June 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Does any know what type of wireless
by Al Reuben 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Does any know what type of wireless ethernet will be at NANOG this week? (want to buy a card). TIA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex(a)nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 5

New Government white paper on Domains publsihed this am...
by Joffe, Rodney 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Here is a pointer for the latest and greatest from the US Government regarding the Domain Name Issue. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm

1 0

RE: US West and RADSL (fwd)
by Chad Skidmore 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Actually, they are not cross-marketing in ALL 14 states. The Washington Association of ISPs managed to work with the Utilities Commission in Washington to put language in the tariff that prevents/limits cross-marketing. Take a look at the tariff at http://tariffs.uswest.com and check the Washington MegaBit tariffs. Some of the language from that tariff could be incorporated into other state tariffs to prevent this kind of cross-marketing. If you know of any cross-marketing please let us know. The WUTC would love to hear as well. --------------------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. http://www.nwnexus.com 1-888-NWNEXUS > -----Original Message----- > From: Dax Kelson [mailto:dkelson@inconnect.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 2:31 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: US West and RADSL (fwd) > > > > Doesn't look like her email made it to the NANOG list. > Co-marketing of an > ILEC ISP along with the DSL circuit is going to be a big issue as the > ILECs rollout DSL nationwide. DSL is coming probably faster then you > think, we turned up the first DSL connection in Utah a couple > weeks ago. > > Dax Kelson > Internet Connect, Inc. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:18:39 -0600 > From: Marianne Granoff <granoff(a)nm.net> > To: dkelson(a)inconnect.com > Cc: jarneault(a)inet-solutions.net, nanog(a)merit.org > Subject: US West and RADSL > > [snip] > >I could go on and on about the VERY APPALLING situation here > with USW and > >DSL and Internet access, about regulated and unregulated > services, etc, > >etc. > > > >Dax Kelson > >Internet Connect, Inc. > > The preceeding message was forwarded to me by one of our NM > ISPs. US West > has been co-marketing its Internet service _with_ its RADSL > service in all > of its 14 states > (http://www.uswest.com/com/customers/interprise/dsl/) > Actions by ISP groups in Oregon and New Mexico may provide > some relief to > local ISPs there. > > I have just put up a listserve for ISPs in the US West states > to use in > sharing information. Technet has had one for the NM ISPs for > several years > - it has been a big help in getting out the word about some of these > actions. How about uswisp(a)lists.nm.net? Please feel free to > send this out > to any interested ISPs. > > To subscribe, just send an empty note to: > > uswisp-subscribe(a)lists.nm.org > > I believe that all the RBOCs/ILECs have taken or will be > taking similar > actions. Even Sprint's new ION services are part of this > trend. In my > opinion, this is anti-competitive behavior by monopoly > organizations. I > think that many local ISPs will be severly hurt by such > actions, and more > than a few will close their doors. > > As I see it - the biggest problem is that local ISPs are not > organized and > do not know how - or have the forums - to work together to > fight actions by > a company the size of US West (or other RBOC/ILEC). My > company, New Mexico > Technet, is one of the larger ISPs in NM. We wholesale > Internet access to > other ISPs. We have intervened in the NM tariff filing for US West's > Megabit services (see http://www.technet.nm.org/press.htm) to > attempt to > correct some of the things that are very anti-competitive about the > proposed tariff. So far it has cost us over $30,000 in legal > fees and we > have not even had the hearing yet. Most local ISPs cannot do > this. Most > local ISPs do not know how to take the actions with the FCC > or with the > state