December 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

IOS Rev?
by Jason Weisberger 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

What seems to be the most popular IOS rev these days - I'm looking at moving to 11.1.22CA from 11.1.19CC1 - any good arguements for or against it or to any of the other images? -- Jason Weisberger Chief Technology Officer SoftAware, Inc. 310/305-0275 Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness. -- Proverbs 14:13

2 2

prefix dampening w/mae-e next-hop
by Bradley Reynolds 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

I am seeing a lot of prefixes being dampened with mae-e next hops. Can someone comment on what is going on? most of the nitrous dampened table is mae-e next hops. (one of about 20 similar). *>i204.38.74.0 165.117.1.61 4294967294 100 0 3561 1225 10330 i * i 198.32.136.11 4294967294 100 0 1239 1225 10330 i *d 192.41.177.241 73 0 1239 1225 10330 i *d 192.41.177.127 32 0 3561 1225 10330 i BR

1 0

Re: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing
by John Curran 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Presume the existence of a future world where many providers are operating on a global basis and absent the current somewhat US- centric interconnection web. In said world, the cost of serving a given-size customer or ISP connection which contains 90% local traffic and 10% far-distant traffic ("international") is different than serving one which is 10% local and 90% distant traffic. In this situation, one can either ignore the actual cost-per-destination and charge based on an assumed traffic distribution, or one can recover based on some extraction of the actual customer traffic profile. Note that a profile- based method does not have to be "per-byte"; it can be as simple as having spliting current monthly utilization fees into local/international components. The problem with the former case (assumed traffic model and price) is that one risks too conservative a profile (with higher net price and loss of new customers) or too aggressive a profile (with great growth potential but the strong attraction of heavy distant-traffic customers and unrecovered costs). This, btw, is today's model for the vast majority of ISP's; we all arrange for some form of international connectivity and hope that these costs do not dominate our overall infrastructure costs. Of course, this approach only encourages distant-heavy usage applications (e.g. international IP voice/fax) to migrate to profile-insensitive Internet services and is eventually self- correcting. /John

