July 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Dave Hughes says raspberries to qwest Fwd: RE: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to Qwest
by Gordon Cook 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

>From: "Dave Hughes" <dave(a)oldcolo.com> >To: "'Gordon Cook'" <cook(a)cookreport.com> >Subject: RE: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: >Kudos to Qwest >Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:52:43 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Importance: Normal > >Put this in the nanog list. > >Raspberries to Qwest > >And Qwest has been unable to disconnect a T-1 local loop to me for 6 >months and is still trying to bill us - for no service.... > >Dave Hughes >dave(a)oldcolo.com > Cook: I have heard the full story on the phone from Dave. It is remarkable. many hours spent trying to meticulously jump through every qwest hoop - all to no avail. a loose translation from memory is -- keep your customer and his imaginary revenue on the books forever by making sure that part of your operation can never determine that he has left. revenue gaining side becomes responsive - just black hole anything that looses revenue >-----Original Message----- >From: Gordon Cook [mailto:cook@cookreport.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:28 PM >To: dave(a)oldcolo.com >Subject: you see you simply are not a big enough customer Fwd: Kudos to >Qwest > >>Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing(a)trapdoor.merit.edu >>Delivered-To: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu >>Delivered-To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>From: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono(a)vinny.org> >>To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> >>Subject: Kudos to Qwest >>Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:00:58 -0400 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>X-Priority: 3 >>Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >>Precedence: bulk >>X-Loop: nanog >> >> >>We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that >they >>just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours >from >>time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. > >-- > -- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================

1 0

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Rizzo Frank 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Jason Legate wrote: > The payload it tries to dump is located below Jason, my mailer's complaining your message is too short. Could you please re-submit it, padding it with some more uuencoded content (a certain jpg comes to mind)? Frank Rizzo

2 1

Kudos to Qwest
by Vincent J. Bono 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours from time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.

5 5

where is the bandwidth?
by Ralph Doncaster 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

I'm looking for public stats on inter-city IP bandwidth in North America. i.e. how many Gbps of traffic is there in/out of cities. I've looked around caida's site and couldn't find anything there. Telegeography claims to have this kind of information, but they want a lot of money for it, and who knows how accurate their data is. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com

1 0

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Jason Legate 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Not having seen a copy of the other worm, I wouldn't know. Regardless, would you want a worm, even a weak and ineffective one on your boxes? -j On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:29:41PM -0700, Patrick Thomas wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:29:41 -0700 (PDT) > From: Patrick Thomas <root(a)utility.clubscholarship.com> > To: Jason Legate <jlegate(a)alienchick.com> > Cc: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose > > > Is this a new apache worm, or the one that was circulating a week or so > ago that was described as weak and ineffective ? > > thanks. > ---end quoted text--- -- Jason Legate (W6SN) Sr. Net/Sys Admin, eVine, Inc. work- jlegate(a)evine.com | home- jlegate(a)alienchick.com Key Fingerprint: 4FB4 2228 DE63 3BBA 7B72 40DD 13D5 2547 821D 2909

1 0

ot: hardware
by Scott Granados 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Sorry to be a little off topic but what's the best place to shop for used hardware these days. Is isp-equipment of any value any more or is ebay better:). Scott

1 0

RE: Kudos to Qwest
by Steve.Smith＠sarcom.com 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Aint that the truth. -----Original Message----- From: Vincent J. Bono [mailto:vbono@vinny.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:33 PM To: Kyle C. Bacon Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Kudos to Qwest That never stopped Worldcom from billing. Installation? We don't need no stinking Installation! :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kyle C. Bacon" <kbacon(a)fnsi.net> To: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono(a)vinny.org> Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Kudos to Qwest > Maybe some of the telco's are finally learning that the quicker you can > install, the sooner you can bill. :) > > K > > > > > "Vincent J. > Bono" To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > <vbono@vinny. cc: > org> Subject: Kudos to Qwest > Sent by: > owner-nanog@m > erit.edu > > > 07/09/2002 > 04:00 PM > > > > > > > > We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they > just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours > from > time of order. This included cross connects at Level3. > > > > >

1 0

RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Alexander, Nathan M 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

I guess I'll toss in my two cents here. I see this all as a weird kind of catch-22 on how multicast would ever become viable. To get multicast going, people have to convince their ISPs that multicast is a good idea. Now, the large businesses that provide the content have done a decent job of getting the ISPs to support (at least nominally) multicast. The problem comes in at the content consumer level (dial, DSL etc). To get these providers to support multicast, their users will probably have to complain to them and convince them it's worth their while. The majority of users will not make this effort. Why should they? The only benefit they get from multicast is if they run a LAN (not so unlikely) and have multiple listeners for the same multicast stream (much less likely). So, for most consumers, there is no direct benefit for multicast. Yes, if consumers where just a little more far sighted, the eventual cost savings multicast would provide might be an incentive. Then again, I think most consumers are jaded enough to think that they'd never see the savings anyway, and the content provider would just pocket the money (or at least I am). <snip a discussion of free market economics here> If multicast is ever to become viable, either there will have to be a grass roots campaign for it from all the dsl/cable/dial up users (again, not likely as they have no real motivation), or several large content providers go to the dsl/cable/dial up providers and make a push for them to enable multicast or else. -Nate

1 0

Readiness for IPV6
by Phil Rosenthal 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support IPV6 (I could be wrong). While they probably aren't the most popular routers, they are very popular, and im sure plenty of cisco's smaller routers don't support it either. How ready is the 'net to transit to IPV6 in the future? Should everyone be factoring in replacing big routers with IPV6 being the only reason? Just curious on others' opinions on this. --Phil

7 8

Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Joe St Sauver 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Hi, >There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive >content? At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n. My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies starts IP multicasting free full length "cable cut" R-rated adult films in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for IP multicast support. Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will also need to be something innocuous, like the "Field Hockey Channel" or the "Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel" so that people will be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal interest when calling to request IP multicast support: "Um, hi, my friends who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something to your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast. I'm, uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to watch, uh, field hockey on my PC." >Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their >billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given >moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things >that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their >advertisers for. That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this sort of thing would. >There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could >get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example that comes to mind. Regards, Joe

1 0