plan already in place and with the > blessing of the > majority, if not all, of their bondholders. I have no experience with > bankruptcy law, but given the fact that the debt-retiring > deal has been > made, where is the need to file Chapter 11? To flush out the > bondholders > who haven't agreed to the stock-for-debt deal? > > -C > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:41:07AM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > > > From: up(a)3.am [mailto:up@3.am] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:57 AM > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, deeann mikula wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Smith, Rick wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just found this... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetweek.com/story/INW20010807S0008 > > > > > > > > i read a similar article y'day, and that was the first > that i had > > > > heard mention of rhythms going down. either i was too busy > > > pulling my > > > > hair out last month or they were really good about > keeping it quiet. > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > > > looks like verizon is gonna be the only xdsl provider > left solvent > > > > when the dust settles. how scary is that, and how predictable? > > > > > > Although this may well ultimately prove true, people do > realize that > > > filing for chapter 11 is not synonymous with going out of > business, > > > right? > > > > Show me one case, in the xDSL CLEC business where this has > held true. Thus > > far, *every* one of them, that has filed CH11, has gone out > of business > > within 30 days, as near as I can tell. The track record is > pretty dismal. > > -- > --------------------------- > Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil(a)semihuman.com > > PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B

1 0

RE: SP's & network security issues (partII)
by Roeland Meyer 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

If it gets some of them to put up a firewall then it's not a total loss. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:gem@rellim.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 9:56 PM > To: Christian Kuhtz > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: SP's & network security issues (partII) > > > > Yo Christian! > > Singnet, in Singapore, scanned all their direct connect customers > for BO and some other things 2 years ago. The local newspapers picked > it up front page for days. They were racked over the coals > for "invasion > of privacy". Very bad PR to scan your customers without > prior informed > consent. Even then some will get bent. > > RGDS > GARY > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 > gem(a)rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Christian Kuhtz wrote: > > > Do you guys scan your customers? If so, what for? OS > scans? Specific > > threats? Infections? How do you handle this in your AUP? > Have you had > > problems with it? What sort of problems have you had and > how did you handle > > them? >

1 0

RE: Covad, Chapter 11 !
by Roeland Meyer 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

> From: Steven J. Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:44 PM > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Mitch Halmu wrote: > > > Ownership of the C/O and the last mile confers ILECs an > unfair advantage > > in this business > > I'd agree with that, but I think there's more to it than that. Cash > management and order turnaround time play a big role in the > success of a DLEC, too. Cash management wasn't just a problem with the DLECs. Most of the dot-com world had that problem. If WebVan had reduced itself to making at least ONE region profitable (proving the market) and then resrticted themselves to half of their growth rate, they'd still be around. Most of them bit off more than they could chew, were to stupid to realise it, and choked to death when they couldn't feed the burn-rate.

1 0

Covad, Chapter 11 !
by Smith, Rick 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Just found this... http://www.internetweek.com/story/INW20010807S0008

11 15

RE: Covad, Chapter 11 !
by Roeland Meyer 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

> From: up(a)3.am [mailto:up@3.am] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:57 AM > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, deeann mikula wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Smith, Rick wrote: > > > > > Just found this... > > > > > > http://www.internetweek.com/story/INW20010807S0008 > > > > i read a similar article y'day, and that was the first that i had > > heard mention of rhythms going down. either i was too busy > pulling my > > hair out last month or they were really good about keeping it quiet. > > *sigh* > > > > looks like verizon is gonna be the only xdsl provider left solvent > > when the dust settles. how scary is that, and how predictable? > > Although this may well ultimately prove true, people do realize that > filing for chapter 11 is not synonymous with going out of business, > right? Show me one case, in the xDSL CLEC business where this has held true. Thus far, *every* one of them, that has filed CH11, has gone out of business within 30 days, as near as I can tell. The track record is pretty dismal.