2 1

RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Dean Anderson 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Spamford's service was terminated. He won a suit which proved AGIS did not follow their termination agreement. Then instead of paying 1800/mo for T1 service, his spam partners bought dialup lines for 480/mo. I'd say AGIS was the stupid one. Anyway, there was no evidence that he was blocked by anyone who did not have permission to do so. There was no evidence that he was smurfed. There was no evidence that his network was intentionally damaged. However, that does not mean that these things didn't happen, or that they would be legal if they did. As I have explained, if you have permission, you are ok. It's been reported here that a US Attorney (federal prosecutor) has said if your service definition includes blocking for customers, then you have their permission. If not, you don't. Thats pretty simple. Furthermore, the ECPA was amended specifically to make it cover email. This is in the hearing records on the amendment, which passed. This is the intent of the US Congress, clearly stated. It is not "my interpretation". It needs no qualification whatsoever. You don't need to take my word for it. Call your US Attorney, and ask if blocking without permission from a party to the communication is OK under the ECPA. Ask if he thinks that any "unsolicited" communication qualifies as an abuse under the ECPA. He is the one that files criminal charges. A judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence that a law has been broken. You are then found guilty or innocent. I'm not sure whether anyone has been charged under this law, but there is always the first time. The intent of Congress is clear. But claiming that you can "do anything you please with your equipment" is complete BS. There isn't anything more I can say. --Dean At 05:29 PM 12/4/1998 -1000, James D. Wilson wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >dean, > >You have made this argument time and time again but have yet to >provide citations of court cases where this has been decided and >upheld. There are multiple cases out there which validate the right >of a provider to block mail services from whomever they want. >Remember Spamford? > >Saying something is so is one thing, providing cases where the legal >system has made final decisions incl. after appeals is another. > >Prove that your interpretation of the law has been placed before a >judge/jury and been held up under appeal. Otherwise qualify your >statements as your interpretation of the law and your speculation as >to how it would really hold up in court. > >- - >James D. Wilson > > >- -----Original Message----- >From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of >Dean Anderson >Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:26 AM >To: Scott Lampert; John Leong; sdeath(a)ackphft.matsu.alaska.edu >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users > > >At 11:53 PM 12/3/1998 -0500, Scott Lampert wrote: >> I don't know about where you live but here in BellSouth land you can >>call the phone company and block outgoing 900 number calls from your >line. > >Correct: YOU can ask to have things blocked on YOUR line. The phone >company (or ISP) can't do that without YOUR permission. But if (say a >CLEC) offers phone services without any 900 services, they have your >permission when you sign up. > >Likewise, YOU can use the RBL to block YOUR mail, and your ISP can use >the >RBL if you give them permission. Which you do for example (according >to US >Attorney somewhere), if their service definition includes blocking. > >The ethics of the RBL and its ability to coerce people and >organizations >arbitrarily notwithstanding, its existance is probably not illegal. >However, that does not mean that it can't be used to illegally block >mail >by people that don't have permission to block. > >The idea promulgated by some that a network operator can do whatever >they >feel like with "their equipment" is plainly wrong. There are laws >which >govern how that equipment can be used by its owners. The people who >feel >otherwise seem to be falling into the kook category, so I don't see >any >point in arguing further. > >'Szechuan Death' brings up some good ethical and moral points about >the >RBL. ORBS is even more arbitrary and unethical. But I'm not sure this >is of >any operational importance. > >Hasn't the operational value of this discussion been exhausted? > > --Dean >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com > LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com> >Comment: All Spammers Are Thieves - Jail Them Now > >iQA/AwUBNmiolDAufbtGOmgdEQIGZQCgmFSl62Zi5JwgnnlhJRBFA4FsO40AnjWt >80qSqSS8p177CxG+W/rDGBaT >=ejWb >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: smurf attack
by John Fraizer 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yet another example of how IRC is a complete and total waste of bandwidth. At 01:39 PM 12/7/98 +0300, Alex P. Rudnev wrote: >I think it's as usial - result of IRC flame: > >- I am a gury, you are a lamer; >- hmm, wait a minute. >- oyyyyy..,..... bum.... >- you see - you can't smurf me, I am stronger... > >(raw, raw translation from Russion). > >Look for the broken servers used by the hackers... > >-:) > - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your *FREE* Parked Domain account at http://www.EZ-Hosting.Com - ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Fraizer | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation PGP Key fingerprint = 7DB6 1CA2 DAA6 43DA 3AAF 44CD 258C 3D7E B425 81A8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNmvH5SWMPX60JYGoEQIfcQCfXz3O1JW6LdFZd47wWH0GNZ1RVmkAoIHU WAJBS/x5BVQgQLvjfUVe8EOv =RiEf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

