- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Network automation?
by Greenhagen, Robin 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

http://www.titan-central.com/ These guys pitched to us about 18 months ago. It looked quite nice, but not really priced for Enterprise level money, not Service Provider money. It would probably worth reinvestigating. Robin Greenhagen GSI -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Chapman Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 11:15 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Network automation? What's the state of the art for automated network configuration and management? What systems and tools are available, either freely or commercially? Where are these issues being considered and discussed? I'm not simply talking about network status monitoring systems like HP OpenView, or device configuration monitoring systems like RANCID, although those are certainly useful. Instead, I'm talking about systems that will start from a description of how a network ought to be configured, and then interact with the various devices on that network to make it so; something like cfengine for network devices. Over the last 15 years or so, much of the research in the system administration field has focused on automation. It's now well accepted that a well-run operation doesn't manage 10,000 servers individually, but rather uses tools like cfengine to manage definitions of those servers and then create instances of those servers as needed. In the networking world, though, most of us seem to be still manually configuring (and reconfiguring) every device. Luke A. Kanies does a good job of explaining the logic behind this approach in an article he wrote a few years ago at http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/12/20/sysadmin.html The key benefits that he sees from automation are: 1) Reducing the amount of time a given task requires. 2) Reducing the opportunity for error in a given task. 3) Reducing turnaround time for a given task. 4) Enhancing and perpetuating configuration consistency across multiple systems. 5) Providing a limited kind of process documentation. I concur with him about all of those. I think these benefits (particularly the 4th one, consistency) are critical if your goal is to offer a reliable service (increasing MTBF and decreasing MTTR). So, like I asked at the top, where are we on this? -Brent -- Brent Chapman <Brent(a)GreatCircle.COM> Great Circle Associates, Inc. http://www.greatcircle.com/ +1 650 962 0841

1 0

Network automation?
by Brent Chapman 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

[Apologies to those of you seeing this twice; I'm reposting it without a wayward References: header that inadvertently tracked this into an unrelated discussion, which I suspect many folks may have already suppressed. -Brent] What's the state of the art for automated network configuration and management? What systems and tools are available, either freely or commercially? Where are these issues being considered and discussed? I'm not simply talking about network status monitoring systems like HP OpenView, or device configuration monitoring systems like RANCID, although those are certainly useful. Instead, I'm talking about systems that will start from a description of how a network ought to be configured, and then interact with the various devices on that network to make it so; something like cfengine for network devices. Over the last 15 years or so, much of the research in the system administration field has focused on automation. It's now well accepted that a well-run operation doesn't manage 10,000 servers individually, but rather uses tools like cfengine to manage definitions of those servers and then create instances of those servers as needed. In the networking world, though, most of us seem to be still manually configuring (and reconfiguring) every device. Luke A. Kanies does a good job of explaining the logic behind this approach in an article he wrote a few years ago at http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/12/20/sysadmin.html The key benefits that he sees from automation are: 1) Reducing the amount of time a given task requires. 2) Reducing the opportunity for error in a given task. 3) Reducing turnaround time for a given task. 4) Enhancing and perpetuating configuration consistency across multiple systems. 5) Providing a limited kind of process documentation. I concur with him about all of those. I think these benefits (particularly the 4th one, consistency) are critical if your goal is to offer a reliable service (increasing MTBF and decreasing MTTR). So, like I asked at the top, where are we on this? -Brent -- Brent Chapman <Brent(a)GreatCircle.COM> Great Circle Associates, Inc. http://www.greatcircle.com/ +1 650 962 0841

1 0

Hardware Vendor in NY
by Dan Mahoney, System Admin 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

