- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: GTE to acquire BBN
by Kenneth E. Gray 07 May '97

07 May '97

They ate the whole thing.... At 02:56 PM 5/6/97 -0400, Eric D. Madison wrote: > >That's very true, GTE is very lacking in customer service, but not as bad >as some of the RBOC's. GTE used to be a good phone company, I know, I >used to work for them, but since they have started contracting out all of >it's outside plant operations they have really went down hill. GTE buying >some large NSP shouldn't come to any surprise to anyone though. GTE is >still the largest LEC in the US (barring the NYNEX/Bell Atlantic merger). >Eventually all the large NSP's will be bought by a facilities based >carrier, it is the only economical way to offer service and be >competitive. > Don't be surprised if some other large NSP's get acquired in the near >future. Free enterprise is and always has been based on the motto, "If >you can't compete with a company, buy it." It's the same thing that has >been happening in the Software/Hardware world. > > >One question though, did GTE acquire BBN totally, or just Planet/Saturn? >BBN is mainly research, BBN Planet and BBN Saturn is just part of the BBN >company as a whole. > > >Eric > > >_______________________________________________________ > Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - > ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group > 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net > > >On Tue, 6 May 1997, Chris Steinke wrote: > >> As a long time customer of GTE for both personal and >> business services I really feel sorry for BBN and it's customers. >> Hopefully BBN will not let GTE get too involved with BBN's operations. >> GTE has got to be the worst telco in the world. Their service is horrific, >> their billing is a mess, and I have serious doubts about the competence >> of their technicians. I can't tell you how many times they have screwed up >> a simple frame relay installation or even plain old telephone services! There >> completely clueless! >> >> >> -- >> Chris Steinke >> Systems Engineer >> Cinenet Communications >> ____/| cjs(a)cinenet.net >> \o.0 | Oop ACK Ptpthptpt >> =(_)= >> U >> > > > Ken Gray || || ISP Systems Engineer || || Reston, Virginia USA |||| |||| tel: +1.703.397.5942 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. e-mail: kegray(a)cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s fax: +1.703.397.5999

1 0

IAHC Issues
by Matthew E. Pearson 07 May '97

07 May '97

Ok, odds are in some form or another we will be stuck with the IAHC system, sure maybe a few of the new gTLDs may change name to appease our non-English speaking friends. But I think the structure will remain. Instead of whining and griping about something that is more than likely too late to change, why don't we focus on helping implement this insane system in the MOST sane way possible instead of being counter productive. It is easier to tear an idea down that it is to build one into a reality. Me ------------------------------------------------- Matthew E. Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com

1 0

UUNET transit - Pricing
by Kortegast, Ann 06 May '97

06 May '97

Does anyone know how UUNET is pricing their transit service ? Are there any rates published ? Ann Kortegast

1 0

GTE to acquire BBN
by John Curran 06 May '97

06 May '97

FYI, /John === FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact: Peter W. Thonis BBN Corporation (617) 873-3512 pthonis(a)bbn.com GTE TO ACQUIRE BBN; BBN ANNOUNCES THIRD QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 1997 RESULTS Cambridge, Mass., May 6, 1997 --- BBN Corporation (NYSE:BBN) today said that GTE Corp. (NYSE: GTE) has agreed to acquire BBN in a transaction valued at approximately $616 million. Under the terms of the transaction, GTE will shortly commence a cash tender offer to acquire all the outstanding shares of BBN common stock at a price of $29 per share. BBN also reported third quarter revenue of $95.9 million, a 58 percent increase from $60.8 million in the third quarter of a year ago. Revenue for the nine month period ended March 31, 1997 was $254.1 million, an increase of 53 percent over $165.6 million for the nine months ended March 31, 1996. The revenue growth in the third quarter ended March 31, 1997 reflects continued significant growth in BBN Planet, BBNís Internet services division. BBN Planet had third quarter revenue of $48.2 million, a 134 percent increase over revenue of $20.6 million for the comparable quarter ended March 31, 1996 and a 23 percent sequential increase over $39.2 million in the quarter ended December 31, 1996. America Online-related revenue was $23.2 million, representing 48 percent of BBN Planet revenue. Revenue from BBN Planetís value-added services, which include web hosting, managed security, consulting and systems integration services, grew by approximately 18 percent sequentially over the prev

