- Test - lists.nanog.org

[Fwd: Message rejected by mailing list - null@intraware.com]
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

All: It was brought to my knowledge that my posting on "Discount on DSL wholesale pricing" appeared three times. I apologize for the incident. However, I would like to bring to your attention that it was induced by a mail that was returned every time I tried to post. Forwarded is the content of the Email with the subject Message rejected by mailing list - null(a)intraware.com. I do not know, if this is a software bug at some place or some thing that is deliberately inducing sort of Denial of Service attacks. If some one has experienced the same, may be it is worth addressing it. Regards, Srihari Varada

1 0

Discount on DSL wholesale pricing
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Hello: How does the following News Release from DPUC of CT affects the opinion of CLECs? Any comments .... Regards, Srihari Varada ************ State of Connecticut Contact: Beryl Lyons (860) 827-2670 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL NEWS RELEASE March 28, 2002 DPUC Orders SNET's Unregulated Telecommunications Affiliate To File Tariffs and Use Same Wholesale Discount Protocol As Regulated Company In a Decision rendered today, the Department of Public Utility Control ordered SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), a Connecticut affiliate of the Southern New England Telephone Company, to provide DSL transport service (high-speed data lines) at a 25.4% discount to all resellers of that service. With today's Decision, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to impose this resale requirement on an unregulated affiliate of an incumbent telephone company offering service within their jurisdictional boundaries. ASI was created as a result of the Southern New England Telephone Company's (SNET's) parent, SBC Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Ameritech Corp. The 25.4% discount rate was established by the Department in a Decision in 1999 to apply to SNET's wholesale service offered to resellers operating in Connecticut. Today's Decision is significant because it finds that SNET cannot avoid its resale obligations even when its separate affiliates resell services to other telecommunications providers. According to Commissioner Jack R. Goldberg, "this Decision continues to place Connecticut in the forefront of meeting the intent of Congress and the state legislature in establishing and promoting competition in the telecommunications industry." **********

1 0

Re: de-peering and peering
by Shashi Kumar 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Steve: Thanks for the reply. But when doing a traffic engineering i have the following problem. Consider the scenario. Let us say Network A has a peering Agreement with Network B. Now let us say Network X wants to reach Network B. X and B do not have a peering agreement. Can Network A use the peering Link between A nd B to route the traffic of network X. What are the mechanisms in place in B's network to detect that Network A is transiting the data( in this case network B looser) from Network X? Basically what I am trying to arrive at is: Suppose the peering arrangement between A and B were to be for data originating from A and B only(and not transited). Can A or B misuse the peering agreement by masquerading transit data as if its originating from its own n/w? thx, shashi Steve Naslund wrote: > Peering arrangements are when networks make connections between each other. > Usually networks of > equal size (traffic wise) will try to peer with each other. Although this > may not be technically correct here > are the basics. > > Peering - connections between networks that our cooperative, there is no > cost other than the physical > connection itself. That cost might be shared or the smaller network may pay > for the physical connection. > Carries traffic that terminates on one of the two networks. i.e. you can't > go through the peering connection > you have with my network to get to another network. Consider peering > connections to be express routes between > two networks. You generally can get this type of connection if you are a > service provider or public institution. > It is harder to get if you are a private entity unless you can show a > benefit for me in peering with you. In > other words, I would like the traffic flow to be as symmetric as possible or > improve service for an important > customer. > > Transit - connections between networks that I pay for an allow me to get to > anything on the Internet. These > are generally very expensive but allow you to reach anyone, anywhere. > Consider transit connections to be the > superhighway with exits to everywhere but with a lot of traffic. Anyone who > buys service from an upstream > provider has a transit connection although they usually refer to full BGP > sessions. > > Now you can see that if I am paying for a transit connection through say > UUnet and I have a ton of traffic going > to say Exodus, it is in my best interest to try to establish a peering > agreement with Exodus so that I don't have > to use my expensive bandwidth from UUnet. I can also get a more direct > route to where my customers want to go and > avoid congestion. > > Peering and de-peering have a huge impact on traffic engineering because > lack of peering means that most traffic > is being carried by the biggest transit providers like UUnet and Cable & > Wireless. Peering makes the Internet > more redundant and reliable and evens out the loads better. Traffic > engineering is all about peering and which > paths are preferred over others. I your only connections are transit then > there are not many options for > traffic engineering. > > Steve > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of >>Shashi Kumar >>Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:36 PM >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: de-peering and peering >> >> >>Dear List: >> >> Sorry for a naive question. Could some one on the list explain what is >>peering and de-peering ? and how peering and de-peering influence >>traffic engineering?. ( data traffic or otherwise..) >> >>thanks in advance, >>shashi >> >> >> > >

