- Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG 12
by William B. Norton 05 Dec '97

05 Dec '97

Hi all - We have tentatively selected NANOG 12 to be hosted by iHighway in Albquerque, New Mexico at the Crowne Plaza Pyramid hotel on Feb. 9th and 10th (with pre-NANOG meeting/tutorial on Sunday the 8th). We will have the web pages and registration pages up shortly. Bill

1 0

Quiet...test
by William B. Norton 05 Dec '97

05 Dec '97

Seems quiet - someone suggested the list broke...just testing. Bill

3 2

Re: Quiet...test
by William B. Norton 05 Dec '97

05 Dec '97

OK - thanks all. Just checking. Bill At 03:11 PM 12/5/97 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: >On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, William B. Norton wrote: > >> Seems quiet - someone suggested the list broke...just testing. >> >> Bill > >(Ssssssh. They're asleep.) > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > > >

1 0

Re: IP over SONET
by Paul Ferguson 05 Dec '97

05 Dec '97

You should be aware that there is at least one existing mailing list for technical (IETF) discussions of Packet over SONET/SDH -- Bill Simpson set up the pppsdh list at pppsdh(a)greendragon.com. - paul At 04:26 AM 12/5/97 -0500, Bradley Reynolds wrote: >I have created a new mailing list >to discuss IP over SONET. >It has been created to provide >a forum for discussion over anything >from implementation to application >to viability. > >Send all subscription requests to >ip-sonet-request(a)iagnet.net >with a body of "subscribe" > > >brad reynolds >ber(a)cwru.edu > > > >

1 0

IP over SONET
by Bradley Reynolds 05 Dec '97

05 Dec '97

I have created a new mailing list to discuss IP over SONET. It has been created to provide a forum for discussion over anything from implementation to application to viability. Send all subscription requests to ip-sonet-request(a)iagnet.net with a body of "subscribe" brad reynolds ber(a)cwru.edu

1 0

Re: @HOME problems
by Nicholas Bastin 04 Dec '97

04 Dec '97

On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, NANOG sysadmin list wrote: > Is anyone here aware of the source of seemingly random packet loss to and > from home.net? We have a T1 from @home and I've been getting about 75% packet loss on it for the last couple weeks. We've got a ticket in, but nobody seems to know what the heck is going on. Best I can tell is all my traffic gets to MAE-WEST with only 1% - 2% loss, and then starts timing out. Of course, anything within the @home network is just as quick as usual. Nick Bastin System Administrator - World Trade Internet Communications

3 3

Invalid announce for 15/8
by Edvard Tuinder 04 Dec '97

04 Dec '97

Hi, Has anybody outhere any idea as to why AT&T Japan (AS 2915) is announcing the 15/8 network from HP? I'm not getting anywhere near HP this way.. Amsterdam1>sh ip bgp 15.0.16.68 BGP routing table entry for 15.0.0.0/8, version 7637408 Paths: (2 available, best #1) 5583 4000 2915 194.235.74.237 from 194.235.74.237 (194.235.236.21) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 8251:5001 5496 174 71 71 71 195.86.26.2 from 195.86.26.2 (194.165.94.235) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Shouldn't GIP/GSL (as4000) be filtering this bogus announcement? Thanks, -Ed -- Edvard Tuinder Cistron Internet Services Finger ed(a)cistron.nl for PGP key ``I must fear Evil, for I am but mortal and mortals can only die''

2 2

Re: [nanog] @HOME problems (fwd)
by NANOG sysadmin list 04 Dec '97

04 Dec '97

But the problems originate from home.net, not sprint, apparently ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:12:14 -0500 (EST) From: NANOG sysadmin list <nanog(a)seersucker.millburn.net> To: Stephen Balbach <stephen(a)clark.net> Subject: Re: [nanog] @HOME problems Sprint/Pennsauken, NJ... On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Stephen Balbach wrote: > > What gateway to the @Home network? > > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, NANOG sysadmin list wrote: > > > Is anyone here aware of the source of seemingly random packet loss to and > > from home.net? > > > > Thanks > > -=asr > > > > >

1 0

@HOME problems
by NANOG sysadmin list 04 Dec '97

04 Dec '97

Is anyone here aware of the source of seemingly random packet loss to and from home.net? Thanks -=asr

1 0

Horrible Service Agreements
by Forrest W. Christian 03 Dec '97

03 Dec '97

Over the last few months, I've been trying (without success) to find a provider for our second T1 to the net. Basically, all we want is a full-bandwidth T1 w/bgp4, to an upstream I am comortable with the quality of service of, and who can provide this to us (in montana) at a reasonable monthly rate. Finding a suitable provider hasn't been too hard, but the difficulty comes in when it's time to sign a contract. So far, we have accepted a proposal pending contract approval for TWO different potential upstreams. Both quoted a price of around 2500 per month including local loop. However, the contract terms include what I'm terming an anti-spam clause which generally states that if us or any of our clients or their clients decide to "prevent others from enjoying the internet" (paraphrasing) they can terminate us immediately and make us pay for the remainder of the year term. Each (or maybe better said one or more) of the contracts also included other terms which I felt were totally unreasonable. Such as not being able to mention the name of your upstream. Makes it kinda hard to tell potential clients who you are connected to. Another required us to upgrade our equipment based on whatever specifications they felt was necessary at that point. And there were more. Now, I understand the need to be able to terminate spam havens. I also understand the need to require your customers to use compatible and reliable equipment. Let me explain my problem -- Lets assume that customer "a" decides to purchase an account on our system to send out spam. We don't know he's planning to do this, but he does succeed in sending out 10,000 messages before we find out. Under both agreements, we can be immediately terminated without notice and be required to pay for the remaining time on the 12 month agreement. Regardless if we terminate the offending user as soon as we find out or not. Another example. Lets assume that someone in our upstream decided that we MUST have a $250,000 router to connect to their system. If we can't provide such a beast, we are immediately terminated and required to pay for the remaining year term. Both of the potential upstreams have been wholly unwilling to negotiate a contract in good faith to resolve these issues. I know that nanog is probably not the best forum for this, but I figured it might be a good place to start to look for a provider which can: a) Sell us a T1 line, with BGP4, with local loop to NPA NXX 406 443 for about $2500/month, on a year term or less. b) Not have such rediculous contract language. I'd also like to hear what types of contracts are actually signed by providers and if they are actually read before they are signed. You can reply to me directly, instead of on the list, if you'd like. -forrestc(a)imach.com

13 17