- Test - lists.nanog.org

subscribe
by mduckett＠bellsouth.net 04 Dec '95

04 Dec '95

subscribe ------------------------------------- E-mail: mduckett(a)bellsouth.net Michael Duckett Network Engineering Manager 1100 Johnson Ferry Rd, Suite 200 Atlanta, Ga. 30342 770 392-4324 fax 404 392-4360 This message was sent by Chameleon -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Censorship, Obligations, and Legal Responsibility
by Sean Doran 03 Dec '95

03 Dec '95

I hate to throw a wet blanket at Alan, but I would really prefer to redirect this kind of philosophical/legal question to either the cix-members list or to com-priv. I don't want to see NANOG dissolve into a forum for discussing legal issues, principally because a/ it's *NA*NOG, and the law is different in places in north america outside the USA, which many people invariably tend to forget, and b/ such discussions invariably attract long-winded flamefests. Given that such issues really don't overly affect network operations at this point in time, perhaps we won't be too bad off not dealing with them on this mailing list. Sean.

2 1

None
by Larry Amiot 03 Dec '95

03 Dec '95

Please remove me from the nanog(a)merit.edu email list....Larry Larry Amiot Electronics & Computing Technologies Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Il 60439-4844 Phone: (708) 252-5432 Fax: (708) 252-9689 Internet: amiot(a)anl.gov Bitnet: B10523@ANLVM X.400: /C=US/ADMD=/PRMD=ANL/S=amiot

1 0

Re: Censorship, Obligations, and Legal Responsibility
by Sean Doran 03 Dec '95

03 Dec '95

I should also point out that the reason I suggested cix-members is simply because the CIX has gone to bat with an amicus brief in a case involving precisely this question, and while I know Bob Collet reads NANOG with his Sprint hat on, asking him about the very angry Church of Scientology matter is best done in a place where he wears his CIX hat, I think. Besides, I'm sure he has scads of information about this entire set of issues he'd love to share. :) Sean.

1 0

Censorship, Obligations, and Legal Responsibility
by Alan Hannan 03 Dec '95

03 Dec '95

With the publicity surrounding the recently announced coalition and agreement eliminating 'pornography' from certain providers, I am curious as to what our group's thoughts are wrt potential legal expoure to us in the following two areas: A| Network Connectivity Providing and B| Usenet Network News Providing. I have arguments in my head both ways on the question: "Is the NSP|ISP responsible for content of their Pipes|NNTP feed?" I would be curious to hear what the concensus (as if there might be one) is. -alan

2 1

Re: Westnet and Utah outage
by Scott Huddle 02 Dec '95

02 Dec '95

So this is to imply that you do have a problem w/ Sprint and that you are picking on them in a specific way? -scott > From list-admin(a)merit.edu Wed Nov 22 09:23:19 1995 > Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:20:38 -0500 (EST) > From: Gordon Cook <gcook(a)tigger.jvnc.net> > Reply-To: cook(a)cookreport.com > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Westnet and Utah outage > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Content-Length: 762 > > small clarification. I have no problem with westnet and do not mean to > be picking on it in anyway. I have a friend who lives in westnet's > service area who gets bothered by these outages and passes them on to me. > > ******************************************************************** > Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscript.: Individ-ascii $85 > The COOK Report on Internet Non Profit. $150 > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200 > (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 > Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate. Site Lic $650 > Newly expanded COOK Report Web Pages http://pobox.com/cook/ > ******************************************************************** > > >

9 12

Re: Internet software development acceleration
by kwe＠6SigmaNets.com 02 Dec '95

02 Dec '95

At 10:26 AM 12/1/95, Eilish McCaffrey wrote: > I am a participant, as a 'listener', to the nanog. I understand its >origins and also applaud how information is shared among 'competitive' >entities ie ISPs. > ... > We are all working to build an optimal Internet infrasturcture and the >software\web enablement techniques available might help accelerate >capabilities\enhancements to market. If we chose to use this language >'toolkit' as a whole, which can be used for 'intranet' and I\S solutions as >well, it might minimize the technological frustrations of today. > > Any thoughts? > > Eilish McCaffrey > > Does this language toolkit contain terms such as: "I understand what you are saying..." "I respect your position, but I disagree with you on this point, ..." "In the spirit of cooperation, let's do this..."? If not, it won't help much. --Kent

