- Test - lists.nanog.org

Internet access and telco usage patterns
by Michael Dillon 05 Jul '96

05 Jul '96

There is an interesting column in PC Mag http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1513/pcmg0017.htm regarding "Will the Internet Crash" but Machrone understands the technology better than to do a chicken little imitation. Anyway, he has an anecdote about what PC Mag's BBS did to telco usage patterns with about 100 dialup lines in use nationally. I know that Bell Canada in the toronto area of Canada and BC Tel in Vancouver have also run into problems caused by Internet dialup usage patterns that lead BC-Tel to drop selling Centrex to ISP's and Bell Canada to attempt putting ISP's into a higher tariff category. I suppose other telcos are running into similar capacity problems. Anyway, since some of the core providers in North America are telcos (Sprint, MCI) and since all the other ones work rather closely with the telcos for obvious reasons, I have a question. Has anybody looked at the practicality of installing modem pools in each telco switch location to grab the dialup user's traffic at the IP level and then route it to their ISP of choice for authentication and further routing. In other words, an ISP wouldn't buy phone lines, modems and terminal servers, they would buy IP access ports. I have heard of something like this (I think) going on in Britain where Demon Internet services has Energis providing their dialin lines via something called the Virtual POP in which Demon has no equipment located outside their NOC and has the ability to switch capacity from location to location as load patterns change. Of course, this is probably not working at the IP level but simply dealing with routing of digitized switched audio calls. Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com

4 4

re: AGIS Route Flaps Interrupting its Peering?
by Mark Kent 04 Jul '96

04 Jul '96

Regarding an internal Digex report of AGIS instability, Gordon Cook asks of an inappropriate audience: >> does anyone know what happened? The Digex report is seriously flawed. Ed Kern of Digex has told us that he is looking into how the conclusions in that report were reached. However, I'm sure that Kern didn't think that he would have to share his findings with nanog, inet-access, and agislist... -mark

2 1

AGIS Route Flaps Interrupting its Peering?
by Gordon Cook 04 Jul '96

04 Jul '96

I received the following this evening: From: help(a)digex.net (DIGEX Help Desk - System Status) Newsgroups: digex.status Subject: System Status Message 1149 (6:25 PM, Wed Jul 3 1996) [...] o We have also received reports of a lack of connectivity to certain web sites. The reason for these connectivity problems is that routers controlled by Apex Global Information Services (AGIS) are attempting to exchange routing data with DIGEX routers too often, and our routers have stopped listening to their routers. Other major Internet Service Providers are also experiencing these effects. DIGEX has no control over this situation, and therefore, we have no ETR. Connectivity will resume as soon as the AGIS routers stop flooding DIGEX routers with route updates. does anyone know what happened? ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" ***********************************************************************

1 0

Re: hostname anecdotes
by salo＠msc.edu 03 Jul '96

03 Jul '96

> From: Alan Hannan <alan(a)gi.net> > Subject: hostname anecdotes > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:51:32 -0500 (CDT) > > I'm not certain that the hostname anecdotes are terribly relevant > to the operation of north american networks. > > Perhaps the discussion could be more well suited in big internet? It might be useful for NANOG to discuss what involvement NANOG and ISPs ought to have with these schemes. o Should, for example, NANOG agree that ISPs ought not provide secondary name service for this sort of activity? o Should NANOG agree that some sorts of domain name speculation are good grounds to terminate a customer? o Should NANOG decide that some other organization ought to address these issues? (What ever happen to FARNET?) - ISOC? - IETF? - The courts? - The Internic? o Should NANOG stick to purely technical issues? -tjs

1 0

hostname anecdotes
by Alan Hannan 03 Jul '96

03 Jul '96

I'm not certain that the hostname anecdotes are terribly relevant to the operation of north american networks. Perhaps the discussion could be more well suited in big internet? -alan

1 0

RE: Hostname Scam
by Regis Donovan 02 Jul '96

02 Jul '96

edfang(a)visi.net sez, wrt the visit.<state>.com "enforcement": >> I just can't wait to here of a suit about visit.netscape.com being an infringing trade/service mark netscape is a state? ut oh. i'd better start reading the papers again... "but your honor! the host was only CNAME'd to visit!" --regis