smurf attack
by Jon Lewis 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

FDT was on the receiving end of a roughly 1 hour smurf attack this evening. I'm told it was probably something to do with the takeover of some gay related IRC channels and that the attack was not isolated to FDT. This has me really thinking again that someone needs to start up a blackhole BGP feed (similar to the MAPS RBL) for the purpose of annoying smurf-amp networks into cleaning up their nets. Below is a list of networks (assumed to be /24's for convenience) and the number of unique IPs seen sending echo replies in each network during a 5 minute sample of the attack. It should be noted, most of these networks are likely to be far worse smurf amps than suggested by my numbers. Now that I think about it, it's obvious. Both our T1's to the net were totally filled by the attack, so lots of packets didn't get through. I've clipped all the nets showing only 1 host...but it's likely some of them really were smurf amps. The last one on the list, 200.130.98.0, for which I only saw 2 unique addresses in my tcpdump now results in: 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, +47 duplicates, 0% packet loss Anyway...if these are your networks, clean them up before you get blackholed. I'll go and feed this list through my script that registers nets with www.powertech.no/smurf/ now. Networks 128.221.106: 84 200.236.70: 74 202.184.25: 54 200.16.17: 53 202.184.22: 52 202.252.30: 50 10.0.3: 49 202.184.21: 49 202.184.17: 43 202.230.39: 41 203.237.51: 40 203.172.11: 28 203.64.35: 25 192.168.0: 22 200.9.99: 13 200.17.53: 12 200.13.16: 10 192.111.227: 8 203.172.22: 6 200.13.18: 6 203.64.34: 5 200.13.17: 4 200.13.19: 4 203.108.71: 3 200.13.20: 3 200.18.92: 3 91.0.0: 2 200.9.98: 2 200.13.26: 2 87.0.0: 2 200.130.98: 2 These are the hosts that took part in flooding FDT with icmp echo replies. Being listed here does not imply that your network is a smurf amp, but might help you track things down if you have smurf amp subnets. Even if your network only participated in a 1:1 ratio, you are listed here if you showed up in the 5 minutes I logged. Hosts 202.205.0.77: 17345 200.236.71.2: 730 203.108.71.27: 720 200.236.70.60: 698 200.9.98.2: 611 200.9.99.134: 583 200.9.99.133: 577 200.9.99.135: 552 10.0.3.1: 549 200.130.98.47: 545 200.9.99.136: 543 10.0.3.253: 534 200.130.98.6: 517 10.0.3.10: 507 10.0.3.6: 505 200.9.99.155: 501 203.108.71.28: 494 10.0.3.199: 482 200.130.97.120: 480 10.0.3.217: 479 10.0.3.211: 468 200.9.99.132: 467 10.3.2.1: 465 10.0.3.5: 463 200.9.99.145: 459 200.9.98.3: 457 200.9.99.157: 455 210.235.156.15: 452 10.0.3.212: 445 200.9.99.158: 445 10.0.3.225: 426 10.0.3.213: 423 10.0.3.227: 419 200.9.99.190: 402 10.0.3.219: 401 10.0.3.226: 399 202.230.39.61: 393 10.0.3.228: 389 200.9.99.182: 387 10.0.3.216: 382 10.0.3.233: 376 10.0.3.215: 372 10.0.3.222: 367 10.0.3.210: 362 200.9.99.129: 360 10.0.3.214: 357 10.0.3.200: 354 10.0.3.209: 353 10.0.3.254: 352 10.0.3.207: 349 202.230.39.8: 348 200.10.128.162: 346 198.26.46.66: 346 10.0.3.205: 345 200.9.99.169: 342 10.0.3.249: 335 200.236.70.159: 331 192.111.227.140: 330 200.13.26.129: 325 200.16.205.26: 325 200.236.70.171: 317 10.0.3.2: 316 200.236.70.214: 316 200.236.70.185: 316 200.236.70.197: 315 10.0.3.221: 313 