- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Stealth p2p network in Kazaa and Morpheus?....
by Borchers, Mark 03 Apr '02

03 Apr '02

Anthony D Cennami wrote: > > You aren't maintaining anybodies distributed server farm. You're > maintaining the infrastructure that your clients pay you to use, and > they're allowing this application to function in the manner > described in > plain english within the license agreement. That's a slight stretch. However, your point about an AUP is well taken. Perhaps networks will now want to consider a prohibition along the lines of "Distribution of content by a third party via a customer's connection may be blocked at the sole discretion of the provider, or may be grounds for termination of service."

1 0

Economics of flooding
by Livio Ricciulli 03 Apr '02

03 Apr '02

Hi, we are doing research on the economics of flooding attacks and we have a few questions; help would be greatly appreciated. Is anyone aware of a process for claiming a deduction in charges when fees are associated with a flooding attack? In particular, attacks may push up the 95% usage or (more commonly) attacks may create prolonged loss of network availability; Both outcomes may result in a claim for deduction. Has anyone ever dealt with something like this? How is this handled today? What evidence or proof has to be provided to get the deductions (if any)? Thanks in advance, Livio.

4 3

Stealth p2p network in Kazaa and Morpheus?....
by Craig Holland 03 Apr '02

03 Apr '02

This was news to me, so I'm passing it along. Sorry if it's spam. Checked the archives, and didn't see anything to this affect. <watch the wrap> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cn/20020402/tc_cn/stealth_p2p _network_hides_inside_kazaa

1 0

[Fwd: Message rejected by mailing list - null@intraware.com]
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

All: It was brought to my knowledge that my posting on "Discount on DSL wholesale pricing" appeared three times. I apologize for the incident. However, I would like to bring to your attention that it was induced by a mail that was returned every time I tried to post. Forwarded is the content of the Email with the subject Message rejected by mailing list - null(a)intraware.com. I do not know, if this is a software bug at some place or some thing that is deliberately inducing sort of Denial of Service attacks. If some one has experienced the same, may be it is worth addressing it. Regards, Srihari Varada

1 0

Discount on DSL wholesale pricing
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Hello: How does the following News Release from DPUC of CT affects the opinion of CLECs? Any comments .... Regards, Srihari Varada ************ State of Connecticut Contact: Beryl Lyons (860) 827-2670 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL NEWS RELEASE March 28, 2002 DPUC Orders SNET's Unregulated Telecommunications Affiliate To File Tariffs and Use Same Wholesale Discount Protocol As Regulated Company In a Decision rendered today, the Department of Public Utility Control ordered SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), a Connecticut affiliate of the Southern New England Telephone Company, to provide DSL transport service (high-speed data lines) at a 25.4% discount to all resellers of that service. With today's Decision, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to impose this resale requirement on an unregulated affiliate of an incumbent telephone company offering service within their jurisdictional boundaries. ASI was created as a result of the Southern New England Telephone Company's (SNET's) parent, SBC Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Ameritech Corp. The 25.4% discount rate was established by the Department in a Decision in 1999 to apply to SNET's wholesale service offered to resellers operating in Connecticut. Today's Decision is significant because it finds that SNET cannot avoid its resale obligations even when its separate affiliates resell services to other telecommunications providers. According to Commissioner Jack R. Goldberg, "this Decision continues to place Connecticut in the forefront of meeting the intent of Congress and the state legislature in establishing and promoting competition in the telecommunications industry." **********

1 0

Re: de-peering and peering
by Shashi Kumar 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Steve: Thanks for the reply. But when doing a traffic engineering i have the following problem. Consider the scenario. Let us say Network A has a peering Agreement with Network B. Now let us say Network X wants to reach Network B. X and B do not have a peering agreement. Can Network A use the peering Link between A nd B to route the traffic of network X. What are the mechanisms in place in B's network to detect that Network A is transiting the data( in this case network B looser) from Network X? Basically what I am trying to arrive at is: Suppose the peering arrangement between A and B were to be for data originating from A and B only(and not transited). Can A or B misuse the peering agreement by masquerading transit data as if its originating from its own n/w? thx, shashi Steve Naslund wrote: > Peering arrangements are when networks make connections between each other. > Usually networks of > equal size (traffic wise) will try to peer with each other. Although this > may not be technically correct here > are the basics. > > Peering - connections between networks that our cooperative, there is no > cost other than the physical > connection itself. That cost might be shared or the smaller network may pay > for the physical connection. > Carries traffic that terminates on one of the two networks. i.e. you can't > go through the peering connection > you have with my network to get to another network. Consider peering > connections to be express routes between > two networks. You generally can get this type of connection if you are a > service provider or public institution. > It is harder to get if you are a private entity unless you can show a > benefit for me in peering with you. In > other words, I would like the traffic flow to be as symmetric as possible or > improve service for an important > customer. > > Transit - connections between networks that I pay for an allow me to get to > anything on the Internet. These > are generally very expensive but allow you to reach anyone, anywhere. > Consider transit connections to be the > superhighway with exits to everywhere but with a lot of traffic. Anyone who > buys service from an upstream > provider has a transit connection although they usually refer to full BGP > sessions. > > Now you can see that if I am paying for a transit connection through say > UUnet and I have a ton of traffic going > to say Exodus, it is in my best interest to try to establish a peering > agreement with Exodus so that I don't have > to use my expensive bandwidth from UUnet. I can also get a more direct > route to where my customers want to go and > avoid congestion. > > Peering and de-peering have a huge impact on traffic engineering because > lack of peering means that most traffic > is being carried by the biggest transit providers like UUnet and Cable & > Wireless. Peering makes the Internet > more redundant and reliable and evens out the loads better. Traffic > engineering is all about peering and which > paths are preferred over others. I your only connections are transit then > there are not many options for > traffic engineering. > > Steve > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of >>Shashi Kumar >>Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:36 PM >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: de-peering and peering >> >> >>Dear List: >> >> Sorry for a naive question. Could some one on the list explain what is >>peering and de-peering ? and how peering and de-peering influence >>traffic engineering?. ( data traffic or otherwise..) >> >>thanks in advance, >>shashi >> >> >> > >

