- Test - lists.nanog.org

better pay attention to holubs listing of folk at D o J
by Gordon Cook 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

herewith a few sentences from an AP story: Regulators are likely to examine the deal to see if such dominance would squeeze out rivals and drive up prices. But several analysts said they expect the deal to clear that hurdle, because there are roughly 4,000 other Internet access providers. ``They'll be a formidable competitor with a tremendous amount of market clout,'' said Rebecca Wetzel, a consultant with TeleChoice Inc., based in Verona, N.J. ``But there are plenty of other choices out there.'' ---------------- by saying there is nothing to worry about because there are 4,000 other internet access providers, the analysts betray their abysmal ignorance!!! I have a very unpleasant feeling that Sidgemore would like to be king of the internet. And that he likely doesn't know the internet well enough to realize that it rejects would be kings. If I were an ISP, I'd pay plenty of attention to David Holubs post of relevant people at DoJ to who to express your concerns. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com New Special Report: Internet Governance at the Crossroads ($175) http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml ************************************************************************

5 4

Current prefix length filtering
by Forrest W. Christian 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

I just recieved a new allocation from the internic. I had requested an /18 (based upon my previous allocation of an /18). The internic unfortunately has decided that an /19 is the largest block they can justify allocating to me. I don't want to get into an internic war here, although I am not that happy about the size of the allocation, as I feel that I've done everything right in conserving address space instead of doing what some smaller providers do and allocate everyone a /24, which would have consumed my /18 in 3 months instead of a year or so. The real question I have for nanog is who is filtering on 209/8 for prefixes longer than /18? I'm quite concerned about connectivity to the customers I'm going to have to put in this /19. Have all the major providers started filtering on /19's or am I going to have major problems with this block? Thanks, forrestc(a)imach.com

2 1

WorldCom - Schedule Maintenance (fwd)
by Eric D. Madison 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

Hmm.. So they finally started sending out scheduled outages for the Mae's.. Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:18:07 -0600 From: Valerie Thomas <valerie.thomas(a)wcom.com> To: noc(a)above.net, madison(a)acsi.net, admin(a)agis.net, nc(a)ai.net, trouble(a)ans.net, reschly(a)arl.armt.mil, hostmaster(a)attmail.com, ttbrewster(a)attmail.com, mahmed(a)bactel.net, opc(a)bbnplanet.com, sysmail(a)cableinet.net, hostmaster(a)cableol.net, noc(a)cais.com, hostmaster(a)clr.com, hostmaster(a)conxion.net, noc(a)conxion.net, noc(a)cwi.net, noc(a)cyberconnection.com, bill_stritzinger(a)dataplace.net, dns(a)digex.net, noc(a)dra.net, admin(a)dx.net, abuse(a)erols.com, hosrmaster(a)es.net, noc(a)eu.net, simon(a)euro.net, support(a)exodus.net, kbacon(a)fibernet.net, ad-dormreg(a)genuity.net, noc(a)geo.net, hostmaster(a)getnet.com, jemmette(a)goodnet.com, tc(a)grid.net, bmanning(a)isi.edu, noc(a)primenet.com, estout(a)usgs.gov, help(a)uu.net, jun(a)wolfox.gip.net Subject: WorldCom - Schedule Maintenance ** Routed Mail. Please reply when completed ** Notification of Scheduled Maintenance - MAE EAST WorldCom Global Network Services has scheduled maintenance in Washington, DC on 11/13/97 at 23:00 et. until 24:00 et. We will swap out the linecards in slots 5 9 11 of giga6. This will reduce the huntgroup member density of each switch by a factor of one for the duration of approx 2min which includes the hard swap and spanning tree reconfig on a per card basis. All customers Mae wide will experience a slight degrade in service as there will be a temporary reduction in bandwidth. Some packet loss may be experienced. A maintenance ticket has been opened with our 24 hour Customer Service Center. The Ticket# is 138507. You may refer to these tickets for any questions or concerns related to this scheduled maintenance activity. The WorldCom/GNS Network Management Center will be monitoring all activity in conjunction with our local WorldCom Data Communications Consultant who will be on-site. The WorldCom staff will be readily available to ensure immediate attention is given to customer network service as required. If you should have any questions regarding this activity, please feel free to contact our Customer Service Center @ 1-800-MFS-7170. Customer Service

1 0

Summary: UUNET..
by jamie＠intuition.iagnet.net 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

