- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

(Fwd) FW: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03
by Sean Rolinson 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Hello all, This sounds quite ridiculous to me. And I hope I am not the only one that thinks so. Sean Rolinson snowdog(a)charm.net ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 12:51:47 UT From: "Chip Alexander" <Chip_MSN(a)msn.com> To: snowdog(a)charm.net Subject: FW: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03 Have you seen this yet? Chip -----Original Message----- From: aop(a)cris.com Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 5:15 PM To: AOP Members Subject: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03 ============================================================ AOP Alert Wednesday, January 15, 1997 ============================================================ The following is a legislative alert from the Association of Online Professionals, the leading association of Internet Service Providers and other professionals who manage online services. Please give it the widest possible distribution: ============================================================ AOP Opposes Network Solutions ARIN Proposal ============================================================ This week, Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000 per year for registration of Internet IP addresses. This fee would be in addition to fees already charged for registration of domain names. Under the proposal, an American Registry for Internet Numbers would be created as a non-profit entity to collect the fees and assign the addresses. The new entity would replace the government- sponsored InterNIC IP group. Companies who wish to participate in policy-making as members of the group would pay an additional $1,000 per year. Information regarding the proposal may be found at http://www.arin.net. The Association of Online Professionals has serious concerns about the proposal, and urges all North American Internet service providers and their subscribers to oppose the measure until these concerns are addressed: ** There is no indication in the proposal as to why the fees are needed. ** The proposed non-profit has no published goals, mission or other information beyond its structure and fees. ** The fee structure will cost the industry millions of dollars, yet there is no information as to how the money will be spent or how it will benefit the Internet. ** The assertions that the fees would not affect subscribers are incorrect, as these fees would have to be passed on to consumers. ** The assertions that ISPs can afford the fees as a cost of doing business reflects a poor understanding of the current economics of Internet access services. The proposed fee structure would have a devastating effect on small ISPs as well as non-profit, hobbyist and public access providers. ** It is unclear under what authority Network Solutions would impose the fees. The Internet exists as a public resource, and as such should not be subjected to the arbitrary control of any small group of individuals or entities. AOP has generally supported efforts to bring organization and structure to the Internet, including the imposition of fees to cover the cost of assigning and maintaining domain names. However, AOP cannot support the current proposal until more information is provided and a meaningful dialogue established to ensure that the proposal is more than an attempt to wrest control of the Internet for a select group of self-proclaimed authorities. Please do the following immediately: 1) Contact InterNIC with a request that the proposal not be implemented. Send the comments to naipr(a)internic.net. 2) Urge your subscribers and business associates to reject the proposal. AOP will make every effort to obtain answers to the questions raised, and will strive for meaningful conversations with Network Solutions on these issues. If you have comments that would help us build a consensus for these discussions, please direct them to exec(a)aop.org. ===================================================================== Dave McClure (703) 924-9692 (703) 924-9594 Fax Executive Director (703) 264-1750 BBS Telnet aop.org Assn of Online Professionals http://www.aop.org info(a)aop.org ===================================================================== _______________________________________________________________________ Sean Rolinson Systems Administrator snowdog(a)charm.net Charm Net Inc. Baltimore, DC, N. Va's Access to the Internet (410) 558-3900 Voice (410) 558-3901 Fax email: info(a)charm.net (410) 558-3300 Data (202) 956-5110 Data login: guest 'no pword' http://www.charm.net/ TIP#2527 Personal http://www.rolinson.org/ _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. IT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A POSITION OR A STATEMENT OF MY EMPLOYER. Ok, it looks like Bay Networks made a sweet deal with Chinese commies. Essentially, they will provide technology for the state propaganda network and censored Internet. Their "partnership" with censors of a communist regime is repugnant. Using the modern technology to build a giant brainwashing machine is very scary. Some companies will do anything for a buck, though. How about boycotting their products in U.S. and other democratic countries? --vadim Chinese intranet to launch in February January 15, 1997 Web posted at: 12:40 a.m. EST HONG KONG (Reuter) -- Bay Networks Inc. and the China Internet Corp., controlled by Beijing's state news agency, have formed a partnership to create a nationwide intranet in China, the companies said Tuesday. The companies declined to disclose the value of the deal that will establish a network covering more than 50 cities, 20 of them by the end of 1997. An intranet is an internal network that uses Internet global computer network technology. Access in and out of the intranet is possible -- intranets can be linked to the Internet proper -- but access can be controlled. The first phase connecting Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and the southern city of Guangzhou is to be launched next month, offering tailored information mostly in Chinese to government entities, joint ventures and corporations in China. Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

