- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: My InfoWorld Column About NANOG
by Sean Doran 21 Jun '96

21 Jun '96

| I am suggesting that more of | the kind of people who ALREADY wear suits should start paying attention to | the important work NANOG is attempting and start attending your meetings so | they can pitch in on the non-engineering aspects of operating the Internet. I noticed or was introduced to marketing folks and legal counsel from no less than four networking corporations at the D.C. NANOG. I think you will find that the impression that folks in suits are neither aware of NANOG/EOF/APRICOT/IEPG nor present at some of the meetings is somewhat illusory. Looking at the people who are quietly subscribed to the NANOG list might also be enlightening. I agree with you that there is not much "pitching-in on the non-engineering aspects", however most of these people are senior enough to know that discussing legal or economic matters in a conference that is full of engineers is often less than very productive. Besides, I find that NANOG is overly USA-American-centric enough without spending lots of time discussing matters that have little to do with reality in other parts of North America. We have enough to talk about wrt just building an Internet that can continue to sustain the huge growth we've been seeing on an engineering level -- and this is of relevance to every Internet engineer everywhere in the world -- that diluting the list and the conference with other matters strikes me as fundamentally unwise. Sean.

1 0

Re: Sprint NAP
by Peter Lothberg 21 Jun '96

21 Jun '96

> > Peter Lothberg <roll(a)stupi.se> writes: > > > > > > SPRINT NETWORK ACCESS POINT (NAP) > > TERMS AND CONDITIONS > > .... > > > > 6. IP Address Assignment > > > > The customer shall receive his IP address assignment(s) from Sprint. Any > > address(es) provided by Sprint shall remain the property of Sprint ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Address ownership .... what a concept. > Although this is doing the right thing, the wording is dubious. > > Daniel 1. From a technical standpoint, it's likely to hurt the NAP stability if people start to move host adresses away, and I don't think they would be that usable elswhere in the network. 2. I have absolutely nothing to do with the document, I just turned into a readable format, as it seemed to be of general interest what the NAP terms and conditions where. 3. Where are the other NAP's terms&conditions? --Peter

2 1

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by Michael Dillon 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Arun Welch wrote: > Or get a clip-on tie. Even works with t-shirts. Good idea. If British barristers are required to wear a wig and black robes in order to plead before the court, why can't Merit supply clip-on ties and suit jackets to NANOG presenters? I think it makes just as much sense as Bob's complaints, eh wot? Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com

1 0

Re: Sprint NAP
by salo＠msc.edu 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

> To: Peter Lothberg <roll(a)stupi.se> > Cc: "nanog" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Subject: Sprint NAP > From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:04:26 +0200 > > > Peter Lothberg <roll(a)stupi.se> writes: > > > > SPRINT NETWORK ACCESS POINT (NAP) > > TERMS AND CONDITIONS > > .... > > > > 6. IP Address Assignment > > > > The customer shall receive his IP address assignment(s) from Sprint. Any > > address(es) provided by Sprint shall remain the property of Sprint ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Address ownership .... what a concept. > Although this is doing the right thing, the wording is dubious. Actually, I believe that the addresses in question are _host_ addresses, (for devices directly attached to the Sprint NAP). I don't quite know what someone would do with a Sprint NAP host address if they "kept" it. You are correct that the language seems rather emphatic to networking types, but it probably works well for the lawyers. -tjs

2 1

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by Marc E. Hidalgo 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

If I get the time to find it, I think I've got just the right tie.... see y'all in Montreal. Marc > > HINT: Get somebody to tie the tie and then have it sewed together or > > something so it doesn't accidentally come undone. > > > > Or get a clip-on tie. Even works with t-shirts. > > ...arun > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Arun Welch 5000 Arlington Centre Blvd > Lead Software Engineer Columbus, OH 43220 > CompuServe awelch(a)csi.compuserve.com >

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by Justin W. Newton 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

Well, I'm sure as hell not bringing a tie. At 04:19 PM 6/19/96 +0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: >How about a tie party? :) > >--vadim > >>From: Per Gregers Bilse <bilse(a)EU.net> > >>Bob is actually quite funny at times, I liked the thing about wearing >>a tie. Can we get somebody to send a reminder on the IETF announcement >>list, for people to bring ties and testboot their laptops before >>turning up in Montreal? > > Justin Newton Internet Architect Erol's Internet Services

