Re: ratios
All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? --Michael - Original Message - From: Dean S Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: RE: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Your quality of life is affected by being turned down for peering how? Who said I was turned down for peering? When I buy a pipe from an internet provider, I buy it under the assumption that I'm going to be able to see the entire internet from it. I know that probably any given moment, that some small part of the internet is going to be inaccesible due to outages or routing loops, but I do not expect to lose a path to another provider for days because my upstream decides to bully the competition. I depended on, and had customers who depended on, being able to reach AS174, and for years this just worked so there was no need to multihome. Short outages, or even overnight outages never hurt us, so single-homing was the way to go. All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? Dean Steve _ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Re: ratios
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Michael Painter wrote: All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure non-redundant network. Steve --Michael - Original Message - From: Dean S Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: RE: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Your quality of life is affected by being turned down for peering how? Who said I was turned down for peering? When I buy a pipe from an internet provider, I buy it under the assumption that I'm going to be able to see the entire internet from it. I know that probably any given moment, that some small part of the internet is going to be inaccesible due to outages or routing loops, but I do not expect to lose a path to another provider for days because my upstream decides to bully the competition. I depended on, and had customers who depended on, being able to reach AS174, and for years this just worked so there was no need to multihome. Short outages, or even overnight outages never hurt us, so single-homing was the way to go. All of that changed when CW depeered from PSI. I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen's fascism. Understand now? Dean Steve _ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Earthlink SMTP for Mobile Users
Jim, Yes, SMTP settings will to have to be changed to match whatever service, different from Earthlink.net, that you happen to use. As an outlook user, I simply created multiple profiles which referred to the same local mail store. This technique even works with the VPN to the corporate Exchange system. I just click the correct shortcut (alias) to activate the correct configuration for my connection status. My experience with Earthlink.net using several domains has been quite positive. My understanding is that Earthlink can support this because the subscriber connection itself is authenticated, giving the required traceback to the end user for UCE policy enforcement. JimC --On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:37 PM -0700 Rowland, Alan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see: http://help.earthlink.net/port25/ That's very helpful! Thank you! One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using SMTP AUTH, from anywhere, or only from within your network? I observe, for instance, that the instructions for Outlook 2000 (Windows) does not have them check my [outgoing SMTP] server requires authentication. If the former, great! I'll inform my affected customers. If the latter, they'll have to fool with settings as they move around -- which you no doubt already know is asking too much of 99% of the population. :-)
Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
Title: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios) I apologize in advance, I'm a total newbie...so what did you have to do? Build resilience into his single homed, single point of failure non-redundant network. Steve = Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. I think we all assume that our provider guarantees us some sort of total reachability. Near as I can figure, they do not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a reachability guarantee? James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation So I'm top posting. Sue me.
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
JS Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:48:25 -0400
JS From: James Smith
JS I think we all assume that our provider guarantees us some
JS sort of total reachability. Near as I can figure, they do
JS not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on
JS percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation
JS remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a
JS reachability guarantee?
iirc memory=bad
Wasn't there a small russian ISP that had no access to _1_ during
the mid- or late-90s?
And didn't some ugly peering battles between 701 and 3561 back
when 3561 was MCI cause some { severely hampered | loss of }
connectivity between the two?
/iirc
Help me out... I wasn't following routing and such very closely
back then. But it seems that none of this is new, just another
iteration of the same...
--
Eddy
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to
be blocked.
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
H maybe there should be a list of peering policies site a la Jared's NOC page. BTW, has anybody else tried calling the toll-free Sprint NOC number listed on puck.nether.net? Is this a new alternative to on-hold muzak? ;-) (To prevent slashdotting said INWATS line without totally blowing the punchline... let's just say one needs a credit card handy to continue the call.) -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
Title: RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios) -Original Message- From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios) snip H maybe there should be a list of peering policies site a la Jared's NOC page. == Interesting idea. Include verifiable user comments as to what the policy actually is as exemplified by actual practice vs. what they say it is (or should be)... James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation
RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
JS Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:26:13 -0400 JS From: James Smith JS H maybe there should be a list of peering JS policies site a la Jared's NOC page. JS Interesting idea. Include verifiable user comments as to what JS the policy actually is as exemplified by actual practice JS vs. what they say it is (or should be)... ...which would be interesting, except NDAs[1] and grandfathered- in ASNs that don't meet the requirements, yet haven't been depeered, might make things interesting... [1] IANAL, but how can something public be considered a trade secret protected by NDA? Perhaps the exact peering arrangements are not public, but routing information is at least semi-public. (Any downstream can identify peers. Or if a net participates in a route server a la oregon-ix, then they're pretty much disclosing interconnect lists.) -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
users of xacct?
