- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: XO
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote: > Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys? Admin Name........... LEFRANC ANTOINE Admin Email.......... antoine.lefranc(a)remy-cointreau.com Admin Phone.......... 33 5 45 35 76 30 Admin Fax............ 33 5 45 35 76 97 Tech Name............ Etienne Bernard Tech Email........... eb(a)gifrance.com Tech Phone........... 01 41 22 14 93 Tech Fax............. 01 46 84 00 18 Frank Rizzo

1 0

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Itsannoying and no one can see your message. Dang, this subject is long.
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote: > Good ol Frank, we can always count on you! Get a job, man. I'm employed, but looking. I sent a resume to Booz Allen Hamilton last week for the Senior Consultant position in NoVA. Do me a favor and talk to HR and put in a good word for me. Frank

1 0

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote: > I remember pegasus! That was ages ago. How did you install it, did it come on 8mm tape? Or did you download it from the local WaReZ BBS? > enough ot Jane, have you EVER posted anything on-topic? Frank Rizzo

2 1

Re: Windows Media/RealPlayer monitoring?
by cw 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:50:13 -0400, Matt Rowley wrote: >>Is there anyone out there who is using, or has implemented a >>successful monitoring system for Windows Media Server and/or Real >>Server? If so, then how did you go about it? > >Have a tool like big brother point to the rtsp and mms ports on the >server and make sure it can connect? >Open up the real server admin page in your java-capable browser of >choice and click on monitor? >PCanywhere/vnc into the windows box and click on Windows Media >Performance from the Admin Tools section of the start menu? Out of those options I think Big Brother probably comes closest and it was on the checklist to see if it is useable. I should probably have been more specific. What we are looking for is an automated checking system that can send a text message if a problem is found. It doesn't have to be all in one as I believe we currently have an email-sms gateway available to us.

2 1

RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by David Sinn 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive content? 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. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Then add in the latest from Congress with regard to streaming audio over the net, and you have a source payment issue making you not want to go down the multicast path. (Leaving Congress living up to their name as being opposite of progress.) Multicast is a great technology. It just is stuck looking for a problem to solve that doesn't create even more problems. David -----Original Message----- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:52 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the > savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure, > break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on. Speaking from a provider who used to run multicast, and now doesn't: Customers don't want it. I can count our customer requests for multicast on both hands for the last two years. Of those, only one thought it was important, the rest were just playing with it. In fact, pretty much the only place we see it anymore is on RFP's from educational groups. My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast. So that leaves Cable Companies (good luck for them to do something intelligent) or DSL providers (perhaps they might) to make it happen. If a few million end users could just 'get it', then people running streaming services would be beating on backbone providers to carry it around. There is also a payment problem. If a unicast bit enters your network, you can be assured it takes one path to the destination. When a multicast bit enters your network, it could take one path, or it could take 50 paths through your network. The latter does cost the ISP more. This also makes peering an issue, as many people use ratio. If there was a significant amount of multicast traffic, hosting ISP's would send end-user ISP's one small stream that they would then replicate. That would pretty much make the ratio completely opposite of what it is today, due to unicast streaming. I'll be the first to jump on the multicast bandwagon, but I don't work for an eyeball provider. The first adopters need to be DSL and cable modem providers, to the end user, on by default. Then we can go somewhere. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

10 10

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

Jason Legate wrote: > Grow up troy. Who's this Troy guy you're telling to grow up? I've seen a couple different ones post here over the years. Is it possible you've lost your glasses again? www.lenscrafters.com tells me there's a store on 254-A Sunvalley Mall in Concord. If you want a discount, tell them you know Sol Rosenberg. Or send me a DHL, UPS, or FedEx account number and I'll send you the cupon I saw in this week's circulars. Frank

1 0

Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Leo Bicknell 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:33:51PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote: > One of your clients is a mcast sender. You bill him/her for the traffic > on their port. > > Five of your clients are mcast receivers. You bill them for the traffic > on their respective ports. > > Worst(best?) case scenerio: The sender and the 5 receivers are all on > your network. You get to bill all six of them. Works fine. > If the sender is outside of your network and you have to deliver the mcast > to 5 different points on your network to your 5 mcast receiver clients, > you only see the mcast enter your network ONE TIME. You STILL get to bill > your 5 mcast receiver clients for the traffic on their ports and you only > have to INGRESS one copy of it to distribute to your 5 clients. Works fine. > So, what is the problem? You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic on your network, and billed your client once. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

2 1

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 10 Jul '02

10 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 10 Jul '02

10 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