4 3

Discounts on DSL line wholesale pricing
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Hello: How does the following News Release from DPUC of CT affects the opinion of CLECs? Any comments .... Regards, Srihari Varada ************ State of Connecticut Contact: Beryl Lyons (860) 827-2670 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL NEWS RELEASE March 28, 2002 DPUC Orders SNET's Unregulated Telecommunications Affiliate To File Tariffs and Use Same Wholesale Discount Protocol As Regulated Company In a Decision rendered today, the Department of Public Utility Control ordered SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), a Connecticut affiliate of the Southern New England Telephone Company, to provide DSL transport service (high-speed data lines) at a 25.4% discount to all resellers of that service. With today's Decision, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to impose this resale requirement on an unregulated affiliate of an incumbent telephone company offering service within their jurisdictional boundaries. ASI was created as a result of the Southern New England Telephone Company's (SNET's) parent, SBC Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Ameritech Corp. The 25.4% discount rate was established by the Department in a Decision in 1999 to apply to SNET's wholesale service offered to resellers operating in Connecticut. Today's Decision is significant because it finds that SNET cannot avoid its resale obligations even when its separate affiliates resell services to other telecommunications providers. According to Commissioner Jack R. Goldberg, "this Decision continues to place Connecticut in the forefront of meeting the intent of Congress and the state legislature in establishing and promoting competition in the telecommunications industry." **********

2 1

FW: de-peering and peering
by Steve Naslund 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Sorry, sent this privately. Maybe others are interested. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Steve Naslund [mailto:snaslund@interaccess.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:36 PM To: Shashi Kumar Subject: RE: de-peering and peering Peering arrangements are when networks make connections between each other. Usually networks of equal size (traffic wise) will try to peer with each other. Although this may not be technically correct here are the basics. Peering - connections between networks that our cooperative, there is no cost other than the physical connection itself. That cost might be shared or the smaller network may pay for the physical connection. Carries traffic that terminates on one of the two networks. i.e. you can't go through the peering connection you have with my network to get to another network. Consider peering connections to be express routes between two networks. You generally can get this type of connection if you are a service provider or public institution. It is harder to get if you are a private entity unless you can show a benefit for me in peering with you. In other words, I would like the traffic flow to be as symmetric as possible or improve service for an important customer. Transit - connections between networks that I pay for an allow me to get to anything on the Internet. These are generally very expensive but allow you to reach anyone, anywhere. Consider transit connections to be the superhighway with exits to everywhere but with a lot of traffic. Anyone who buys service from an upstream provider has a transit connection although they usually refer to full BGP sessions. Now you can see that if I am paying for a transit connection through say UUnet and I have a ton of traffic going to say Exodus, it is in my best interest to try to establish a peering agreement with Exodus so that I don't have to use my expensive bandwidth from UUnet. I can also get a more direct route to where my customers want to go and avoid congestion. Peering and de-peering have a huge impact on traffic engineering because lack of peering means that most traffic is being carried by the biggest transit providers like UUnet and Cable & Wireless. Peering makes the Internet more redundant and reliable and evens out the loads better. Traffic engineering is all about peering and which paths are preferred over others. I your only connections are transit then there are not many options for traffic engineering. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Shashi Kumar > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:36 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: de-peering and peering > > > Dear List: > > Sorry for a naive question. Could some one on the list explain what is > peering and de-peering ? and how peering and de-peering influence > traffic engineering?. ( data traffic or otherwise..) > > thanks in advance, > shashi > >

