- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Domain Rant
by Eric Kozowski 24 Mar '97

24 Mar '97

Has anyone heard from InterNIC about the billing screwups of the last week? We just got hit by the InterNIC billing SNAFU and I'm wondering what other people have done to get their situation resolved. -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support http://www.structured.net/ (800)881-0962 Sales/Info (503)525-9375 FAX PGP Key fingerprint = 2E 5F 3E 6D AA 61 AA 14 D8 FB A4 15 CE 2C D8 8C 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

1 0

RE: FYI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97
by Jim Browning 22 Mar '97

22 Mar '97

>From: Dave Curado[SMTP:davec@ziplink.net] >Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 2:15 AM > >My intention, by the way, is not to simply pick nits over a posting. >I have heard in the past that there is at least one major provider >who sells transit through the naps. Regardless of whether that is >an OK thing to do or not, I am sincerely interested in knowing if >that is true. There are two different flavors of this: A. Providing transit over the NAP fabric (ATM or FDDI) B. Providing transit via a private interconnect which happens to be at a NAP facility. You should speak to each provider yourself, with an awareness that this approach is avoided because of the fact that getting traffic both through and _away from_ the exchanges is a serious concern of providers carrying a lot of traffic. This problem is exacerbated if transit connections are accepted at the exchange points. There may a time when "Purchased Peering" becomes the chosen approach for what you are seeking... -- Jim

1 0

Re: Domain Rant.
by George Herbert 22 Mar '97

22 Mar '97

Whether or not InterNIC feels like putting people who haven't paid on hold, doing so to people who have paid is completely irresponsible. Despite having cancelled check literally in hand, I'm on hold. I got a notice 10 days ago and sent them a response that i had the cancelled check. TODAY, they put me on hold and said "sorry, we have no record of this, please send us the check date and details" rather than ask me that first and then put me on hold if I couldn't provide them. I will be lobbying to have InterNICs contract voided immediately for failure to keep proper records and act in a responsible manner with its fee operations if this goes on. The "is registry something that is charged for" debate is one thing, but gross mismanagement is another. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com

20 39

Re: Frustrating... (fwd)
by Janet Pippin 22 Mar '97

22 Mar '97

oh and *hint*: We depend on DNS and dns starts with ".". All of the ISP/IAP/NAP's depend on "." if the root servers are maintained by friviolousity <is this a word??> then we are in a very delicate state. if domains that are 5 yrs old start to go "on hold" we will loose dns for half the net.. ie: mine is 4 yrs old, went on hold and 2 days later i got a removal notice. Thorns will sometimes prick you... Welcome to our world... /jdp Steven_M._Riley(a)aep.com wrote: > > Can we get back to the good stuff, please? I joined this list because it > seemed like a great place to learn some the thorny technical stuff that > keeps the Internet going. Now all I get all day are mails from people > complaining about this and that and the other thing. I've given up reading > the "Domain rant" thread -- I just delete them all. I miss the technical > stuff. > > -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020 ----- End of forwarded message from Janet Pippin ----- -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020

1 0

Re: Frustrating...
by George Herbert 22 Mar '97

22 Mar '97

>Can we get back to the good stuff, please? I joined this list because it >seemed like a great place to learn some the thorny technical stuff that >keeps the Internet going. Now all I get all day are mails from people >complaining about this and that and the other thing. I've given up reading >the "Domain rant" thread -- I just delete them all. I miss the technical >stuff. Having domains dissapearing because InterNIC can't keep its databases straight about payments is VERY IMPORTANT. Think about the consequences for you as a provider if they can't clean up the situation soon. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com

1 0

Frustrating...
by Steven_M._Riley＠aep.com 22 Mar '97

22 Mar '97

Can we get back to the good stuff, please? I joined this list because it seemed like a great place to learn some the thorny technical stuff that keeps the Internet going. Now all I get all day are mails from people complaining about this and that and the other thing. I've given up reading the "Domain rant" thread -- I just delete them all. I miss the technical stuff.

2 1

Re: Domain Rant.
by Vadim Antonov 22 Mar '97

22 Mar '97

So far, that sounds like nice basis for a class action lawsuit. Imagine a land title company throwing away records just because they lost a payment receipt. That's what InterNIC is doing. My experience with InterNIC was that i managed to get hold of actual person, and got assurances that everything's ok. Then i see nothing happened in the database, so i call again, and they tell the information "is not there yet". Now, i go to the automatic system and make a card payment -- the system gives back authorization code, etc. Guess what. It still says the domain registration is not paid. I think it is time ISPs take the matter in their hands. I.e. let ISPs to perform registrations. Root serer operators can ensure uniqueness just fine. --vadim