3 2

Sprint filters (yes really)
by Sean Doran 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Please note that the changes to Sprintlink's filtering policies that Marc Hidalgo and I announced at NANOG have been implemented, and should be visible as BGP sessions with our external peers (MCI, ANS, Alternet, PSI et al.) reset over time. It is hoped that the changes won't be flawed, but any oddities would be nice to know about. The two and a half week delay in implementation is my own fault. Note that the policy is now: [allow none of the RFC 1597 et succ. reserved addresses] in 0/8-126/8, allow no subnets of historical As that were not announced in July 1995[*] 127/8-191/8, allow nothing longer than /16 [*] 192/8-205/8, allow nothing longer than /24 206/8-223/8, allow nothing longer than /19 195/8 [RIPE block, 12 dec 95], allow nothing longer than /19 [other RIPE and APNIC blocks that have begun being allocated from since July 1995 will also be filtered on the /19 boundary] The principal change is that we used to disallow /19s in 207/8-223/8 and 195/8, and this was not in line with the minimal allocation units performed by the three primary registries. Please also note that we have also already accumulated a couple of months of successful experience with differential filtering, and will be both tightening up the filtering in the newly unfiltered space and tweaking the currently-used values up and down. Very roughly speaking, the goal is that if you have a very long prefix (like a /24), and it flaps a couple times, you can go home for the day. If you do even the slightest bit of aggregation (into a /23, for example), then you are much less likely to be dampened in the face of minor flapping, and you will be dampened for less time. Once you have aggregated enough addresses to comprise a /18 or shorter prefix, you will be dampened with values very much in line with the default you get from Cisco's "bgp dampening" command. At the moment, you are much more likely to be dampened if you are NOT a Sprint customer. That is, the normal values for "bgp dampening" are in place if you have a customer connection to SprintLink or ICM. However we will be evaluating the engineering and operational effects that a similar policy with respect to SprintLink customers, as an effort to encourage some of our lazier customers to begin doing their own aggregation wherever possible. You may not be surprised that the success of this differential dampening experimentation has played a large role in the easing-up of our filtering policies. Sean. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Public Key in ftp://ftp.sprintlink.net/engineer/smd/pgpkey iQCVAwUBMcmkVkSWYarrFs6xAQEblQQAg60neKgLSGpQZ2e0n67MRjVNd+eLDSaJ Ceea+2bypM8V9QD6nTr6zEJ302qLrIK6b9e0lLmgFPpoUs1Rb3KDqv4ruAQKmkBo dDu5NxIAlG9b+qvXTuocPA81y4+zWKMOaFHCPFNksMIzhA19pRYLndiuJqRifiHn CQyAZGorrwQ= =uyTH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: A fourth lawsuit against NSI by a domain name owner to try to keep from losing a domain name
by Carl Oppedahl 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

At 06:07 PM 06/19/96 -0700, Gene Ingram wrote: >Carl Oppedahl wrote: >> There is now a fourth case in which NSI wrote to a domain name owner >> saying that their domain name would get cut off in 30 days, and in >> which the domain name owner says it wasn't infringing anybody's >> trademarks (which is of course no defense under the present NSI >> policy), and finds itself suing NSI to avert loss of the domain name. [roadrunner.com] [dci.com] [ty.com] [clue.com] >Based on the fourth case, I'd say we are in serious trouble. >The word "clue" is a word in a dictionary, and the company is >entitled to call their firm "Clue" on a local level provided >they have a business license and have filed a fictitious name >statement. In my area we also need to renew our fictitious name >with some government agency (can't remember offhand which one) >downtown, every 5-7 years. Provided you do that, and your >business is industry-specific (does not violate trademark laws) >then there is nothing anyone can do to stop you. Well, of course you are right that "clue" is in a dictionary. It's not difficult to imagine that someone could pick the name "Clue" for their business for perfectly innocent reasons. But then the word "road runner" is in the dictionary too, and is also the state bird of New Mexico. What can be said about "dci"? Probably what can be said is that it is three initials, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of companies with those initials. And "ty"? It is a person's name. Short for Tyrone, I suppose. It seems to me that in each of these cases it is not difficult to imagine that the name could have been chosen for perfectly innocent reasons. >What if the company wins and gets "clue.com" but then >someone in an entirely *different* industry with a trademark >for use in *their industry* under the name "clue," comes >along and shows they got their trademark first? Let's say >the company that is suing Clue wins because they got a >trademark in their respective industry in say, 1970. Now >let's say that someone who *also* owns the trademark "clue" >in an entirely separate industry, comes along and sues for >``clue.com'' because their trademark was obtained in 1969, >one year earlier? Will NSI then suspend the company's >domain ``clue.com'' (the company that won the right to >``clue.com'' through litigation), pending outcome of the >third company who says their trademark in a separate >industry (let's say, it's ``Clue Lingerie'' and they >registered the Clue trademark for women's lingerie in >1969, while the game manufacturer registered their Clue >trademark for games in 1970). > >Now is someone going to tell me that the process will start >all over again in court, with the lingerie company perhaps >being awarded the ``clue.com'' domain that was won with >costly litigation by the game company? Where does this >legal madness end? Keep in mind that it's not just US trademarks, but also trademarks of countries outside the US, that under present NSI policy permit taking away a domain name from somebody. I just did a quick check and found more than half a dozen "clue" trademark registrations in Europe. Each of these European trademark owners could, one after the other, bring an NSI challenge against whoever happened to own "clue.com". Of course, by definition all but one of them will have to somehow find a way to go on in life without possessing "clue.com". Notwithstanding that, each of them could initiate a challenge according to NSI policy. In the US alone there are over a dozen "roadrunner" and "road runner" trademark registrations. In the US alone there are almost two dozen "dci" trademark registrations. In the US alone there are about half a dozen "ty" trademark registrations. Let's look at SAIC, the parent company of NSI. As you may know, their domain name is saic.com. Well, there is some company in Italy with a trademark registration of "saic". They make meat, I seem to recall. This Italian company could simply spend the cost of a postage stamp and send a copy of their trademark to NSI, and NSI would have to commence a dispute proceeding with its own parent company. If SAIC failed to provide the precious trademark certificate within 30 days, NSI would have to cut off the domain name of its own parent company. Or if SAIC did manage to provide a trademark certificate within the required 30 days, NSI would have to ask SAIC to sign the well-known "indemnification agreement" and perhaps ask it to post a bond. If SAIC failed to sign the indemnification agreement within 14 days, then NSI would have to cut off the domain name of its own parent company. Of course, SAIC might feel that it was unreasonable to have to sign the "indemnification agreement", in which case SAIC would presumably have to sue NSI for a court order to restrain NSI from cutting off the saic.com domain name. This all assumes that NSI would carry out its policy with respect to its parent company in the same way that it carries out the policy in other cases that are publicly known. Since NSI conducts its proceedings in secret, one would have no way to check if this were so. --- Carl Oppedahl, oppedahl(a)patents.com Oppedahl & Larson, patent law firm http://www.patents.com/ is a web server with frequently asked questions and answers on patent law and other intellectual property subjects