1 0

de-peering and peering
by Shashi Kumar 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Dear List: Sorry for a naive question. Could some one on the list explain what is peering and de-peering ? and how peering and de-peering influence traffic engineering?. ( data traffic or otherwise..) thanks in advance, shashi

1 0

Discounts on DSL wholesale pricing
by srihari varada 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Hello: How does the following News Release from DPUC of CT affects the opinion of CLECs? Any comments .... Regards, Srihari Varada ************ State of Connecticut Contact: Beryl Lyons (860) 827-2670 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL NEWS RELEASE March 28, 2002 DPUC Orders SNET's Unregulated Telecommunications Affiliate To File Tariffs and Use Same Wholesale Discount Protocol As Regulated Company In a Decision rendered today, the Department of Public Utility Control ordered SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), a Connecticut affiliate of the Southern New England Telephone Company, to provide DSL transport service (high-speed data lines) at a 25.4% discount to all resellers of that service. With today's Decision, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to impose this resale requirement on an unregulated affiliate of an incumbent telephone company offering service within their jurisdictional boundaries. ASI was created as a result of the Southern New England Telephone Company's (SNET's) parent, SBC Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Ameritech Corp. The 25.4% discount rate was established by the Department in a Decision in 1999 to apply to SNET's wholesale service offered to resellers operating in Connecticut. Today's Decision is significant because it finds that SNET cannot avoid its resale obligations even when its separate affiliates resell services to other telecommunications providers. According to Commissioner Jack R. Goldberg, "this Decision continues to place Connecticut in the forefront of meeting the intent of Congress and the state legislature in establishing and promoting competition in the telecommunications industry." **********

1 0

Product Evaluations and Comments
by Don Lundquist 02 Apr '02

02 Apr '02

Not sure if I am following protocol for this list, but I was hoping to get constructive comments to product eval comparisons between Riverstone & Cisco. If anyone has performed evals between these two vendor products I would welcome that info off-list... Regards, Don Lundquist don.lundquist(a)peak-10.com (704)264-1060

1 0

Latest version of Panoptis DoS detection S/W is out
by Constantinos A. Kotsokalis 01 Apr '02

01 Apr '02

Hello all, today I released the latest version of Panoptis, a GPL'd software to detect DoS/DDoS attacks. This release (beta-5) fixes a serious bug which caused the number of packets and octets to grow huge after a few days of using the software. I think this should be the last show-stopper in it. The software is available at: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/panoptis/panoptis-0.1b5.tar.gz Comments and suggestions are always welcome! I would also like to thank people that provided feedback and suggestions after the previous (b4) release. Best, Costas -- Constantinos A. Kotsokalis || ckotso(a)grnet.gr Greek Research and Technology Network Tel: +30 10 7474243 || Fax: +30 10 7474490

1 0

pgp key signing at toronto?
by Douglas F. Calvert 01 Apr '02

01 Apr '02

Hello, Are the pgp key signings a regular feature of nanog meetings now? And if so can I come up for the signing in toronto if I am not going to attend the conference? Thanks.. BTW Thanks to everyone who helped me with the port usage statistics... -- +---------------+-----------------------------------+ |Douglas Calvert| http://anize.org/dfc | | dfc(a)anize.org | http://imissjerry.org | +---------------+-----------------------------------+ | If you use envelopes, why not use encryption? | | http://anize.org/dfc/dfc-keys.asc | | 0817 30D4 82B6 BB8D 5E66 06F6 B796 073D C954 1FB2 | +-------------| http://www.gnupg.org |--------------+

1 0