- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by shields＠crosslink.net 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

In article <Pine.BSI.3.93.980330130528.5497H-100000(a)sidhe.memra.com>, Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote: > That would mean that the NSF (your tax dollars) would have to pay for > doling out many, many small checks or else the fund itself would pay for > the issuing of checks thereby reducing a meagre refund to a measly refund. Last year I wrote NSI a check for $50. I should be able to renew it for $20 -- the correct price of $35 minus the $15 they overcharged me. -- Shields, CrossLink.

4 4

MFS Contact.
by Leigh Porter 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

Hi, We are not at MAE-East right now, but I need a contact there with regards to some problems eminating from there. Anybody know who I need to talk to? Thanks, Leigh Porter Wisper Badnwdith Plc.

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by shields＠crosslink.net 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

In article <19980330222754.39101(a)scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra(a)scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> wrote: > NSI was charging $35, _plus the $15 the government told them to, by > contract_. Someone bitched, the government, _who were GETTING that > $15_, changed the instructions. NSI stopped charging the extra $15. > > NSI don't owe anyone shit... *Someone* owes me $15. NSI was the agent that collected it and I think it's reasonable that they be the agent for refunding it. Maybe there is a better way. Can we move this to rs-talk or something? -- Shields, CrossLink.

1 0

[WANTED] Real Audio Archive for Last NANOG Meeting.
by Jaeho Yang 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

I heard that "real audio archive for last NANOG meeting" would be opened in March. (Source was this nanog mailing list, as my memory is correct.) Is it already opened ? Could you annouce about that ? -J

2 1

Asymmetric routing with tunnel.
by Jaeho Yang 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

We have terrestrial link between korea and us. But we have many down traffic (US -> Korea), we consider satellite for getting more incoming bandwidth. I contacted serveral satellite service providers, but the major concern is integration with existing terrestrial link. Our connection point is located in PAIX(Digital IX). But one candidate is located in Mae-east. My idea is transmitting some traffic into Mae-east via making tunnel. The border router sends incoming mail, ftp, and news traffic into VPN box, which is connected with other port of router. The traffic was encapulated by VPN box. VPN box makes a tunnel with one of Mae-east, which has the similar VPN box configured with our one. The router of mae-east sends traffic into the router of Satellite Service provider. The satellite transmit our traffics... I'll verify my idea is feasible, and there are some reference sites.. Thanks in advance. --J

3 2

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by Scott Gifford 30 Mar '98

30 Mar '98

Perry Metzger writes: > >Michael Dillon writes: >> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 dirk(a)power.net wrote: >> >> > So, are we going to get refunds? >> >> That would mean that the NSF (your tax dollars) would have to pay for >> doling out many, many small checks or else the fund itself would pay for >> the issuing of checks thereby reducing a meagre refund to a measly refund. >> >> I think it would be much nicer if the money were to be given to some group >> that would spend it on its intended purpose. Let IAB dole it out as >> research grants or some such... > >Not likely the courts will see it that way. They'll probably require >that the money be returned, or given back to the users in the form of >free service from NSI or some such. A similar case happened here in Michigan, where Ameritech overcharged customers and was ordered by the court to pay it back. They ended up settling on making a several million dollar contribution to connecting classrooms to the Internet, in the form of a few large grants to groups of school districts, instead of refunding hundreds of thousands of people a few bucks. So it could happen... -----Scott.

1 0

Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
by dlr＠bungi.com 30 Mar '98

30 Mar '98

Several of my peers at PB NAP are reporting significant loss (>10%) over the PB NAP. All are OC3 connected, and it seems that PB doesn't have the ability to look too closely at OC3 connections. Death of the 'net predicted: film at 11. So, does this mean that ATM NAPs also have problems with high traffic load? -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

1 0

RE: Asymmetric routing with tunnel.
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 30 Mar '98