Hey Guys, I know this is a little off-topic, but would anyone close to the NYC/Long Island area know of somewhere local that would carry 1u-compatible power supplies? I need one on a fairly urgent basis, and I figure with all the infrastructure, someone *has* to have run into this issue before. Or, would anyone know a better list to ask on? Thanks for any help offered. Reply off-list if you think that's better advised. -Dan Mahoney -- unless is a pr0no book he wont even come close to the bandwidth quota -Racer-X, concerning DanMahoney.com's web hits. --------Dan Mahoney-------- Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---------------------------

1 0

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites
by Robert Bonomi 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:32:41 GMT > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > "The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a > bill that would require Internet providers to block > Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also > target e-mail providers and search engines." > > http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598… > <yawn> The statute will be *dead* on on a Federal 1st Amend. challenge, if enacted, -- Q. What has an I.Q. of 200? A. The state legislature. *Collectively*. (*good* sig-monster! :)

1 0

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

This report has been generated at Fri Mar 4 21:44:37 2005 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 25-02-05 152805 104910 26-02-05 152937 104810 27-02-05 152870 104885 28-02-05 152958 104995 01-03-05 153081 105022 02-03-05 152941 105120 03-03-05 153056 105312 04-03-05 153278 105356 AS Summary 18980 Number of ASes in routing system 7746 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1452 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS7018 : ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 90449152 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS721 : DNIC DoD Network Information Center Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 04Mar05 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 153373 105416 47957 31.3% All ASes AS4323 1047 223 824 78.7% TWTC Time Warner Telecom AS18566 773 7 766 99.1% CVAD Covad Communications AS4134 872 206 666 76.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street AS721 1123 567 556 49.5% DNIC DoD Network Information Center AS22773 478 26 452 94.6% CXA Cox Communications Inc. AS7018 1452 1003 449 30.9% ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services AS27364 465 45 420 90.3% ARMC Armstrong Cable Services AS6197 868 462 406 46.8% BNS-14 BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS3602 498 137 361 72.5% SPCA Sprint Canada Inc. AS6478 501 158 343 68.5% ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services AS17676 403 79 324 80.4% JPNIC-JP-ASN-BLOCK Japan Network Information Center AS9929 350 39 311 88.9% CNCNET-CN China Netcom Corp. AS4766 574 281 293 51.0% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom AS1239 924 666 258 27.9% SPRN Sprint AS14654 260 6 254 97.7% WAYPOR-3 Wayport AS9443 378 126 252 66.7% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus Telecommunications AS4355 297 60 237 79.8% ERSD EARTHLINK, INC AS9583 607 374 233 38.4% SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited AS6140 376 145 231 61.4% IMPSA ImpSat AS25844 244 15 229 93.9% SASMFL-2 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP AS6198 457 229 228 49.9% BNS-14 BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS15270 255 35 220 86.3% PDP-14 PaeTec.net -a division of PaeTecCommunications, Inc. AS2386 819 611 208 25.4% ADCS-1 AT&T Data Communications Services AS9304 246 39 207 84.1% HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications AS11456 310 106 204 65.8% NUVOX NuVox Communications, Inc. AS5668 455 261 194 42.6% CIH-12 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. AS6167 