- Test - lists.nanog.org

NSI Bulletin 098-001 |
by Chuck Gomes 20 Jan '98

20 Jan '98

Effective Tuesday, January 20, 1998, Network Solutions, Inc. will introduce a new Registrant Name Change Agreement, http://rs.internic.net/reg-change/agreement.html, and procedure to change the name of a Registrant for a registered domain name. The instructions for completing this new Agreement are on InterNIC Registration Services' web site located at the URL http://rs.internic.net/reg-change/instructions.html. This new Agreement and procedure will affect those who wish to: 1. Correct typographical or minor errors; 2. Reflect a legal name change of the Registrant; or 3. Transfer the domain name registration to another party. This new Agreement will eventually entirely replace the current domain name transfer procedure wherein parties are required to submit a Delete and New Domain Name Registration Agreement via email to Network Solutions. The new Agreement and the old transfer procedure will both be accepted by Network Solutions through Sunday, March 1, 1998. Beginning on Monday, March 2, 1998, customers will be required to use the new Agreement to effect changes to a Registrant's name. Network Solutions believes this new Agreement will streamline the process of changing the Registrant's name for a domain name registration while affording greater legal protection to all parties involved. If you have questions regarding this new Agreement, please contact Network Solutions' Registration Help Line Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at (703) 742-4777. _____________________________________ Chuck Gomes Director of Customer Programs Network Solutions, Inc.

1 0

NSI Bulletin 097-011 | New Domain Name Registrant Change Procedures
by Chuck Gomes 20 Jan '98

20 Jan '98

Effective Tuesday, January 20, 1998, Network Solutions, Inc. will introduce a new Registrant Name Change Agreement, http://rs.internic.net/reg-change/agreement.html, and procedure to change the name of a Registrant for a registered domain name. The instructions for completing this new Agreement are on InterNIC Registration Services' web site located at the URL http://rs.internic.net/reg-change/instructions.html. This new Agreement and procedure will affect those who wish to: 1. Correct typographical or minor errors; 2. Reflect a legal name change of the Registrant; or 3. Transfer the domain name registration to another party. This new Agreement will eventually entirely replace the current domain name transfer procedure wherein parties are required to submit a _____________________________________ Chuck Gomes Director of Customer Programs Network Solutions, Inc.

1 0

Draft NANOG agenda
by Susan R. Harris 20 Jan '98

20 Jan '98

Greetings - here's the draft agenda. Watch for updates in the days to come: http://www.nanog.org See you in Albuquerque! -------------------------------------- Sunday, February 8: Evening Tutorials -------------------------------------- 7:30 p.m. BGP 101: An Introduction to the Border Gateway Protocol Paul Ferguson, Cisco 9:00 p.m. BGP 102: A Mid-Sized Network Configuration Case Study Avi Freedman, Net Access Monday, February 9 ------------------- 9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, Future Meetings Bill Norton, Merit 9:30 a.m. A Route-Filtering Model for Improving Global Internet Routing: An IOPS Proposal Jessica Yu, ANS 10:15 a.m. Origin Authentication in BGP Tony Li, Juniper Yakov Rekhter, Cisco 11:00 a.m. SprintLink Backbone Architecture Evolution: IP Over Sonet Ted Studwell, Sprint Vab Goel, Sprint Jian Li, Sprint 11:30 a.m. Operational Use of a Multihomed NAT Ed Kern, DIGEX 12:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. Massively Parallel Routing Vadim Antonov, Pluris David Bernstein, Pluris 2:00 p.m. Squid Caching Update K Claffy, NLANR 2:30 p.m. Next-Generation NAS Architecture for Predictable and Reliable Network Access Services Shuang Deng, Aptis 3:00 p.m. Monitoring your Network with Freely Available Statistics Reporting Tools: An Overview Stan Barber, Academ Consulting Services 3:30 p.m. BREAK 3:45 p.m. Internet Routing Registry Update IRR Security Issues: Presentation and Open Discussion Dave Meyer, Univ. of Oregon Curtis Villamizar, ANS Carol Orange, RIPE Sandy Murphy, TIS Routing Arbiter Update Bill Norton, Merit Ramesh Govindan, ISI Transition to Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) Cengiz Alaettinoglu, ISI Distributed IRR Technology and Deployment Cengiz Alaettinoglu, ISI Monday Evening, Feb. 9 ---------------------- 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Overview and Hands-on Tutorial: Using BGP Communities and MEDs With GateD Sue Hares, Merit 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. BOF: Establishing an Exchange Point in the Middle of Nowhere John Brown, iHighway.net 7:30 - 9:00 p.m. BOF: GIGAswitch/FDDI to Gigabit Ethernet: Interoperability and Migration Strategies Speakers TBA from Celeritas/Digital 9:00 p.m . BOF: Interprovider Operations Jake Khuon, Merit Abha Ahuja, Merit Craig Huegen, Cisco Tuesday, February 10 -------------------- 9:00 a.m. State of the Internet Forum 10:30 a.m. BREAK 10:45 a.m. ARIN Update Kim Hubbard, ARIN 11:00 a.m. Technical Considerations in Preventing Mail Abuse: Presentation and Open Discussion Paul Vixie, Vixie Enterprises 12:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. Multihoming: Problems and Solutions From the Customer Point of View Howard Berkowitz 2:15 p.m. Recent Events in Inter-Provider Multicast Dave Meyer, Univ. of Oregon 2:30 p.m. BREAK 2:45 p.m. IPv6 Solutions/IPv4 Issues Christian Huitema, Bellcore Yakov Rekhter, Cisco 3:45 p.m. Closing Remarks Bill Norton, Merit

