- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 5:23 PM -0400 10/8/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >On Oct 8, 2005, at 12:25 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >>That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them). However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought which is guiding policy and legislation in this area, which is probably best represented by last month's House Telecom committee draft: >> >><http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf> [1] >> >>There you go: mandatory ISP registration, interconnection, consumer protection, and more. Maybe these folks were too busy with other stuff to notice the Internet partition happen earlier in the week? >>Oh, wait, I remember now: these folks are only matter when legislating. > >You can't be serious. You're quoting a draft for a house bill as proof that this is rational thought or justified? Wow... You're characterizing me as trying to prove this is rational and justified thought? That's almost as cool as your earlier suggestion that I'm advocating for regulation. I'm not. I know that can be hard to tell unless you read my messages. What I have said that there is *significant* attention to the potential consumer impact of our "non-essential" IP services, and that's not surprising given the historic public policy in this area. I pointed to the bill under draft merely as documentation of this attention and to note that unless there is a radical shift in policy for telecom consumer protections, we are going to see some form of regulation as more voice moves to the Internet. /John

1 0

Sorry to butt in - Google operational
by Eric Germann 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

<OPERATIONALCONTENTFOLLOWS> Sorry for the apolitical commentary that is operational in nature, but ................ If some of your customers complain they can't get to Google ... And you manually configured your bogon filters ... And you haven't updated them in a while .... Google is now serving up from some 72.x.x.x space, FYI. Adjust filters accordingly. We now return you to non-operational content </OPERATIONALCONTENTFOLLOWS> Eric

1 0

RE: Cogent move without renumbering
by Hannigan, Martin 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

> > > > charles_cala(a)yahoo.com (Charles Cala) wrote: > > > Q can an "end user" take non portable ip's with them > > to another service provider? > > What in "non portable" did you not understand? > > Elmar. Court orders from United States Courts to United States business regarding IP addresses issued by United States RIR's? -M<

1 0

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 11:52 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >Sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the point of view that we need to regulate free entry & free exit and throw these basic tenets of our economy out the window to encourage continued poor decision making . I'm not advocating that we need to regulate anything, only pointing out that the historic public policy position discourages service impacts to 3rd parties, and even more so when done without notice. If you carry essential consumer services, then there is already existing policy in this area. >There is no paradise behind that door. And I don't believe regulation should be used to prevent people from making occasionally poor decisions, which in turn will ultimately do nothing more than raise the price floor and create additional barriers of entry in the market. If you don't have those events happen, bad things never get weeded out. There really is nothing but bad news in store for what you propose, because it isn't as simple of a thing to impose regulation and have mostly good things happen. That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them). However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought which is guiding policy and legislation in this area, which is probably best represented by last month's House Telecom committee draft: <http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf> [1] There you go: mandatory ISP registration, interconnection, consumer protection, and more. Maybe these folks were too busy with other stuff to notice the Internet partition happen earlier in the week? Oh, wait, I remember now: these folks are only matter when legislating. /John [1] A readable (only-slightly-biased) summary: <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm860.cfm>

1 0

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 11:00 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >What's your point? Are you seriously suggesting this should be regulated? It doesn't appear necessary at all; industry self-regulation seems to be working just fine here... (one might claim almost too well :-) ) >.. let the customers draw their own consequences and conclusions based on the actions of the companies who serve them. >Thankfully, Internet connectivity is ubiquitous for the most part, and this is hardly the same as essential services (those who consider it that, are fools not to have diversity). Those un-essential Internet services increasingly carry voice services that are considered essential by many consumers, and for whom diversity is not a realistic option. Leaving them completely open to the consequences of service provider actions would be quite an innovative curve in public policy. /John

1 0

Re: Level 3's side of the story
by John Curran 08 Oct '05

08 Oct '05

At 10:15 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >> >>In any industry, it only takes a handful of consumers impacted through no fault of their own to generate significant political & regulatory attention. Reasonable-sounding explanations cannot stand if they imply that thousands of innocent parties can be impacted without notice. > >Nonsense. That only matters when somebody is looking for an opportunity to legislate. You're right: administrators, regulators, and representatives are completely helpless except when making laws, and the reconnection of services (ref: "Because Internet users, apparently without notice from Cogent and through no fault of their own, have been impacted, Level 3 has, effective immediately, re-established a free connection to Cogent.") can just as easily be attributed to uncanny judgement on Level 3's part as any other explanation. /John

