- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

None
by matt＠cw.com 14 May '97

14 May '97

To Whom It May Concern: Subject: Lost domain names From: Matt Hamblen/Computerworld Hello: I'm a staff writer for Computerworld, the trade weekly based in Framingham, Mass. I am seeking, as soon as possible, a list of those companies or organizations or individuals who have proof of payment for a domain name granted by Network Solutions of Herndon, Va., but who lost the right to the name for whatever reason. I've heard of a couple of examples of people paying for a name, only to lost it because of a clerical error at NSI. The purpose of this request is to judge if there are more than a few affected by the this problem for a story I am considering writing to be published in Computerworld. I can accept anonymous comments, but obviously I'm interested also in talking on the record by telephone to those parties affected. I may be seeking further proof of the problem as well, although I will respect the privacy of anybody requesting it (but again: without some names and details, I don't have a story). You can call me at 508-820-8567 and leave a message or e-mail me at matt_hamblen(a)cw.com. Thanks, Matt Hamblen, staff writer

1 0

Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering
by Bill Unsworth 14 May '97

14 May '97

At 09:51 AM 14-05-97 +0930, you wrote: > If Europeans and Asians and Austrialians made strong > efforts to keep the amount of traffic being sucked towards > them from the U.S. with things like web caching > hierarchies (haha, enjoy an international aspect to > copyright legislation battles) and mirroring, particularly > when this can be done without the total cooperation of end > users, then they would be under less pressure to acquire > more trans-Oceanic capacity from the U.S. > >We do make large use of caching (including forcing our dialin users to >use it) and while it helps a lot it doesn't stop us still sucking down >a lot of traffic from the US (bear in mind that Europe is reachable >only via the US anyway). > >Mark. > > Since we decided to put a router in Palo Alto (at the end of a leased line to London) we have had interest from Australian ISPs in getting transit to London. So although that is "via" the US it only involves one hop. Also Asian ISPs have been looking at connecting directly to Europe rather than having to transit the US backbones to get there. Bill U-NET Ltd "X2 AND K56Flex - soon" mailto:bill@u-net.net http://www.u-net.net/ Tel 01925 484444 Fax 01925 484466

1 0

Your liability
by The Dawn Patrol 14 May '97

14 May '97

Geoff White, We have watched with some amusement the antics of your friend Robert, but we can long longer sit back passively and just watch as he continues to cause others harm and grief. In addition to his many other transgressions, he is now threatening people with hack attacks on their systems and with physical harm. This, and all of his many other crimes must end immediately. We are in now in the process of insuring that Robert's web presence will be revoked in all of the places he has infected with it. For the moment, we have decided to allow him to keep his E-mail accounts but we will quickly arrange for those also to be revoked if he insists on continuing to cause harm and annoyance to others on the net. More importantly however, we will henceforth be holding you and your v-site.net site responsible for and further crimes that he commits online against the people he thinks are his enemies. If there are any security-related incidents at any of the sites run by any of these people, we will find out about it, and you will then be forced to deal with similar unfortunate events at your own site. If necessary, we will also and likewise respond to any hacking activities by Robert with additional measures against vcinternet. We are certain that you have a significant investment in hardware and software at your site that you would not like to have placed in jeopardy, so it is in your interest now to contact your friend Robert and have him cease his threats and attacks on people on the Internet. We suggest that you use all means of persuasion at your disposal to do this, and that you do it immediately. No further warnings will be sent to you regarding this matter. The Dawn Patrol ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now Robert did have a Web account here months ago, he was canned for misusing my sendmail daemon with his fameous Java applet that let's you spam the net by surfing for <mailto> tags. He is long gone but now I have to deal with clueless vigilanties who are threatening to hack my systems because of someone long gone, hey is this the french revolution or what? In any event if it get to this I will toast anybody who trys to f*ck with my systems. geoffw

1 0

Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering
by smd＠clock.org 14 May '97

