- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Fwd: FCC to charge by minute for e-mail usage (fwd)
by Nathan Stratton 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, David Lesher wrote: > Nathan Stratton sez: > > Yes, this is last years news, but it is also very important to watch this > > issue to make sure something like this does not go into effect. People > > like the ACTA are pumping large amounts of money into legal battles. The > > fight is sill going on by www.von.org and others. Internet Telephony has > > already been banned in places like India where it is illegal to use PC > > based Internet Telephony or PSTN/IP gateways. > > It is NOT last year's news. > The battlefield has moved, the enemies the same.... I am sorry, I should have worded that better. I meant yes it was last years new because it all started them. You are correct the battlefield has moved and the enemies are the same. As I said, we need to watch this and make sure this does not go into effect. -- Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting www.robotics.net nathan(a)robotics.net > -- > A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com > & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX > Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 > is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 >

1 0

[Fwd: FCC to charge by minute for e-mail usage (fwd)
by NetSurfer 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

Has anyone heard this or it is another cyber-urban myth? - James D. Wilson netsurf(a)sersol.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ranganath Prabhu V V <vprabhu(a)hcla.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <uw-l(a)microserve.net> Reply-To: uw-l(a)microserve.net Subject: [Fwd: FCC to charge by minute for e-mail usage --- snip --- Subject : Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service ***IMPORTANT INFORMATION*** JUST RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE AND IT NEEDS TO BE ACTED UPON ASAP! Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the ---snip --- FCC E Mail address isp(a)fcc.gov This is really important. If we have to pay for e-mail , the cost is going to skyrocket. It's about the only thing now that is cost-effective. Please make your opinions known to the FCC.

6 6

The NIC database/billing system is broken..
by Rodney Joffe 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

A heads up .... We're receiving snailmail and email bills for domains that were transferred at least a month ago (according to whois even!). The true current contacts have had nothing from the 'nic.... so you may want to keep an eye out, before your domains get put on hold for non-payment. Rodney Joffe Vice President - Strategic Technology GTE Internetworking - NCS http://www.bbnplanet.com http://www.hopscotch.com

1 0

Microsoft offering xDSL access
by Dean Morstad 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

Hello, This is my first posting to nanog, though I've been reading it for about a year now. I have somewhat of an operational question that falls loosely into the NANOG AUP (which I re-read before I posted) and it's not meant to start any flame wars over Microsoft. I'm just looking for someone who could give me insight into this issue. Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems. This may be very true, but I have questions about how the Internet is going to handle a bunch of ordinary web surfers now demanding their web pages at 30 times the speed? Is there backbone infrastructure in place to provide this kind of access on a household basis? Where is Microsoft going to find enough peering from NSP's to provide this access to their customers? I think it would be safe to assume that they probably have enough money to pay for peering with every NSP in the US and not even have to resell their bandwidth. I Have a T-1 to my apartment (yes I'm spoiled) and even though I don't get my full 1.5 Mbps, I am definitely happy that I get much faster than 28.8 Kbps. I suppose most of the general population would be so thrilled with even 256 Kbps out of their 6 Mbps line that they will think they are in heaven and won't even think of complaining to Bill that he's cheating them out of their other 5.75 Mbps they're paying for. I'm not even going to ask how they expect the telcos to be able to provide that kind of service on such a massive scale. I live in central Minnesota - predominently US West territory - and they have been providing T-1 access with xDSL technology for over a year now and it already takes 4-8 months to get a T-1 installed. I hope that we won't have to suffer through 24 month installation dates on new circuits because of a flood of these new Microsoft surfers. Thanks, -Dean ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dean Morstad Spacestar Communications Systems Administrator A Division of Firmware of MN, Inc. dean(a)spacestar.net 9531 W. 78th St http://www.spacestar.net Eden Prairie, MN 55344 http://www.morstad.org 612.996.0000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

22 35

Re: Being blackhole by some one.
by Sean Donelan 24 Jan '98

24 Jan '98

>I wonder if there is some kind of SOP before someone >announce a route ? I thought you supposed to lookup >at radb first before trying to announce those routes. There are lots of SOPs. But there is no common agreement an intersection of the various SOPs. I've heard of some proposals to automate the process, but I'm not sure how successfull automating something we can't even agree on common method of doing manually will work. Unless you believe that working code is the cyberspace equivalent of making policy. Automating things may make the simple cases go through easier, allowing the humans to concentrate on the more difficult cases. For example, what to do when some providers refuse to take part? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: Reporting Little Blue Men
by sully＠mail.usinternet.com 24 Jan '98

24 Jan '98

>>How do you prevent packets from your network with a broadcast address, since >>what defines a "broadcast" address really depends on the subnet mask? > >Filter all the blue wavelengths on your FDDI and OC3 interfaces. Maybe I don't posses your intellectual prowess. Please explain what blue wavelengths are in regard to this. Thanks... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Sullivan Senior Technical Support/Network Consultant http://www.usinternet.com US Internet Corp - Full Service Internet Provider MN Based, running Windows NT, connected directly to the Backbone. "Get your Net's Worth" (tm) (612) 222-4638 ------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Microsoft offering xDSL access
by HawkeWerks Multimedia 24 Jan '98

24 Jan '98

Go check the UUNet pages on the xDSL services. They're picking up cabinet space at the Telco central office, not buying the actual copper to the home. TTYS Lloyd At 06:23 AM 1/23/98 -0500, you wrote: >> UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses. > >Is that to say that they cannot buy out someone who does? :) > > > > >

2 1

Being blackhole by some one.
by unknown＠example.com 24 Jan '98

24 Jan '98

Hi, We just being blackhole by some ISP during their provisioning, a few hours ago. I thought that bogus route should be filtered by the NAP. Is there a way to prevent from somebody blackholing you ? It takes a lot of affort to solve this problem, especially those who need to update their router through rrdb automatically. Which suppose to solve blackhole problem accidentally. Thanks, Tony S. Hariman http://www.tsh.or.id Tel: +62(21)574-2488 Fax: +62(21)574-2481

5 6

RE: Reporting Little Blue Men
by Dave Van Allen 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

That would make you one of the (few) Good Guys! Dave Van Allen -----Original Message----- From: Eric Wieling [mailto:eric@ccti.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 4:34 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Reporting Little Blue Men On Tue, Jan 20, 1998 at 07:50:16PM -0500, Dave Van Allen wrote: > Start by making sure your RAS users and direct customers (your network's > edge) can only output packets that contain their valid source address. > If everyone did this, all of the world's problems would go away; Ozone > depletion, world hunger, that silly rain forest thing, Smurfs and DoS > and maybe even Microsoft! :-) We prevent ANY packets to or from our network with a broadcast address. We don't filter on a per-machine basis for address spoofing, but ALL packets leaving our network must have a valid address on our network. Basically, one user on our network can spoof another user on our network, but no users can spoof addresses that are not on our network. --Eric -- Eric Wieling (eric(a)ccti.net) Chesapeake Communications Corporation Sales: sales(a)ccti.net 504-585-1850, Support: support(a)ccti.net 504-535-5449 We have changed our name! Corporate Communications Technology is now known as Chesapeake Communications Corporation.

7 11

Re: [nanog] Re: Microsoft offering xDSL
by M. David Leonard 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

1 0