- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

Jason Legate wrote: > Grow up troy. Who's this Troy guy you're telling to grow up? I've seen a couple different ones post here over the years. Is it possible you've lost your glasses again? www.lenscrafters.com tells me there's a store on 254-A Sunvalley Mall in Concord. If you want a discount, tell them you know Sol Rosenberg. Or send me a DHL, UPS, or FedEx account number and I'll send you the cupon I saw in this week's circulars. Frank

1 0

Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Leo Bicknell 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:33:51PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote: > One of your clients is a mcast sender. You bill him/her for the traffic > on their port. > > Five of your clients are mcast receivers. You bill them for the traffic > on their respective ports. > > Worst(best?) case scenerio: The sender and the 5 receivers are all on > your network. You get to bill all six of them. Works fine. > If the sender is outside of your network and you have to deliver the mcast > to 5 different points on your network to your 5 mcast receiver clients, > you only see the mcast enter your network ONE TIME. You STILL get to bill > your 5 mcast receiver clients for the traffic on their ports and you only > have to INGRESS one copy of it to distribute to your 5 clients. Works fine. > So, what is the problem? You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic on your network, and billed your client once. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

2 1

Dave Hughes says raspberries to qwest Fwd: RE: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to Qwest
by Gordon Cook 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

>From: "Dave Hughes" <dave(a)oldcolo.com> >To: "'Gordon Cook'" <cook(a)cookreport.com> >Subject: RE: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: >Kudos to Qwest >Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:52:43 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Importance: Normal > >Put this in the nanog list. > >Raspberries to Qwest > >And Qwest has been unable to disconnect a T-1 local loop to me for 6 >months and is still trying to bill us - for no service.... > >Dave Hughes >dave(a)oldcolo.com > Cook: I have heard the full story on the phone from Dave. It is remarkable. many hours spent trying to meticulously jump through every qwest hoop - all to no avail. a loose translation from memory is -- keep your customer and his imaginary revenue on the books forever by making sure that part of your operation can never determine that he has left. revenue gaining side becomes responsive - just black hole anything that looses revenue >-----Original Message----- >From: Gordon Cook [mailto:cook@cookreport.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:28 PM >To: dave(a)oldcolo.com >Subject: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to >Qwest > >>Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing(a)trapdoor.merit.edu >>Delivered-To: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu >>Delivered-To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>From: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono(a)vinny.org> >>To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> >>Subject: Kudos to Qwest >>Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:00:58 -0400 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>X-Priority: 3 >>Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >>Precedence: bulk >>X-Loop: nanog >> >> >>We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that >they >>just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours >from >>time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. > >-- > -- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================

1 0

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

Jason Legate wrote: > The payload it tries to dump is located below Jason, my mailer's complaining your message is too short. Could you please re-submit it, padding it with some more uuencoded content (a certain jpg comes to mind)? Frank Rizzo

2 1

Kudos to Qwest
by Vincent J. Bono 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.

5 5

where is the bandwidth?
by Ralph Doncaster 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

I'm looking for public stats on inter-city IP bandwidth in North America. i.e. how many Gbps of traffic is there in/out of cities. I've looked around caida's site and couldn't find anything there. Telegeography claims to have this kind of information, but they want a lot of money for it, and who knows how accurate their data is. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com

1 0

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Jason Legate 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Not having seen a copy of the other worm, I wouldn't know. Regardless, would you want a worm, even a weak and ineffective one on your boxes? -j On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:29:41PM -0700, Patrick Thomas wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:29:41 -0700 (PDT) > From: Patrick Thomas <root(a)utility.clubscholarship.com> > To: Jason Legate <jlegate(a)alienchick.com> > Cc: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose > > > Is this a new apache worm, or the one that was circulating a week or so > ago that was described as weak and ineffective ? > > thanks. > ---end quoted text--- -- Jason Legate (W6SN) Sr. Net/Sys Admin, eVine, Inc. work- jlegate(a)evine.com | home- jlegate(a)alienchick.com Key Fingerprint: 4FB4 2228 DE63 3BBA 7B72 40DD 13D5 2547 821D 2909

1 0

ot: hardware
by Scott Granados 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Sorry to be a little off topic but what's the best place to shop for used hardware these days. Is isp-equipment of any value any more or is ebay better:). Scott

1 0

RE: Kudos to Qwest
by Steve.Smith＠sarcom.com 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Aint that the truth. -----Original Message----- From: Vincent J. Bono [mailto:vbono@vinny.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:33 PM To: Kyle C. Bacon Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Kudos to Qwest That never stopped Worldcom from billing. Installation? We don't need no stinking Installation! :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kyle C. Bacon" <kbacon(a)fnsi.net> To: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono(a)vinny.org> Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Kudos to Qwest > Maybe some of the telco's are finally learning that the quicker you can > install, the sooner you can bill. :) > > K > > > > > "Vincent J. > Bono" To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > <vbono@vinny. cc: > org> Subject: Kudos to Qwest > Sent by: > owner-nanog@m > erit.edu > > > 07/09/2002 > 04:00 PM > > > > > > > > We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they > just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours > from > time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. > > > > >

1 0

RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Alexander, Nathan M 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

I guess I'll toss in my two cents here. I see this all as a weird kind of catch-22 on how multicast would ever become viable. To get multicast going, people have to convince their ISPs that multicast is a good idea. Now, the large businesses that provide the content have done a decent job of getting the ISPs to support (at least nominally) multicast. The problem comes in at the content consumer level (dial, DSL etc). To get these providers to support multicast, their users will probably have to complain to them and convince them it's worth their while. The majority of users will not make this effort. Why should they? The only benefit they get from multicast is if they run a LAN (not so unlikely) and have multiple listeners for the same multicast stream (much less likely). So, for most consumers, there is no direct benefit for multicast. Yes, if consumers where just a little more far sighted, the eventual cost savings multicast would provide might be an incentive. Then again, I think most consumers are jaded enough to think that they'd never see the savings anyway, and the content provider would just pocket the money (or at least I am). <snip a discussion of free market economics here> If multicast is ever to become viable, either there will have to be a grass roots campaign for it from all the dsl/cable/dial up users (again, not likely as they have no real motivation), or several large content providers go to the dsl/cable/dial up providers and make a push for them to enable multicast or else. -Nate

1 0