- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation
by Sean Donelan 16 Nov '97

16 Nov '97

>Not that I want to advocate uniform retail pricing structures - >my point is only that without such uniformity of retail structures >such 'follow the money' arguments as Sean presents here >quickly break down to a maze of twisty little passages. I agree that following the money doesn't always work. Personality seems to play a key part. I don't know how else to explain some of the decision making that went into some of today's network operation. People tend to view the problem in different ways depending on their background. What I was trying to postulate, unsuccessfully, there is no such thing as an universal, optimal hierarchical addressing scheme. I thought I had chosen examples from the opposite ends of the spectrum. I guess I wasn't extreme enough in my examples. Perhaps I should have used the ISBN hierarchy, a combination of language group, country and publisher prefix. I'm going to publish a million books, so I should get a 'big' publishers prefix. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Source info for spam
by Jorge Amodio 16 Nov '97

16 Nov '97

Hi Folks, don't know if you got this one .. Regards Jorge. Forwarded message: > From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Nov 15 14:16:29 1997 > Message-Id: <199711151916.OAA26024(a)nfs1.jvnc.net> > From: provider27(a)scc.nt > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 10:25:10 EST > To: Friend(a)PUBLIC.COM > Subject: 29 Million Fresh E-Mail Addresses for only $35 !!! > > 29 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES VIA E-MAIL FOR ONLY $35 > > Yes, we have 29 Million FRESH email addresses that we will sell for only > $35. They are all sorted and ready to be mailed. That is the best deal anywhere > today ! Imagine selling a product for only $5 and getting only a 1/10% response. > That's $1,450,000 in your pocket !!! Don't believe it? > These 29 Million email addresses are yours to keep, so you can use them > over and over. We also include the stealth mailer - this is a full version of the > incredibly fast mailing program that hides your email address when you send > mail so no one will find out where it came from and you won't lose your dial up > account. The stealth mailer is an incredible program and absolutly FREE > with your order ! > > > Print this E-Mail, fill the order form. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > ORDER FORM > > > Enclosed is my payment of $35.00 ____Check ____Money order > > Name______________________ Address_______________________ > > ______________________________State____ Zip Code___________ > > > E-Mail address_____________________/_______________________ > Please print twice > > > * Make Check/Money order payable, and mail the form to: > > M.I.R. CONSULTING, INC. > > 4334 MATILIJA AVENUE, STE 215, DEPT. 27 > SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423 >

1 0

Re: AGIS Signing up New Spammers
by James K. Hood 15 Nov '97

15 Nov '97

Gary, To my knowledge, there is no filter concerning abuse.net on our mail server. Jim At 02:55 PM 11/14/97 -0800, you wrote: >Yo James! > >On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, James K. Hood wrote: > >> We have removed all filters except for >> one or two die-hard "forward all spam to AGIS with 10 copies to each >> employee and internal mailing list" sites. > >Does this include abuse.net? > >And before someone flames me, yes this affects my router! I have >blackholed all mail from agis net blocks. Using formulas posted >here on nanog. > >RGDS >GARY >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 > gem(a)rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176

2 1

AS 7058 route announcements.
by Harold Willison 15 Nov '97

15 Nov '97

Earliar this afternoon, approx. 2:45pm est, a multihomed customer of ours introduced thousands of routes to us as being behind them. Needless to say, this cause some major routing instability. We immediately shut that connection and contacted the customer. We are in the process of switching from AS Path filters to prefix filters and this customer was still on the AS Path filter. Just thought you folks might like to know what happened. Sorry for any problems that this created. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Harold Willison AGIS Network Engineering | * Network Engineer 313-730-5151 * | News Admin. 313-730-1130 | | news(a)agis.net 24 hours a day, 7 days a week | * harold(a)agis.net noc(a)agis.net * | <bold><italic> <underline>http://www.agis.net</underline></italic></bold> |<bold><italic> </italic></bold>\*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*/