1 0

Internet software development acceleration
by emccaffr＠BayNetworks.com 02 Dec '95

02 Dec '95

I am a participant, as a 'listener', to the nanog. I understand its origins and also applaud how information is shared among 'competitive' entities ie ISPs. Even though I work for a router company ( I am the Internet sales manager with Bay) I look at the Internet as a global 'homogeneous' infrastructure. Inherent in its design and hw\sw features, are a set of problems. Is there any way to identify a common set of problems, regardless of whether the underlying product is Bay or Cisco, and commit to resolving it? The 'net' is that if the Internet, of multivendor routers, is viewed as a single global entity requiring a uniform enhancement, what would that be? What is the barrier to resolving this problem? I am dealing with an internet web enablement company here in CA that provides superior Internet language sets, tools, and technologies. My belief is that their expertise could be focused on enhancing and optimizing the Internet as if it were a single entity through the use of its offering of internet based languages (perl, tcl, c++..), compilers, support and consulting. We are all working to build an optimal Internet infrasturcture and the software\web enablement techniques available might help accelerate capabilities\enhancements to market. If we chose to use this language 'toolkit' as a whole, which can be used for 'intranet' and I\S solutions as well, it might minimize the technological frustrations of today. Any thoughts? Eilish McCaffrey

3 2

Re: outages, quality monitoring, trouble tickets, etc
by kwe＠6SigmaNets.com 02 Dec '95

02 Dec '95

At 3:43 PM 11/28/95, Sean Donelan wrote: > >>From: kwe(a)6SigmaNets.COM (Kent W. England) >>I'm skeptical of any end-to-end availability figures over 97%. I don't >>think they reflect the reality of leased line circuits today, or else they >>don't include the leaf node circuits and only report backbone availability. >>For a highly redundant backbone, almost any definition of availability >>should result in a number like 99.mumble%. Remember 99.9% availability >>means less than 9 hours outage per year. Routing hiccups take that much. >>One or two leased lines outages is all you get for 9 hours. The real world >>is a lot less available than that. > >Thank you! I thought I was living in a twilight zone with people >reporting 99.9% network availability. This is the rathole end-to-end >network useablity. The customer is interested in end-to-end useability. >While the network operator can only easily measure intra-network modules. > >I can't tell you the answer, but there is definitely something happening >with customer perceptions of Internet useability. Looking at the >numbers I would agree a single leased circuit should be less reliable >(single point of failure) than a highly redundant backbone. But by >our customer perceptions, that isn't the case. Either we have better >than "normal" leased circuits, or the highly redundant backbones aren't, >or our customers needs are based something we aren't directly measuring. My analysis was assumed to apply within a single service providers backbone. I believe you can report end-to-end availability within a single service provider's backbone and have a meaningful number. But leased lines bring that figure down into the range of 99.7%. I think frame relay has the promise of getting that up to .8 or .85, if the regional bells get good at FR net mgmt. The dismal situation you are referring to is the 12-15 service provider backbones, all mashing together at 7-8 exchange points with lots of paths that wind back and forth over asymmetric routes from one coast to the other and back. It's a lot different than when NSFnet was the default. No more default. Today routing is more complex, business is lower margin, and engineer folks don't have time to look up from their router memory overload and route cache woes to figure out why their routes thru ISP#17 aren't optimal. --Kent

1 0

NANOG Feb 15-16 1996 at SDSC
by William B. Norton 01 Dec '95

01 Dec '95

Hi all - The next NANOG is tentatively scheduled for Feb 15-16 at the San Diago Supercomputer Center pending final confirmation on the facilities. We will send out details as they become available. Bill NANOG Web Page: www.ra.net/routing.arbiter/NANOG/NANOG.html Send agenda topic suggestions to srh(a)merit.edu and wbn(a)merit.edu

1 0