- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Stop Wcom and SPRINT from merging... customer service nightmare... (Snyder article)
by Mufti Ahmed 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

The papers for my ISP connection to UUnet was signed just over 3 Months ago and they haven't installed the circuit. Customer Service !!!!!!!!TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! You Want to know whats really surprising ; i asked them to BGP peer authentication TWO WEEKS AGO and there reply was i am the first out of the thousands of clients that they have to ask for this. I thought when i asked two weeks ago the i was one of the last people to ask for this. Then they claim that it might be some kind of overhead. Then they were claiming that they might change their routing infrastructure with different vendors' routers. Routers are Routers and Switches are Switches. I don't know about you guys but BGP authentication and BGP4 has pretty much been a standard for the last 4-5 years. I need to ask the nanog group in general; i'm not sure if this question is more obvious than not but do normal people out there for example BIG Brokerage firms have route Authentication for BGP Peering or is this a new thing? I'm not sure where to stand on this... Mufti Nayeem Ahmed Network Systems Engineer Market Data Networks Reuters America Inc. (212)-603-3595 Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> on 06/27/2000 10:42:01 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu cc: GAVRON(a)ACES.COM (bcc: Mufti Ahmed/NYC/US/Reuters) Subject: Stop Wcom and SPRINT from merging... customer service nightmare... (Snyder article) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2000/0626snyder.html : ---------------------------------------------------------------- MCIWorldCom should finish what's already on its plateBy Bottom Line . Joel Snyder Network World, 06/26/00MCIWorldCom is continuing to push hard for its merger with Sprint, now offering to dispose of one of the Internet's unappreciated jewels, Sprint's Internet business. All this is in the name of competition, since WorldCom would presumably control more or less all the packets, phone calls and fiber optics in the world if no one was watching. I have one request to make of the regulators in Brussels and Washington: Please, please, please, don't let WorldCom and Sprint merge. My plea has nothing to do with competition; it has everything to do with customer service. In his insatiable quest to beat Bill Gates and Larry Ellison to become the richest technodude in North America, WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers has forgotten those poor people who actually made him rich -the customers. Since the megamonolithic-monstrosity of WorldCom was created, service has gone to hell. Nothing can be done in real time; nobody is empowered to solve problems. Oh, and prices have gone up. Way up. All WorldCom has brought to the table is an enormous cadre of obsequious customer service reps ("I'm terribly sorry you had to hold, sir"), manning the phones 24 hours a day, who don't seem to be able to do anything. As a customer of the new, improved, WorldCom, my company hasn't seen the benefits of consolidation. One bill for all services? That would be OK if the bill were correct. But when WorldCom acquired Brooks Fiber in 1998, errors were made in moving the billing data from one system to another. We've been complaining about it for 20 months, and WorldCom still hasn't figured it out. One contact for sales? Sounds great, but the benefits escape us. Line installs and deinstalls now have to move through the WorldCom bureaucracy, and a six-month delay to do anything is average. One company for all your needs? That would be wonderful if it were really one company. In March we ordered a circuit from UUNET, WorldCom's Internet service provider division, and had every expectation that it would be installed within 30 days. The official UUNET service-level agreement (SLA) is 40 business days. We're still waiting for that line to be installed - they blew the SLA a long time ago. Meanwhile, the UUNET techs are trying to figure out a way to make the combined fiber networks of UUNET, MCI, MFS and WorldCom stretch from Tucson to Phoenix. Sprint customers, beware! Inside WorldCom there are pockets of excellence, people who know their stuff and make the network run. But the bureaucratic monstrosity smothering them makes WorldCom a darn hard company to do business with. Will things get better? Perhaps. WorldCom certainly can't continue to do business this way. As long-term contracts begin to end, customers will search for other suppliers. The end result, today, is that WorldCom hasn't been able to completely merge the companies it already has. And now it's hungry for more? Someone should tell Bernie Ebbers he can't have dessert until he finishes his peas. Snyder, a Network World Test Alliance partner, is a senior partner at Opus One in Tucson, Ariz. He can be reached at Joel.Snyder(a)opus1.com. Copyright 2000 Network World, Inc. All rights reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sent by: Joel Snyder - mailto:jms@opus1.com ................................................................ This message was sent from http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2000/0626snyder.html on Network World Fusion http://www.nwfusion.com/ ................................................................ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.