2 1

RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
by Kavi, Prabhu 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:53 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: MPLS VPNs or not? > > > > Diddn't PSInet deploy L2 switching massively throughout their network? > What did the market decide about that? Could it be that > UUNet's success > was due to other factors? BTW, I'm not sure that #1 above > was ever true > in a large scale network. > > KL > Like I said, to be succesful, you need to do many things right. And one of them having a sufficiently good sales team and market presence that you run into the problem where you have to scale your network rapidly to meet customer demand. UUNET had that problem (a good problem to have), tried a solution, and it worked for them. PSINet did not have this problem of outrunning L3 routers. #1 (running out of gas on the routers) was most definitely a problem at the time for a few providers. Remember that the most stable and widely deployed router in 1994-1997 could do about 300Kpps across the entire box. We've just come a long way since then. Prabhu

1 0

RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
by Kavi, Prabhu 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Absolutely right, which (along with TE on IP routers) is why I think ATM has outlived its usefulness in the backbone of an ISP network. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Travis Pugh [mailto:tdp@discombobulated.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:40 PM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: MPLS VPNs or not? > > > > At one time, UUNET's traffic was simply outrunning the > > ability of L3 routers to keep up. Their choices were to: > > That does invite a companion observation: at one time, I > could reasonably > guess that their traffic was outrunning the ability of Layer > 2 ATM switches > to keep up, as ATM switch vendors have lagged well behind the > curve in OC48 > and OC192 trunk capability, and IP router vendors haven't > even put OC48 ATM > linecards on the market. > > -travis > >

1 0

RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
by Kavi, Prabhu 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Fletcher E Kittredge [mailto:fkittred@gwi.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:35 AM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Vadim Antonov'; Christian Kuhtz; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: MPLS VPNs or not? > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 08:56:53 -0400 "Kavi, Prabhu" wrote: > > I guess the real question should be how much market cap did other > > companies lose because of certain people's zealotry? Any answers > > Vadim? > > Prabhu; > > What evidence do you have that: > > 1) UUnet is/was a success, My take is that the best measures of success is market acceptance and profitability. Not a perfect measure, but certainly beats alternatives like academic debates like protocol X is evil, or service provider Y sucks. If protocol X is evil, ISPs will not use it, or those that do use it will fail. If protocol X was useful but has outlived its usefulness (e.g. ATM in the core), ISPs will no longer use it. [Note that I am not against academic discussions. However they are only useful until market deployment has proven them right or wrong. The people who are still against ATM on religous grounds should get over it.] If service provider Y sucks, then customers will leave it. Neither happened to UUNET. > > 2) if it was a success, the determining factor was its use of ATM, > rather than its first mover advantage, > financial/management stucture, > industry trends, etc. For example, UUnet used ATM because that was > what the bellheads would sell them. At the time, there was no > alternative to the bellheads. First of all, UUNET got a lot of things right. As Craig said, they were an excellent ISP. Those factors you mentioned were all important. However a significant roadblock in any one area can slow down your growth. At one time, UUNET's traffic was simply outrunning the ability of L3 routers to keep up. Their choices were to: 1. Adapt to another network architecture that scaled 2. Have a poor network that did not scale, and therefore would drop lots of customer traffic 3. Refuse customers that wanted to sign on. Taking positions 2 or 3 would have caused them to lose market share. They took position 1 and, combined with doing many other things right, maintained their growth. And as I already mentioned in another message, UUNET's network ran directly over TDM. I don't know what you mean about what the Bellheads would sell them. Prabhu > > regards, > fletcher >

3 2

Blocking CODE RED IOS NBAR CCO Tech Tip
by Scott Frisby 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

CCO official release on blocking code red w/ IOS NBAR - http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/63/nbar_acl_codered.shtml

2 2

Re: MPLS VPNs or not?
by George William Herbert 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

Ken writes: >[...] >Men could obtain the power, gratification and recognition they need thru >killing something, rathing than sending email. Peering policy dispute resolution by gladitorial combat? -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

2 1