- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

The Year of the Backhoe Continues...
by Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) 01 Dec '97

01 Dec '97

Just got a note from our NOC... > >Worldcom fiber failure in Dover FL....techs enroute.... > >249 ds-3's down....ETA for Worldcom tech 10-15 mins > no ETR

2 1

RADB
by Abha Ahuja 01 Dec '97

01 Dec '97

Hi All! Just so you all know, DNS for ra.net has been fixed. Thank you, Bill Manning! -abha ;) __________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- abha ahuja ahuja(a)merit.edu Merit Network, Inc. 313.764.0294

1 0

RE: Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund
by Bob Allisat 01 Dec '97

01 Dec '97

>1. Is this an organization for Domain Names for registering them >and maintaining them , and developing global policy ?? CORE is just a private company attempting to market five domain names. .WEB and .ART do not belong to CORE because other companies have developed registries for these Top Level Domains. However CORE is trying in the process to independantly establish Global regulations over the namespace and this is highly unacceptable to most reasonable observers. They've as much right to register .FIRM, .STORE and the others as Internic has to do the same for .COM, .ORG and .NET and Alternic to act as a registry for .XXX, .ZOO, .WEB and so on. None of them have the right to govern the Internet. >2. If this Person has breached federal telecommunication regulations ? >if so. then must pay for the crimes as set down in the countries law.!!!! Mr. Kashpureff is innocent until proven otherwise. And by all appearances the charges are all politically motivated and not very well grounded in legalities. No-one actually owns the domain names. So what the fellow did is not illegal in the strict sense of the word. And it really didn't inconvenience anyone except for those who wish to claim ownership over a universal resource. >3. Defense Fund , if people want to help this person , this should not >be connected in anyway to this organization or this may be seen around >the world as an incorrect organization policy !!!!!!! I think it would be wonderful if CORE were to donate some of it's money to the Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund! I also think it would be great if they officially endorsed the Eugene Kashpureff's Defense Fund. Unfortunately CORE is itself trying to steal Internic's monopoly and install one of it's own. And CORE will in all probablility be the next target of protest actions. >4. I am confused over the role of the CORE know because of this discussion >on a issue that doesn't concern the domain registration or GLTD policy >development. This whole debate is central to the debate. Internic holds a monopoly over Domain Names. No-one else can participate at any level. Now CORE wants to take over as the Monopoly. Leaving everyone else out in the cold. And by everyone else I mean individuals, small companies, non- profit organizatrions and most nations in the so-called "third" world. The price tag for a new domain name registry is a half million US dollars (US$500,000). Not only that CORE is a private organization run without any public oversight under Swiss law. It is, furthermore, *not* supported or sanctioned by any member State of the United Nations nor by the UN itself. CORE is a rogue DNS elephant like Internic was in the past. We may have no alternative but to stop it in any way we can. And Eugene points the way very clearly. Will CORE stop and reverse it's course? That remains to be seen. If not expect more of the same protest actions like Kashpureff's. We will have no other choice. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 tor(a)wtv.net (416) 534-1999 http://www.wtv.net/portfolio.html