2 1

MasterCard Flood, Personal phone lose (was Re: Fiber cut in Chicago area?)
by Sean Donelan 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

On Mon, 26 June 2000, Jason Legate wrote: > I didn't see a posting from Sean, yet, but there apparantly was a multi > telco fiber cut in the Chicago area. I have no additional details at this > time. Anyone know anything? I've experienced my own personal loss of phone service, so I've been off-net for the day. My home phone went dead yesterday, no dialtone. When you call the number, Josh answers. As far as I know, no Josh is living in my apartment. Naturally Pacific Bell Telephone says nothing is wrong with their lines, so it must be my telephone that is broken, and it will be $45 if pacbell looks a it. In other news, MasterCard International is building a new international datacenter outside of St. Louis (O'Fallon). St. Louis had about 9 inches of rain, and MasterCard had some unplanned water intrusion.

3 2

Re: FW: public key service
by Steven M. Bellovin 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.QNWS_2.0006271008461.13037-100000(a)thetis.deor.org>, " L. Sassaman" writes: > >In fact, such a network would improve the Web of Trust immensely, because >signatures and signature revocations would propogate more quickly and >thoroughly. This suggests something concrete that can be done -- a key-signing party at NANOG. --Steve Bellovin

4 3

Re: public key service
by Randy Bush 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

> I'm going to try to keep this operational, but it's hard because you're > going to find that support for making a robust keyserver network hinges > upon people agreeing that such a service is needed, and many PGP users are > going to tell you that such a keyserver violates the PGP trust model. ROFL randy

1 0

Re: public key service
by Michael Shields 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

In article <20000627080750.D2063(a)eiv.com>, Shawn McMahon <smcmahon(a)eiv.com> wrote: > I'm going to try to keep this operational, but it's hard because you're > going to find that support for making a robust keyserver network hinges upon > people agreeing that such a service is needed, and many PGP users are going > to tell you that such a keyserver violates the PGP trust model. The Internet is full of successful services that many people think are unnecessary, half-baked, or even detrimental. It is not required that there be a consensus of user base that a service is beneficial, only that the actual user base be large enough -- even if that is a small subset of potential user base, and even if many users are opposed. The presence of 1M keys on the existing servers despite their low level of reliability and performance does seem to indicate demand. -- Shields.

1 0

Re: FW: public key service
by L. Sassaman 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Tsolis, Kristen wrote: > > I'm going to try to keep this operational, but it's hard because you're > > going to find that support for making a robust keyserver network hinges > > upon > > people agreeing that such a service is needed, and many PGP users are > > going > > to tell you that such a keyserver violates the PGP trust model. > > > > Discussion in detail as to why that's so is seriously off-topic, and so > > I'm > > not going to try to defend the point one way or the other; I'm merely > > commenting that many PGP users will think it's so, and that's enough for > > the purposes of this discussion. I don't think it is. You can't make a statement like that (when every indication says that the opposite is true) and expect people to "accept for the sake of discussion" that it is true. Keyservers are purely distribution outlets. They have no bearing on the PGP Web of Trust. (You're right that this is probably off-topic for NANOG, which is why I suggested we move the discussion to keyserver-folks, but I just wanted to point out that I don't see how/why anyone would think that a reliable keyserver network would negatively impact the web of trust. That list can be joined by sending mail to: pgp-keyserver-folk-subscribe(a)flame.org ) In fact, such a network would improve the Web of Trust immensely, because signatures and signature revocations would propogate more quickly and thoroughly. Nothing but good can come out of a stable robust keyserver network. __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | "Everything looks bad Technology Consultant | if you remember it." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Homer Simpson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5WOFVPYrxsgmsCmoRAnrJAJ9+NFayvxVZKs2FYSSUotu2k4WRhwCdHi4S R/fRLvw/rTFyyDvuZrhl2S0= =hwdP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Stop Wcom and SPRINT from merging... customer service nightmare... (Snyder article)
by Ehud Gavron 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2000/0626snyder.html : ---------------------------------------------------------------- MCIWorldCom should finish what's already on its plateBy Bottom Line . Joel Snyder Network World, 06/26/00MCIWorldCom is continuing to push hard for its merger with Sprint, now offering to dispose of one of the Internet's unappreciated jewels, Sprint's Internet business. All this is in the name of competition, since WorldCom would presumably control more or less all the packets, phone calls and fiber optics in the world if no one was watching. I have one request to make of the regulators in Brussels and Washington: Please, please, please, don't let WorldCom and Sprint merge. My plea has nothing to do with competition; it has everything to do with customer service. In his insatiable quest to beat Bill Gates and Larry Ellison to become the richest technodude in North America, WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers has forgotten those poor people who actually made him rich -the customers. Since the megamonolithic-monstrosity of WorldCom was created, service has gone to hell. Nothing can be done in real time; nobody is empowered to solve problems. Oh, and prices have gone up. Way up. All WorldCom has brought to the table is an enormous cadre of obsequious customer service reps ("I'm terribly sorry you had to hold, sir"), manning the phones 24 hours a day, who don't seem to be able to do anything. As a customer of the new, improved, WorldCom, my company hasn't seen the benefits of consolidation. One bill for all services? That would be OK if the bill were correct. But when WorldCom acquired Brooks Fiber in 1998, errors were made in moving the billing data from one system to another. We've been complaining about it for 20 months, and WorldCom still hasn't figured it out. One contact for sales? Sounds great, but the benefits escape us. Line installs and deinstalls now have to move through the WorldCom bureaucracy, and a six-month delay to do anything is average. One company for all your needs? That would be wonderful if it were really one company. In March we ordered a circuit from UUNET, WorldCom's Internet service provider division, and had every expectation that it would be installed within 30 days. The official UUNET service-level agreement (SLA) is 40 business days. We're still waiting for that line to be installed - they blew the SLA a long time ago. Meanwhile, the UUNET techs are trying to figure out a way to make the combined fiber networks of UUNET, MCI, MFS and WorldCom stretch from Tucson to Phoenix. Sprint customers, beware! Inside WorldCom there are pockets of excellence, people who know their stuff and make the network run. But the bureaucratic monstrosity smothering them makes WorldCom a darn hard company to do business with. Will things get better? Perhaps. WorldCom certainly can't continue to do business this way. As long-term contracts begin to end, customers will search for other suppliers. The end result, today, is that WorldCom hasn't been able to completely merge the companies it already has. And now it's hungry for more? Someone should tell Bernie Ebbers he can't have dessert until he finishes his peas. Snyder, a Network World Test Alliance partner, is a senior partner at Opus One in Tucson, Ariz. He can be reached at Joel.Snyder(a)opus1.com. Copyright 2000 Network World, Inc. All rights reserved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sent by: Joel Snyder - mailto:jms@opus1.com ................................................................ This message was sent from http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2000/0626snyder.html on Network World Fusion http://www.nwfusion.com/ ................................................................