10.0.3.251: 312 192.111.227.174: 311 200.236.70.161: 309 192.111.227.20: 308 200.236.70.218: 307 200.236.70.220: 307 10.0.3.248: 307 200.236.70.151: 306 200.236.70.145: 305 200.236.70.222: 303 128.221.106.115: 302 200.236.70.200: 301 200.236.70.194: 297 200.236.70.147: 296 200.236.70.173: 296 10.0.3.252: 295 200.236.70.143: 294 200.236.70.149: 294 10.0.3.208: 294 192.111.227.87: 293 200.236.70.188: 293 200.236.70.192: 293 200.236.70.179: 292 128.221.106.5: 292 200.236.70.166: 291 200.236.70.176: 291 10.0.3.180: 290 192.111.227.7: 290 200.236.70.169: 286 128.221.106.252: 285 128.221.106.75: 283 10.0.3.250: 283 200.236.70.216: 281 200.236.70.208: 280 200.236.70.154: 279 200.236.70.163: 279 192.111.227.95: 273 10.0.3.241: 270 192.111.227.8: 269 128.221.106.168: 269 200.236.70.204: 267 10.0.3.223: 265 200.236.70.182: 264 192.111.227.100: 261 10.0.3.234: 261 128.221.106.4: 260 10.0.3.235: 258 10.0.3.236: 256 128.221.106.113: 252 200.236.70.141: 252 10.0.3.243: 242 10.0.3.242: 241 128.221.106.234: 238 10.0.3.218: 238 128.221.106.30: 237 10.0.3.239: 237 200.16.17.55: 235 200.33.211.194: 234 200.16.17.15: 234 128.221.106.240: 234 10.0.3.3: 233 128.221.106.150: 233 10.0.3.238: 233 128.221.106.253: 231 200.16.17.182: 230 128.221.106.3: 229 128.221.106.153: 226 200.16.17.139: 225 200.16.17.122: 223 128.221.106.42: 222 128.221.106.249: 222 128.221.106.87: 220 10.0.3.232: 220 128.221.106.186: 219 128.221.106.53: 218 128.221.106.102: 216 128.221.106.56: 215 128.221.106.122: 215 128.221.106.213: 214 128.221.106.29: 213 128.221.106.38: 211 128.221.106.99: 211 200.16.17.60: 211 10.0.3.237: 210 200.16.17.137: 209 128.221.106.121: 208 200.16.17.178: 207 128.221.106.98: 207 128.221.106.210: 207 200.236.70.156: 207 128.221.106.217: 206 128.221.106.69: 205 128.221.106.162: 205 128.221.106.180: 205 128.221.106.201: 204 128.221.106.130: 204 200.16.17.238: 203 128.221.106.44: 203 128.221.106.189: 203 200.16.17.14: 201 128.221.106.174: 201 128.221.106.21: 200 128.221.106.65: 200 128.221.106.154: 200 128.221.106.16: 200 128.221.106.126: 199 128.221.106.118: 198 128.221.106.214: 198 128.221.105.1: 198 200.16.17.1: 197 128.221.106.198: 197 200.16.17.134: 196 128.221.106.106: 193 128.221..106.127: 193 128.221.106.192: 193 128.221.106.199: 193 200.16.17.6: 192 128.221.106.159: 191 128.221.106.163: 189 200.16.17.94: 187 128.221.106.43: 186 200.16.17.82: 186 200.16.17.65: 182 128.221.106.124: 182 128.221.106.32: 180 128.221.106.27: 179 200.16.17.33: 178 128.221.106.112: 178 128.221.106.33: 177 200.16.17.16: 177 200.16.17.136: 176 128.221.106.51: 176 128.221.106.134: 172 10.0.3.229: 172 128.221.106.161: 170 128.221.106.166: 170 128.221.106.59: 169 200.16.17.18: 168 128.221.106.111: 168 128.221.106.92: 167 128.221.106.207: 165 128.221.106.184: 165 128.221.106.194: 165 128.221.106.206: 164 128.221.106.88: 163 200.33.210.18: 162 128.221.106.243: 161 128.221.106.58: 159 128.221.106.105: 159 128.221.106.208: 158 200.16.17.201: 157 200.16.17.38: 156 128.221.106.48: 155 200.16.17.9: 152 128.221.106.232: 152 128.221.106.246: 150 128.221.106.248: 149 200.16.17.202: 148 128.221.106.158: 147 200.16.17.210: 147 200.13.16.35: 146 128.221.106.209: 145 200.13.18.118: 144 200.16.17.88: 143 255.255.255.255: 142 128.221.106.247: 140 200.16.17.205: 140 200.16.17.211: 140 128.221.106.139: 