- Test - lists.nanog.org

GTE to acquire Genuity
by Bob Collie 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Doesn't this mean that GTE Internetworking will own: BBN NAP.NET Genuity GTE's own network? -Bob --On Thu, Nov 13, 1997 9:58 AM -0800 "Joe McDonald" <joe(a)vpop.net> wrote: > > You should *not* cut and paste this into your router: > > GTE to Acquire Genuity: > http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/1997/11/1301-gte.html > > -joe > > ============================================================================ > * NewsHub: Updated every 15 minutes/24 hours a day! * > http://web.NewsHub.com/ -- Bob Collie, VP/Chief Technical Officer, Telalink Corporation mailto:bob.collie@telalink.net

3 3

GTE to Acquire Genuity
by joe＠vpop.net 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

You should *not* cut and paste this into your router: GTE to Acquire Genuity: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/1997/11/1301-gte.html -joe ============================================================================= * NewsHub: Updated every 15 minutes/24 hours a day! * http://web.NewsHub.com/

1 0

Wow! Totally overwhelmed!
by Sheryl Chapin 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

I am totally overwhelmed by the responses I got from my request for help. Suggestions to buy certain books (which my local Barnes & Noble doesn't have, but they're ordered) right up to phone calls offering help. I really appreciate all the advice and help I've been offerred and I apologize if I don't get a chance to thank everyone individually :-) Thanks muchly! Sheryl Sheryl Chapin CommTel Internet 207.377.3508 schapin(a)ctel.net

1 0

Re: new facility for nanog mailing list
by Paul G. Donner 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

What is your criteria for judging a message to be auto-flamed? At 05:16 PM 11/12/97 +0000, Richard Welty wrote: >in light of the ongoing discussions about what kind of subject matter >is appropriate to the nanog mailing list, i have completed >development of an "autoflamer" intended to detect any inappropriate >postings to nanog and generate a suitable obnoxious response. > >in light of the difficulty of determing appropriateness of postings >to nanog, it appears that all postings to nanog will have to be >"autoflamed". > >this facility will be enabled on April 1st, 1998. > >cheers, > richard >-- >Richard Welty Chief Internet Engineer, INet Solutions >welty(a)inet-solutions.net http://www.inet-solutions.net/~welty/ >888-311-INET > >

4 3

None
by Stéphane Jacquet 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Give a visit to my home page !!!!! ================================== Stépane Jacquet sjacquet(a)musician.org http://www.worldnet.net/~sjacquet/

1 0

Re: your mail
by Marcel Schoenbeck 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Hank, Thanks. I've seen that article, but it did not furnish me with any "experiences" with these technologies. I appreciate the reference. Anybody have hands-on with these approaches and the relative strengths or weaknesses? Thanks, Marc >From hank(a)max.ibm.net.il Wed Nov 12 23:13:40 1997 >Received: from max.ibm.net.il (root(a)max.ibm.net.il [192.115.72.170]) by biff.ibm.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id JAA20008; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:13:20 +0200 >Received: from max.ibm.net.il (hank(a)max.ibm.net.il [192.115.72.170]) by max.ibm.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA92056; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:13:18 +0200 >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:13:18 +0200 (IST) >From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> >To: Marcel Schoenbeck <pbalum(a)hotmail.com> >cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: your mail >In-Reply-To: <19971112205706.6946.qmail(a)hotmail.com> >Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.971113091145.76182A-100000(a)max.ibm.net.il> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Marcel Schoenbeck wrote: > >Pretty comprehensive comparison done on 10/97 by Data Communications on >these and other companies. See: >http://www.data.com/roundups/class_system.html > >-Hank > > >> hello Nanog, >> >> A While back there was a thread on QoS, CoS... >> >> I'm interested what people think about this category of products. There >> appear to be a bunch of vendors after this this market... >> >> Cisco >> Ipsilon >> Checkpoint >> Packeteer >> Xedia >> Structured Internetworks >> >> Has anybody worked with any of these products? Do they work? >> What about the different technologies >> >> WFQ >> CBQ >> Flow Control >> not to mention RSVP >> >> Is one approach better than another. >> >> I'd love to hear any comments or experiences >> >> ~ Marc >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