I'm interested to hear from those of you that might be using xacct, and your thoughts on the product. To keep traffic down on the list, just reply to me. If you are providing cable modem service and using xacct I'd really like to talk to you. For those of you that ask for a summary of the replies I receive, I will pass opinions, not names. Thanks, -Mark -- To a dog, you're one of the family. To a cat, you're one of the help.
gTLD Informational Message
This is an Informational Message to the internet community: VeriSign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for k.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set for com/net/org. The change will be reflected in zone serial # 2002051001 The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.42.93.30 H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.54.112.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.43.172.30 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.33.14.30 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.52.178.30 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.12.94.30 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.55.83.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the new and old k.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel to accommodate the zones TTL's. Brad Verd Resolution Systems Operations Manager Verisign Global Registry Services http://www.verisign-grs.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gTLD Informational Message
This is an Informational Message to the internet community: VeriSign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for k.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set for com/net/org. The change will be reflected in zone serial # 2002051001 The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.42.93.30 H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.54.112.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.43.172.30 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.33.14.30 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.52.178.30 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.12.94.30 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 192.55.83.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the new and old k.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel to accommodate the zones TTL's. Brad Verd Resolution Systems Operations Manager Verisign Global Registry Services http://www.verisign-grs.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
James Smith wrote (on May 10): Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. It's worth pointing out it's not always a technical decision. Partcularly when things are tight, the bean-counters and other senior management tend to shy away from redunancy and resilience often in favour of insurance policies and controlled risk. Similar business-decisions are what cause those networks to not peer. Whether fair or not doesn't matter. Big companies are big businesses. Big businesses like to remain big. They all have debt and thus need revenue. A common view is that a peer is the loss of a potential customer. Drop all your peers, gain some potential customers. (Sprint said this to me in those words once) While nobody has tried to take a Tier-1 to court for what could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of connectivity to *your* network is so small from their perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, and having seen this done in black and white). The words used are along the lines of that is what happens when you connect to a non-tier-1, like us. Just for reference, the European Peering Policy for one of the previously mentioned carriers in this thread requires the announcement of 900+ /19's from seperate LIR assignments, as well as the usual N-points connected, M-bps transfered etc requirements. I'm under NDA so can't say more. needless to say, we don't peer with them, and I don't buy transit from them either, on principle. We calculated that at the time only 5 IP providers in Europe (that were not US owned networks) would meet that 900+ /19's requirement. Chris.
Re: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
Jim Hickstein wrote: My customers who reach me (a mail service) from Earthlink dialups are affected by this. Apparently it's still happening. I run a listener on another host and port, known only to this (so far) small subset of people, to be able to serve them. In general, we advise people to use their ISP's relay for outgoing mail, but Earthlink won't let them relay because the sender domain is not one that Earthlink knows about (i.e. is charging them for). Apparently. Something's weird here. My home DSL line is Earthlink. I send out mail through their server (specifically through smtp.mindspring.com), and I have my mail client cofigured to use my yahoo.com address as the return address. They don't seem to care about the message's sender address as long as it comes from an Earthlink link. Is the dial-up any different? Now, I do know that I can't send through the Earthlink/Mindspring server from outside their network. But that's not a big deal for me. When I'm away from home, I just use the server of whatever network I'm connected to at the time, which has never given me a problem. I think Earthlink has an SMTP-AUTH mail server as well. It's not the same one that the default dialups use, however. I think it's smtpauth.earthlink.com, but I haven't actually tried using it. -- David
Re: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
Jim Hickstein wrote: One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using SMTP AUTH, from anywhere, or only from within your network? I observe, for instance, that the instructions for Outlook 2000 (Windows) does not have them check my [outgoing SMTP] server requires authentication. If the former, great! I'll inform my affected customers. If the latter, they'll have to fool with settings as they move around -- which you no doubt already know is asking too much of 99% of the population. :-) According to a message posted to one of the EL support newsgroups a while back, they run a separate SMTP AUTH mail server that will work as you describe. It's not the same server that customers use from an EL line, however. I haven't actually used this server. I also don't know if it's a permenant thing or if it's just an experiment at this time. -- David
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
