- Test - lists.nanog.org

URL for undersea cables?
by Kenneth E. Gray 03 Jun '97

03 Jun '97

Hello gents and ladies, Following the "connectivity outside the US" thread. Did not some kind gent proffer a URL to an undersea cable map on this list in the recent past? If so, could someone forward it along ... I lost the sucker. TIA Ken Gray || || ISP Systems Engineer || || Reston, Virginia USA |||| |||| tel: +1.703.397.5942 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. e-mail: kegray(a)cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s fax: +1.703.397.5999

4 3

Re: Information re: Cyberpromo
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 03 Jun '97

03 Jun '97

>> Was that some wrappered service? Looked like tcp_wrappers. >> I think a router with enough memory would be a better performer >> for filtering activies at that layer. [snip] >one semi-solution would be to receive vixie's spam feed, at least it's as >precise as possible .. and less headache. I would guess if you can ever get it turned up it is. Affiliation for identifcation, not endorsement, etc etc etc... Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 800.763.8111 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc. <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

3 2

NANOG MEETING-TAMPA FL- JUNE 5 & 6
by Pam Ciesla 03 Jun '97

03 Jun '97

Registration lists fro the NANOG meeting & tuturial are closed. If you are not registered you can still do so on-site. Please do not send any request via e-mail. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Re: RFC 1918 addresses
by prue＠ISI.EDU 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

Paul, >> I agree that ever having a source or destination IP that's RFC1918 outside >> the domain is a very bad thing. >I don't see anyone here disagreeing with that, but apparently a number of >ISP's did not consider the ICMP case when they gave numbers to their T1's, >and so it's a question of definition rather than of intent. Transit nets >are public, not private, and so they have to have public, not private, >addresses. I want to respectfully disagree. I do run internal routing protocols that can't handle VLSM or CIDRization permitting cutting up a class C into 64 disconnected pieces. , igrp in particular. Because of this I would burn too many network numbers by having to use public network numbers for all my T1's. I never permit a case where both sides of a router have RFC1918 address space so there is no confusion in a traceroute at to where to address questions about routing issues. Purity of addresses is valuable but I am willing to compromise on this in this instance. Walt

1 0

Bye...
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

-IF- there is a kind person who would be willing to forward me material relevent to network operations I'd appreciate it. Voting w/ his unsubscribe key.... --bill

11 11

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Justin W. Newton 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

At 04:06 AM 6/1/97 -0400, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: >On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Circuit wrote: > >> comments, rants, flames? > >Do satellites really stand a chance against fibre? Most people think not, >and more specifically that their competitiveness shall continue to decline >as time progresses. Not exactly the kind of thing one wants to lay out >large capital expenditures on... High orbit, geosyncronous sattelites do not stand much of a chance against land lines as the latency on the links is quite high. Low orbit satellites, however, can be quite effective competition assuming that they have enough satellites to get coverage. These types of satellites are the ones that Gates is thinking of launching as well as several other companies/consortiums. When we can all have > 1MB/sec connectivity wireless to our laptops/video portable phones, with global coverage, satellites will rule the day. Justin "I still like land lines" Newton Justin W. Newton Senior Network Architect Priori Networks http://www.priori.net ISP/C, Director at Large http://www.ispc.org

6 6

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Circuit 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

Hi all, I have been following this thread with some interest. A few months ago a friend of mine from Fore Systems told me about the 'ACTS' project. NASA and Ohio-State and quite a few others were doing research into the Gigabit Satelite Network. There was a test between Sony in Japan and I 'BELIEVE' JPL in Pasadena of hight def video transmissions over an OC-3 circuit. I heard something about a quasi commercial deployment of another ACTS project. Anybody heard anything about this? If enough birds like ACTS were sent up, this could be a boon for ISP's maybe. Of course I live in this ideal world where everybody is reasonable, intelligent, and well yea I know things are just quite the opposite. If MCI/AT&T/NTT/GTE put this into motion then were doomed, but if Hughes (read someone who doesn't own an ISP yet) put one up, it might be a bit more promising. Who knows... comments, rants, flames? ---- From: Mark Ansboury <mansboury(a)yesvirtual.com> To: Sean M. Doran <smd(a)clock.org>; avg(a)pluris.com; bgreene(a)cisco.com; jesse(a)netthink.com Cc: map(a)iphil.net; nanog(a)merit.edu; smd(a)clock.org Date: Saturday, May 31, 1997 7:34 PM Subject: Re: connectivity outside the US >The only ISPs that can really afford to stay in the game >in a big way "over the long haul" are now the carriers themselves. The end >result??? The marketing and pricing strategies of the ISP and market are >being commercialized and in the overseas markets looking more like the >pricing strategies of the typical telephone service offering.The cost for >overseas cables are not going to be coming down in a big way over the next >couple of years. They will more likely go up. At least for our foreseeable >future. The next few years. The pent up demand is to great. > Now where is Judge Green (is he retired ?) when you need him?! Feds are sleeping as usual....I usually don't like the Feds sticking their noses into places, but I loath the telcos and their continuing lies and extortion of consumers and businesses. Ack. I can't tell you how many times GTE screwes everything up! Chris "Don't get me started bitching about telcos/carriers"

4 3

gTLD-MoU Web Site (fwd)
by jamie＠dilbert.iagnet.net 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

----- Forwarded message from Robert Shaw ----- >From owner-iahc-info(a)imc.org Sun Jun 1 17:52:06 1997 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:44:28 -0700 From: Robert Shaw <robert.shaw(a)itu.int> Subject: gTLD-MoU Web Site To: iahc-info(a)iahc.org Message-id: <33925DBC.1C280DDA(a)itu.int> Organization: ITU X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sender: owner-iahc-info(a)imc.org Precedence: bulk Hi, The gTLD-MoU web site is now officially available and can be found at: http://www.gtld-mou.org Some important information is now available. 1. Draft application form for becoming a Registrar under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU. Applications cannot yet be made but there is a draft of the near finalized application form with the probably final criteria. 2. Draft of the Council of Registrars (CORE) Memorandum of Understanding. 3. Draft of the Council of Registars (CORE) Articles of Association. Queries/comments concerning these and related documents should be addressed to poc-submit(a)gtld-mou.org Robert ----- End of forwarded message from Robert Shaw ----- -- jamie g.k. rishaw dal/efnet:gavroche Internet Access Group 'whois JGR2' for PGP keyID/Fingerprint __ Network Operations/TSD DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800.637.4IAGx5455 DES: Help Crack the code! http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm

1 0

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Bill Woodcock 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

My recollection is that ACTS is free for use by public universities, but that the footprint doesn't reach very far north, and that the latency is high enough that not very many schools are actually using it. -Bill

1 0

Re: RFC 1918 addresses
by Matthew James Gering 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

> Exposing an RFC 1918 private address in, say, a "Received:" header in e-mail > is less of a problem, though the spammers who do it are actually better able > to cover their origins, there's no way to prevent it and no normal damage > from doing it. Unless the SMTP server used to proxy email through a firewall is able to strip headers, it's unavoidable. I would like to see that feature added to SMTP servers, however, I do hate letting internal host names and addresses out. Matt

2 1