2 1

GTE's Strategy to be National Provider
by rbenn＠clark.net 06 May '97

06 May '97

A couple more stories are out detailing GTE's strategy as a national provider. Link to them from: http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn/gossip.html Randy Benn

1 0

Re: DNS curiosity
by Joe Provo - Network Architect 06 May '97

06 May '97

Ehud wrote: >% nslookup >set type=ptr >1.1.1.1 > >Hmmm. BANZAI.SURFVISION.COM. [snip] Sounds like the rampant automation and customer-over-correctness of the New InterNIC applied on an HSTreg. [joe's standard flame on turning an arbiter of authority into a customer-service bureau deleted, along with the usual examples of post-charging RFC1480-violating ORGs, NETs for COMs, EDUs for 'remote campuses' of existing EDUs, et al.] [rant about not being able to serve the conflicting masters of desires-of-the-clueless/unordered and logical clarity similarly deleted.] [final tirade about pushing the mess toward the root of the tree doesn't clean up the mess and how responsibility of the veracity of data weighs in on those managing/registering the data deleted in kind with the previous.] We now return you to your regularly sceduled unsummarized flames and yammering. Disclaim, disclaim; organizatiuon listed for identification, not endorsement/affiliation; I only had one cup of coffee writing this; etc etc. -- 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: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR
by James Saker 06 May '97

06 May '97

Matthew James Gering [SMTP:mgering@ricochet.net] writes: >At the network level, Content Providers bear the cost of providing content >on the Internet. They must find another way to recoup this cost, and/or >pass it on to the consumers of that content. This should *NOT*, and never >be a networking issue. Why not? What else is the network there to do, but deliver our content? What are ISP subscribers paying $19.95 / month for, but to access our content? I doubt more than 5% of their connection time is spent inside an ISPs network, and less than 15% is consumed with electronic mail access. The remainder is "content consumer mode" -- and will become increasingly so with WebTV and other "passive" devices moving into the market. The net's not just nerds using IRC and Muds anymore. > As diagrammed (with Internet / CableTV models referenced) >The CableTV model does not apply at all to the Internet, it is entirely >different technology. CableTV you have finite bandwidth, which is >broadcast. CableCo must choose what content to carry, and users get all >that content. In this essence the CableCo is the content reseller. The >Internet is not broadcast, ISP's are not content resellers, they provide >network access, the user can choose the content, and can establish a >relationship directly with the content provider. I think this misses the point, especially given the advent of push content providers like Pointcast. Internet /does/ have finite bandwidth, it /does/ support broadcast (push), and like it or not, ISPs will likely be forced into a role similar to that of cable tv provider in assuming subscription expenses. What happens when a MTV, CNN or other content provider tells ISPs that they will need to pay $0.15 / mo. per subscriber to have domain access to mtv.com? Content providers of this nature are not interested in billing 10 million subscribers in micropayment increments. ISPs already have a relationship with these consumers, and are benefiting from the access to such content (i.e. what else are people doing online?). These players like the current model, as it works in the other content delivery medium. They're not geared up to issue 30 million invoices a month for $1.00, and they see ISPs as beneficiaries of their service. Additionally, subscription models (from content provider to consumer) have underperformed. How likely are you to pay for your access to cnn.com or pointcast.com? It may be worth $1.00, but are you going to put that on your Visa every month? Micropayment software presently is too much work. Online advertising revenues are also not up to expectation, given the markets wariness of the quality of the medium. Bulk subscription charges passed to ISPs are an inviting method given their existing billing relationship and subsequent benefit from the content provider's labor. Furthermore, expect sweetheart deals between content providers and NSPs. MCI can deliver X million heads and throw in some promotional perks to content providers. They'll play ball with content providers in this model as it adds barriers to entry to the smaller ISP. Peering problems are an indication of rougher water ahead; not only will small/mid sized customers be blocked at a routing level (unless they pay transit to a NSP), they'll be blocked at an application level and forced to pay higher subscription What's the solution? Unless small to mid-sized ISPs leverage their networks through some sort of affiliation (something the CIX should have facilitated, but was unable to do so), the future is bleak. Litigation and regulatory intervention take too long and favor deeper pockets -- a game ISPs will likely loose at. An ISP coalition, "ISP-ORG" could assemble hundreds of thousands of subscribers, represent many AS's that have to be contended with at peer points, and provide a subscription base to be dealt with. It could develop a multilateral peering contract, represent the organization in obtaining reduced rates where transit must be bought, and negotiate with content providers for discounted service (potentially free, given the promotional ability of the large base). 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