1 0

Re: Hostname Scam
by edfang＠visi.net 02 Jul '96

02 Jul '96

Actually, I would think that the $100.00 is not a major concern (~5K for entire US domain). However it is taken by other companies. However, I wonder about this 'enforcement' of an idea upon other people's 'property' (loosely coined here). I just can't wait to here of a suit about visit.netscape.com being an infringing trade/service mark. Ed > > The postscript states an intention on the part of USA Internet > > Gateway to register and enforce the hostname "visit" for any > > <state>.com domain. Sounds absurd, but you never know what > > will happen in the US legal system. > > > If, for any reason you are not interested in this offer, surely you > understand our request that you not resolve a machine to serve pages on the > "visit" machine name. None of you now has a machine named "visit" and any > future use of that machine name IN A SIMILAR MANNER as USA Internet Gateway, > Inc.'s would be deemed an intentional violation of our registered > trademarks, servicemarks, and patent(s) which may be currently pending. > > > Hmm. Actually, it seems like an excellent method for avoiding paying > $100 for the registration of a domain with InterNIC. Could this be their > motivation? ;-) >

2 1

Hostname Scam
by Mark M. Borchers 02 Jul '96

02 Jul '96

Here's an interesting twist. This company wants to operate a series of web sites named visit.<state>.com. They want everyone who holds a domain named after a state in the COM TLD to support the effort in DNS. There is repeated reference to potential advertising revenue, so this is a commercial venture. The postscript states an intention on the part of USA Internet Gateway to register and enforce the hostname "visit" for any <state>.com domain. Sounds absurd, but you never know what will happen in the US legal system. Mark Borchers InfiNet Network Engineering > > USA Internet Gateway, Inc > 13825 US Hwy 19 > Suite 404 F > Hudson, Florida 34667-1191 > > July 1, 1996 > > Dear Domain Administrator: > > I am writing *YOU* personally, to formally announce the Visit.Earth(sm) > Project - A Global Internet Guide. I share this information because I would > like to involve your domain in the project. > > As a state named domain, you are uniquely positioned to join in this private > intitiative. Specifically, USA Internet Gateway, Inc., in association with > Universal Video, has developed a website plan that will bring a great deal > of attention to participating websites. > > Basically, and without a lot of hype, we propose that you provide us with a > perpetual license for the machine name "visit" on your domain > (Visit.Your-State-Named-Domain.com) In exchange, we will provide you with > perpetual exposure by way of a link on the opening screen of the homepage > for your respective "visit" website. > > More details ... > (a) There is no cash required for this transaction. > (b) USA Internet Gateway, Inc. will assume full responsibility for all > "visit" websites; > (c) the machine names WILL NOT be sub-licensed - period; > (d) An IP number will be supplied for you to add to your DNS records for > the "visit" machine; > (e) If you provide DNS for your network - submit the confirmation > (attached) and we'll send information so you can update your BIND database > file (by adding an "A" record and an "MX" record). That's all* you have to do; > > - DNS services have been contracted and will be provided for those domains > that do not actually have a network currently on-line. > - If, for some reason, you prefer not to have a link to your WWW site, one > WILL NOT be posted. > > Over the next nine months we will be bringing countries around the globe and > states across the country on-line under the Visit.Earth Project (see > http://visit.earth.com) In fact, holders of most country-named domains are > being contacted in a separate mailing right now. > > As we continue to develop, so, we believe, will Internet traffic. And, if > you will provide a license, you will be linked to the front page for your > respective state. Thus, while there is currently no model available, we > believe the advertising you receive as compensation for the machine name > will generate a continuing source of opportunity. > > And (while NOT part of this offer), there are several exciting possibilities > for the future. Some steps you may want to take now! For example: Is there > a state chamber of commerce in your state? If not, you may want to follow > the tennessee.com lead (see http://visit.tennessee.com/chambers/) and > register it as your trademark. You may also notice that tennessee.com is > offering it's other county and city machine names to local area chambers and > others. > > This extension of our concept is of mutual benefit to tennessee.com, > Universal Video, USA Internet Gateway, Inc., and every domain that becomes > involved. The beauty of the project is the independence of it. You don't > have to sell machine names or email forwarding services. You don't have to > supply bandwidth for the "visit" site. You are not required to modify your > domain content in any way. It's not a franchise. There are no current or > future charges associated with the perpetual license. It's all your > irrevocable independent decision. And, even if you decide not to do > anything now, you can change your mind after you see the benefit of > extending the concept into your own state. Further, it is reasonable to > assume that future advertising campaigns may produce residual benefits for > your domain. > > Again, the perpetual license has nothing to do with whether or not you > extend the "visit" concept into your own state, beyond the fact that it > assures that your domain will be announced in the opening screen of the > respective "visit" homepage. A national advertising fund HAS NOT yet been > established. The plan is not at that phase and we have not set a date for > such a campaign. I mention the above now, only to direct your thoughts into > the realm of future possibilities for an alliance of independents and, so > that you may take steps now to further that opportunity. > > This is USA Internet Gateway, Inc.'s first offer to any corporation or > individual. Since we felt certain that you would be interested in this > opportunity, we have only approached those .com domains with full state > names (i.e., tennessee.com - not "tn.com", "tenn.com", "tennessee.net", > "tn.net", etc.). We feel strongly you will never find a better opportunity > in exchange for your currently-unused domain machine name. > > I look forward to receiving your confirmation. > > Sincerely, > > > > A.S. Noe > > > > > * A copy of this email was sent to your Internic-listed technical contact. > She may well inform you that there are other things that have to be done, > such as resetting serial numbers, restarting daemons, etc.. This is, of > course, true. The point is, it's a pretty simple process. > > If, for any reason you are not interested in this offer, surely you > understand our request that you not resolve a machine to serve pages on the > "visit" machine name. None of you now has a machine named "visit" and any > future use of that machine name IN A SIMILAR MANNER as USA Internet Gateway, > Inc.'s would be deemed an intentional violation of our registered > trademarks, servicemarks, and patent(s) which may be currently pending. > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > USA INTERNET GATEWAY, INC. > Perpetual Name License Agreement > > > > As Owner of the _________________________________________________ domain, > > I _________________________________________________________hereby issue a > perpetual name license to USA Internet Gateway, Inc. for the machine name > "VISIT" on the above referenced domain. To that end, I agree to modify the > DNS records for the above referenced domain to reflect the "VISIT" machine > name, including an "MX" record for mail. I agree to make one change per > year for each of these records at no cost to USA Internet Gateway, Inc., and > if additional changes are requested, records updates will be made at a rate > of $100 per hour. > > I understand that my full payment for this perpetual name license is to be > received in the form of advertising on the opening screen of the homepage > for the "VISIT" machine on my domain. The banner on that page will be > linked to the Unique Resource Locator I specify and may be changed once per > year at no cost to me. I understand that I may change the link and/or the > banner more than once a year, but those additional changes will be done at a > rate of $100 per hour. It is agreed that I may resell this advertising > space if I so desire. > > Finally, I understand that USA Internet Gateway, Inc. is assuming full > responsibility for the operation, content and maintenance of the "VISIT" > machine and shall hold me harmless in the event of any litigation that may > arise pertaining to that "VISIT" site. > > Signed: > > _____________________________ > > > for _____________________________ > >