public regulatory agencies so that their concerns can > even be heard. > Frankly - most ISPs are not members of CIX or of ISP/C - and > many of them > do not even know about those organizations, or understand why > they should > care. > > In NM, the local ISPs come in mostly 2 flavors: those that serve urban > areas (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos) who > "may" be affected > by what US West does but are not sure, and those in rural > areas who do not > feel they will ever be affected by these actions, and so do > not care. In > much of US West's 14 state territory - I suspect that this is > similar. The > local ISPs in the urban areas have mostly seen the other local ISPs as > competitors, not collaborators. They have seen US West (or > the RBOC/ILEC) > as a vendor, not as a competitor. Most local ISPs worry > about retribution > from US West (or other RBOC/ILEC) (delayed service, > unresponsiveness on > outages, unfilled orders) if they come on too strong in criticizing a > company that they are _so_ dependent on. I am not sure that > their concerns > are not valid. > > The local (state) regulatory agencies are overworked and > underfunded in > this age of telecommunications transition/revolution. It is > not that they > don't care. It is that they simply have too much on their > plates already. > Few states provided extra funding to handle all the _new_ > issues raised by > the 1996 Telecommunications Act at the _state_ regulatory > agency level. No > one is championing any of this in most states. I think > probably because it > is not considered a problem by the vast majority of ISP > _customers_. I had > one of my customers tell me to "just get out of the way" and > let US West > introduce the high speed service because the customer needed > it right away > and I was just holding it up. They never saw that US West > owned some of > the blame in the constant delays, counterfilings, > interrogatories, motions > to compel, and other actions that have caused this > intervention to drag on. > Unfortunately, this person is more typical of ISP customers > than local > ISPs want to believe. > > The saddest aspect of this is that unless something changes, > US West and > the other RBOCs/ILECs will likely dominate the supply of > Internet access in > large urban areas in a few years - and the rural areas will > have a great > deal less Internet access than they do today. > > I think the answer is that the local ISPs _and their > customers_ have to > come together if they want to have choices about ISPs in the > future. It > will take some of the larger ISPs reaching out to the smaller > local ISPs to > help them get _all_ of their respective customers informed of > the issues. > It will take the larger ISPs intervening in more state and > FCC proceedings. > It will take constant email, listserves, and newsgroups > spreading such > information - and reaching customers - not just ISPs. It > will take some > national politicians to "champion" this cause - some who are > not worried > about losing RBOC/ILEC campaign contributions - which are > considerable. It > will take involvement by media organizations that are not > worried about > losing the RBOC advertising revenues - which are also considerable. > > It will take every local ISP who is harmed by US West actions calling, > writing, or emailing their local and national politicians and > letting them > know that they have informed all of their own customers about > the actions > by US West or other RBOC/ILEC and informing their customers > of the fact > that the politician has not responded to these > illegal/unethical/anti-competitive actions. > > In NM, it is now other internet professionals and businesses that have > joined ISPs in questioning the actions of US West. Web > designers, web page > hosting services, internet trainers, web-advertising services > and other > businesses are starting to realize that US West wants to take their > Internet-based business as well. This is a start. > > Regards, > > Marianne > > Marianne Granoff > Director of Operations > New Mexico Technet, Inc. > 5921 Jefferson NE > Albuquerque, N.M. 87109 > Ph: (505) 345-6555 > FAX: (505) 345-6559 > email: granoff(a)nm.net or granoff(a)technet.nm.org > >