4 3

Discounts on DSL line wholesale pricing
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Hello: How does the following News Release from DPUC of CT affects the opinion of CLECs? Any comments .... Regards, Srihari Varada ************ State of Connecticut Contact: Beryl Lyons (860) 827-2670 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL NEWS RELEASE March 28, 2002 DPUC Orders SNET's Unregulated Telecommunications Affiliate To File Tariffs and Use Same Wholesale Discount Protocol As Regulated Company In a Decision rendered today, the Department of Public Utility Control ordered SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), a Connecticut affiliate of the Southern New England Telephone Company, to provide DSL transport service (high-speed data lines) at a 25.4% discount to all resellers of that service. With today's Decision, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to impose this resale requirement on an unregulated affiliate of an incumbent telephone company offering service within their jurisdictional boundaries. ASI was created as a result of the Southern New England Telephone Company's (SNET's) parent, SBC Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Ameritech Corp. The 25.4% discount rate was established by the Department in a Decision in 1999 to apply to SNET's wholesale service offered to resellers operating in Connecticut. Today's Decision is significant because it finds that SNET cannot avoid its resale obligations even when its separate affiliates resell services to other telecommunications providers. According to Commissioner Jack R. Goldberg, "this Decision continues to place Connecticut in the forefront of meeting the intent of Congress and the state legislature in establishing and promoting competition in the telecommunications industry." **********

2 1

FW: de-peering and peering
by Steve Naslund 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Sorry, sent this privately. Maybe others are interested. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Steve Naslund [mailto:snaslund@interaccess.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:36 PM To: Shashi Kumar Subject: RE: de-peering and peering Peering arrangements are when networks make connections between each other. Usually networks of equal size (traffic wise) will try to peer with each other. Although this may not be technically correct here are the basics. Peering - connections between networks that our cooperative, there is no cost other than the physical connection itself. That cost might be shared or the smaller network may pay for the physical connection. Carries traffic that terminates on one of the two networks. i.e. you can't go through the peering connection you have with my network to get to another network. Consider peering connections to be express routes between two networks. You generally can get this type of connection if you are a service provider or public institution. It is harder to get if you are a private entity unless you can show a benefit for me in peering with you. In other words, I would like the traffic flow to be as symmetric as possible or improve service for an important customer. Transit - connections between networks that I pay for an allow me to get to anything on the Internet. These are generally very expensive but allow you to reach anyone, anywhere. Consider transit connections to be the superhighway with exits to everywhere but with a lot of traffic. Anyone who buys service from an upstream provider has a transit connection although they usually refer to full BGP sessions. Now you can see that if I am paying for a transit connection through say UUnet and I have a ton of traffic going to say Exodus, it is in my best interest to try to establish a peering agreement with Exodus so that I don't have to use my expensive bandwidth from UUnet. I can also get a more direct route to where my customers want to go and avoid congestion. Peering and de-peering have a huge impact on traffic engineering because lack of peering means that most traffic is being carried by the biggest transit providers like UUnet and Cable & Wireless. Peering makes the Internet more redundant and reliable and evens out the loads better. Traffic engineering is all about peering and which paths are preferred over others. I your only connections are transit then there are not many options for traffic engineering. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Shashi Kumar > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:36 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: de-peering and peering > > > Dear List: > > Sorry for a naive question. Could some one on the list explain what is > peering and de-peering ? and how peering and de-peering influence > traffic engineering?. ( data traffic or otherwise..) > > thanks in advance, > shashi > >

1 0

de-peering and peering
by Shashi Kumar 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Dear List: Sorry for a naive question. Could some one on the list explain what is peering and de-peering ? and how peering and de-peering influence traffic engineering?. ( data traffic or otherwise..) thanks in advance, shashi

1 0

Discounts on DSL wholesale pricing
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Hello: How does the following News Release from DPUC of CT affects the opinion of CLECs? Any comments .... Regards, Srihari Varada ************ State of Connecticut Contact: Beryl Lyons (860) 827-2670 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL NEWS RELEASE March 28, 2002 DPUC Orders SNET's Unregulated Telecommunications Affiliate To File Tariffs and Use Same Wholesale Discount Protocol As Regulated Company In a Decision rendered today, the Department of Public Utility Control ordered SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), a Connecticut affiliate of the Southern New England Telephone Company, to provide DSL transport service (high-speed data lines) at a 25.4% discount to all resellers of that service. With today's Decision, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to impose this resale requirement on an unregulated affiliate of an incumbent telephone company offering service within their jurisdictional boundaries. ASI was created as a result of the Southern New England Telephone Company's (SNET's) parent, SBC Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Ameritech Corp. The 25.4% discount rate was established by the Department in a Decision in 1999 to apply to SNET's wholesale service offered to resellers operating in Connecticut. Today's Decision is significant because it finds that SNET cannot avoid its resale obligations even when its separate affiliates resell services to other telecommunications providers. According to Commissioner Jack R. Goldberg, "this Decision continues to place Connecticut in the forefront of meeting the intent of Congress and the state legislature in establishing and promoting competition in the telecommunications industry." **********

1 0