- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

>a peek at their web page indicates they are *not* related to ISI. i am >not aware of anything that would give them the right to charge for .us >registration. sounds like a big scam to me. That is what I figured. The guy kept throwing out how much $$ we could make if we came on board with them, etc., etc. It sounded pretty suspect. IMO, it borders on fraud. -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

2 1

Re: NSP ... New Information
by Phil Howard 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Michael Shields writes ... > If you have to filter someone, better to filter the small guys. > You'll get fewer complaints than if you applied filters evenly. So the complaint levels from the small guys are low enough that no one needs to worry about? OK, then let them complain all they want. > (Of course prefix length != connectivity value. But it's all we have.) Then we need more. One way is to divide the IP space up into value tiers and bid for it. I'm sure NSI would be more than willing to do this :) -- Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+ Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, | Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. | phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

I just received a fishy call from a guy a usdns.org. Bottom line is they want to bill for .US domain registrations and give us a kickback for the .US subdomains that we host. What do any of you know about this group? -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

10 9

Re: Which RFC?
by Roger Fajman 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

> Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for > specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster > for mail problems, noc for technical problems and requests, and peering > for peering request/problems etc. If anyone remembers what is is, > could you please email it to me? (I do not wish to furthur muddle up the > list.) It was published last month as RFC 2142.

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

>a peek at their web page indicates they are *not* related to ISI. i am >not aware of anything that would give them the right to charge for .us >registration. sounds like a big scam to me. > >On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Eric Kozowski wrote: > >> >> I just received a fishy call from a guy a usdns.org. Bottom line is they want >> to bill for .US domain registrations and give us a kickback for the .US >> subdomains that we host. >> I just received an US domain template from usdns.org for a 3rd level domain that we delegate for. So, I called the listed contact and asked him if the Name Consortium was charging him for the registration. He said they were charging him "something like $10". I let him know it was really free (he didn't know that) and pointed him to the ISI page. Hey ISI/IANA, you might want to take a look at these characters. -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

1 0

Re: Which RFC?
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

>Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for >specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster [snip] I haven't looked sinnce then, but in Feb, it was still an I-D, draft-crocker-stdaddr-02. Cheers, -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 800.763.8111 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc. <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: multihoming without BGP
by Vadim Antonov 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> wrote: >Shorter AS paths are a silly way to choose a path for a connection. *IF* >BGP carried all the end-to-end bandwidth and delay stuff that EIGRP does, >it might be possible to make this decision intelligently. But only if all >nets described by a routing element were internally homogeneous -- that is, >only one exit gateway rather than different exit gateways in each region. Unfortunately, EIGRP-style "physical" metrics are patently useless in the real networks where traffic is engineered. Also, there are theoretical results in multicommodity flow routing basically showing that "physical" metrics do not do much good; some exponential function from "renormalized" load is needed to achieve useful load distribution. Unfortunately, nobody knows how well it works together with cooperative congestion control schemes. >None of these requirements hold in the case of BGP. While BGP is a fine >way to route packets, it's a horrid way to select paths for connections. BGP lacks real metrics. I'm still waiting for people to understand that. The protocol is not important. What's important is how it compares different paths. --vadim

1 0

Re: Automotive Nextwork Certification Doc?
by abbas＠UU.NET 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

I believe the work was done by BellCore for ANX. It was done by the folks at the Internet Architecture Research Lab in Morristown, NJ. You might try contacting somebody there... Ahmar Abbas UUNET Network and Systems Management. > From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Wed Jun 11 15:12:25 1997 > From: mcquaidj(a)netscout.com > X-Lotus-FromDomain: FRONTIER > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:42:13 -0400 > Subject: Automotive Nextwork Certification Doc? > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > Content-Length: 583 > > > > > From: Jim McQuaid@FRONTIER on 06/11/97 12:42 PM > > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > cc: > Subject: Automotive Nextwork Certification Doc? > > At the Tampa NANOG someone commented that the ANX document calling out the > network metric specifications was now available (for purchase) from them. > I don't see this on their standard catalog / web site. Any clues about > who/where/how to get this document? > > Thanks, > > > > Jim McQuaid > > > > NetScout Systems, formerly Frontier Software (508) 244-4001 x 1456 > > mcquaidj(a)netscout.com / www.netscout.com > > mcquaidj(a)frontier.com / www.frontier.com still works! > > > > >

1 0

RE: multihoming without BGP
by Rodney Joffe 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul A Vixie [SMTP:paul@vix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 11:35 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: multihoming without BGP > > <snip> > > The way I think of this is that BGP describes reachability, and > clients need > to know about topology in order to select the right web server, and > these two > (reachability and topology) are necessarily unrelated to each other. > > I think that there is another important element or metric that is not > served by either - packet loss across the path. You know a server is > reachable - BGP tells you. If you know the topology, you know it is > "close". But looking at a typical day at MAE East, for example, when > you take into account the packets that end up being dropped, it may > *not* be the 'best' path. > > > Rodney Joffe > Chief Technology Officer > Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company > http://www.genuity.net >

1 0

Which RFC?
by Cameo Wood 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster for mail problems, noc for technical problems and requests, and peering for peering request/problems etc. If anyone remembers what is is, could you please email it to me? (I do not wish to furthur muddle up the list.) Thanks in advance! Cameo

1 0