1 0

RE: Cogent move without renumbering
by Hannigan, Martin 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

> > Is it reasonable to think that numerous /24's from L3's IP > space could be > reassigned elsewhere without causing significant trouble for > L3 and others? Even > if it could work, what would be the justification for taking > L3's property? Depending upon the circumstance, yes: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg01880.html

4 3

Bell South backbone contact
by Peering 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

Before someone sends me the puck.nether.net site URL, I tried that already. No one responds to the email addresses listed there or in the ARIN AS records (and half of them bounced anyway). The person I talked to in the NOC was very nice and told me she would try to find someone to help me, but she hasn't gotten back to me either. I'm showing that Bell South is advertising a /24 of ours incorrectly from AS 6198 via AS 6389 (both appearing to be managed by bellsouth.net) Does anyone know a live body at Bell South that can help me get this resolved? Thanks, Diane Turley Sr. Network Engineer Xspedius Communications Co. 636-625-7178

1 0

RE: Cogent move without renumbering
by Hannigan, Martin 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

> > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > >> Is it reasonable to think that numerous /24's from L3's IP > >> space could be > >> reassigned elsewhere without causing significant trouble for > >> L3 and others? Even > >> if it could work, what would be the justification for taking > >> L3's property? > > > > Depending upon the circumstance, yes: > > > > http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg01880.html > > I think that is not entirely correct comparison. Original > poster did not > not say that the current L3 customers would entirely leave > L3, but that > he asked if they could do something to get other type of > connectivity if > they have L3 ip space. > > The answer is that if they have /24 or longer and have router > then they > can turn on BGP and announce that /24 both to L3 and to > another ISP and > in this way have full connectivity. This would not be an > attempt to take > ip ip space away from L3. But this is not something they > could do within > couple days if they do not run BGP and do not have ASN (takes > at least a > week to get it from ARIN). For a minute there, I thought you might be right since I'm browsing for clue factor and may have missed something, but, it appears you are inaccurate in this as the poster did say: --QUOTE "If a single-homed network moves from L3 to Cogent, how would they benefit? Would they not still be cut off from a significant percentage of the Internet? Is it reasonable to think that numerous /24's from L3's IP space could be reassigned elsewhere without causing significant trouble for L3 and others? Even if it could work, what would be the justification for taking L3's property?" --END QUOTE That quote is asking if someone can take Level(3)'s PA space assigned with them to another providers network. The answer is yes, it's possible. IANAL

1 0

Some Cogent/L3 peering restored
by Chris Stone 07 Oct '05

07 Oct '05

It's actually true: traceroute to www.level3.com (209.245.19.42), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 ai-core.axint.net (38.116.133.1) 1.203 ms 0.535 ms 0.745 ms 2 f0-2.na01.b009854-0.den01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.112.6.145) 0.961 ms 0.805 ms 0.947 ms 3 g0-3.core01.den01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.10.217) 1.098 ms 1.288 ms 1.042 ms 4 p5-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.30) 12.052 ms 11.704 ms 11.893 ms 5 p5-0.core02.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.37) 21.607 ms 20.979 ms 21.127 ms 6 p10-0.core01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.138) 21.740 ms 21.431 ms 21.538 ms 7 so-3-2-0.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.127.13) 21.603 ms 21.455 ms 21.512 ms 8 so-0-0-0.bbr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.96.117) 21.755 ms 21.603 ms 21.442 ms 9 ae-0-0.bbr2.Denver1.Level3.net (64.159.1.114) 35.294 ms 35.330 ms as-0-0.bbr1.Denver1.Level3.net (209.247.11.21) 35.305 ms 10 4.68.113.54 (4.68.113.54) 35.494 ms so-6-0.hsa1.Denver1.Level3.net (4.68.112.154) 35.527 ms 35.272 ms 11 se3-0.public1.Broomfield1.Level3.net (209.245.16.18) 36.426 ms 36.736 ms 36.567 ms 12 se3-0.public1.Broomfield1.Level3.net (209.245.16.18) 36.775 ms !X * *

1 0