CL Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:29:23 +0100 CL From: Chrisy Luke [ snipped ] CL While nobody has tried to take a Tier-1 to court for what CL could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers CL will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of CL connectivity to *your* network is so small from their CL perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, CL they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, CL and having seen this done in black and white). The words used CL are along the lines of that is what happens when you connect CL to a non-tier-1, like us. Now, as much as I'd not expect CW to peer with us, look at PSINet. Were they small? What about EXDS? Those peering paths were to provide better-insert various metrics to the eyeballs. I'd argue that both are/were significant. And as much as it's a good thing to not require everyone to peer with everyone (n^2 would be out of control), it would also be bad if the entire world depended on a single ASN. I agree that a line must be drawn, but disagree with where certain carriers draw the line. But I suppose that we're insignificant to them, and they probably don't even care about selling _transit_ to someone so small. [Not that this is inherently bad... just be up front about it like L3, and tell people what the minimum is.] I guess the CW slogan is also rubbing me the wrong way. Delivering on the Internet promise seems to imply that traffic gets there reliably. ;-) [Note that I'm impressed with the good community support... not just bashing CW.] Note that this is not peculiar to the Internet. Look at the EDI world, and what happened to ICC with Sterling and GE. _That_, IMHO, is a much more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior. -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
On Fri, 10 May 2002, David Charlap wrote: Jim Hickstein wrote: My customers who reach me (a mail service) from Earthlink dialups are affected by this. Apparently it's still happening. I run a listener on another host and port, known only to this (so far) small subset of people, to be able to serve them. In general, we advise people to use their ISP's relay for outgoing mail, but Earthlink won't let them relay because the sender domain is not one that Earthlink knows about (i.e. is charging them for). Apparently. Something's weird here. My home DSL line is Earthlink. I send out mail through their server (specifically through smtp.mindspring.com), and I have my mail client cofigured to use my yahoo.com address as the return address. They don't seem to care about the message's sender address as long as it comes from an Earthlink link. Not weird, this is the way most smtps are setup - not to verify sender address but only allow the ISP's IP addresses. (this is how not to be an open relay server which spammers use..) Steve Is the dial-up any different? Now, I do know that I can't send through the Earthlink/Mindspring server from outside their network. But that's not a big deal for me. When I'm away from home, I just use the server of whatever network I'm connected to at the time, which has never given me a problem. I think Earthlink has an SMTP-AUTH mail server as well. It's not the same one that the default dialups use, however. I think it's smtpauth.earthlink.com, but I haven't actually tried using it. -- David
Toronto topics
Here's a preliminary list of presentations scheduled for NANOG25 in Toronto. PS - be sure to register at the hotel before our lower-price block expires on May 18: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0206/hotel.html == Preliminary Topics - NANOG25 June 9-11, 2002 Tutorials - Introduction to RPSL Ambrose Magee, Ericsson Inter-domain Traffic Engineering: Overview and Case Examples Josh Wepmen, Ixia, Joe Abley, MFN, and Andrew Lange, CW BGP Techniques for Service Providers Phil Smith, Cisco Deploying Tight-SLA services on an Internet Backbone: ISIS Fast Convergence and DiffServ Design Clarence Filsfils, Cisco General Session --- Panel: Core Network Design and Vendor Prophecies Danny McPherson, TCB, moderator Convergence and Restoration Techniques for ISP Interior Routing Curtis Villamizar, Avici Protecting the BGP Routes to Top Level DNS Servers Lan Wang, Xiaoliang Zhao, Dan Pei, Randy Bush, Daniel Massey, Allison Mankin, Felix Wu, and Lixia Zhang 10 Gigabit Ethernet Technology and Market Overview Dave O'leary, Juniper Controlling the Impact of BGP Policy Changes on IP Traffic Nick Feamster, MIT, Jennifer Rexford, ATT Labs, and Jay Borkenhagen, ATT Labs Redistribution Communities for Interdomain Traffic Engineering B. Quoitin and O. Bonaventure, University of Namur, Belgium Core Router Testing for High Availability Scott Poretsky, Avici Panel: Economic Differences Between Transit and Peering Exchanges Bill Woodcock, Packet Clearing House, moderator Panel: Smart Routing Technologies Sue Hares, NextHop, moderator Using the New ARIN WHOIS Server Ginny Listman, ARIN BGP Security Issues Barry Raveendran Greene, Cisco BOFs Peering BOF V Bill Norton, Equinix, moderator BGP Benchmarking BOF Sue Hares, NextHop, moderator
Re: Earthlink SMTP for Mobile Users
I was stuck in a dial-up-only hell for a few months and used quite a bit of Earthlink dial-up. I during that time, I did a variety of tinkering of the email headers (like masquerading envelopes). It sure didn't seem to me that Earthlink cared at all what domain was in the return path. Their SMTP servers would relay _anything_ provided you're source IP was in their IP-space. So, AFAIK, you can do whatever you want with respect to outgoing mail (any source domain in the envelope or headers that you want) and Earthlink's SMTP servers will relay it. Not that I didn't get annoyed with the blocking from time to time. Sometimes I wanted to talk directly to a remote SMTP server with telnet to debug a client's setup or see if they were the open relay I was getting SPAM from. IIRC, you get ICMP admin-prohibited messages back when you try to connect to port 25. But I probably have to say that I think Earthlink is doing the right thing, IMHO. Aren't the other big US dial-up providers doing this kind of thing? I assumed they all were. Despite the continuous rise in total SPAM levels, don't see very much SPAM from the US mega-huge dial-ups anymore. -- Crist J. Clark | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CAIS/Ardent Routing Problems?