266 79 187 70.3% CELLCO Cellco Partnership AS22909 339 152 187 55.2% CMCS Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. AS6147 205 20 185 90.2% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. AS6517 308 123 185 60.1% YIPS Yipes Communications, Inc. Total 16150 6280 9870 61.1% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 24.138.80.0/20 AS11260 AHSICHCL Andara High Speed Internet c/o Halifax Cable Ltd. 24.246.0.0/17 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 24.246.128.0/18 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 64.17.32.0/24 AS5024 BRIDGE-75 BridgeNet, LC 64.17.33.0/24 AS5024 BRIDGE-75 BridgeNet, LC 64.17.37.0/24 AS5024 BRIDGE-75 BridgeNet, LC 64.57.160.0/19 AS3561 SAVVI-3 Savvis 64.92.128.0/19 AS3561 SAVVI-3 Savvis 64.127.0.0/18 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 64.209.192.0/18 AS3561 SAVVI-3 Savvis 192.30.93.0/24 AS17757 HPAUS-AP HP Australia 192.30.94.0/24 AS17757 HPAUS-AP HP Australia 192.30.127.0/24 AS719 ELISA-AS Elisa Oyj 192.40.105.0/24 AS5515 SONERA-GLOBAL-IP Sonera Solution Autonomous System 192.43.230.0/24 AS7575 AARNET-AS-AP Australian Academic and Reasearch Network (AARNet) 192.44.0.0/19 AS702 AS702 MCI EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe 192.44.0.0/24 AS5501 FRAUNHOFER-CLUSTER-BW Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.70.164.0/24 AS11814 IGST Information Gateway Services - Toronto 192.81.182.0/24 AS719 ELISA-AS Elisa Oyj 192.81.183.0/24 AS719 ELISA-AS Elisa Oyj 192.81.184.0/24 AS719 ELISA-AS Elisa Oyj 192.119.135.0/24 AS270 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 192.124.252.0/22 AS680 DFN-IP service G-WiN 192.133.6.0/24 AS4004 GLOBALONE-EQUANT-UK Equant UK & Greece Autonomous System 192.135.50.0/24 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 192.136.53.0/24 AS8346 SONATEL-AS Autonomous System 192.153.144.0/21 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 192.172.0.0/19 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 192.188.208.0/20 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 192.200.100.0/24 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 196.2.95.0/24 AS8668 TELONE-AS TelOne Zimbabwe P/L 198.23.26.0/24 AS4390 BELLAT-7 Bell Atlantic, Inc. 198.97.72.0/21 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 198.97.80.0/20 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 198.97.88.0/24 AS89 NUSC-1 Naval Underwater Systems Center 198.97.240.0/20 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 198.97.247.0/24 AS3475 DEPART-52 Department of the Navy 198.101.4.0/22 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 198.136.32.0/20 AS19329 MCBCC Martin County Board of County Commissioners 198.144.32.0/19 AS3998 CITY CityNet, Inc. 198.160.171.0/24 AS7046 UU UUNET Technologies, Inc. 198.161.87.0/24 AS6539 GTGR GT Group Telecom Services Corp. 198.163.155.0/24 AS684 MRN Manitoba Regional Network 198.167.0.0/16 AS7456 INS-51 Interhop Network SERVICES Inc. 198.167.163.0/24 AS15290 ACCA-2 Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream 198.168.0.0/16 AS701 UU UUNET Technologies, Inc. 198.169.0.0/16 AS803 SASK SaskTel 198.232.133.0/24 AS23075 SKOTOS Skotos Tech, Inc 199.10.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.60.0.0/20 AS271 UBC-3 University of British Columbia 199.96.44.0/23 AS19092 360NE-1 360Networks (USA) Inc. 199.96.46.0/24 AS19092 360NE-1 360Networks (USA) Inc. 199.114.0.0/21 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.128.0/18 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.130.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.132.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.134.0/24 AS3541 DISAUN DISA/UNRRA 199.114.136.0/24 AS27044 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.138.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.140.0/24 AS3544 DISAUN DISA/UNRRA 199.114.142.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.144.