7 8

Re: Horrible Service Agreements
by Sean Donelan 30 Nov '97

30 Nov '97

Yet another person who wasn't going to say anything, but.... If you prefer not to read this, here is a cisco configuration which will fix it config t no ip routing For the clue-impaired, it is not advised you follow any of preceeding or succeeding advice without consultation with a competent advisor. >As for the equipment issue, I feel little sympathy. I have had to go in >and clean up swamp pits of archaic hardware and software. I am not saying >that's what you are, but I am saying that the service providers are quite >reasonable in setting minimum hardware standards for BGP customers. Remember I think the concern isn't over the service provider setting minimum standards for BGP customers, but the open-ended nature of the service provider unilaterally change their standards. Normally a material change to the service by the provider allows the customer to decide if they want to continue with the revised service, remain with the existing service, or end the service without penalty. >And finally. Life's too short to obsess about these kinds of issue. The time to worry about contracts is before there is a problem. Although there are a lot of badly written contacts, and I would walk away from them rather than trying to 'educate' the provider. In practice most of the terms exist to cover a problem that happened in the past. Telco affiliated ISP's use the boilerplate prohibiting you from using their name due to the number of long-distance telephone resellers that used to call people at dinner time and say they where calling on behalf of AT&T, but were actually a boiler room operation in Nevada whose only connection to AT&T was the logo on the telephone equipment they were using. Useful boilerplate language exists, see your lawyer: "The customer may advise end users that certain services are provided by the Company in connection with the service the customer furnishes to end users; however, the customer shall not represent that the Company jointly participates in the customer's services." Similar boilerplate exists for most of the things Forrest Christian is worried about. But dealing with lawyers at billion dollar companies is often an exercise in futility. Unfortunately most NSP contracts cover all the reasons why the NSP can terminate service without notice, but don't actually bind the NSP to providing an adequate level of service or any service in some cases. I would worry about ISPs with 'simple' contracts as much as ISPs with 'complex' contracts. Simple contracts are harder to write well. Most Acceptable Use Policies actually read like unacceptable use policies. The NSF AUP listed eight acceptable uses and only two unacceptable uses. >If you run your ISP right, these won't be a problem. If you don't run >your ISP right, these won't be your real problem. In the time you have >been upset about this, you could have a well written AUP with procedures >in place that would make any transit provider happy. You are making a big assumption. If it would have made the transit provider happy, why didn't the transit provider contract list this as an acceptable option? Even if the salesperson says its ok, six months later after the salesperson is long gone, and there is a problem will there be any record the transit provider found the ISP's AUP or ISP's procedures acceptable. Or will they apply the one strike and you are out rule, and terminate service without notice. Unless it is included within the four corners of the contract, I would not make any assumptions about what would or would not keep any transit provider happy over the lifespan of the contract. Although, if the transit provider is unhappy, I suspect they will find some reason to terminate the service irregardless. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Cat5500/Core6000/?
by Brian Horvitz 30 Nov '97

30 Nov '97

Anybody have real comparison experience between the Catalyst 5000/5500 series switches and the 3Com CoreBuilder 6000? Seems to me that the core builder is going to be able to push around a lot more packets. I'm just really looking for likes and dislikes on either or, if anybody just hates them both and has anything else they like. Brian Horvitz

1 0

wait before you flame
by Nicholas Bastin 30 Nov '97

30 Nov '97

I did not intend that last message to start a whole gigantic thread about ipv6/ipv8, I just want to know if anyone has drafted anything about ipv8... Just to head off the onslaught. Nick

4 4

ipv8
by Nicholas Bastin 30 Nov '97

30 Nov '97

This may or may not be the place to ask, but...Can anybody point me at some technical documentation/proposals on ipv8? Nick

1 0

Private interconnects
by Gordon Cook 30 Nov '97

30 Nov '97

Does anyone here happen to know if PSI is privately interconnected to any of the big five yet? I understand that you have to be pushing in the 30 to 45 megabits per second continuosly into the backbone that you want the private connect with. I am also told on no uncertain terms that IBM Global net and Verio have each one or more private connects open. And somewhat more tentatively that Digex is privately interconnected. Feedback appreciated. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com New Special Report: Internet Governance at the Crossroads ($175) http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml ************************************************************************

5 4

RADB problems
by Abha Ahuja 29 Nov '97

29 Nov '97

Hi All! It seems that some of you were experiencing some problems with RADB yesterday. RADB was having brief mail problems which were resolved. If you continue to have difficulties, please let us know. This situation made me realize that it is not easy for the community to get a hold of someone to resolve these issues. So, in response to that, I would like to inform you all of the following points of contact. If you notice that RADB is not behaving properly, please send email to trouble(a)ra.net. If you believe that the trouble that you are experiencing is due to a mail problem with radb.ra.net, please send email to ra-help(a)merit.edu or rsng-help(a)merit.edu. Messages to these addresses will alert us to the problem and will also notify our NOC so that someone can be paged to handle the situation. Please only use these addresses when the database is not performing the way it is supposed to. Thanks! -abha ;) ps - let me know if there are any questions. __________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- abha ahuja ahuja(a)merit.edu Merit Network, Inc. 313.764.0294

2 3

Re: RADB problems
by sob＠academ.com 29 Nov '97

29 Nov '97

NS.SESQUI.NET is a secondary for RA.NET. I have forced NS.SESQUI.NET to try to get something from NS.ISI.EDU. We'll see if it works. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0