- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: dry pair
by Pendergrass, Greg 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Neither do we. Could you include some more details? -Greg -----Original Message----- From: Austad, Jay [mailto:JAustad@temgweb.com] Sent: 29 August 2003 17:08 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: dry pair Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. -jay Vodafone Global Content Services Limited Registered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2FN Registered in England No. 4064873 This e-mail is for the addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, you must not distribute, disclose, copy, use or rely on this e-mail or its contents, and you must immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be legally privileged.

4 3

RE: dry pair
by Mark Segal 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

In Canada they are sometimes referred to as c-loops. You could try that... But, they are hard to get.. And impossible to get repaired :). Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Network Planning FCI Broadband Tel: 905-284-4070 Fax: 416-987-4701 http://www.fcibroadband.com Futureway Communications Inc. is now FCI Broadband -----Original Message----- From: Temkin, David [mailto:temkin@sig.com] Sent: August 29, 2003 12:29 PM To: 'Austad, Jay'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: dry pair Order it as an "alarm circuit"... At least that's how VZ recognizes it in NY. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Austad, Jay [mailto:JAustad@temgweb.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:08 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: dry pair Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. -jay

1 0

RE: dry pair
by Ejay Hire 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Perhaps because smart engineers are sticking $50 CellPipe 50S units on each end and running 2.3mbps across them for less than a third the cost of same-co T1? -----Original Message----- From: Rick Ernst [mailto:erond@legendz.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:19 AM To: Austad, Jay Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: dry pair Have you tried ordering it as an "alarm circuit"? Also, it seems like telcos are less willing to provide dry pair anymore. On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Austad, Jay wrote: :> :>Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry :>pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? :> :>When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. :> :>-jay :>

1 0

RE: dry pair
by Temkin, David 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Order it as an "alarm circuit"... At least that's how VZ recognizes it in NY. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Austad, Jay [mailto:JAustad@temgweb.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:08 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: dry pair Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. -jay

1 0

RE: dry pair
by Austad, Jay 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

I also tried asking for an Alarm Circuit. I even explained to them what it was, but they still didn't understand. All of the people I talked to wondered why in the world I would want a pair with no dialtone. Too bad a I can't just bribe a qwest tech with a few beers to patch it through for me. :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ejay Hire [mailto:ejay.hire@isdn.net] > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:22 AM > To: Pendergrass, Greg; Austad, Jay; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: dry pair > > > He's looking for two wires between two buildings with no switching > equipment on them. You'll have better luck if you ask for an "Alarm > Pair", but everyone's nomenclature is different. > > -Ejay > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pendergrass, Greg [mailto:Greg.Pendergrass@vodafone.com] > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:14 AM > To: 'Austad, Jay'; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: dry pair > > > Neither do we. Could you include some more details? > > -Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: Austad, Jay [mailto:JAustad@temgweb.com] > Sent: 29 August 2003 17:08 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: dry pair > > > > Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch > through a > dry > pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? > > When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. > > -jay > > > Vodafone Global Content Services Limited > Registered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire > RG14 2FN > > Registered in England No. 4064873 > > This e-mail is for the addressee(s) only. If you are not an > addressee, > you > must not distribute, disclose, copy, use or rely on this e-mail or its > contents, and you must immediately notify the sender and delete this > e-mail > and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised use may be > unlawful. > The > information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be > legally > privileged. > > >

1 0

RE: dry pair
by Ejay Hire 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

He's looking for two wires between two buildings with no switching equipment on them. You'll have better luck if you ask for an "Alarm Pair", but everyone's nomenclature is different. -Ejay -----Original Message----- From: Pendergrass, Greg [mailto:Greg.Pendergrass@vodafone.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:14 AM To: 'Austad, Jay'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: dry pair Neither do we. Could you include some more details? -Greg -----Original Message----- From: Austad, Jay [mailto:JAustad@temgweb.com] Sent: 29 August 2003 17:08 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: dry pair Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. -jay Vodafone Global Content Services Limited Registered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2FN Registered in England No. 4064873 This e-mail is for the addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, you must not distribute, disclose, copy, use or rely on this e-mail or its contents, and you must immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be legally privileged.

1 0

Fw: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
by Gordon 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Of the DDOS attacks I have had to deal with in the past year I have seen none which were icmp based. As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate limiting icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow? -Gordon > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, jlewis(a)lewis.org wrote: > > > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't > > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're > > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent > > to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and > > forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice > > MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. > > We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced > ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings > through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After > contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP > rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not > remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable > future. > > What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? > > Cheers, > > Rich >

7 14

port 554 scans?
by Stephen J. Wilcox 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Anyone know what the source of the recent increase in scans of port 554 are? http://isc.incidents.org/port_details.html?port=554 I cant find any related virus/worms using this? Maybe its nothing, just some abuse complaints we got from port 554 scanning... Steve

2 1

RE: Fun new policy at AOL
by Michel Py 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

>> Michel Py writes >> eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment >> size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc. > Roland Perry wrote: > Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit > customers to 200 outgoing recipients a day. Great for stopping > spammers, great for stopping anyone running a mailing list, It is where we started indeed. Today it does not really matter if you have 80 persons in the cc: field or if you send 80 individual emails; the individual ones will have the same from: and the same subject and will be blocked as well. And yes I also send email from my mail server with a subject line that contains the name of that drug that everyone wants to sell me or the name of the organ that everyone wants me to enlarge because I want to test the anti-spam system I just configured at some customer site and I don't want that to be blocked either. If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line they should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't. Michel.

3 2

RE: Fun new policy at AOL
by Michel Py 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

>> Michel Py wrote: >> If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL >> line they should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most >> don't. > Jack Bates wrote: > The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually > don't handle abuse complaints either. True. sigh. > Just what do they do for their customers? I'm curious. They provide the local loop and IP transit, which are the only two things a significant part of non-dial-up customers care about. Michel.

1 0