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.148.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.150.0/24 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.152.0/24 AS27033 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.154.0/24 AS1733 ADP-41 AF DDN PMO 199.114.156.0/24 AS27034 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.114.160.0/24 AS1733 ADP-41 AF DDN PMO 199.120.32.0/19 AS16582 NXLI NEXTLEVEL INTERNET, INC. 199.121.0.0/16 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.123.0.0/18 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.123.16.0/20 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.123.80.0/21 AS721 DNIC DoD Network Information Center 199.189.32.0/19 AS7332 IQUEST IQuest Internet 199.202.0.0/16 AS701 UU UUNET Technologies, Inc. 201.239.0.0/16 AS22047 VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. 202.72.240.0/20 AS24320 RAILCOM Mongolian Railway Commercial Center Railcom 202.86.252.0/22 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.86.253.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.86.254.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.86.255.0/24 AS9304 HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison Global Communications 202.93.0.0/20 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street 202.164.224.0/19 AS7599 IPXC-AS-AP IP Exchange 203.32.4.0/23 AS7617 TELEONE-HK TeleTeleOne (HK) Limited 203.62.0.0/17 AS7572 AARNET-ACT-RNO Australian Academic and Reasearch Network (AARNet) 203.99.0.0/19 AS17746 ORCONINTERNET-NZ-AP Orcon Internet 203.210.69.0/24 AS17536 PRODIGY-AS-AP Prodidgy Telecommunications 204.154.125.0/24 AS3952 TELLAB-1 TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.154.126.0/24 AS3952 TELLAB-1 TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.154.127.0/24 AS3952 TELLAB-1 TELLABS Operations, Inc. 204.194.110.0/23 AS30653 EXOBI Exobit Networks Inc. 205.150.0.0/15 AS701 UU UUNET Technologies, Inc. 206.108.96.0/19 AS577 BAC-14 Bell Advanced Communications Inc. 206.128.104.0/21 AS11709 VIIN VIRTUAL INTERACTIVE CENTER 206.167.57.0/24 AS376 RISQR-3 Reseau Interordinateurs Scientique Quebecois (RISQ) 206.191.64.0/18 AS15290 ACCA-2 Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETI NuNet Inc 208.138.48.0/20 AS7955 SOURCE-48 SourceNet Corporation 209.27.51.0/24 AS14132 INTERN-582 Internet Gateway Inc. 209.205.69.0/24 AS21578 Universidad autonoma de Bucaramanga 209.205.70.0/24 AS21578 Universidad autonoma de Bucaramanga 209.205.81.0/24 AS15066 SkyNet de Colombia S.A. 209.205.82.0/24 AS15066 SkyNet de Colombia S.A. 209.205.84.0/24 AS15066 SkyNet de Colombia S.A. 209.213.32.0/19 AS10629 INS-52 Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.213.48.0/24 AS10629 INS-52 Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.213.49.0/24 AS10629 INS-52 Inter-Pacific Network Services 209.251.0.0/19 AS11036 SISCOM-1 SISCOM, Inc 216.37.110.0/23 AS4264 CERFN California Education and Research Federation Network 216.96.128.0/18 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services 216.145.156.0/24 AS20304 JIS-32 JVLNET Internet Services 216.145.158.0/24 AS20304 JIS-32 JVLNET Internet Services 216.145.176.0/21 AS20304 JIS-32 JVLNET Internet Services 216.145.177.0/24 AS20304 JIS-32 JVLNET Internet Services 216.145.178.0/24 AS20304 JIS-32 JVLNET Internet Services 216.145.184.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.185.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.186.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.187.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.188.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.189.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.190.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.191.0/24 AS10758 INWAVE INWave Internet, Inc 216.145.200.0/21 AS20304 JIS-32 JVLNET Internet Services 216.171.96.0/20 AS3356 LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org swinog(a)swinog.ch