I must commend UUNET for its response to my posting.. I haven't even received my post back to me that I sent this morning and already I have had three UUNET engineers (two from the US, one from Canada) _call_ me. The issue is: There's congestion between Tor-Cleveland. (Someone admitted it) :-) The resolution is: There are scheduled upgrades to OC3c the week of 11/17 from UU-CA to UU @ TCO. They're also adding more DS3s at other points. Thanks, all. -- 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

RE: MCI Accepts Worldcom's Bid?
by Jim Browning 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

Say bye-bye to the concept of peering, huh? -- Jim ---------- From: Kevin Houle [SMTP:kevin@netins.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 6:43 AM Heard on the radio this morning that MCI accepted Worldcom's latest bid of ~$36 billion. MCI's website confirms. http://www.mci.com/aboutus/company/news/wcom/index.shtml Kevin

14 15

Re: New MAE-EAST
by Adam Hersh 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

At 01:01 PM 11/8/97 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > >At the risk of litigation, Kent makes a good point here: how much of >the problems we see are engineering based, and how much are (let's say >it softly: political? > How many of the smaller/regional providers need to really connect to a MAE? Shouldn't they be multi-homed to two to four providers verses connecting to a MAE and have their traffic ignored b/c of not standing up to most backbone networks peering requirements? OR should backbone providers support more MAEs? I do not think backbone providers will support more MAEs it does not stabilize their networks or increase revenues. Another possibility might be a backbone provider building a shared media exchange point that included transit for their network(s) as well. It would need to have more "open" rules than the current MFS run MAEs do, but also ensure cost effectiveness for the backbone provider as well. Please feel free to take this "off-line" with an email.... -Adam Hersh

1 0

Re: Announcing The New "MAE-EAST"
by Al Roethlisberger 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

At 02:23 PM 11/7/97 -0800, you wrote: >> I've already published the traffic >> growth charts for the next 12 months. see >> http://www.6SigmaNets.com/trailer-exchange/business-plan/index.html > >I'm ready to add your exchange to my list (although this is the third "mobil" >exchange that I've been told of) as soon as your web pages are active. > >(how do you expect to generate confidence if you have no web pages? Word of >mouth? Reputation? :) > >-- >--bill > Wep pages, hrmph, the lack thereof is probably additional security sign me up =)

2 1

Re: PSInet - iSTAR purchase
by Chris MacFarlane 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

Don't forget about little old ACC! In our view this makes us the only mid sized nationwide ISP in the great white north! ACC/Internet Canada www.ican.net looks better every day! Chris MacFarlane Manager, Data Operations ACC Telecom 4162132023 cmacfarlane(a)acc.ca cjm(a)ican.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gibson <magibson(a)netcom.ca> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Monday, November 10, 1997 12:30 PM Subject: Re: PSInet - iSTAR purchase >The Canadian marketplace just got smaller. This and the recent hookup stuff >leave us with a handful of national ISPs. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> >Date: Monday, November 10, 1997 11:21 AM >Subject: PSInet - iSTAR purchase > > >> >>Forwarded to me by a wimp who didn't want to be accused of solely >>posting trivia to NANOG: >> >>"In a surprise move calculated to restore their preeminence as the #1 >> deaggregated route leaker, PSInet (PSIX.O) has agreed to buy iSTAR >> in a stock swap." >> >>Avi >> >> >

2 1

Re: /19 addresses and redundancy
by Sean M. Doran 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

Phil Howard <phil(a)charon.milepost.com> writes: > Route filtering is not the end of the world. Wow. Times have changed. > You also need to make sure that the ISPs do not filter routes for parts > of their own blocks coming in from other peers. If ISP-A did such filtering, > then their own customers will find you unreachable, as well as those in ISP-C > if ISP-C sends traffic for you into ISP-A. > > I know of no ISPs doing such a thing Sprintlink did at one point. It's a really good idea to do this in general because it mitigates the disconnectivity customers assigned prefixes out of one's address blocks will suffer if and when someone accidentally(?) announces subnet of those blocks. Inbound filters can be adjusted, you know. Unfortunately the people who have inbound filters have never figured out that they should make this a service that they charge for. However, since inbound announcement filtering is a game anyone can play, I recommend people consider the implications of fee-based filter updating and how it can effect their routing whether or not they are the ones doing the inbound filtering. Connectivity = bidirectional bandwidth + bidirectional reachability. Connectivity = value. Sean.

4 3

Cleveland<->Toronto UUNET..
by jamie＠intuition.iagnet.net 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

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