- Test - lists.nanog.org

Yipes!....question.
by Los, Ralph 27 May '01

27 May '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, I was approached by a sales rep. from Yipes! Communications today...and he talked a good sales speech. I am requesting information from anyone who has either directly worked with Yipes! (as a network operator) or a customer. 1. Do they really deliver the speeds they promise? 2. What do their peering points look like? (speed/partners/protocols?) 3. How responsive are they to support issues/downtime? I appreciate any feedback, please send off-list as I'm not sure if everyone wants to read info like this or not, use discression. Thanks a bunch, Ralph M. Los Asst. Vice-President, Internet Systems and Security EnvestNet Advisory Corp. rlos(a)envestnet.com (312) 827-3945 (direct) (312) 296-9003 (wireless w/voicemail) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOw0wMXM6eMaR3AeZEQIoSgCfccbeLIkOGx1CDwN9peiiHP/mrSUAn35K pSTIcMbWX9vATc0tj+xdOC4+ =jhO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: PacBell Frame Relay Outage?
by Sean Donelan 26 May '01

26 May '01

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Roy wrote: > The event made at least the radio and probably the print media. The > big uproar was because "many ATMs stopped working". I guess that > puts the Internet in its proper place in the scheme of things. I did notice the number of "subscribers" affected was below the important 30,000 reportable FCC outage level. The last report I saw was fewer than 22,000 customers affected, and I haven't seen any FCC outage report show up on the FCC web site about the PacBell problems. Wells Fargo said on average 5% of its ATM machines are out of service, and they didn't see anything out of the ordinary yesterday. 9-1-1 automatic location identification (ALI) service was also affected, although the calls themselves connected without problems.

1 0

Re: PacBell Frame Relay Outage?
by Sean Donelan 26 May '01

26 May '01

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Dan Paxton wrote: > Is anyone still experiencing FR outages in California thru PacBell/ASI?? > Statement by PacBell issued on May 26 2001 at 12:14pm: > Customers in the California area may be unable to access the internet > at this time. Our network engineering team is working hard to resolve > this issue. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and > thank you for your patience. So I would say PacBell is still having problems (or is having new problems).

1 0

RE: Stealth Blocking
by Roeland Meyer 26 May '01

26 May '01

> From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:51 PM > > Shawn McMahon wrote: > > > > TCP rate-limiting on outbound traffic to *:25 would also > be extremely > > > effective, particularly on unclassified customer traffic, > and without the > > > heavy-handed nature of denying all dial-up traffic. > Rate-limiting doesn't > > > interfere with low-volume legitimate mail, but it really > cramps spam. > > > > It interferes heavily with transmission of large files via > email, though, > > and this *IS* a valid use of service. > > The transmission of large files is not a valid use of email. Is too... I send large documents regularly, via email. I just sent a 125 page word doc, with about 20 embedded Visio drawings and a bunch of embedded Excel spreadsheets. It was huge. Most of the recipients are on dialups with Win98. How else do you expect me to get it to them ... FTP? Most of them are NOT computer jocks.

26 56

ot, nonoperational: Mitch Halmu
by Steve Sobol 26 May '01

26 May '01

Mitch, ferchrissakes, fix your mail server. If you don't want to receive replies from me, don't reply to my messages. This is thoroughly obnoxious. Thank you; drive through. Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote: > The original message was received at Sat, 26 May 2001 11:47:11 -0400 > from snoopy.nstc.com [207.166.203.200] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <mitch(a)netside.net> > (reason: 550 <sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net>... This domain is banned.) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to mailhost.netside.net.: > >>> MAIL From:<sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net> SIZE=1038 > <<< 550 <sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net>... This domain is banned. > 554 5.0.0 <mitch(a)netside.net>... Service unavailable > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: Wordpad File (message/delivery-status) > > Part 1.3Type: MHTML Document (message/rfc822) -- Tired of Earthlink? Get JustTheNet! Nationwide Dialup, ISDN, DSL, ATM, Frame Relay, T-1, T-3, and more. EARTHLINK AMNESTY PROGRAM: Buy a year, get two months free More info coming soon to http://JustThe.net, or e-mail me! B!ff: K3wl, w3'v3 r00t3D da N@vy... 0h CrAp, INC0M!Ng $%^NO CARRIER