139 200.16.17.214: 138 200.13.18.49: 137 200.236.70.186: 136 200.16.17.124: 134 200.16.17.247: 133 200.13.26.130: 133 200.13.16.12: 132 200.16.17.242: 131 200.13.18.23: 130 200.16.17.254: 130 200.16.17.68: 130 200.16.17.250: 129 200.16.17.123: 128 200.13.18.22: 127 128.221.106.36: 127 200.16.17.252: 127 200.16.17.249: 126 200.16.17.89: 125 200.16.17.245: 123 200.16.17.207: 123 200.16.17.246: 121 200.16.17.253: 120 200.13.17.2: 119 200.13.16.253: 119 200.16.17.8: 119 200.13.18.8: 118 200.13.18.130: 118 200.16.17.99: 115 200.16.17.100: 113 128.221.106.46: 110 200.13.16.251: 110 200.16.17.248: 107 200.13.16.32: 107 200.16.17.251: 104 200.236.70.196: 104 200.16.17.244: 102 200.13.16.235: 101 200.236.70.165: 98 200.13.16.7: 96 200.16.17.243: 95 200.236.70.203: 95 200.236.70.174: 95 200.17.53.86: 93 200.16.17.241: 92 200.236.70.157: 92 200.236.70.170: 92 200.236.70.202: 91 200.236.70.164: 90 200.236.70.175: 90 200.236.70.178: 90 200.236.70.198: 90 200.13.16.5: 88 200.236.70.180: 88 200.236.70.142: 87 200.236.70.183: 87 200.236.70.146: 86 200.236.70.155: 86 200.236.70.177: 86 200.236.70.201: 84 200.236.70.184: 84 200.236.70.187: 84 200.236.70.167: 83 200.236.70.195: 83 200.16.17.239: 82 200.18.92.148: 82 200.17.53.170: 82 200.236.70.152: 82 200.236.70.160: 82 200.130.103.69: 81 200.236.70.209: 81 200.236.70.162: 81 192.168.0.96: 80 192.168.0.104: 80 200.236.70.190: 80 192.168.0.90: 79 192.168.0.105: 78 192.168.0.123: 78 200.17.53.121: 77 200.236.70.205: 77 200.236.70.144: 77 200.236.70.153: 77 200.236.70.189: 77 200.17.53.88: 76 192.168.0.122: 76 200.17.53.87: 75 192.168.0.92: 75 200.236.70.148: 75 192.168.0.129: 75 192.168.0.120: 74 200.236.70.199: 74 200.17.53.89: 73 192.168.0.103: 73 192.168.0.106: 73 192.168.0.108: 73 200.236.70.172: 73 192.168.0.128: 73 200.17.53.94: 72 200.236.70.150: 72 192.168.0.130: 72 200.17.53.91: 71 200.17.53.96: 71 200.18.92.221: 71 192.168.0.97: 71 200.17.53.97: 70 200.236.70.181: 69 200.236.70.168: 68 192.168.0.102: 68 200.18.92.217: 67 200.13.16.8: 66 200.17.53.93: 62 200.13.16.4: 61 200.13.17.3: 61 200.236.70.212: 61 200.236.70.213: 59 192.168.0.77: 58 200.13.20.2: 55 202.230.39.34: 52 200.16.17.240: 50 200.236.70.206: 50 200.236.70.207: 50 192.168.0.101: 50 202.230.39.10: 49 202.230.39.30: 47 192.168.0.91: 46 203.237.51.56: 45 202.230.39.12: 44 202.230.39.9: 44 192.168.0.94: 42 192.168.0.93: 41 202.230.39.20: 41 202.230.39.18: 40 203.237.51.52: 40 91.0.0.102: 40 200.13.17.5: 39 203.237.51.51: 39 203.237.51.81: 39 203.64.35.203: 39 202.230.39.1: 39 203.172.22.150: 38 202.230.39.19: 38 203.237.51.48: 38 202.184.25.154: 38 202.230.39.39: 37 203.237.51.40: 37 203.237.51.236: 37 202.230.39.2: 37 202.6.254.146: 36 202.230.39.33: 36 203.237.51.46: 36 203.237.51.50: 36 203.237.51.116: 36 203.237.51.68: 35 203.237.51.13: 34 202.230.39.55: 34 203.237.51.49: 34 203.237.51.103: 34 203.237.51.76: 34 192.168.0.100: 34 202.230.39.16: 33 202.230.39.44: 33 203.237.51.11: 33 203.237.51.12: 33 203.237.51.32: 33 203.237.51.117: 33 203.237.51.67: 33 203.64.35.212: 33 203.172.11.240: 33 203.237.51.181: 33 203.237.34.1: 33 200.17.53.92: 32 200.13.19.3: 32 202.230.39.40: 32 203.64.35.100: 32 202.230.39.7: 32 203.237.51.174: 32 203.172.22.152: 31 202.230.39.49: 31 203.237.51.118: 31 203.172.11.25: 31 203.64.35.110: 31 203.64.35.205: 