July 1999 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: WEATHER: rolling blackouts along the East Coast
by Martin, Christian 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

Some Bell Atlantic COs in North Jersey have experience brown-outs as well. Local and tandem switched voice are unaffected, but Frame Relay and SMDS equipment took hits. Regards, -chris -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 5:00 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: WEATHER: rolling blackouts along the East Coast Due to the heat, high electric use, and the loss of some generators some east coast power companies are into their reserve limits, which means a loss of a generation plant will cause an indefinite blackhout. Several utilities have started some rolling black outs in their service regions, voluntary and mandatory load dumping and voltage reductions. Each 'planned' rolling black out is expected to last less than 20 minutes, but the electric companies are warning customers service may be interrupted up to four hours. The heat is supposed to break this afternoon/evening. However the front will bring a line of strong thunderstorms through the east coast, which creates its own problems. All of our east coast POPs have stayed up, so far. But several of our customers have experienced power outages at their sites and some libraries have closed for the day. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Peering issues, bis
by dlr＠daver.bungi.com 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

I've been contacted by many of you with regard to this peering issue. The time has come for the ISPs to work closer together. As each of our networks grow, the need for peering *increases*. The networks that are exhibiting the fastest growth are those that encourage peering. I'm sure that most of you know this. I'm not opposed to setting some criteria for peering, and making that publically available. I am adverse to peering negotiations that occur "under cover of darkness" (NDA), or that are arbitrary (handshake agreements). I'm proposing that we form a unified front to negotiate these issues. Sort of a MLPA - but on a worldwide front. Let's take this off the NANOG list, though, unless there are strong objections. I'll set up a mailing list of interested parties, and we should get together over the next 30 days with at least a meeting in the bay area (SFO), one in New York or Washington, and one in Europe. I'll host them, details too be announced shortly.

3 2

RE: Peering Issues
by Paul Flores 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

Has anyone ever been cited 'technical limitations of our network' as a reason NOT to turn up a new peer / remove an old peer? Paul Flores Williams

2 1

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

> > On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > That is not entirely true. > > > > I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think > > that there will be a change in the root server > > operators or placement of servers. As an operator > > I've been paying attention to this and think I understand > > whats going on. > > Certainly. First, operation of the "A" root server is going to be turned > over at the direction of the Department of Commerce. What does that mean? > Second, at present > one or more root server operators is refusing to sign a contract with > ICANN. I've not seen or heard of a contract that ICANN wants root server operators to sign. > Third, it is my understanding that the current "l.root-server.net" > server is(was?) being designated as the new authoratative "A" > server(corrections welcome.) To clarify, the existing root server operators are working on a process for how change management should occur. Its not clear to me that a target site has been selected/agreed nor would I expect to see anything of the kind w/o such a plan being in place. "L" has been used, as a placeholder, in some of the discussion. > > > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead > > > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you > > > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. > > > > mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of > > root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the > > "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they > > may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot > > like a hash to me... > > Umm, he who controls the root servers, controls domain names. I'd say > they're pretty related issues. Only to a very limited extent, in a properly configured system. --bill

3 3

ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Henry R. Linneweh 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy the problem as it exists. Henry

4 3

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Patrick Greenwell 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > That is not entirely true. > > I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think > that there will be a change in the root server > operators or placement of servers. As an operator > I've been paying attention to this and think I understand > whats going on. Certainly. First, operation of the "A" root server is going to be turned over at the direction of the Department of Commerce. Second, at present one or more root server operators is refusing to sign a contract with ICANN. Third, it is my understanding that the current "l.root-server.net" server is(was?) being designated as the new authoratative "A" server(corrections welcome.) > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead > > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you > > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. > > mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of > root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the > "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they > may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot > like a hash to me... Umm, he who controls the root servers, controls domain names. I'd say they're pretty related issues. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

1 0

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Patrick Greenwell 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Henry R. Linneweh wrote: > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > the problem as it exists. I am going to stick to the operational comments: ICANN plans on taking control of the root servers. It is my understanding that the current "l.root-servers.net" server is being designated as the new authoratative source server. NSI is under contract to turn over the A root server at the order of the Department of Commerce which they have said they will do. I have links to news articles and such at: http://stealthgeeks.net/background.html /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

1 0

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by Patrick Greenwell 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > the problem as it exists. > > > > Henry > > As I understand it, the root servers will stay put, > where they are and operated by the current group of operators. That is not entirely true. > Methinks the reporter here has a serious misunderstanding of > the issues. As to the "problem that exists", I can only hope that > you are right and we only have a single "problem". I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

1 0

Ham radio & Major Outages (Was: Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX)
by George Herbert 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

John Fraizer <John.Fraizer(a)EnterZone.Net> writes: >Joe Shaw wrote: >>This is why HAM radios and the appropriate licenses can come in very >>handy, especially in cases of emergency or natural disaster. Does anyone >>in the business use RF for backup communications? > >You mean we're not ALL licensed amateurs? ;-) While it's a useful thing for people to have, keep in mind that amateur radio has significant limitations. While you're allowed to do more or less anything you have to during an emergency situation with lives at stake, supporting your commercial activities using ham bands is a no-no, even in a widescale "emergency/outage" situation... If anyone wants tactical comms for your company during a complete telco outage, then get some commercial radio sets and a frequency allocation. It's relatively painless. The new cellphones that have direct phone-to-phone capabilities *may* stay up if their cell service goes down, but I don't know the mechanism in detail so check with your resident expert. Using "CB" bands and walkie-talkies may work, if they don't get innundated with other people trying to do the same thing. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com KD6WUQ

1 0

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > > the problem as it exists. > > > > > > Henry > > > > As I understand it, the root servers will stay put, > > where they are and operated by the current group of operators. > > That is not entirely true. I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think that there will be a change in the root server operators or placement of servers. As an operator I've been paying attention to this and think I understand whats going on. > > Methinks the reporter here has a serious misunderstanding of > > the issues. As to the "problem that exists", I can only hope that > > you are right and we only have a single "problem". > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot like a hash to me... > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com > (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f > "This is our time. It will not come again." > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --bill

1 0