1 0

Process and Procedure of a NOC
by Anvaj A B 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

Hi I am in the process of preparing a process and procedure documents for a newly setup NOC. Could any one help me by sending sample process and procedure documents / or key domains I need to focus on Best regards, Anvaj

1 0

scanner<->dns
by Vicky Rode 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, Just wondering if there is any way I could use a scanner (I have a home grown script for this) that would go thru the DNS registries from some public source, scan for keywords in the domain name. Anything that is available only to ISP's and perhaps we can dovetail onto that if we cough up some $. Any pointers will be appreciated. regards, /virendra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCJzEJpbZvCIJx1bcRAoIRAKC0JxOAUVuD30jKzrbtElrqWCoYWwCfdXop b5J3TIDs4i2xILgtaYpApZI= =T5GG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days
by Brian (nanog) 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

James [mailto:haesu@towardex.com] wrote: >They are not playing with the core. The result of what they are >doing is dependent on specific topology and level of direction >they are throwing prefixes at. >While I will not dispute your statement, I believe that every >ASN should be responsible of their own and should not trust the >General Internet to not cause harm on their network. If your >router is going to crash b/c of someone advertising an unusual >AS_PATH, I don't view that differently from a box getting owned >because it was running unpatched OS since 1999 without any >firewall rules either. >-J I think most of the concern comes from the fact that this "experiment" is being done on a network that many people rely upon for various reasons, and it's unknown side effects have are in the scope of global financial/communication/emergency crisises. It might not cause any harm, but I'd think you guys could have probably come up with a better test bed than using other people's equipment and networks without permission and risking unforseen disasters. Why wasn't this experiment tested in a lab environment? We don't test new pharmaceuticals directly on humans in the first round of testing, and after they've been proven safe on animals, the tests then go on to compensated volunteers.... Even if this type of experiment fell into compliance with the RFCs, it surely wasn't the intended use of AS-PATHS and should be considered experimental, and therefore tested in a lab setting. The risks imposed by using the global internet routing infrastructure as your testbed far outweigh any benefits your tool might realize. If this "experiment" that you're running causes downtime for someone elses systems, are you willing to pay for the damages? -Brian

1 0

Vonage: Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

CNET News.com is reporting that: "A North Carolina telecommunications company accused of deliberately blocking Internet phone traffic has reached a deal with federal regulators to halt the controversial practice." http://news.com.com/Telco+agrees+to+stop+blocking+VoIP+calls/2100-7352_3-55… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

RE: More on Vonage service disruptions...
by Church, Chuck 03 Mar '05

03 Mar '05

Those are good points. Someone last week mentioned what I thought was a great list of priorities for an ISP: 1. Keep the network running 2. Remove those violating policies 3. Route packets (or something along those lines) A 30/50/90 kbps unicast stream isn't going to affect #1. I don't think any policies involved in #2 would cover a VoIP service either. That should leave #3 as the default for this traffic. I can picture a DDOS where infected Windows machines could send bogus SIP traffic to Vonage servers; in this case temporary blocking might be needed/justified. But until that happens, blocking SIP is just wrong. Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation Team 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Fergie (Paul Ferguson) Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:46 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: More on Vonage service disruptions... advancedIPpipeline is running another article this morning in their series of articles covering the Vonage service disruptions that [allegedly] invlove an ISP "port blocking" SIP connectitity between Vonage's client equipment and Vonage's servers. While there is a bit more decriptive detail in this article involving the nature of the service interruptions, Vonage's CEO, Jeffrey Citron, is trying to make a [in my opinion] weak argument that this type of traffic blocking is akin to censorship. http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/60404589 The silliness of the "censorship" argument aside, an interesting snippet within this article started me thinking abut the "slippery slope" which might ensue if any type of legislation is enacted which would attempt to prohibit an ISP from blocking traffic in an effort to keep it [unwanted traffic] from traversing their network: "'It'd be unfortunate to have to pass a law [against port blocking and other types of interference], but we may have to,' Citron said. Though he said he has previously testified against the need for port-blocking regulation, Citron may now change that tune, especially if more network operators start using port-blocking or other techniques to selectively control Internet traffic." It looks to me like this is going to open up a huge can of worms. On one hand, you have ISP's who own their own infrastructure and have every right to prohibit traffic from traversing their network which does not conform to their AUP, business practices, technical standards, etc., or provide revenue. By the same token, and specifically when it comes to things like VoIP, we have these issues involving PUC's, FCC regulations, "equal access" rights, etc. IANAL (or a policy wonk), and I hope I'm wrong, but it certainly looks like things could get pretty ugly. - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

7 6