31 203.237.51.90: 31 203.237.51.232: 31 78.0.0.102: 30 203.237.51.14: 30 203.64.34.100: 30 203.237.51.207: 30 203.64.35.106: 30 203.237.51.188: 30 203.237.51.6: 30 203.172.22.153: 29 203.64.34.115: 29 202.230.39.86: 29 203.237.51.83: 29 203.172.11.251: 29 200.13.17.4: 28 202.230.39.32: 28 202.230.39.51: 28 202.184.25.37: 28 203.237.51.100: 28 202.184.25.67: 28 203.237.51.208: 28 203.172.11.23: 28 203.172.11.151: 28 203.172.11.152: 28 203.64.35.210: 28 203.64.35.214: 28 91.0.0.103: 28 203.172.22.154: 27 87.0.0.103: 27 202.230.39.11: 27 202.230.39.17: 27 202.230.39.42: 27 89.0.0.103: 27 202.230.39.91: 27 203.237.51.145: 27 203.64.35.207: 27 202.230.39.79: 26 203.237.51.47: 26 203.237.51.222: 26 203.64.35.200: 26 203.237.51.94: 26 203.172.11.237: 26 203.172.11.238: 26 203.64.35.215: 26 202.184.25.1: 26 203.237.51.253: 26 203.172.11.61: 26 203.172.22.151: 25 200.13.19.5: 25 203.64.36.49: 25 202.230.39.47: 25 203.237.51..27: 25 203.64.143.13: 25 202.230.39.95: 25 203.172.11.239: 25 203.237.51.233: 25 203.172.11.159: 25 203.64.35.217: 25 203.172.11.242: 25 203.172.22.155: 24 202.230.39.54: 24 202.230.39.80: 24 202.230.39.84: 24 203.64.35.108: 24 203.64.35.109: 24 203.172.11.21: 24 203.172.11.22: 24 203.64.35.206: 24 203.64.35.208: 24 79.0.0.102: 23 202.184.25.31: 23 202.230.39.85: 23 203.237.51.55: 23 203.172.11.113: 23 203.172.11.150: 23 203.172.11.235: 23 203.172.11.83: 23 87.0.0.102: 22 202.184.36.254: 22 200.13.19.4: 22 202.230.39.70: 22 202.230.39.74: 22 202.230.39.88: 22 203.64.35.101: 22 200.13.20.3: 22 203.64.35.209: 22 202.184.25.155: 22 203.64.35.216: 22 203.172.11.249: 22 203.172.11.253: 22 203.64.34.12: 21 200.13.19.2: 21 200.13.20.4: 21 203.64.35.201: 21 203.64.35.204: 21 203.172.11.236: 21 202.184.17.125: 21 203.172.11.87: 21 203.64.34.86: 20 203.172.11.7: 20 202.184.25.27: 20 203.172.11.228: 20 203.64.35.218: 20 202.184.22.56: 19 202.230.39.93: 19 203.172.11.26: 19 203.64.35.213: 19 202.252.59.194: 18 202.230.39.78: 18 202.184.25.156: 18 203.172.11.192: 18 203.172.11.94: 18 202.184.25.36: 17 202.184.25.39: 17 202.184.25.112: 17 202.184.25.73: 17 202.184.25.94: 17 203.64.35.211: 17 203.64.35.219: 17 202.230.39.6: 17 202.184.21.80: 16 202.184.25.43: 16 202.184.25.102: 16 202.184.25.76: 16 202.184.25.158: 16 202.230.39.72: 15 202.184.25.53: 15 203.172.11.24: 15 202.184.25.153: 15 202.184.25.40: 14 202.184.25.58: 14 202.184.25.62: 14 202.184.25.77: 13 202.184.25.90: 13 202.184.21.55: 12 202.184.22.49: 12 202.184.21.79: 12 202.184.25.25: 12 202.184.25.57: 12 202.184.25.100: 12 202.184.25.114: 12 202.184.25.80: 12 202.184.25.81: 12 202.184.25.97: 12 202.184.22.28: 11 202.184.22.47: 11 202.184.22.52: 11 202.184.21.83: 11 202.184.22.73: 11 202.184.25.105: 11 202.184.22.1: 11 202.184.25.68: 11 202.184.25.110: 11 202.184.25.111: 11 202.184.25.71: 11 202.184.17.58: 11 202.184.25.213: 11 202.184.17.237: 11 202.184.22.18: 10 202.184.22.59: 10 202.184.25.47: 10 202.184.25.108: 10 202.184.25.66: 10 202.184.22.15: 9 202.184.21.44: 9 202.184.21.50: 9 202.184.21.60: 9 202.184.22.38: 9 202.184.21.74: 9 202.184.17.13: 9 202.184.25.33: 9 202.184.25.49: 9 202.184.17.30: 9 202.184.25.56: 9 202.184.25.103: 9 202.184.25.109: 9 202.184.17.63: 9 202.184.25.98: 9 202.184.22.43: 8 202.184.22.46: 8 202.184.22.69: 8 202.184.22.70: 8 202.184.17.22: 8 