1 0

Re: public key service
by L. Sassaman 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > so, thanks to many nanogians, i now have a selection of servers, multi- > > addressed servers, an ldap server, ... i can try when i need this service. > > needless to say, i am not impressed. while i guess i can limp along like > > this, it does not feel like what i would call a production quality > > service. > > Well, the fundamental point you haven't mentioned here is that the PGP keyserver network, past and present, is entirely a volunteer-based service. The exception is the server that NAI runs, since NAI has a vested interest in having a keyserver available for users to access, but even so, there is not as of yet any commercial entity selling access to, or guaranteeing access to, a PGP keyserver (as far as I know -- correct me if I am wrong). One thing I would like to see is more ISPs running keyservers for the use of their customers. A few of them do. Thre are other ways that companies could provide services that involve keyserver access, but I can't go into that here. I attended the Keyserver Managers Symposium in Holland last month. A lot of great ideas were presented, and a lot of problems discussed. One thing is clear, and that is that the current PGP keyserver network needs to be redesigned if it is to scale to another order of magnitude as far as capacity. I expect that we will see good things happen in this regard in the next year or so. - --Len. __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | "Everything looks bad Technology Consultant | if you remember it." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Homer Simpson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5V8eIPYrxsgmsCmoRAvx0AJ485IzsUvkqp84yuGLMeOyIBdAOKQCg1K5z k2hLYtQksHPz+e5sz1xS140= =bvS8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 5

Fiber cut in Chicago area?
by Jason Legate 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

I didn't see a posting from Sean, yet, but there apparantly was a multi telco fiber cut in the Chicago area. I have no additional details at this time. Anyone know anything? -j -- /--------------------------/ Jason Legate \------------------------\ | jlegate(a)sitesmith.com | SiteSmith, Inc. | | 24x7 Call Center | http://www.sitesmith.com | | 888.898.7667 | PGP Key ID - 0xA855AAC3 | +---------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | Fingerprint - 2D5F 87A0 26E6 A65B 6837 D100 FB54 A972 A855 AAC3 | \------------------------------------------------------------------/

3 3

Re: public key service
by Steven M. Bellovin 27 Jun '00

27 Jun '00

In message <20000626172646.A1166(a)eiv.com>, Shawn McMahon writes: > >On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:39:49PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >> >> so, thanks to many nanogians, i now have a selection of servers, multi- >> addressed servers, an ldap server, ... i can try when i need this service. >> needless to say, i am not impressed. while i guess i can limp along like >> this, it does not feel like what i would call a production quality service. > >Randy, no offense, but it sounds like you have some seriously unrealistic >expectations here. > >Exactly how much are you paying for this service? It sounds like you should >receive a full refund. No, Randy has a need -- an operational need that I suspect many on this list share. His note simply says that the current system is inadequate for production use; a more recent note asks, in about these words, "what can he (and other operators) do" to help the situation. --Steve Bellovin

2 1