10 9

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Tony Li wrote: >Perhaps you should consider both sides of the situation. As you know, >there is no serious networking infrastructure in China now. Well, there was enough to scare the government into overt censorship. Initially, the academic Chinese Internet was not censored at all (i know that for sure, Sprint provided the circuit, and configured their routers). >Will creating one decrease or increase the free flow of information? Guess. I've seen state-run networks in a communist country; thanks. They're value-subtracted. The problem is the same as with "voluntary" key escrow -- once they get that in place and taking care of needs of loyal citizens, there won't be any need for the carriers not controlled by the government. So they will be outlawed. South Korea is a perfect example of what is going to happen. You look at the forbidden Web site -- you go to jail. >Censorship is not >perfect, and China will not have the resources to censor all packets >anywhere in the country. Actually, the issue is not as much censorship but extensive logging and monitoring. And censorship can be pretty efficient. Soviet censors certainly made sure that only few people have read anything by Solzhenitsyn. The regime fell when "ordinary" people learned the truth and were horrified. >So does this network give them a tool to further >control the people? Or a bigger headache for them to try to control? This is a state network. If they can't keep up they can slow it down. They did that with postal mail for decades. Also, do not forget that digital communications are much easier to alanlyze -- even trivial keyword matching is very efficient. >I should point out that the government already has installed satellite TV to >pretty much every corner of the country. However, the receivers are all >state-controlled. Would you rip this out? What satellite do they point at? Where the feed comes from? >Is no CNN better than censored CNN? A lot better. The old truism is that the most effective lie is entirely composed from truth. Soviet TV used to show quite a lot of Western footage -- with "creative" translation and editing. Needless to say, often the meaning was quite opposite to that of the original. The doctored news is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tools of propaganda -- you can't argue with facts, particularly when you don't even know about existance of the facts. >IP networking is an inherently democratic medium: everyone can speak [and >usually does ;-( ]. Moving more bits implies that the number of uncensored >bits increases. Would you send anything critical of the regime if you knew that everything you write is going right into the secret police's dossiers? Self-censorship is actually more dangerous than the state censorship. It quickly reduces people to the state of scared animals. A lot of older folks in Russia feel very uncomfortable when somebody starts talking about politics in the same room. >IMnsHO, the installation of this network will be the nail in the coffin of >the Chinese government. I'm more than happy to see them drive it in. I wish it was like that. However, it just doesn't work this way. The only reason for the existence of that network is the desire of the state to control the flow of the information. If it is successful, the state will have more power. If it is not successful, it's tax money spent on inane project instead of improving living of the people. And in any case it's primary use (as stated in the news report) is to disseminate official news (aka propaganda). >p.s. I'm related to Chinese communists. My father is a communist. --vadim

2 1

RE: Info on MAE-EAST
by Rodney Joffe 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Michael Dillon said: > How many exchange points have shared media, i.e. hub and spoke topology, > and how many rely exclusively on a mesh of cross-connects? Is there any > data to show whether or not the mesh of cross-connects will scale high > enough to be usable for major NAP's? If so, it would not be difficult > to set up such an exchange point in which people basically pay for rack > space, power and the installation of cross-connects. Then Paul Vixie said: >Hmmm. According to what I learnt in school, the cost of a connected network >like a GIGAswitch or Catalyst or DELNI with N participants is: > > (N x interface_cost) + (N x port_cost) >...while the cost of a connected network made up of wire peers is: > (2 x sum(N - 1) x interface_cost) > (snip for space) > > >That means with 19 ISP's in a GIGAswitch-free room, there are 342 FIP's at >a cost of, what, US$12000 each after discount? I'll betcha I can buy quite >a few GIGAswitches for US$4.1M. Oops, that's not a fair comparison, since >with a GIGAswitch I also need 19 FIP's. Figure that a fully configured >GIGAswitch retails without discount for US$80K and that 19 FIPs are going >to run another US$228K. That's still a *lot* less than 2*sum(n-1). > >This also assumes that we all have VIP2 cards and want to burn 9 7513 slots >just on local peering, and it further assumes that a 7513 won't just simply >melt if all the interfaces ever get hot at the same time. > >The breakeven is between N=3 and N=4. On the Internet, N never stays small. > >(And that breakeven assumes that the 4 people have to buy the whole >GIGAswitch with noone like MFS to underwrite the costs of the unused ports; >that means four people in a room together could SAVE MONEY buying the GIGA- >switch.) > >Gah. So I say: Here's a novel thought: how about reverting to the original model for the NAPs? We have an 11,000 sq ft ex DOD (built like a brick *&^%house) datacenter near MAE East ( 8201 Greensboro Drive in McLean). We have MFS (including OC12 to MAE East), MCI Metro and Bell Atlantic sonet terminated in house. And we have raised floor, computer grade HVAC, conditioned power, UPS and generator, and will have 24x7 remote hands (no 2-6 hour response times). If you want to collectively come up with an architecture (assuming the hub and spoke/gigaswitch/cross-connect factions can agree on something), we'll fund the purchase and installation of the equipment (similar to MPIX in Phoenix, a cost-recovery only model). We'll also offer free facilities to the long distance companies to terminate in the facility (you may have to encourage them to do so), so that the $2,000 6ft cable disappears. And the local loops. Obviously *we'* will benefit from not having to run a local loop to the interconnect. In exchange we'll make colo facilities available that are significantly better than the current underground parking facilities, and at better rates. Anyone interested? Rodney Joffe Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net http://hopscotch.genuity.net