None
by Marcel Schoenbeck 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

hello Nanog, A While back there was a thread on QoS, CoS... I'm interested what people think about this category of products. There appear to be a bunch of vendors after this this market... Cisco Ipsilon Checkpoint Packeteer Xedia Structured Internetworks Has anybody worked with any of these products? Do they work? What about the different technologies WFQ CBQ Flow Control not to mention RSVP Is one approach better than another. I'd love to hear any comments or experiences ~ Marc ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

RE: IPv8 < IPv6
by Jim Fleming 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Bradley Reynolds[SMTP:brad@b63695.student.cwru.edu] wrote: <snip> @ @Granted, there will be an administrative hierarchy no @matter how you structure addresses, but I would rather that the @consumer decides who is going to administer the tiers @of such a hierarchy instead of leaving that decision @to the protocol fairy. @ I suggest that you use IPv6... http://www.6bone.net/6bone-testv2-address.txt http://www.6bone.net/6bone-testv2-addr-usage.html Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI

1 0

Re: Cleveland<->Toronto UUNET..
by Chris MacFarlane 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Certainly, UUnet has admitted they have a congestion problem. We started seeing it during the Scottsdale conference. When reported to UUnet Canada they stated the following. "We have serious congestion between Buffalo NY and Cleveland Ohio on a DS3 between the sites." They have a OC3 circuit on order to the DC area to peer near the Mae-East on AS701. Last update I had they stated the circuit was delayed due to US local loop issue and should be up by month end. In the meantime they are trying to reroute traffic internally to relieve the problem. I don't have any report on the progress of that measure. Hope that helps Chris MacFarlane Manager, Data Operations ACC Telenterprises Canada 4162132023 cmacfarlane(a)acc.ca cjm(a)ican.net -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Rishaw <jamie(a)intuition.iagnet.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Cc: inet-access(a)earth.com <inet-access(a)earth.com> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 12:43 PM Subject: Cleveland<->Toronto UUNET.. >I've had half a dozen tickets open with UUNET, they insist they cannot >replicate. > >Has anyone (besides me) seen problems between Cleveland UU and UUNET-CA(Tor)? > >(It's sporadic but annoying) > >Here's one from Canada: >traceroute to arpa.com (207.206.90.13), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 205.150.226.1 (205.150.226.1) 2.749 ms 2.831 ms 2.243 ms > 2 vl151.f000.bb1.tor2.uunet.ca (205.150.242.93) 4.974 ms 3.597 ms >2.164 ms > 3 224.Hssi5-0.CR1.CLE1.Alter.Net (137.39.75.17) 348.772 ms * 346.820 >ms > 4 * Fddi0-0.GW1.CLE1.Alter.Net (137.39.37.101) 326.843 ms 359.163 ms > 5 iag-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.96.178) 332.980 ms 336.167 ms * > >And back: >traceroute to 205.150.226.3 (205.150.226.3), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 207-206-0-32-27.gw.iagnet.net (207.206.0.33) 1.112 ms 1.088 ms 0.958 ms > 2 fddi-0-0.core1.cleveland.iagnet.net (209.57.2.97) 1.010 ms 0.965 ms 1.353 ms > 3 905.Hssi4-0.GW1.CLE1.ALTER.NET (157.130.96.177) 3.406 ms 2.871 ms 1.759 ms > 4 Fddi0-0.CR1.CLE1.Alter.Net (137.39.37.99) 3.392 ms 3.533 ms 1.904 ms > 5 119.Hssix-x.BB1.TOR2.Alter.Net (137.39.75.18) 336.981 ms 351.017 ms 316.750 ms > 6 vl151.f000.bb1.tor1.uunet.ca (205.150.242.94) 308.387 ms 319.213 ms 362.870 ms > >-- >jamie g.k. rishaw dal/efnet:gavroche __ IAGnet/CIC/netILLINOIS Backoffice >DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800.637.4IAGx5455 > Chance favors the prepared mind. >

1 0

None
by John MacQueen 12 Nov '97

12 Nov '97

r

1 0