1 0

60 Hudson NYC
by Mr. Dana Hudes 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Anyone else in 60 Hudson st nyc interested in peering with our multinational IP network send me a note. We're on the 10th floor. Plenty of Ethernet 10/100 ports available. Dana Hudes Internet Engineering Manager Graphnet.

3 2

Re: Beyond DNS...
by Dean Anderson 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

>> I think you have something else messed up. That message should only come >> out when you have a CNAME record that points to another CNAME. Check that >> you put the trailing dot in. > >There are a few different messages: > >"%s has CNAME and other data (invalid)" (bind-8.1.2/src/bin/named/db_update.c) >"dangling CNAME pointer" (bind-8.1.2/src/bin/named/ns_resp.c) > >-Phil Ahh. I see. According to Chris Cappuccio this has been turned off in bind 8, and is apparently non-standard behavior. We are in fact running bind 4.9.3. Sorry for the confusion. But you can still have multiple A records, which does the failover part that the original poster wanted. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP/DCE http://www.av8.com We Make IT Fly! (617)242-3091 x246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

rules for assignment of IPv6 identifiers
by Michael Dillon 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

If you check ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-tla-assignment-03.txt you will see that IPNGWG has some thoughts on what rules should be followed by registries to allocate IPv6 identifiers somewhat analogous to ASNs and IPv4 netblocks. The idea of publishing an Internet draft is that if you feel that it needs to be changed or corrected in some way, you can communicate that to the Working Group before it becomes an RFC. The elegant way to make your voice heard would be to to join the IPNG mailing list by sending a "subscribe ipng" message to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com after browsing the last month or so of the archive at ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/mail-archive The crude but effective way would be to join the IETF mailing list by sending a "subscribe" message to ietf-request(a)ietf.org. They would like you to include "subscribe" in both the message body and the Subject line. And I suppose if you feel like wasting your breath you could make suggestions on this list where it won't do any good and the WG won't be able to hear your ideas. *sigh* :-( -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

1 0

Re: PPP over Ethernet?
by John Fraizer 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

At 10:53 AM 6/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >Cygnus has tools that let you build SHH on WinNT. > >At 10:14 AM 6/4/98 -0700, Dave Siegel wrote: >>> Nah, They never heard of virtual circuits. >>> >>> Seriously, PPP over IP is a way of building a cheap VPN. The thing is that >>> SSH already does that job much better. >> >>SSH does not allow me to access file on the corporate NT server. >> >>PPTP (ala MS VPN) does. Give me 10 minutes with a sniffer and a few nifty tools and not only can I find the PPTP session but, take control. Now, *I* have access to your file on that NiceTry Server. I have yet to see or hear about this being done with an SSH tunnel. Perhaps you would like to put a unix box on your network to do SSH tunnels with and from there, mount your SAMBA share from the NiceTry box. Or then again, maybe you trust MS. <sic> ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