14 May '97

Peter Galbavy <peter(a)wonderland.org> writes: > Scenario (a) - Demon Internet install a trans-US DS3 backbone, all centred > around New York, since this is where all our traffic flows throw. We have > no US customers, so the network is wasted, and the DS3's get used as > unidirectional pipes to the various NAPs. > Anyone wanna share this network ? In fact branching out in to the U.S. is probably an excellent idea for non-U.S. networks, particularly those with in Asia and Europe with adequate money to invest, ready access to trans-oceanic bandwidth, and subsidiaries or potential partners in the U.S. to handle operational and establishment issues. This is, after all, apparently what BT is doing, and they don't appear to be the only ones. Given the intuitive belief that market share is important to networks who want to be non-local in scope, and the geography of Europe compared to that of the U.S., particularly with the price of unlit or semilit fibre runs about to drop through the floor in some places, this makes perfect sense. Of course, as you half-indicate, this is very expensive for smaller organizations, however it often appears that consortia of smaller regional organizations remain fairly stable in Europe. A hierarchical approach given Europe's geography has some obvious distinct advantages over a centralized "global domination" approach, provided it can remain nimble and flexible enough to satisfy its components, offer good service and continue growing. > Guess which one I like ? But I will settle for (c). (Oh (d) for those who > didn't guess). If Europeans and Asians and Austrialians made strong efforts to keep the amount of traffic being sucked towards them from the U.S. with things like web caching hierarchies (haha, enjoy an international aspect to copyright legislation battles) and mirroring, particularly when this can be done without the total cooperation of end users, then they would be under less pressure to acquire more trans-Oceanic capacity from the U.S. Because culturally this would be much more difficult to accomplish in the U.S., Americans may well start clamouring for more bandwidth to satisfy them. Happy non-Americans, unhappy Americans, cash for increased bandwidth flows from American pockets. Alternatively, this would be great leverage for the kind of scheme you described as (a). Sean.

2 1

Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering
by Sean Donelan 14 May '97

14 May '97

>Strikes me that the terms "diversely routed" and "geographically diverse" >can be interpretted wildly. You catch on quick. Who gets to do the audit? Other than the 'public' interface between the providers, I don't think it is wise, or appropriate to get into the internal design or business plans of competitors. You really have to treat the rest of it as a black box. It hard enough to predict what technology I'll need to deploy in my network without having by hands tied by an agreement with a competitor. Thou shall use only dedicated, fully-meshed, terrasterial clear-channel lines sounds great until I discover the best way I can reach timbuktoo is over a ATM satellite link. DRA doesn't have large Web farms, but people build public libaries in the darndest places. I'm always amused by providers that have peering requirements their own networks, or existing 'peers' don't meet. >For most networks, I don't see a real problem dropping a couple extra >pairs of DS3s (assuming they were only at two NAPs to begin with). There is a partition problem. Assume there are six points, and each provider chooses four. Provider 1 could choose 1, 2, 3, 4. Provider 2 could choose 3, 4, 5, 6. Although each provider is at four points, they only share two in common (3, 4). Which provider alters their business plans to connect to eight places just so they have four common exchange points? >If UUNet requires a DS3 interconnect at LINX, MaeWest, MaeEast and say >(for giggles) Australia -- AND a diversely routed DS3 backbone in the >U.S. that takes on an entirely different meaning than the above. Don't giggle, DRA has an office in Melbourne. We don't have enough traffic to justify multiple DS3/E3's to Melbourne, but looking at UUNET's international map, neither do they. Every provider has their own strengths and weaknesses, they are never exactly equal. Getting into the internal network design of your competitor is just asking for trouble. PSI and Sprint engineers used to battle over who had the better backbone design. Neither ever convinced the other they were right. I don't think its a good idea to require every backbone follow the exact same design. We may have different 'major' routes than other providers, and choose to deploy our 'big' links differently. That's one of the strengths of the Internet, not a weakness. My design methodolgy may be good, or it may be bad; but the design diversity between providers hopefully means a "group think" mistake won't kill everyone. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