4 3

Well done Sprint!
by Neil J. McRae 15 Nov '97

15 Nov '97

Wee after only about a year Sprint have lost the "/"'s! traceroute to www.sprint.net (204.117.214.13), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 router (194.70.50.129) 1.397 ms 1.2 ms 3.505 ms 2 gin-nyy-ac1.Teleglobe.net (207.45.199.245) 83.074 ms 82.97 ms 82.858 ms 3 sl-gw16-pen-2-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.164.61) 85.841 ms 85.247 ms 85.274 ms 4 208.28.7.25 (208.28.7.25) 103.272 ms 96.141 ms 88.932 ms 5 sl-bb6-pen-4-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.0.77) 87.373 ms 101.192 ms 94.284 ms 6 sl-bb3-pen-4-0-0-155M.sprintlink.net (144.232.0.73) 90.893 ms 86.522 ms 90.032 ms 7 sl-bb2-dc-5-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.2) 91.378 ms 90.434 ms 92.114 ms 8 sl-s1-dc-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.20.121) 92.608 ms 92.737 ms 92.398 ms 9 ftp.sprintlink.net (204.117.214.13) 98.038 ms * 90.365 ms -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night neil(a)DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>

3 2

Re: AGIS Signing up New Spammers
by Phil Lawlor 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

James has gone home. The answer is no. At 02:55 PM 11/14/97 -0800, you wrote: >Yo James! > >On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, James K. Hood wrote: > >> We have removed all filters except for >> one or two die-hard "forward all spam to AGIS with 10 copies to each >> employee and internal mailing list" sites. > >Does this include abuse.net? > >And before someone flames me, yes this affects my router! I have >blackholed all mail from agis net blocks. Using formulas posted >here on nanog. > >RGDS >GARY >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 > gem(a)rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176 > > Phil Lawlor President AGIS Voice - 313-730-1130 Fax - 313-563-6119

1 0

LifeSpan of the MAEs?
by Deepak Jain 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

Anyone care to guess how long WorldComm will be providing MAE service/people will be using MAE service for interconnection purposes? Deepak

1 0

RE: GTE to acquire Genuity
by Rodney Joffe 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