2 1

US West and RADSL (fwd)
by Dax Kelson 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Doesn't look like her email made it to the NANOG list. Co-marketing of an ILEC ISP along with the DSL circuit is going to be a big issue as the ILECs rollout DSL nationwide. DSL is coming probably faster then you think, we turned up the first DSL connection in Utah a couple weeks ago. Dax Kelson Internet Connect, Inc. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:18:39 -0600 From: Marianne Granoff <granoff(a)nm.net> To: dkelson(a)inconnect.com Cc: jarneault(a)inet-solutions.net, nanog(a)merit.org Subject: US West and RADSL [snip] >I could go on and on about the VERY APPALLING situation here with USW and >DSL and Internet access, about regulated and unregulated services, etc, >etc. > >Dax Kelson >Internet Connect, Inc. The preceeding message was forwarded to me by one of our NM ISPs. US West has been co-marketing its Internet service _with_ its RADSL service in all of its 14 states (http://www.uswest.com/com/customers/interprise/dsl/) Actions by ISP groups in Oregon and New Mexico may provide some relief to local ISPs there. I have just put up a listserve for ISPs in the US West states to use in sharing information. Technet has had one for the NM ISPs for several years - it has been a big help in getting out the word about some of these actions. How about uswisp(a)lists.nm.net? Please feel free to send this out to any interested ISPs. To subscribe, just send an empty note to: uswisp-subscribe(a)lists.nm.org I believe that all the RBOCs/ILECs have taken or will be taking similar actions. Even Sprint's new ION services are part of this trend. In my opinion, this is anti-competitive behavior by monopoly organizations. I think that many local ISPs will be severly hurt by such actions, and more than a few will close their doors. As I see it - the biggest problem is that local ISPs are not organized and do not know how - or have the forums - to work together to fight actions by a company the size of US West (or other RBOC/ILEC). My company, New Mexico Technet, is one of the larger ISPs in NM. We wholesale Internet access to other ISPs. We have intervened in the NM tariff filing for US West's Megabit services (see http://www.technet.nm.org/press.htm) to attempt to correct some of the things that are very anti-competitive about the proposed tariff. So far it has cost us over $30,000 in legal fees and we have not even had the hearing yet. Most local ISPs cannot do this. Most local ISPs do not know how to take the actions with the FCC or with the state public regulatory agencies so that their concerns can even be heard. Frankly - most ISPs are not members of CIX or of ISP/C - and many of them do not even know about those organizations, or understand why they should care. In NM, the local ISPs come in mostly 2 flavors: those that serve urban areas (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos) who "may" be affected by what US West does but are not sure, and those in rural areas who do not feel they will ever be affected by these actions, and so do not care. In much of US West's 14 state territory - I suspect that this is similar. The local ISPs in the urban areas have mostly seen the other local ISPs as competitors, not collaborators. They have seen US West (or the RBOC/ILEC) as a vendor, not as a competitor. Most local ISPs worry about retribution from US West (or other RBOC/ILEC) (delayed service, unresponsiveness on outages, unfilled orders) if they come on too strong in criticizing a company that they are _so_ dependent on. I am not sure that their concerns are not valid. The local (state) regulatory agencies are overworked and underfunded in this age of telecommunications transition/revolution. It is not that they don't care. It is that they simply have too much on their plates already. Few states provided extra funding to handle all the _new_ issues raised by the 1996 Telecommunications Act at the _state_ regulatory agency level. No one is championing any of this in most states. I think probably because it is not considered a problem by the vast majority of ISP _customers_. I had one of my customers tell me to "just get out of the way" and let US West introduce the high speed service because the customer needed it right away and I was just holding it up. They never saw that US West owned some of the blame in the constant delays, counterfilings, interrogatories, motions to compel, and other actions that have caused this intervention to drag on. Unfortunately, this person is more typical of ISP customers than local ISPs want to believe. The saddest aspect of this is that unless something changes, US West and the other RBOCs/ILECs will likely dominate the supply of Internet access in large urban areas in a few years - and the rural areas will have a great deal less Internet access than they do today. I think the answer is that the local ISPs _and their customers_ have to come together if they want to have choices about ISPs in the future. It will take some of the larger ISPs reaching out to the smaller local ISPs to help them get _all_ of their respective customers informed of the issues. It will take the larger ISPs intervening in more state and FCC proceedings. It will take constant email, listserves, and newsgroups spreading such information - and reaching customers - not just ISPs. It will take some national politicians to "champion" this cause - some who are not worried about losing RBOC/ILEC campaign contributions - which are considerable. It will take involvement by media organizations that are not worried about losing the RBOC advertising revenues - which are also considerable. It will take every local ISP who is harmed by US West actions calling, writing, or emailing their local and national politicians and letting them know that they have informed all of their own customers about the actions by US West or other RBOC/ILEC and informing their customers of the fact that the politician has not responded to these illegal/unethical/anti-competitive actions. In NM, it is now other internet professionals and businesses that have joined ISPs in questioning the actions of US West. Web designers, web page hosting services, internet trainers, web-advertising services and other businesses are starting to realize that US West wants to take their Internet-based business as well. This is a start. Regards, Marianne Marianne Granoff Director of Operations New Mexico Technet, Inc. 5921 Jefferson NE Albuquerque, N.M. 87109 Ph: (505) 345-6555 FAX: (505) 345-6559 email: granoff(a)nm.net or granoff(a)technet.nm.org

1 0

RE: Sprint's New ION products
by Doug Stanfield 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

"100 times faster" is also the language used by the cable companies and vendors of MCNS cable modems to describe their products. $200 price point and retail availability are also part of that business model. The "up to" might mean cable modems are one of a number of alternatives being considered for the last mile. Cisco has made a significant and apparently successful jump into the cable modem business so I suspect that's at least part of the plan. Doug Stanfield Oceanic Cable Data Networking Manager 200 Akamainui St. dougs(a)oceanic.com Mililani, HI 96789 >"Up to 100 times faster than conventional modems" is said in their >press release. >Perhaps this $200 unit is the NT1-equivalent. If so, it's damn cheap. >If not, why isnt billing built into the customer-end equipment? A $200 ADSL modem sounds about right and the billing will most likely be in the router/switch you are connected to, not prem-based.

4 4

Re: PPP over Ethernet?
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Do that with FDX Ethernet, no need to add PPP overhead to it. Owen > I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to > each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet > overhead. Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple > paralell links. Could be interesting... > > Dirk > > On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > > Zachary DeAquila writes: > > > Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an > > > encapsulation standard for it? > > > > The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and > > content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, > > PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus. > > > > .pm >

1 0