11 14

MAE West
by Rodney Joffe 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Does anyone have any idea if there's something *bad* going on at MAE West? Half our peers are down.... Rodney Joffe Chief Plumber Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net

2 1

omnibus Domain Rant
by Paul A Vixie 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Here's your chance. You've been complaining about this thread. Hit D now. > There has already been one Sherman Act related lawsuit filed. Collude with > others and RICO gets added to the mix. You must be referring to http://namespace.autono.net/ns./litigation_cont.html. I'm not a judge or jury or even a lawyer, but this suit looks pretty weak to me -- eventually GSA would have to be named as a codefendant and that's not going to work. This too, shall pass. >> Giving me money is no guarantee of polite treatment. I do the right thing, >> money or no money. The funny thing is, people keep giving me money anyway. > >A slight correction: You do what *you think* is the right thing. The difference only matters if you don't trust your own judgement or you accept a higher moral authority than yourself. In the case of DNS I have subjected my moral judgement to the review of people I respect, and have honed it according to the feedback. I'm not aware of a higher authority. >What's necessary is preventing the elimination of free market selection. And I suppose that we ought to allow the free market to allocate radio frequency spectrum as well. And if you don't like the TV station that is now broadcasting where the CB radios you've been selling also operate, then I guess the market just got less free. And if you don't like the fact that your phone number has been allocated to other people by several local phone companies, then I guess one of those phone companies will achieve some kind of ascendancy and the ones who "mis-"allocated "your" phone numbers will eventually stop doing that or go out of business. In this crowd I'm probably the expert on economic theory, weak though I am on the subject. And a free market requires some basic rules. Unique spectrum allocations backed by the force of law don't constrain the size of the market or its freedom, in fact it is the only way to prevent monopoly forces from squeezing out the little guy. The so-called eDNS allocation scheme is not workable for at least two reasons: someone else will start pDNS and allocate from _their_ version of "." if they think they can "compete"; and, the second level players are not required to cooperate for the greater good of the end users. We have a coherent "." right now, and we're going to continue to have one, and its owners will be subject to the rule of law and to the administration of representatives of the user population. Right now that's IETF/IANA. In the future it will be IAHC/CORE/etc. eDNS does not qualify and is a nonstarter. >Can you point me to a nice summary of the IAHC proposal? And your plan for >things if it stalls? http://www.iahc.org/ has their proposal, as well as background materials like searchable mailing list archives and some historical documents. My plan for things if IAHC stalls is to call folks I know at the various large ISP's and say "if you think ARIN was a good idea, you ain't seen nothin' yet". Ultimately the people who own the gold, make the rules. In civilized countries, everything happens through a government agency who owns the ISO3166 two-letter country code top level domain, and they ignore all of this three- letter silliness. In the US, the government ignores everything we do and we all seem strangely pleased by this, and we hardly use .US at all, preferring to pollute the worldwide name space with our petty desires for short names.

1 0

Fwd: master "spam remove" list?
by Vince Fuller 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Has anyone else received this? Is it legit or is it yet another dishonest attempt by spammers to improve the quality of their mailing lists? I very much suspect the former as I doubt that spammers pay much attention to "remove" lists. --Vince --------------- Received: from hq.barrnet.net (hq.barrnet.net [204.160.73.5]) by valinor.barrnet.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA15241 for <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net>; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 02:31:46 -0800 Received: from netchem.com ([205.246.66.97]) by hq.barrnet.net (8.7.5/HQ-Len-1.1) with ESMTP id CAA08490 for <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net>; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 02:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from danw@localhost) by netchem.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA20879 for vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 05:39:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 05:39:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703211339.FAA20879(a)netchem.com> From: remove(a)netchem.com Subject: Please Help Yourself, Help Others & Help the Internet Apparently-To: <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net> Dear Sir/Madam, Your email address is on many spammers' lists. That is why you received so much junk email lately. Most of the spammers will stop sending you junk email if you ask them to remove your email address from their lists. But the problem is that there are too many spammers. The spammers are not supposed to send you junk email in the first place. Why do you even have to spend your time to reply? We are compiling a REMOVE list. It is much faster for the spammers to remove your email address if we send them the list because most of the spammers use automated software. To add your name to the REMOVE list, simply reply to this email. You do not have to write anything. It is FREE! We are also compiling a blacklist of spammers. If you receive junk email from someone, please forward the original message to list(a)netchem.com. Please do not use spammers to advertise your product on the Internet. It is not easy to send out 1 million email. The spammer will take your money and disappear. To avoid further spamming, we send out this message only to limited number of users. Please forward this email to your friends if you think it is useful to them. Sincerely, Jerry ------------------------------------------------- Jerry Wang, PhD, Chemechanics, Inc. http://www.netchem.com, mailto:jerryw@netchem.com -------------------------------------------------

3 2