October 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
by Brian W. Pendleton 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

I agree that spam is a problem but one that the industry can regulate on its own. We do not need state or federal legislation to control spam. If companies are really worried about it then lets get together and come up with a common solution. A solution that is as fair to the ISPs that only have 100 subscribers up to the UUNets and AOLs of the internet. I'll get off my soapbox now. Brian Pendleton CAIS Internet -----Original Message----- From: Turnando Fuad <fuad(a)ns.net> To: Joe Provo - Network Architect <jprovo(a)ma.ultranet.com> Cc: matt(a)planet.net.uk <matt(a)planet.net.uk>; nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 11:37 AM Subject: Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful ><snip> >I agree with an earlier post to spend more time pushing through with the >proposed legislation to fight spam. I think it's great we are having this >discussion on means to stop and/or control spam. I am only hoping our zeal >to stop spam and punish spammers will not create chaos and make the Net >less usable for the common folks whose use of the Internet is what is >making the Net thrive and keeping us all in business. > >Regards, > >Turnando Fuad >NSNet > > >

3 2

Link to Scams: On the Net
by Onthenet＠advocacy-net.com 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

We are pleased to inform you that we have posted a link to your site/page at: Scams: On the Net http://advocacy-net.com/scammks.htm If there are any corrections needed please let us know and reciprocal links to our page are more than welcomed. Thanks- Ken Showalter ------------------------------------- "We pre-search the Net so you don't have to." What's: On the Net http://advocacy-net.com/onthenet.htm Advocacy Network Inc. Email: info(a)advocacy-net.com 10/30/9710:41:59

1 0

Enforcable AUPs
by David Hares - AutoNet 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

Since there's a thread going now with respect to enforcng AUPs, let me ask this: does anyone have a model AUP they'd be willing to share that has been tested and upheld in court? Our lawyers would like to see it, with pointers to the associated case law. -- David L. Hares, Senior Staff Programmer AutoNet Phone: (313) 995-6539 175 Jackson Plaza FAX : (313) 995-6458 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (USA) Email: dhares(a)autonet.net

1 0

Re: NAP Architecture
by Kent W. England 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

At 01:25 PM 10/23/97 -0400, Vijay Gill wrote: > >Anyone willing to speak forth and give notes of their experience in >setting up a NAP. > Vijay; I had a lot to do with making the Pacific Bell ATM NAP work, so I'll weigh in with a few comments while waiting for my plane out of Phoenix. Q) Should I use a switch or a router? A) If you are a disinterested third party L2 infrastructure provider, you need to offer your NAP customers a L2 infrastructure. If you are an ISP and you want to offer service to resellers, then you need to offer them a L3 infrastructure. The short answer is "you need a switch". Q) What sort of switch should I use? A) Use one that goes real fast on the interfaces, has a humongous aggregate throughput, and offers plenty of buffer space for high bandwidth delay product TCPs to bandwidth-hunt. Early ATM switches didn't have sufficient buffer space for practical use of TCP over UBR because Bellcore said they didn't need it. The DEC gigaswitch suffers Head of Line blocking problems, the sort of mistake an engineer makes who is building his first switch and doesn't like to read the literature. Some late model ATM switches have big buffers and work just fine for Internet NAPs. Use UBR service. ABR service is unproven and may interact with TCP congestion avoidance in bad ways, but this is unproven. I should think a honking big frame switch (I prefer MAC frames) with big buffers should work well, but do you want to be the first to try to run a production NAP with one? I don't think you need fancy admission control, rate control, explicit feedback congestion. Would be nice for the hardware to have four to eight queues and some switches for finding the right header bits to use to classify packets so that differential service might work when ready. A lot of folks think I'm an ATM bigot or at least suspect because I used to talk to Bellheads, but a few years ago the only big switches that possibly worked were ATM based. I still think that is true, because the old gigaswitch doesn't work, due to HOL blocking. No one has tried anything else yet, so there it stands. All I care is that it works and 1) simple 2) big buffers does the trick today. Of course, you could just sling an Ethernet hub in a rack and get started that way. It's been done. :-) --Kent

8 12

RE: NAP Architecture
by Chad Skidmore 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

