- Test - lists.nanog.org

Seattle Sprint outage - update?
by Jay Stewart 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

Any one from Sprint care to enlighten us on the major fiber cut in Seattle? Any word on when the Sprint facilities in this area will be back up, or what was/is the problem? Jay Stewart Vice President Olympia Networking Services - "Premier Internet Access" Phone (360) 753.3636 Fax (360) 357.6160 http://www.olywa.net/

8 10

Re: more directed broadcast attacks
by Hal Murray 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

[Description of nasty DOS attack snipped.] > Needless to say, I did not have any fun today. Suggestion... Some people claim that the only way to get rid of professional spammers is to make it too expensive for them to do business, for example by charging them a serious "cleanup" fee if they get kicked off for spamming. Maybe the same idea logic holds for checking source IP addresses. If there isn't any visible cost to procrastinating then many sysamdins will continue to put installing the filters on the back burner. So how about modifying contracts, including peering agreements, to charge for DOS problems? You could charge twice as much (per hour?) if the NOC didn't respond within some time limit.

2 1

NANOG 13
by Pam Ciesla 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

Registration is open for the NANOG 13 Meeing at the Hyatt Regency Dearborn, June 7-9. Please contact me if there is any problems with registration. Merit Network Is hosting this NANOG and is seeking sponsors for a variety of events (4 breaks, 2 lunches, a social). If your company is interested in sponsoring part of NANOG, please send e-mail to wbn(a)merit.edu with "NANOG SPONSORSHIP" in the subject line. Information for the NANOG 13 Meeting can be found on the webpage http://www.nanog.org xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 734-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 734-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

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