March 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Domain Rant.
by Len Rose 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Randy, I am not given to "imagining threats" much. If I have to start paying 2500 per year for my block of 5 networks I won't be able to keep them. This has gone beyond the scope of NANOG;s charter so please redirect this to personal mail. Thanks Len At 08:56 PM 3/19/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >> I won't be able to afford my network space soon too if things keep going. > >Oh, and who do you imagine is threatening that? > >randy > >

2 1

Mail bounces from Deere
by randy＠psg.com 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Possibly subscribers to NANOG should convince their mail systems to follow RFC1123 section 5.3, and send bounces to the list owner as opposed to the message From:. <sigh> randy > Received: from deere-bh.dx.deere.com (207.122.201.66) by psg.com via smtp > id m0w7ZxX-00012xC; Wed, 19 Mar 97 21:00 PST (Smail3.1.29.1#2) > Received: (from uucp@localhost) by deere-bh.dx.deere.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id WAA15396 for <randy(a)PSG.COM>; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 22:57:52 -0600 > Received: from 192.43.1.3 by deere-bh.dx.deere.com via smap (V3.1.1) > id xma015353; Wed, 19 Mar 97 22:57:37 -0600 > Received: from TCP30.DX.DEERE.COM by deere (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id WAA06458; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 22:59:57 -0600 > Received: by TCP30.DX.DEERE.COM > (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 224658220097078FDACDXC01; > 19 Mar 1997 22:58:22 GMT > Message-Id: <DACDXC01.POSTMSTR.224658220097078FDACDXC01(a)TCP30.DX.DEERE.COM> > Date: 19 Mar 1997 22:58:22 GMT > From: "Postmaster" <DACDXC01.POSTMSTR(a)TCP30.DX.deere.com> > Subject: DISTRIBUTION STATUS > To: randy(a)PSG.COM > Comment: MEMO 03.19.97 22.58 > > > DACDXE03.RANDY4 DISTRIBUTION STATUS INFORMATION 03/19/97 22:58 > :44 > ======================================================================= > > DISTRIBUTION ID: DACDXE03.RANDY4.6776 > SUBJECT : Re: Domain Rant. > DOCUMENT NAME : MEMO 03.19.97 22.58 > DATE SENT : 03/19/97 TIME SENT: 22:58:00 > ======================================================================= > > YOUR MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: > > SNADS STATUS : 0301 > X.400 CODE : 01 > INFORMATION : > EXPLANATION : Ambiguous OR name or recipient unknown on target system > > ======================================================================= > > RECIPIENT : DACDXX21.JM00722 > LAST NAME : MEANY > FIRST NAME : JOHN > MIDDLE INITIAL : P > INITIALS : P > NATIVE NAME : > COUNTRY : US > ADMD : TELEMAIL > PRMD : TRT400 > ORGANIZATION : JOHN DEERE > ORG UNIT 1 : DACDXX21 > ORG UNIT 2 : > ORG UNIT 3 : > ORG UNIT 4 : > DDA : ID!JM00722 > TITLE : NO TITLE > DESCRIPTION : 9A945INFORMATION SERVICES > USERDATA : 9A945:FARM PLAN CORPORATIO > STREET : > TOWN : > REGION : > TELEPHONE : 3112890 > TELEX : > FAX :

1 0

Re: Domain Rant.
by Len Rose 19 Mar '97

19 Mar '97

It's not about a free lunch.. It's called no involvement in the decision making process beforehand. I don't want to start any sort of flame war despite what it may appear -- seeing my domain on hold upset me. It is at least 11 years old.. I won't be able to afford my network space soon too if things keep going. At 08:31 PM 3/19/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: [stuff deleted] >Not we. We don't expect a free lunch. > >randy >

2 1

Re: usable T1 bandwidth
by Brian 19 Mar '97

19 Mar '97

>This list gets so pathetic at times.. Is anybody else on this list younger >than 20? Might as well add to this mail clutter that just started flowing in... Yes.. I'm under 20. I'm not a national network administrator... just trying to learn some things for when I do become one :) Brian -- CAPEInternet Network Administrator

1 0

Re: NANOG 10
by Len Rose 19 Mar '97

19 Mar '97

Who in their right mind would want to go to Florida in the middle of summer? Len len(a)netsys.com http://www.netsys.com

5 4

usable T1 bandwidth
by Steve Crumley 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

How much of the 1.544 Mbits/second of a T1 are available to IP? I know some bits are taken for framing and such. I think I remember it is around 1.3 something. Thanks, -Steve

4 3

Re: usable T1 bandwidth
by Mike Heroux 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

> How much of the 1.544 Mbits/second of a T1 are available to IP? I know > some bits are taken for framing and such. I think I remember it is > around 1.3 something. > It's better than that, but the topic is inappropriate to this list, so... So you bothered to clutter it up with even more senseless mail. (much like this reply) This list gets so pathetic at times.. Is anybody else on this list younger than 20? --mike

2 1

Re: usable T1 bandwidth
by Sean Doran 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

Ok, so you're under 20. What time is it? Sean.

1 0

Re: usable T1 bandwidth
by Matthew E. Pearson 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

At 12:36 PM 3/18/97 -0800, David Carmean wrote: >A polite "that question is more appropriately asked on the inet-access >list" or similar would have been just fine. > I agree.. >You bitch about new network operators who don't know how to keep their >BGP announcements clean, and who don't know about the politics and >procedures of peering vs. transit, and the NAPs and elsewhere. But >let someone come here and try to learn, and you turn your nose up and >try to shame them out of your sight. > Actually I usually see a 50% flame 50% helpfull reply anytime I post. So I just use my standard rule of thumb.. 90% of the people in the world are total morons and 10% have some clue. So with a 50/50 split I think the overall clue level is quite a bit higher here. >You should be ashamed of yourselves. I am ashamed everytime I look at my paycheck. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com -----------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: usable T1 bandwidth
by Christopher Montano 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

RE>>usable T1 bandwidth 3/18/97 where is the "approved topics list" by the way ... curious. -------------------------------------- Date: 3/18/97 11:48 AM To: Christopher Montano From: Tony Li How much of the 1.544 Mbits/second of a T1 are available to IP? I know some bits are taken for framing and such. I think I remember it is around 1.3 something. It's better than that, but the topic is inappropriate to this list, so... Tony ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by mail.hamquist.com with ADMIN;18 Mar 1997 11:43:27 -0800 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id OAA13330; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:31:47 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) id OAA13254 for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:31:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id OAA13242 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id LAA02382; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA10948; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:08:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:08:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703181908.LAA10948(a)chimp.jnx.com> From: Tony Li <tli(a)jnx.com> To: crumley(a)trinet.com (Steve Crumley) cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: usable T1 bandwidth References: <199703181746.MAA12945(a)blusky.trinet.com> Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu

5 4