30 Mar '98

> We are using a 45M satellite circuit operating from Teleglobe > to Telstra. The circuit is configured as a unidirectional > circuit with no direct return path. ... > The circuit is now operating in production mode successfully. Perhaps this is why we've suddenly had a rash of .au users complaining that they can no longer reach www.bbc.co.uk > The work was undertaken with the support of Telstra, Teleglobe > and Intelsat. Our UK ISP did say Teleglobe were advertising a lot of addresses from their global network at the UK LINX. Brandon -- Brandon Butterworth phone: 01737 836592 BBC Research & Development fax: 01737 832336 Kingswood Warren, Tadworth email: brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk Surrey, KT20 6NP URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/

1 0

RE: Asymmetric routing with tunnel.
by Geoff Huston 30 Mar '98

30 Mar '98

I can provide details .. We are using a 45M satellite circuit operating from Teleglobe to Telstra. The circuit is configured as a unidirectional circuit with no direct return path. We use BGP as the link keepalive protocol as well as the route peering protocol, using the two lookpack addresses as the peering points for the BGP TCP session. The circuit is now operating in production mode successfully. A description of the initial test rig including template router configs can be found at http://www.telstra.net/ops/unid. The work was undertaken with the support of Telstra, Teleglobe and Intelsat. Thanks, Geoff Huston Telstra >From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Tue Mar 31 06:59:37 1998 >From: "Bill St. Arnaud" <bill.st.arnaud(a)canarie.ca> >To: <nanog(a)merit.edu>, "Jaeho Yang" <jhyang(a)nuri.net> >Cc: "Yves Poppe" <ypoppe(a)teleglobe.ca> >Subject: RE: Asymmetric routing with tunnel. >Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:20:46 -0500 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >Importance: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > >Teleglobe is providing a similar type of service to Telstra's Internet >Service in Australia. > >Contact Bob Collett at Teleglobe for more details > >Bill > >------------------------------------------- >Bill St Arnaud >Director Network Projects >CANARIE >bill.st.arnaud(a)canarie.ca >http://www.canarie.ca/bstarn > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of >> Jaeho Yang >> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 1998 2:27 AM >> To: nanog(a)merit.edu >> Subject: Asymmetric routing with tunnel. >> >> >> We have terrestrial link between korea and us. But we have many down >> traffic (US -> Korea), >> we consider satellite for getting more incoming bandwidth. I contacted >> serveral satellite service >> providers, but the major concern is integration with existing >> terrestrial link. >> >> Our connection point is located in PAIX(Digital IX). But one candidate >> is located in Mae-east. >> >> My idea is transmitting some traffic into Mae-east via making tunnel. >> >> The border router sends incoming mail, ftp, and news traffic into VPN >> box, which is connected >> with other port of router. The traffic was encapulated by VPN box. VPN >> box makes a tunnel >> with one of Mae-east, which has the similar VPN box configured with our >> one. >> >> The router of mae-east sends traffic into the router of Satellite >> Service provider. >> The satellite transmit our traffics... >> >> I'll verify my idea is feasible, and there are some reference sites.. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> --J >> > > >

1 0

RE: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by Joffe, Rodney 30 Mar '98

30 Mar '98

No. Posted here 3/18/98 NSF AND NSI END INTERNET INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND PORTION OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION FEES The National Science Foundation (NSF) and Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) today announced the end of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund portion of domain name registration charges. As a result, the annual fee for domain name registration, which has been $50 since fees were imposed in 1995, will decline to $35, reducing the cost of domain name registration by 30 percent. *The change will be effective April 1, 1998.* > -----Original Message----- > From: dirk(a)power.net [SMTP:dirk@power.net] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 12:27 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement > > > So, are we going to get refunds? > > Dirk > > On Mon, Mar 30, 1998 at 01:54:22PM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 1998 at 01:11:25PM -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote: > > > Effective immediately, Network Solutions is introducing > > > Domain Name Registration Agreement version 4.0 that will > > > replace version 3.5. The new agreement reflects fee changes > > > for domain name registrations and renewals following the > > > elimination of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund portion > > > of the fee on April 1, 1998, pursuant to an amendment to > > > Network Solutions' Cooperative Agreement with the > > > National Science Foundation. > > > > Cool. > > > > So, is NSI going to abide by _this_ version any better than they > have > > with previous versions? > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth > jra(a)baylink.com > > Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial > Emailers Sued > > The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason > Colby, > > Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 > 813 790 7592 > > > > Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ > http://www.totk.com

1 0