2 1

MPLS/TE in today's networks
by Shawn H 26 May '01

26 May '01

Hi, I'm a student currently researching MPLS/TE technologies. With all the proposed methods and functionalities, I was wondering if anyone has some useful information/pointers to answers to the following questions: * How widely is traffic engineering over MPLS deployed in today's networks? * What applications of MPLS are in use today (TE, protection, BGP nexthop resolution, VPNs, etc)? * How widely used are TE offline planning tools? * How do different vendors affect different deployments? That is, are the common functionalities mostly in use, or are there different proprietary methods used in different networks/SPs? Thanks a lot for any useful information, Shawn. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

RE: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC***
by Roeland Meyer 26 May '01

26 May '01

One of my clients, a largish dot-com, tried this ... resounding lack of success. The end-user community did NOT like it when an email arrived with links. They were too afraid that the link might point to a virus, among other things (yeah, I know, but YOU try fighting FUD for a while). > -----Original Message----- > From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net] > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:57 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC*** > > > > Greetings all, > > Section 7.3.3 of RFC1341 addresses the external storage, > expiry, et cetera > issues. Not perfect, but a good first pass... and almost ten > years old, > too. > > ((( Thanks to Valdis for pointing this out! ))) > > We could probably kludge FTP as an interim measure: > > * MTA intercepts attachments, and spools them separately. > > * "access-type: ftp" with, e.g., username "msg12345recipient67890" and > password "mi93et490" and "expiration: Mon, 28 May 2001 > 00:00:00 +0000". > The specific parameters would be generated on a per-message basis. > > * Mail admins can enforce quotas. Nothing new. The > arguments in favor of > electronic transfer are on the grounds of timely communication. One > could argue that somebody not checking mail for a week > doesn't deserve > to receive their attachment without a second > "transmission". The proxy > MTA could insert a human-readable expiration notice or > whatever other > user-friendly prompting is deemed to be a good idea. > > * We could also forget the MIME method, and put in a > human-readable link > to get the attachment, a la electronic greeting cards. > This would allow > immediate use of non-registered access-type methods. > > Eventually, I'd like to see this done via HTTP/1.1 using chunked > transfers. However, no current MUAs will support a non-existant HTTP > method or any X-Experimental methods. For something that would work > *right now*, I think that RTF RFC and going from there is the > right way... > > Does anybody know what MUAs follow the RFC for external > message content? > A little smtpd and ftpd hacking could yield something workable PDQ. > > > Eddy > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. > EverQuick Internet Division > > Phone: (316) 794-8922 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) > From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> > To: blacklist(a)brics.com > Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. > > These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting > spambots. Do NOT > send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked. > >

1 0

RE: Email Parcel Post is Good!
by Roeland Meyer 26 May '01

26 May '01

> that and a small perl script are how i get all the internet drafts and > rfcs as they are published. Do you seriously expect a marketing VP to write perl?

6 6

Re: PacBell Frame Relay Outage?
by Sean Donelan 26 May '01

26 May '01

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Roy wrote: > Is anyone else experiencing an outage in the PacBell Frame Relay cloud in > the SF Bay area.? 75% of my PVCs are down and the trouble number is busy or > you go into "hold" forever. Pacbell statement at 11:04am PDT: Some customers in California and Reno may be unable to access the Internet at this time do to an equipment problem. Our Engineering Team is working to resolve this issue. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and thank you for your patience.

3 2

RE: EMAIL != FTP
by Roeland Meyer 26 May '01

26 May '01

> From: Mitch Halmu [mailto:mitch@netside.net] > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:49 AM > Scary stuff that you > haven't even thought of could happen with 8 bit message bodies... Like voice-grade email ...

1 0