Gordon, I have to admit that you're right. You really do have all the answers, and you really do know it all. I guess the fact that there are only two shareholders in Genuity, me and Bechtel, both of whom know exactly what Jon could and couldn't do, and who accepted his conditions when he joined the board, is unimportant. And the fact that Jon knew this, and understood that his fiduciary responsibility in this area was subject *only* to the shareholders, both of whom assured him in terms that he was prepared to accept that they would *not* expect him to or ask him to _abuse_ his position of trust outside of Genuity to assist Genuity unfairly, is irrelevant. Gordon, I have never been able to quite fathom out why you chose this industry to attempt to make a living, and not the same industry as the National Enquirer. I think you've missed your calling. I only hope your clients realise the true value of your reporting. So that others are privy to the same information that I gave you, let me be specific ( and remember, I don't owe ANYONE an explanation, but I want to undo the damage that your buffoonery has caused); Bechtel never really had to make a choice about whether Jon joined the board or an advisory board. I nominated him to the board as one of *my* representatives. They didn't know Jon from a hitchiker before this. I wanted someone clueful to help me guide Genuity along a *good* path, and away from the dark side (obviously I passed on asking you). I think I can proudly say that Genuity has been an exemplary internet citizen (I, of course, may not have been). So when you attempt to to wind people up with your paranoia, you do someone who has done a lot of good for the Internet over *many* years a grave injustice. Fortunately I care more about what honest, good people like Jerry Scharf says, than I do about what you say. If I didn't, I'd probably spend some real energy telling you what I really think. Does anyone know if Paul's RBL works on a single netaxs address? Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook@netaxs.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 11:38 PM > To: Jerry Scharf > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: GTE to acquire Genuity > > > > > On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > you have the way of spinning the longest line of crappy conjectures > into a > > proposal of irresponsibility. > > false: you should read what i wrote more carefully before you fly > publicly off t he handle. > > > > I'm sure you could spin an equally long chain of > > things into a reason why no one from the IAB or IETF ADs should have > anything > > at stake with the industry they help direct. > > > So IANA has no special powers? > > > > For this particular case, there > > are facts to prove your conjecture flawed. > > > wrong because you misread my conjecture. > > > > I was consulting at Genuity when then needed to do their initial IP > address > > gathering for their new network. They sent in a proposal to Kim, and > Kim told > > them no. Rodney was very upset at the time, but there was never any > > interference by the IANA. When Genuity provided better documentation > and > > cleaned up some things, then they got address blocks like anyone > else. > > > > May I quote what you over looked: Now I am confident that he has not > used > his position to give special benefit to genuity. > > and later in the same post: Rodney Joffe explained to me in very > glowing > terms this summer why jon > was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. > > Further explanation - Rodney Joffe told me precisely the same story > which > i published verbatim.....and more besides..... jon came out pure as > the > driven snow > > > > At least judge Jon by his actions, not by your inferred doubt. The > evidence is > > that when put in the exact situation you feared, the IANA acted by > not acting. > > Genuity was not harmed financially by this (I think even Rodney will > now admit > > that) so there is no damage to be fretted about. Certainly there > will be a > > tidy profit to Bechtel and the other founders of Genuity. > > > > I never suggested genuity was harmed. I do state that one of the > senior members of the community who knows the laws of the fiduciary > legal > responsibility of members of boards of directors far better than I > pointed out that he believed it possible that a genuity stock holder > who was aware of jons proper from the internet point of view, could > have > taken legal action against jon for NOT making a decision that > benefitted > genuity and using his powers to act for the fiduciary benefit of the > company of which he was a director and for which he had such a legal > responsibility. > > now I am a r ussian history Phd....read trained as an academic....as > is > jon.....and most academics aren't terribly aware of these > nuances.....so I > can understand jon's accepting the directorship. > > guess my bitch is why would the presumably legally savvy business > staff > of genuity/bechtel have put jon however unwittingly into such a > position?. > > I have been told be those who are also my seniors, that Jon is and > "icon" > and when one critcizes him one can expect all hell to break > loose....looks > like my seniors were right.....but it also looks like I owe him no > apology. > > and before you continue your flame I hope you will look more carefully > at > what I am saying. > > > I believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this. > > > > jerry > > > > > ====================== > read my original post more carefully this time. > > Last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board. It is my > understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility to act in > the > best financial interests of genuity. Seems to me this creates a > conflict > of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit > genuity with IP allocations etc. Now I am confident that he has not > used > his position to give special benefit to genuity. but I am also told > that > he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when > it > could be argued he had the power to do so. This is a distinction that > I > was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a > business > background might also be slow to grasp. > > Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon > was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. Point is Jon could > have > had the same impact as a special advisor to the board. one wonders > why > genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these > issues went with the board choice anyway. > > does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired? i > would hope so.

6 5

Re: Well done Sprint!
by Ex-Support Wench 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ, CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"? Steve Blair wrote: > >well, one could get Van Jacobson's pathchar, and learn the >true capacity that way. I could care less what *theoretical >bandwidth* is available, when customers complain. I want to >know what bandwidth *is available*, and pathchar goes a very >long way towards that end. > >link labelling could be arguably silly, if you're basing your >determination on a competetitor's labels, you could >get some unusual surprises IMHO... > >-- >steve c blair tivoli systems inc sblair(a)dev.tivoli.com >"Why can't we blast them onto someone else's property?" > >'Vadim Antonov writes...' >**> >**> There's no use in promoting corporate paranoia at the expense of >**> engineering cooperation. It is like butcheing the hen which lays >**> the golden eggs. Knowing link capacity was useful (while it lasted) >**> to get the idea of what is more likely to be dropping packets >**> on the floor when customers complained.

5 4

Re: NAP Solutions
by Vadim Antonov 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

>why not to consider GigaEthernet as media of choice for NAP in >combination with Fast Ethernet >if needed? > Greg Because it is too little, too late? --vadim

1 0