April 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

The latest nasty tactics from NSI
by Universal Rundle 20 Apr '00

20 Apr '00

OK, speaking on basis of confidentiality. NSI issued a new Premier Partner contract and is pressuring everyone involved to sign, even months ahead of the expiration date of their previous contract. The three main objectionables for the new contract are 1) the partner is forbidden from saying anything "disparaging" about NSI or its services, and 2) the partner is forbidden from using any alternate registrar for more than 5% of its monthly registrations, and 3) the partner guarantees to NSI that the domain will be paid for, and if it's not, the partner has to pay the $6 registry fee, plus a $12.50 "processing fee". So partners are on the hook for how reliable their customers are, with a penalty fee no less. The contract itself includes a paragraph stating that the contents of the contract must remain confidential, but if you haven't signed the contract, I suppose that's not enforceable... Did I mention that NSI now sells the WHOIS records for new registrations as a subscription service? For example, every new domain registered at NSI registrar, which doesn't have the bulk optout option selected on the new template 6.0, will have its information sent to subscribers who pay $10,000 for the privilege. So expect to get telemarketed to promptly, by a company such as Verio. This is BAD.... Very BAD! Universal Rundle ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

3 2

Re: Buy tier 1 peering for only $15 million
by Jeff Barrows 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

...such relationships are not always 'transferrable,' and one should evaluate any existing contractual agreements regarding said relationships before making such assumptions. - jsb -- Jeff Barrows Director, Internetwork Engineering UUNET, an MCI-Worldcom Company > Date: 19 Apr 2000 18:25:37 -0700 > From: Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Buy tier 1 peering for only $15 million > > > AGIS is going on the auction block. NextLink paid over a billion dollars > for a provider with essentially full peering with the major backbones, now > you too can buy peering agreements from a one-time "tier 1" provider. > According to InteractiveWeek the high bid is only US$15 million. > > http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2552561,00.html > > Then again, maybe AGIS's anti-peering policies of a few years ago make > them a less attractive purchase. > > > >

1 0

Re: Peering Table Question
by Sean Donelan 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

On Wed, 19 April 2000, Jeff Barrows wrote: > We sign and comply with mutual non-disclosure agreements > that inhibit my ability to share that information with you. > > This is not a technical issue. Technically, even parties to a NDA can agree with each other to release information. In some cases, it is as simple as asking the other party. And one party can always release the other party. For example UUNET could tell its peers they are free to reveal they peer with UUNET. It is a choice some companies make, not as you point out a technical requirement. Companies could, such as Bell Atlantic does, post all their interconnection details on their web site. > I look forward to viewing your backhoe reports. I look forward to the day carriers provide similar detail to all their customers. Although MCI may consider fiber cuts "confidential" information, I assure you, MCI's customers and competitors know about them. I'm not sure how a big hole in a public street with fiber sticking out of it is confidential. Nevertheless, since I've been told by several people at MCI they aren't allowed to talk to me, sometimes I have to infer who is the responsible party. I agree the information isn't as accurate as it would be if MCI would directly provide details, but it is the best information available to me. Oh, maybe MCI signed an mutual NDA with the backhoe operator so that's why they can't comment? As I've told the MCI folks before, I'm always happy to contact whomever they designate, and make corrections when I get it wrong. But I can't do either if they decline to speak with me. MCI/Worldcom is the only carrier with employees who have told me they specifically aren't allowed to talk to me. In any case, not talking won't uncut the fiber.

1 0

Re: Re: Peering Table Question
by Shawn McMahon 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

Unless, of course, the DoJ believes one is trying to be sneaky and get around such concerns. Say, because one made public statements insinuating it. :-) On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Randy Bush wrote: > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:19:43 -0700 > To: Alex Rubenstein <alex(a)nac.net> > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Subject: Re: Peering Table Question > > > sometimes paid pseudo-peering is nice because, as the payee is really a > customer, one does not have to be as formal about consistent application > of peering qualifications as one does for true peering, when one has to > presume that some day one will be explaining equitable treatment to the > doj, ec, ...

1 0

Re: Source of Denial of Service Attacks - Canada?
by Michael Shields 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

The New York Times now says the arrest in Canada (of a 15-year-old suspect) relates to the cnn.com attack only. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/04/biztech/articles/19hack.html -- Shields.

1 0

Re: Peering Table Question
by Sean Donelan 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

On Wed, 19 April 2000, Jeff Barrows wrote: > One shouldn't necessarily believe any third-party web > pages, documents, articles, or verbal statements about > which networks any given network is peered with. > > Though I have seen many articles, web pages, and other > tables that detail which networks are 'peering,' I > have never seen an accurate representation of this > type of data from a third party. Then I hope you would step forward and show us the best practice for making accurate information available about which networks any given network peers with starting with yours. I look forward to viewing the information about your network peering on your website or IRR or whatever method you decide to use.

1 0

Peering Table Question
by Jeff Lentz 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

I apologize if this question is not relevant to your discussions, but Susan Harris, e-mail address srh(a)merit.edu, suggested that I ask it here... The peering table that appears on the London Internet Exchange web site www.linx.net/peering.html...... is this something that can be generated for different peering locations? Also with this information would it be possible to create a table that lists companies and the cities that they are peering in? Any insight would be of great help to me thank you. Once again any advice on how or where to obtain this info would be of great benefit to me. Thanks Jeff Lentz

5 5

an item of interest?
by Bill Manning 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

sorry for the broad cross-posting... While waiting for the 2q2000 inverse tree audit to finish, <http://www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-audit.html> I crunched some numbers on the previous two quarters data. This is only for servers in the in-addr.arpa tree that responded. Servers w/ modified replies to the version query are not included but they are less than a single percent. <http://www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-versions.html> (Shouts to you folks w/ back level code... tis better to upgrade than not. And hiding your version is no protection.) Comments appreciated. --bill

1 0

Source of Denial of Service Attacks - Canada?
by Sean Donelan 19 Apr '00

19 Apr '00

>From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Montreal April 18th - On Monday, in Montreal, charges were laid against a person stemming from cyber-attacks that were launched in the beginning of the month of February 2000 in the United States against many internet electronic commerce sites, namely CNN, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon.com, Excite and Etrade. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/frames/rcmp-grc1.htm

1 0

UBR at MAE-East ATM, anyone?
by Alex Rubenstein 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

I've been talking to the WCom MAE folk, and the explained to me that the the VC's between beers are built as ABR, with PCR being twice SCR. Also, the port you lease from them has a non-oversubscription policy, i.e., the sum of all SCR's combined cannot be more than port speed. >From what I can tell, PBNap and Ameritech both build the VC's as UBR, with no over-allocation protection. In my travels of contacting other providers for peer information, I have run across about 5 (albeit out of about 60 who responded) that said they couldn't turn up new VC's across MAE-East ATM, because they have reached thier subscription allocation, even though thier port is not nearly full. A few had even expressed they wish that it was the ameritech-like UBR model. One person who I spoke to at WCom had said that maybe someday they would allow UBR PVCs, but there was no timeline. What are other people's thoughts on this?

5 8