5 5

ISP tutorial in Tampa
by Susan R. Harris 13 May '97

13 May '97

Greetings - for those of you attending the Tampa NANOG meeting (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9706/update.html) just wanted to let you know that on Wednesday evening, June 4, Michael Dillon, a well-known systems integrator and ISP consultant, will present an introductory tutorial titled "Review of Internet Resources for ISPs." The session will cover IP address allocation issues, with information targetted especially for providers who are applying for their first IP address allocation from ARIN/the InterNIC. He will also give a review of websites and FTP sites that provide information on: - Internet routing and addressing - Federal and industry network initiatives - Internet standards and other issues that require community cooperation. The tutorial will run from 7:30 - 9:00 p.m. To attend, you must also be registered for NANOG. If you plan on attending, please send a message to Pam Ciesla (pam(a)merit.edu) with the word 'tutorial' in the header. Several tool demos will be presented concurrently with Dillon's tutorial. Hope you can join us for these sessions! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 647-3185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering
by Sean Donelan 13 May '97

13 May '97

>This is a serious misunderstanding of the economics of Internet. > >The "equity in traffic" is not important at all. > >What is important is equal share in carrying packet flows, which >can be approximately measured in miles*bps. *That* costs money. > >Therefore, a small ISP dumping most of its traffic to others at >one exchange point will cause long-haul backbones to carry its >traffic most of the distance (no matter which direction the traffic >goes), thus effectively subsidizing that small ISP. Like I said, people build public libraries in the darndest places. How would you catagorize an provider that serves customers in 38 states and two canadian provinces. It works out to be about 11% of the public library patron population in the USA. Most of the customers are located in fairly remote areas as far as telecommunications infrastructure. Which means the price of a T1 local loop can cost as much as some providers, who concentrate on more high-volume business customers, pay for a DS3 between larger population centers. Cream skimming comes in all shapes and forms. Figuring out who is 'free-loading' isn't alway clear-cut. Especially when the provider that has the web farm in Virginia, and the provider with the users is hauling the traffic to 38 states and 2 canadian provinces on their backbone. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

RE: UUNET Press Release on Peering
by James Saker 13 May '97

13 May '97

Wayne Bouchard (web(a)primenet.com) writes: >Ultimately, I think farm.com would have to >give in to keep customers from moving services to a "better connected" >provider. Or UUNET customers moving to other "better connected" NSPs, like PSI, MCI, BBN, etc. This too resolves the problem on both ends. Any word on others following in UUNET's footsteps? James R. Saker Jr. Intellitek Inc. President, Network Media Division voice: 402.333.6233 jsaker(a)intellitek.com fax: 402.333.6432 http://intellitek.com

2 1

RE: Coincidence...
by Jim Browning 13 May '97

13 May '97

>In any event, let me just say that I disagree with you >that "stringing is easy" -- replacing all the crap in the >ground in the U.S. now with fibre that has decent >chromatic dispersion properties and as little dependence >on electro-optical conversion as possible is going to be a >long, expensive and labour-intensive process. > >Hence the window of opportunity for Hans Werner von Braun >and his amazing rocketships of death, and similar >techologies I'd rather not have to depend on. :-) I keep thinking that, as costly as it is to upgrade technology in the ground or under a few thousand feet of seawater, those difficulties pale in comparison to what will be entailed in upgrading satellites. Given the rapidity with which networking technology is advancing, one must admire their willingness to take risks...

1 0

Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering
by William Allen Simpson 13 May '97

13 May '97

In view of the difference, I would suggest that the web farms have a case that UUnet should pay _them_ for the priveledge of accessing their content! Anytime UUnet asks for a fee for peering, just tell them that you really consider them unequal, and that they should pay YOU! > From: Mark Turner <markt(a)nsipo.arc.nasa.gov> > For NASA this is a current snapshot of NAP traffic > exchange: > > mae-w: > > 5 minute input rate 2888000 bits/sec, 632 packets/sec > 5 minute output rate 2949000 bits/sec, 718 packets/sec > > mae-e: > > 5 minute input rate 5458000 bits/sec, 2437 packets/sec > 5 minute output rate 8041000 bits/sec, 2157 packets/sec > > The flows are constrained by an over-worked backbone, > but as a general rule out > in. As I said, web-farms > and a small backbone will give you that :-) > WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1