2 1

Re: Hostname Scam
by Bill Woodcock 02 Jul '96

02 Jul '96

> You may also notice that tennessee.com is offering it's other > county and city machine names to local area chambers and others. Hey, now there's a great way of easing up the TLD crunch... Let's just replicate the US domain inside COM. :-) -Bill Woodcock ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)applelink.apple.com user(a)host.domain.com

1 0

Re: Internet access and telco usage patterns
by rmg＠ranma.com 02 Jul '96

02 Jul '96

From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > When we discussed some of these things last year on can.infohighway I > pointed out that if they could divide the traffic by type that they could > get better trunk utilization by running IP between the CO's. This is the > modem in every switch location scenario. Thinking about this, this is not such a bad idea (I'm from a telco background). But doing it on the IP level, we would need to look into compression for transporting packets back to the nearest "routing center." There are a few ways to compress (from good old STAC and predictor to hardware-level compression like Magnalinks). No doubt that as ports are made available, people will fill them up to create more traffic. Also, a direct switch-port interface needs to be utilized. Without a design right in the central-office switch fabric, all you'll have is just a shorter path to clog up switch ports. Yes, you'll alleviate interswitch trunking, but you'll still end up with no dialtone if you're using twice as many ports to process an "IP call" (one port for the caller and one port for the terminal server). > Additionally, if they segregate > voice traffic they could use compression technology to get as much as 4 > times the conversations on a trunk. Gandalf makes boxes that will run 4 > voice lines down a digital DS0 circuit and the quality is very good. You > can tell there is compression there but it's better than long distance > line quality often is. MCI played with voice compression in the late 80's (called ADPCM). and they had pretty bad results. They had equipment which was supposed to detect the initial sequence of modem tones (the first tone "clears" out any echo cancellors on the circuit), but they got so many calls for bad faxes and modems not connecting that they ripped out most of the ADPCM equipment. Some of it is still there, but at more remote sites now. Mfgrs claim to have better detection (and also trying for MPEG compression) but some of the early adoptors (read: telcos) still have healing scars. rob.

1 0