1 0

Returned mail: Data format error
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

The original message was received at Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:37:46 -0800 from rob@localhost ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- news+arpa.nanog (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- nrecnews: your message was not accepted by netnews, because: nrecnews: Message-ID syntax error. *** Please refer to page 23, paragraph 4.6.1. and Appendix D *** of NIC RFC #822 for the correct syntax, and fix your mailer. nrecnews: it was going into the newsgroup arpa.nanog 501 news+arpa.nanog... Data format error ----- Original message follows -----

1 0

Re: Info on MAE-EAST
by randy＠psg.com 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

I continue to be impressed by the displays of expertise in costs and business models made by those who have no experience in the particular businesses in which they are telling everybody else how and with what business model they should be run. This seems to often be coupled with a deep seated belief that they are being ripped off and the marketplace (well, actually certain particular evil people and organizations in it) is out to see them fail. My family's expression for this is "Do I smell cows?" My business friends' expression for this is market consolidation and shakeout. randy

1 0

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by William Allen Simpson 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

> From: Vadim Antonov <avg(a)pluris.com> > Look, it is impossible to keep technology from being used by > communist regimes. Like it's impossible to keep knives from hands > of murderers. But what do you say about a person who gives a knife > to a known murderer knowing very well that it is going to be used > to kill yet another victim? And teaches him how to wield it more > efficiently? And gets paid for it? > Americans would call that an "entrepreneur". Of course, Americans already have military services ready and willing to do all this without pay, if only the ruling dictator promises to let American "entrepreneurs" keep buying and selling in their country. You really have become an American "conservative" (which has nothing to do with conservation of anything). I liked Dillon's message. "Create millions of small opportunities for Chinese people to share information and they will do the rest." BTW, I've had a couple of Chinese freinds and housemates studying here how to make better computers, software and hardware, at least one of whom was teaching at the University in Beijing last time I heard; an SO that did immersion Chinese and went off and taught English there for a couple of years; and a freind who was a reporter at the Detroit Free Press that went and helped the official news agency in Beijing with translations. None of them thought that they were doing something immoral by helping the official infrastructure. But then, over the past 20+ years I've suffered through a Michigan "Red Squad" and a couple of FBI investigations, so at least someone thinks I'm just one of those commie pinko liberals myself.... 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

1 0

Info on MAE-EAST
by Todd R. Stroup 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Does anyone have any info on if MAE-EAST allows collocation of a 7507 now or is it still stated that the size has to be about the size of a 7010. Please return email direct to tstroup(a)fibernet.net Thanks. Todd R. Stroup Fiber Network Solutions, Inc.

14 23

AS 6245 announces route for Internic?
by Chris A. Icide 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

I'm receiving announcements for Internic routes via AS 6245. Anyone have any idea who this might be? It's a little difficult for me to get contact information from rs.internic.net right now. Yorktown>sho ip bgp 198.41.0.12 6082 6245, (aggregated by 6245 204.70.200.82), (Received from a RR-client) 192.41.177.73 (metric 3) from 207.7.0.34 (207.112.248.129) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate, best Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C.

6 5

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

>Not everything is a freeking conspiracy either. Did i say anything about any conspiracy? What we have is a company which does not give a damn about such abstract notions as liberty and freedom. Not the first one, not the last one. The ministry of information isn't a conspiracy either. It is an agency of the regime i (and many others) have particular dislike to. That agency's chapter is to control what citizens can and what they aren't allowed to hear. That's what it is doing. Now we have the said company in the "partnership" with the said agency. Can it be more clear than that? Sure, it is legal. So are Pat Buchanan's speeches. What is sad, most people just don't care. Not until they're personally dragged by goons from their own bed. That attitude is, essentially, what sustains totalitarism. --vadim

2 1