August 1999 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Installation Services wanted
by Jan Ahrent Czmok 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Sorry for the broken Mail. Again: We are looking for a companies which does installation services in the USA. Needed: - Installation at Palo Alto, San Jose, Washington, New York and probably other locations within the us. - MUST is Cisco knowledge. Ascend Core Equipment knowledge can also be good. - Will do installation of Backbone Equipment - Will do initial configuration works. Please correspond to email j.czmok(a)gigabell.net and not in this mailing-list Jan

1 0

Wanted: Installation Services
by Jan Ahrent Czmok 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

We are looking for a companies which does installation services in the us. Needed: - Installation at Palo Alto, San Jose, Washington, New York and probably other locations within the us. - MUST is

1 0

Re: Domain Dissapearances?
by George Herbert 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

I thought I'd do a quick status update on the thread I started a couple of weeks ago. What happened to my domain had a partial explanation. It was indeed on payment hold. There had been some snail mail bills sent (at least allegedly) to the technical contact's (my) listed postal address, which I had failed to update following a move 18 months ago. There was no good answer from NSI regarding why there was no snail mail bill sent to the domain's listed address (which was correct) or no email bill / notice sent to the listed contacts (which were correct). Moral of the story: review all addresses, both physical and email, phone numbers, fax numbers, etc. information for any domains you are in charge of and make absolutely sure that *every*single*bit* is 100% accurate. NSI may be using some of it that you forgot about. I also question NSI's breadth of notifications; there should have been email in my case, and probably should have been snail mail to the domain's address, neither of which happened. I got a number of stories from other listmembers ranging from annoyance to horror stories; it is clear to me that NSI has got procedural problems and insufficient information flow to customers set up. I would like to state clearly, however, that once I was able to get through to NSI's phone support staff in person we had it fixed within 20 minutes and that their staffer was polite and helpful. There was no email response after several days of inquiries, and the question of how they should have sent notifications is an open one. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com Disclaimer: I do not work for CRL.

4 3

Re: Large-datagram hop-by-hop delivery mechanism
by Vadim Antonov 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

This system is called UUCP :) --vadim > I am seeking a mechanism for reliable delivery of large blobs through a > network of occasionally-connected hosts that can forward the blobs using > available transport protocols. > > --- > Mark R. Lindsey, mark(a)datasys.net > DSS Online

3 2

Large-datagram hop-by-hop delivery mechanism
by mark＠vielle.datasys.net 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

I am seeking a mechanism for reliable delivery of large blobs through a network of occasionally-connected hosts that can forward the blobs using available transport protocols. I can't find it, though. Most of the networking materials I can find deal more with immediate-transmission networks, where the destination host is reachable at the instant that the source host transmits. (This isn't a catenet.) If anyone knows of such a common or standardized system, please drop me a note. And if there's not already such a system, then we'll just have to make one. --- Mark R. Lindsey, mark(a)datasys.net DSS Online

6 5

Re: Domain Dissapearances?
by George Herbert 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

"Henry R. Linneweh" <linneweh(a)concentric.net> writes: >Reducing this all to the prime essence, of the problem. >It seems NSI hires data entry operators that lack the >discipline to ask the correct questions for a record update, >and get into personality squabbles, with annoyed customers. > >This all could be done by process expediters right at the time >you phone in, to end this year long battle of registration annoyances. Not quite sure why you got that idea. I changed the domain info by email template when it moved. I failed to change the contact info for myself (gwh5) at that time due to oversight on my part. There was no data entry problem at NSI that I can see, in my case. There was a problem with them either not sending notifications (no email received, though Mark Kosters brought up a point in private that may complicate this and we're researching...) or sending them to the "wrong" address (the contact, not the domain address, for snail mail), or both, probably both. The NSI guy I talked to on the phone was actually ahead of me once I asked why I might not have gotten the notices, and handled the problem promptly and curteously, as I stated. The policy problem of where notifications are being sent, when, and why is another question. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com

1 0

ARIN policy on acquisitions ?
by Brandon Applegate 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Greetings all, Aplogies if this has already been covered (I couldnt find it :) ) Does any one know what ARIN's policy is on ISP acquisition ?? Is there one ?? In other words, ISP A buys ISP B. ISP B has some pre-ARIN allocated IP space (swamps from Internic, etc etc). When ISP A goes to modify these network objects in the ARIN DB, is there going to be a problem ?? Will ARIN say they have to be returned ?? Feel free to contact me off list if you feel this is not relevant to said list. TIA -------------------------------------------------- Brandon Applegate, CCNA : Network Administrator http://www.one.net : brandon(a)one.net --------------------------------------------------

4 3

more internic fun, and an idea
by melinda b. thompson 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

have been now waiting since july 17 for a simple NS change on a domain. this is getting a bit ridiculous. i suggest that internic should prorate the yearly charge and have to subtract the prorated days that it takes them to process change orders from the yearly bill for the domain. each single one would be just a small ammount. however, with as many domains that have been held up in "manual processing" or whatever, it could add up. opinions? melinda b thompson ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You have moved your mouse, Windows must be restarted for the changes to take effect. ima(a)badhabit.org habit(a)sexualgoddess.com habit(a)dal.net habit(a)galaxynet.org ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

5 5

ATTWS.com No DNS entry
by Dan Bustillos - Datalink Computer Services 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

Uh..... Did internic screw up again? ATTWS.com has no dns entry. Even in A.Root-servers.net . Any ideas? <whois://attws.com> Access to Network Solutions' WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in NSI's registrar database. The data in this record is provided by NSI for informational purposes only, and NSI does not guarantee its accuracy. Compilation, repackaging, dissemination, or other use of the WHOIS database in its entirety, or a substantial portion thereof, is not allowed without NSI's prior written permission. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. All rights reserved. Registrant: AT&T Wireless Services (ATTWS-DOM) 3755 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell, WA 98021 US Domain Name: ATTWS.COM Administrative Contact: Canzler, Eric (EC4939) eric.canzler(a)ATTWS.COM (425)580-4316 (FAX) (425)580-2626 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: National Data Networks - Operations (ENS-ORG) ensg(a)ATTWS.COM (888) 900-3674 Fax- (206) 580-2626 Billing Contact: Regimbal, Kevin (KR473) regimbal(a)SEATTLEU.EDU (206)296-5563 (FAX) (206)296-5561 Record last updated on 02-Aug-99. Record created on 22-Apr-95. Database last updated on 3-Aug-99 04:32:33 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: REDDNS.ATTWS.COM 155.176.34.100 NS1.ACCESSONE.COM 209.43.181.38 NS2.ACCESSONE.COM 198.68.188.9

5 4

Re: more internic fun, and an idea
by Mark Borchers 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

Michael Shields wrote: > > And at the time, there was continuous and IMHO justified complaining > that they hadn't automated the process to make things faster. Well, I can't dispute that "faster is better". However, I'd gladly live with slower domain transactions in exchange for some of the things that were lost with the advent of automated registration: - Checking for the existence of valid SOA records before a delegation was made. - At least some minimal validation that the registrant qualified for the TLD in which they were registering (ORG, EDU, or whatever). Of course, as was pointed out in private email earlier today, in a perfect world, we'd have rapid automatic processing AND enforcement of domain policies by the registry. Would be glad to trade further viewpoints off-list, since this thread is not all that operational.

1 0