1 0

Request for State of the Internet Volunteers
by William B. Norton 20 Jan '98

20 Jan '98

Hi all- The State of the Internet section of the upcoming NANOG is coming along well. I still need to get the end-user perspective of the Internet into the panel. So, for the NANOG research community, I need to find a couple of folks to answer the following 3 questions on 3-4 slides: 1) As an active Internet end-user (or one who measures end-user performance), what are the top three most pressing problems you see in the Internet? 2) Topologically, how are you connected? 3) What *quantitative* data do you have to share to show these problems? I also need 1 more medium-large size ISP to share with us: 1) What are the top three most pressing problems you face as an ISP? 2) What is the topology of your backbone. 3) What quantitative data can you share with us that show these problems? These additional volunteers (1 ISP+2 end-users) should balance out the mix. With the ISP data, Exchange Point Operators' data, and the data from the registration forms, we should be able to highlight the various communities top issues. If you can volunteer for this, please send me e-mail with your answers to the questions above and "State of the Internet Volunteer" in the subject line. Thanks! Bill -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 764-9430

1 0

NANOG 12
by Pam Ciesla 19 Jan '98

19 Jan '98

I'm still looking for the attendee that is associated with Community Service Telephone Co Winthrop Maine. Please contact me. Thanks 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: 100Mbit ISDN solution
by shields＠crosslink.net 19 Jan '98

19 Jan '98

In article <3.0.5.32.19980118122043.00980290(a)mailhost.iamerica.net>, Luke Parrish <lparrish(a)iamerica.net> wrote: > Hey guys. Ran into a problem the other day. A customer of mine has a > 100Mbit network, with 100Mbit hubs. They want ISDN access, so they hook a > Pipeline 50 to their hub, dial it up, connect to the internet. But, hey > nothing on the network can see it. Doh! I didnt think about the little > 10Mbit into 100Mbit hub problem. Bay makes a Netgear "two-port switch" that's just that, two 10/100 ports. I'm about to get one for a customer with a similar problem. It's something like $269. -- Shields, CrossLink.

2 1

OOPS -- October 1997 Notes URL
by sob＠academ.com 19 Jan '98

19 Jan '98

Sorry. I forgot to include the URL for the October notes: http://www.academ.com/nanog/oct1997/index.html -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

October 1997 notes are completed
by sob＠academ.com 19 Jan '98

19 Jan '98

I finally got the notes for the October 1997 meeting done. I regret the delay in getting this completed. If a speaker had notes that they want to send me, I will try to get them online if I get them before the end of the month.

1 0

Re: Open Standards vs IOPS etc
by sob＠academ.com 18 Jan '98

18 Jan '98

I don't think IOPS claims to be any kind of "standards organization"... At least their web site seems to indicate this. From the FAQ at http://www.iops.org: How does IOPS.ORG differ from other "Internet organizations"? IOPS.ORG membership comprises companies which provide access and/or transport services for Internet traffic. IOPS.ORG focuses primarily on resolving and on preventing technical and operational problems that require inter-ISP coordination. IOPS.ORG does not develop standards and it does not lobby. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Re: Open Standards vs IOPS etc
by Sean Donelan 18 Jan '98

18 Jan '98

There are currently several different organizations working on various measurement and performance 'standards' for the Internet and IP-related networks. IETF has created a couple of working groups working on benchmarking and metrics. IOPS says they plan to be a point of contact for developing various industry-wide technical procedures. ATIS/T1 (an ANSI standards organization) is developing two vital Internet performance standards and three technical reports. ANX, The Automotive Network Exchange, has documented several requirements including metrics for service quality. Bellcore has some Internet related work in their new GR standards. And, of course while it doesn't develop anything formal, NANOG has occasional presentations from various other industry organizations. Most of the above have said in their press releases they are working with other standards bodies, but it isn't very clear how much inter- organizational communications actual occurs. And I suspect there are a few more I don't know about. It would be nice if this work could be consolidated into one place. I, for one, don't have the time or the money to even attempt active involvement in half these groups. >>Since you suggest IOPS as a body to track this issue, what do people think >>about IOPS as a pseudo-standards group. This also came up at the December >>IETF when Curtis suggested that draft-berkowitz-multirqmt document would >>not be necessary since IOPS had a draft on the same subject. The IDR WG >>seemed very sceptical of having a small closed body fill that role. How do >>people see IOPS meshing with NANOG and the operational side of IETF? >> > >I have a little bit of a problem when people refer to IOPS as a >"standards organization." A "standards" body needs to be open. > >Is IOPS an open group? No. > >Can anyone in the Internet community participate? No, they have to >be a member of the collective, and pay a membership fee ranging from >between US$9500 to US$25000. > >IOPS is free to define all of the operations guides that they desire, >but it can't really be referred to as a "standards organization" since >it is a private club. :-/ -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1