203.64.34.113: 8 202.184.17.53: 8 202.184.25.75: 8 202.184.17.124: 8 202.184.21.19: 7 202.184.21.39: 7 202.184.21.42: 7 202.184.22.20: 7 202.184.22.21: 7 202.184.22.23: 7 202.184.21.56: 7 202.184.21.66: 7 202.184.21.68: 7 202.184.22.40: 7 202.184.21.73: 7 202.184.21.77: 7 202.184.22..50: 7 202.184.22.58: 7 202.184.17.14: 7 202.184.25.55: 7 202.184.17.68: 7 202.184.25.93: 7 202.184.17.2: 7 202.184.17.4: 7 202.184.21.12: 6 202.184.21.26: 6 202.184.22.11: 6 202.184.21.41: 6 202.184.22.25: 6 202.184.22.44: 6 202.184.21.81: 6 202.184.21.87: 6 202.184.22.62: 6 202.184.22.63: 6 202.184.22.74: 6 202.184.22.88: 6 209.212.128.32: 6 202.184.17.27: 6 202.184.21.1: 6 202.184.25.51: 6 202.184.17.42: 6 202.184.17.49: 6 202.184.25.96: 6 202.184.17.82: 6 202.184.17.1: 6 202.184.17.233: 6 202.184.17.181: 6 202.184.21.22: 5 202.184.21.48: 5 202.184.21.49: 5 202.184.21.53: 5 202.184.21.57: 5 202.184.21.59: 5 202.184.22.36: 5 202.184.22.41: 5 202.184.21.76: 5 202.184.21.82: 5 202.184.21.89: 5 202.184.22.60: 5 202.252.30.45: 5 202.184.17.17: 5 202.184.17.35: 5 202.184.25.107: 5 202.184.17.47: 5 202.184.17.48: 5 202.184.17.67: 5 202.184.17.148: 5 202.184.17.235: 5 202.252.30.3: 5 202.184.21.13: 4 202.184.21.24: 4 202.184.21.114: 4 202.184.22.19: 4 202.184.22.24: 4 202.184.22.26: 4 202.184.21.61: 4 202.184.21.64: 4 202.184.22.37: 4 202.252.30.129: 4 202.184.22.55: 4 202.184.22.64: 4 202.184.22.65: 4 202.184.22.66: 4 202.252.30.36: 4 202.252.30.37: 4 202.252.30.48: 4 202.184.25.21: 4 202.184.17.33: 4 202.184.25.106: 4 202.184.17.52: 4 202.184.17.111: 4 202.184.17.83: 4 202.184.17.239: 4 202.184.17.242: 4 202.184.17.252: 4 202.184.21.27: 3 202.184.21.40: 3 202.184.22.22: 3 202.184.21.58: 3 202.184.22.108: 3 202.252.30.114: 3 202.184.22.42: 3 202.184.21.72: 3 202.184.21.78: 3 202.184.22.204: 3 202.252.30.131: 3 202.252.30.135: 3 202.252.30.35: 3 202.252.30.38: 3 202.252.30.162: 3 202.252.30.169: 3 202.252.30.40: 3 202.252.30.43: 3 202.184.23.62: 3 202.252.30.181: 3 202.252.30.68: 3 202.184.22.197: 3 202.184.17.15: 3 202.184.17.20: 3 202.184.17.28: 3 202.252.30.97: 3 202.252.30.99: 3 202.184.22.2: 3 202.184.17.71: 3 202.184.17.129: 3 202.184.17.229: 3 202.184.17.238: 3 202.252.30.4: 3 202.252.30.5: 3 202.184.21.14: 2 202.184.21.16: 2 202.184.21.17: 2 202.184.21.18: 2 202.184.21.25: 2 202.252.30.102: 2 202.252.30.103: 2 202.252.30.105: 2 202.252.30.106: 2 202.184.21.62: 2 202.184.22.39: 2 202.184.21.67: 2 202.252.30.117: 2 202.184.22.48: 2 202.184.22.207: 2 202.252.30.136: 2 202.184.22.215: 2 202.252.30.39: 2 202.252.30.161: 2 202.252.30.165: 2 202.252.30.166: 2 202.252.30.167: 2 202.252.30.168: 2 203.108.71.1: 2 202.252.30.180: 2 202.252.30.182: 2 202.252.30.67: 2 202.184.17.18: 2 202.184.17.32: 2 202.252.30.2: 2 202.184.21.20: 1 202.252.30.101: 1 202.184.22.30: 1 202.184.22.32: 1 202.252.30.113: 1 202.184.22.51: 1 202.252.30.132: 1 202.252.30.133: 1 202.252.30.163: 1 202.252.30.164: 1 202.252.30.41: 1 202.252.30.42: 1 202.252.30.47: 1 202.252.30.170: 1 202.252.30.66: 1 202.252.30.69: 1 202.252.30.98: 1 ----don't waste your cpu, crack rc5...www.distributed.net team enzo--- Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | nestea'd...whatever it takes Florida Digital Turnpike | to get the job done. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key________

