- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Level 3's side of the story
by David Hubbard 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

From: William Allen Simpson > > I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted.... > Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"? They notified Cogent, not the public. Cogent chose to not do anything other than hope they won the staring contest when Level 3 terminated the link, which apparently they did. Be interesting to see what will happen in a month when they go at it again. > > Splendid, that gives the world sufficient time to accept > Cogent's offer of 1 year free service. This is not the first time Cogent has used their customers as pawns in peering disputes, I don't know if I'd jump on the bandwagon so quickly (spoken as a customer of both companies). David

14 20

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

At 9:37 PM -0400 10/8/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:43 PM, John Curran wrote: >>What I have said that there is *significant* attention to the potential consumer impact of our "non-essential" IP services, and that's not surprising given the historic public policy in this area. I pointed to the bill under draft merely as documentation of this attention and to note that unless there is a radical shift in policy for telecom consumer protections, we are going to see some form of regulation as more voice moves to the Internet. > >Perhaps. Your presumption for such prediction is that service will not evolve in a disruptive fashion. No, my prediction is based solely on the current actions of lawmakers to address the perceived social need of reliable phone service. If laws are passed, it's highly likely that the FCC will regulate accordingly, regardless of how amusing the mapping from regulation to reality turns out. /John

1 0

DNS question
by doug＠safeport.com 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

I have a hint record pointing to a name server that has not been used to several years. As I am changing providers, I need to try to delete this record. I think the appropriate question for this forum, is where should I go to research/ask this question? Replying to me off list is fine and I will share any answers, success or lack thereof if there is interest. Thanks Doug _____ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com doug(a)safeport.com Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601

3 2

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 5:23 PM -0400 10/8/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >On Oct 8, 2005, at 12:25 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >>That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them). However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought which is guiding policy and legislation in this area, which is probably best represented by last month's House Telecom committee draft: >> >><http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf> [1] >> >>There you go: mandatory ISP registration, interconnection, consumer protection, and more. Maybe these folks were too busy with other stuff to notice the Internet partition happen earlier in the week? >>Oh, wait, I remember now: these folks are only matter when legislating. > >You can't be serious. You're quoting a draft for a house bill as proof that this is rational thought or justified? Wow... You're characterizing me as trying to prove this is rational and justified thought? That's almost as cool as your earlier suggestion that I'm advocating for regulation. I'm not. I know that can be hard to tell unless you read my messages. What I have said that there is *significant* attention to the potential consumer impact of our "non-essential" IP services, and that's not surprising given the historic public policy in this area. I pointed to the bill under draft merely as documentation of this attention and to note that unless there is a radical shift in policy for telecom consumer protections, we are going to see some form of regulation as more voice moves to the Internet. /John

1 0

Sorry to butt in - Google operational
by Eric Germann 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

<OPERATIONALCONTENTFOLLOWS> Sorry for the apolitical commentary that is operational in nature, but ................ If some of your customers complain they can't get to Google ... And you manually configured your bogon filters ... And you haven't updated them in a while .... Google is now serving up from some 72.x.x.x space, FYI. Adjust filters accordingly. We now return you to non-operational content </OPERATIONALCONTENTFOLLOWS> Eric

1 0

RE: Cogent move without renumbering
by Hannigan, Martin 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

> > > > charles_cala(a)yahoo.com (Charles Cala) wrote: > > > Q can an "end user" take non portable ip's with them > > to another service provider? > > What in "non portable" did you not understand? > > Elmar. Court orders from United States Courts to United States business regarding IP addresses issued by United States RIR's? -M<

1 0

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 11:52 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >Sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the point of view that we need to regulate free entry & free exit and throw these basic tenets of our economy out the window to encourage continued poor decision making . I'm not advocating that we need to regulate anything, only pointing out that the historic public policy position discourages service impacts to 3rd parties, and even more so when done without notice. If you carry essential consumer services, then there is already existing policy in this area. >There is no paradise behind that door. And I don't believe regulation should be used to prevent people from making occasionally poor decisions, which in turn will ultimately do nothing more than raise the price floor and create additional barriers of entry in the market. If you don't have those events happen, bad things never get weeded out. There really is nothing but bad news in store for what you propose, because it isn't as simple of a thing to impose regulation and have mostly good things happen. That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them). However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought which is guiding policy and legislation in this area, which is probably best represented by last month's House Telecom committee draft: <http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf> [1] There you go: mandatory ISP registration, interconnection, consumer protection, and more. Maybe these folks were too busy with other stuff to notice the Internet partition happen earlier in the week? Oh, wait, I remember now: these folks are only matter when legislating. /John [1] A readable (only-slightly-biased) summary: <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm860.cfm>

1 0

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 11:00 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >What's your point? Are you seriously suggesting this should be regulated? It doesn't appear necessary at all; industry self-regulation seems to be working just fine here... (one might claim almost too well :-) ) >.. let the customers draw their own consequences and conclusions based on the actions of the companies who serve them. >Thankfully, Internet connectivity is ubiquitous for the most part, and this is hardly the same as essential services (those who consider it that, are fools not to have diversity). Those un-essential Internet services increasingly carry voice services that are considered essential by many consumers, and for whom diversity is not a realistic option. Leaving them completely open to the consequences of service provider actions would be quite an innovative curve in public policy. /John

1 0

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 10:15 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >> >>In any industry, it only takes a handful of consumers impacted through no fault of their own to generate significant political & regulatory attention. Reasonable-sounding explanations cannot stand if they imply that thousands of innocent parties can be impacted without notice. > >Nonsense. That only matters when somebody is looking for an opportunity to legislate. You're right: administrators, regulators, and representatives are completely helpless except when making laws, and the reconnection of services (ref: "Because Internet users, apparently without notice from Cogent and through no fault of their own, have been impacted, Level 3 has, effective immediately, re-established a free connection to Cogent.") can just as easily be attributed to uncanny judgement on Level 3's part as any other explanation. /John

1 0

RE: Cogent move without renumbering
by Hannigan, Martin 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

> > Is it reasonable to think that numerous /24's from L3's IP > space could be > reassigned elsewhere without causing significant trouble for > L3 and others? Even > if it could work, what would be the justification for taking > L3's property? Depending upon the circumstance, yes: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg01880.html

4 3