3 2

Are you all aware of Juno Mail? (http://www.juno.com/)
by Steve Goldstein 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

Re a recent remark about support of network communications ventures by advertising, Juno is supported by advertisements only. There is another similar service in the launch phase: http://www.FreeMark.COM:80/256color/index.html Both are free to the end-user, modulo extra connect time to download the unobtrusive advertisements that appear in the upper right portion of the Juno mailreader screen (I do not know about FreeMark). Juno supports only Internet-style e-mail, and only via dial-up (including 1-800 numbers for those subscribers not yet served by local toll-free numbers). No web, FTP, chat, etc. But, it is a great adjunct for people who want to keep personal mail separate from the official mail that they do on their employers' systems. Or for folks who just want e-mail. A recent message to subscribers notes that Juno is doing its best to keep up with burgeoning demand. Regards, Steve G. From: charlesa(a)juno.com (Charles Ardai) Reply-To: feedback(a)juno.com Subject: Service Update Message-ID: <update.1996.06.19(a)juno.com> Dear Juno Member, It has been more than a month since we last sent a general update to all members about the status of our launch and almost two months since the launch itself; in light of exceptional recent growth (and some related growing pains) we thought a note was in order. Juno currently has more than 80,000 accounts, and we're getting new requests for copies of our software as fast as we can send disks out. On average, we're seeing at least one new account created every minute, and sometimes see several per minute during our busiest hours. Needless to say, this overwhelming interest in Juno (and the overwhelmingly positive feedback we've received from you about the service) is very gratifying. It's also educational; we're still shaking the last few bugs out of the system and are learning what we need to know to ensure that our telephone and computer networks have adequate capacity to handle the growing demand they need to support. It is critically important to us that our members find Juno a reliable and convenient service, one unhampered by the sorts of problems (such as busy signals when you try to connect or disconnections in the middle of a transmission) that have sometimes plagued other online services during periods of rapid expansion. I am glad to say that our network has performed very well generally and that most of you have not reported any difficulty using the service. However, we know that some of you have had difficulties connecting to Juno over the past few weeks, especially during our busiest hours. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience, and rest assured that we are taking steps to increase our capacity (that is, the number of computers and telephone lines available for our members to dial into) and to eliminate the current strain on the network by adding the other hardware we need. For the short term, if you do experience difficulty connecting to Juno, please try connecting before or after peak hours (9:00PM to midnight, Eastern Time). You need not be concerned that there is any problem with your account; none of your mail will be lost. We hope to alleviate the current overload within a week or two. In the meantime, many thanks for your patience and for the helpful feedback and comments many of you have passed along. Growing pains are probably inevitable when a service grows at Juno's pace, but by working together we can make sure that they are short-lived. Sincerely, Charles Ardai President Juno Online Services, L.P.

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by Scott Bradner 20 Jun '96

20 Jun '96

> Actually i don't understand what his motivation is. I think the answer to that is simple - he wants the net to be seen as working to the users and fears that is not now the case (in some places) and that the "not the case" will spread before it gets better. his is a case where I think he is doing what he thinks is the right thing (not always the case with some of the commenters about the net :-) ) Scott

2 1