2 1

Re: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing
by Tim Salo 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 11:26:45 -0500 > From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra(a)scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> > To: "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Subject: Re: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing > [...] > Well, we'll see. The problem is suits who don't understand that > billing by the byte, rather than by the router port, usually has higher > costs than it does revenue enhancement. If I assert that I'm trying to > reduce customer's billings, then, as a CEO of a publicly held company, > I'd better have something up my sleeve that will actually enhance > revenue, or I'll be out of a job, real quick. I suspect that "it's too hard and/or expensive to bill by byte (or kilo-byte or mega-byte)" may become one of the great myths of the Internet. It should be noted that phone companies, particularly LECs, are probably better than anybody at billing in very fine usage-basee increments. "Suites" often understand costs and pricing very well. Suites often also understand competitive advantage. I wonder if John Sidgemore is thinking that offering fine-grained usage-based billing is something that he can do well (if he leverages the billing skills of other parts of WorldComm) and that his competitors won't be able to replicate, (e.g., the thousands of ISPs who seem to think that sending out one fixed-rate bill a month is a sizable burden). Beyond suspecting that fine-grained usage-based billing in the Internet will be introduced by those that can do it well, I haven't a clue what the long term future is... -tjs

3 2

Re: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 05 Dec '98

05 Dec '98

> One notable thing about per-bit pricing, as well, is that once one > provider really rolls it out and pushes it at a low cost, it's bound > to become a surety. Suddenly the provider with per-bit billing will > be able to steal all of the low-usage customers, while leaving the > expensive near-saturation customers at other providers... effectively > raising their cost per DS1... I have seen it argued several times that if the price is "low enough", customers prefer a fixed price, even if that price is slightly higher than they could get by a variable-rate pricing scheme. Why do you think per-bit pricing would be significantly different here? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Worldcom Fiber Cut
by Mark Moore 05 Dec '98

05 Dec '98

Worldcom has confirmed the cut of over 300 DS3s and 12 OC12s. Apparently CSX is to blame. ~mark ---------------------------- Mark Moore <mark(a)gleim.com> Network Administrator Gleim Publications, Inc. http://www.gleim.com (352) 375-0772 ext. 116 (800) 87-GLEIM ext. 116 FAX: (352) 375-6940 -----------------------------

3 2

RE: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing
by Peter Ford 05 Dec '98

05 Dec '98

Let's see: You accect per piece pricing and identify that it is existing practice. Sounds like you object to the units? Should the units be in terms of T-1s (as you accept as exiting practice), DS-0 (probably the prominent per piece model in use today) or what? So is your complaint that that units might not be in terms of T-1s? Or is it that the units are soft/virtual instead of hard as defined by the Telco physical hierarchy? If Sidgemore's experience matches others in the ISP business I suspect he is considering/planning such service plans because several of his important customers are asking for it. And I am sure he has the ability/mechanisms to retain those customers who demand flat/predictable billing by offering that as an option ... chaeers, peter -----Original Message----- From: Pete Kruckenberg [mailto:pete@kruckenberg.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:43 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing Sidgemore talks again: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,29533,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.a I'm sure this subject has been discussed at length here, but I still fail to see any benefit for per-piece pricing other than to the seller's revenue stream. I think it's always interesting that discussions of per-piece pricing always fail to mention the fundamental issue: provide a disincentive to the consumer to use the service. There is already per-piece pricing: 1.544Mbps of traffic costs $500 to $2000+/mo, depending upon how much the provider is counting on you to not use the service. However, in this case the burden is placed on the ISP to balance closing the sale with making money off of how much the customer actually uses the service. The thing I most distrust about people who talk about per-piece pricing is that in spite of the fact that it should end up costing lower-use customers less, for some reason it always ends up costing everyone more. Look at UUNet's pricing now (for 256K ASU, or something like that), versus the flat-rate price available from equivalent NSP's. Is that where things are going? Pete.

2 1