1 0

DNS curiosity -Reply
by PARTHIV SHAH 06 May '97

06 May '97

This is because some one at surfvision.com registered a host record for banzai.surfvision.com as 1.1.1.1. It is also possible that this host was registered by someone out side of the domain surfvision.com as Internic wasn't paying that much attention in the past for regestring hosts from proper authority. Once in a while when root servers gets updated, root servers will directly answer queries for host records instead of forwarding to primary server of the domain holder. That is the reason you are seeing root servers answering in this format. The way to get this fixed for sufvision.com is they can send an e-mail to internic with template to modify host info for banzai.surfvision.com or removal template to remove it and it will go away. Parthiv >>> Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> 05/06/97 12:22am >>> % nslookup set type=ptr 1.1.1.1 Hmmm. BANZAI.SURFVISION.COM. lserver f.root-servers.net repeat query lserver c.root-servers.net repeat query whois 1.0.0.0 Hmmm. E

1 0

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Avi Freedman 06 May '97

06 May '97

Since my name was invoked, I'll comment, even though I've been largely trying to stay out of this. But the question, of course, is not that UUNET wouldn't have connectivity to netaxs, but that it might/would have *poorer* connectivity. And the question is whether UUNET customers will notice, overall, a poorer quality of service due to the disconnection. The issue is really: If UUNET has direct peering via the MAEs with the providers or regionals in the DC area (MAE-East) and SF area (MAE-West), where maybe 20-25% of the net traffic in the US flows through (to pick a number), and a few packets start getting dropped or latency goes up to that much of the 'net, perhaps their customers might notice. And then, who suffers more? It's a shame that things might be looked at that way, but my take on it is that the equation is cost vs. cost (as my friend Dave Van Allen would insist that fun-loving ISPs understand and look at the business justifications for things) - UUNET has cost: { backbone bandwidth + engineering time + loss of revenue by enabling other providers to be "peers" at or near the top } for having peers that do not push 1gbit/sec inside their network and has to weight it against vs. the { possible cost of not having as good connectivity to N providers } As for what happens then, who knows? Pissing wars aren't good for anyone, so let's hope that none of them happen... Avi > You do not understand peering with this statement. If you peer with > someone, you give them access to everything on your network route wise, > but not to your other peers. So with that in mind, your statement is not > true. > > What the point is here, and yes, I am a UUnet customer, is one of my > customers requests something from a network peer, netaxs.net for example, > of UUnets, and next week, UUnet decides Avi's a dork (Avi's not a dork) > and didn't pay the rape fee, so UUnet will no longer peer with netaxs.net. > Now I have now way to retrive data from netaxs.net if that was their only > way to get data onto UUnet's network. > > Now I no longer have a compleate internet connection and UUnet has > defaulted on their contract with me as they no longer are carrying the > data I paid them for. > > ============================================================== > Tim Flavin Internet Access for St Louis & Chicago > Internet 1st, Inc Toll Free Sales & Support 800-875-3173 > http://www.i1.net For more information email info(a)i1.net > ==============================================================

3 3

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
by Tony Li 06 May '97

06 May '97

cnordin(a)ever.just.net (Craig Nordin) writes: > Routing Question: > > If backbone providers A, B, and C are fully peering with one another > and little guy X has no peering with A but does with B and C. Will > packets still travel from X(customer) to A(customer) and back again? Yes, via B or C. That is to say that it's sufficient to buy transit once, assuming the connectivity between A, B and C is working. Note that this isn't always the case. ;-( Tony

1 0