Agreed . . . . 100%. If anyone is telling you that they are prohibited from setting any price they want due to tariff limitations then they are probably clueless sales folks. If they insist on the tariff excuse then suggest that they file an ICB (Individual Case Basis) tariff for dry NAP copper. Then they can price the interconnect however they want. ---------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. cskidmor(a)nwnexus.com http://www.nwnexus.com PGP Fingerprint: 91FE A089 E555 BA3C A902 E144 9174 16C9 6143 28FB > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodney Joffe [SMTP:rjoffe@genuity.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 11:28 AM > To: 'NANOG' > Subject: RE: NAP Architecture > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: the Riz [SMTP:riz@beast.boogers.sf.ca.us] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 10:07 AM > > To: blkirk(a)float.eli.net > > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: NAP Architecture > > > > This *is* becoming more popular; in the US, the main problem is that > > many > > (most?) of the exchange points are operated by telcos, who are > > tariffed. > > This means that any connection between separate entities is a > > "circuit" > > that they must charge a certain minimum amount for. As more telcos > > manage > > to move their exchange point operations into the non-regulated > portion > > of > > their respected businesses, this may change, and exchanges are > > currently > > being built by non-telco entities, which are allowed to have more > > reasonable charges to connect cages in the same facility together. > > (Disclaimer: in my other life, I work for one such facility... the > > PAIX in > > Palo Alto) > > > > > Baloney....... > > I defy anyone to show me a "tariff" for interconnects at a NAP. > > There is no such thing. 'cos, as y'all know, if it was tariffed, > there wouldn't be any 'special' deals. > > The phrase is "Highway robbery". The problem is they don't even > have the class to let you see the gun.

1 0

RE: NAP Architecture
by Rodney Joffe 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

Bill, No-one said any of that was free. But on the other hand, the $2,000 a month Rack fee covers a lot. As well as the required $2,500 a month port fee on the Gigaswitch. There's always a middle ground... which is all we're saying. At the moment the pendelum is at the 'other' end. Would be nice if it was in the middle. Sort of like your side of MAE LA. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Manning [SMTP:bmanning@ISI.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 10:12 PM > To: alex(a)nac.net > Cc: mleber(a)he.net; ahp(a)hilander.com; blkirk(a)float.eli.net; > nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: NAP Architecture > > > > > And of course the D-Ring is free, the wall/ceiling where it hangs is > free, > the utilities needed so you can see what is hanging in that D-Ring, > the > insurance to cover the landlords butt when you fall off the ladder, > the > water & plumbing so's you can wash out your soiled undies and rinse > off > the spurting blood from the arterial puncture from that fall... all > free. > > > --bill

2 1

Re: NAP Architecture
by dlr＠bungi.com 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

[In the message entitled "Re: NAP Architecture" on Oct 29, 17:41, Mike Leber writes:] > > Cross connects (fiber or copper) to carriers at PAIX are a much more > reasonable $75/month rate. > Where do I apply to get the refund for the past 10 months of $1,000 per month cross connect fees? *DS3* cross connects are $75 per month. Anything else, fiber or copper, is billed at $1,000 per month, as far as I can tell from my bills. -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

1 0

Tracking SPAM (Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
by Mark Milhollan 30 Oct '97

30 Oct '97

Phil Lawlor writes: >At 06:32 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >>Indeed. As we noted last month on the topic of ingress filtering, you >>have to catch this stuff on the _intake_ side, to have any real hope of >>spotting the offenders. > >Back to sender verification (equivalent of caller ID). > >This would allow better reporting of AUP violations to the sending domain >from the receiving domain. Logs could be used to document the violation. This is already present in most present MTA's. While the present method might mean that a series of actions will be necessary, it does point a direct finger at the immediately previous point in the SPAM path. As I said in a previous [private] message, I would be very interested in reading about your solution. I hope that it takes personal privacy and determined privateering into account, i.e., that a person will not have their identity revealed without their consent, and that it does not depend too heavily on the sender's software (which the SPAMMER's will certainly write to their own needs), respectively.

5 4

Operational: MAE-WEST
by dlr＠bungi.com 29 Oct '97

29 Oct '97

Despite the (small) improvement last week, apparently achieved by adding another FDDI between giga1 and gigis2, MAE-WEST loss continues. I'm currently seeing up to 40% loss between giga1 and giga2, and about 30% between giga2 and giga3. I've contatacted Steve, but no word back, yet. -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

2 1

Re: NAP Architecture
by dlr＠bungi.com 29 Oct '97

29 Oct '97

[In the message entitled "Re: NAP Architecture" on Oct 29, 8:25, "Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI" writes:] > Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but why haven't many NAPS tried > to be L1 based, or at least provide the option of private wire/fiber > between the larger customers in the same room. It seems to me that this > would significantly reduce the complexity and packet-loss we're currently > seeing. How long would it take to troubleshoot a cross-over FE compared > to trouble shooting two routers connected via a oversubscribed switch. > Marketing types are concerned about how to bill and track these, but > there should be some easy ways around those issues. > This is a critical issue now. MFS is charging up to $1000 per 50' stretch of wire, for cross-connects between consenting parties at mae-west. I think this is bit high, for $27 worth of wire, and $300 worth of labour. Is there a way that we can collectively negotiate a lower rate for private cross connects at the maes? -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

4 4