Anyone see anything strange with AS 3491 today? They have been dropping our routes on and off all day long?
Re: CAIS/Ardent Routing Problems?
I heard they were being bought by Verio. Maybe Verio is taking over their routes and dropping AS3491? Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc. On Fri, 10 May 2002, John Palmer wrote: Anyone see anything strange with AS 3491 today? They have been dropping our routes on and off all day long?
MFN fiber cut in NYC
MFN has a fiber cut in NYC. I don't know the extent of the outage, but I do know that my connection from 60 hudson to bush terminal in brooklyn is out. Hope it's not too bad. GP
Routing problem
Hi, I have a strange question because this is not very common. Lets asume the following scenario to simplify it: net A -- RTA --- RT1-ISP1 --- IP Cloud --- RT2-ISP1 -- RTB -- net b --- RT1-ISP2 --- IP cloud --- RT2-ISP2 -- RTA and RTB are in differents ASs. ISP1 is preferred via BGP (local preference). Sometimes we lost reachability between net A and net B but we can stiil see the routes trough ISP1, so the BGP can not converge to ISP2. The problem is because the ISP1 have troubles with their IP-MPLS network, so, sometime they lost traffic. Do you now about some trick that can be used to know that the path to net b is not good despite the route is still in RTA? I was thinking to force the loopback from ISP1 to be learned in RTA to some route learned from RTB, but how. I think that if I make a tunnel interface it would still depend from BGP to work and BGP depend form tunnel, so it would not work. Any idea that do not imply to change ISP1 nor use ISP2 as default? Thanks in Advance, -as
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:16:25PM -0400, Jason Lewis wrote: I can't find info on network solutions website for changing info for my NIC handle? What is the deal? I figured I would send an empty messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get some info, but the email it send back is full of dead links. For the life of me, I can't find and info on where all the templates are. Anyone still using the templates? They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). The URL for the forms is https://www.netsol.com/en_US/makechanges/forms.html, but I don't know how you get to that anymore thru the menu system. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
you can get to the contact information two ways: first from the netsol.com site goto netsol.com..then click the manage account tab..then click on the contact manager link right below it(after the page loads)...then continue onwards. or you can just hit this link directly: https://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/makechanges/itts/handle Adam McKenna wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:16:25PM -0400, Jason Lewis wrote: I can't find info on network solutions website for changing info for myNIC handle? What is the deal?I figured I would send an empty messages to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and get some info, but the email it sendback is full of dead links.For the life of me, I can't find and info on where all the templates are.Anyone still using the templates? They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't knowif this is on purpose (although I suspect it is).The URL for the forms is https://www.netsol.com/en_US/makechanges/forms.html,but I don't know how you get to that anymore thru the menu system.--Adam--Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AAhttp://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info(repost)
you can get to the contact information two ways: first from the netsol.com site goto netsol.com..then click the manage account tab..then click on the contact manager link right below it(after the page loads)...then continue onwards. or you can just hit this link directly: https://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/makechanges/itts/handle Adam McKenna wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:16:25PM -0400, Jason Lewis wrote: I can't find info on network solutions website for changing info for my NIC handle? What is the deal? I figured I would send an empty messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get some info, but the email it send back is full of dead links. For the life of me, I can't find and info on where all the templates are. Anyone still using the templates? They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). The URL for the forms is https://www.netsol.com/en_US/makechanges/forms.html, but I don't know how you get to that anymore thru the menu system. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Adam McKenna wrote: They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). Ofcourse it is. Only ask the admin-c (clueless client) for approval to transfer (not the tech-c, whose email address actually works and who is in fact moving the domain) and you're almost guaranteed that the transfer request will fail to deliver. If it does deliver, make it hard by needing a reply within 96 hours. Also, losing a few emails, like a modify for the admin-c by the tech-c if the expire date of the domain is only a week away works wonders too. Paul
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 02:17:59AM +0200, Paul Wouters wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2002, Adam McKenna wrote: They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). Ofcourse it is. Only ask the admin-c (clueless client) for approval to transfer (not the tech-c, whose email address actually works and who is in fact moving the domain) and you're almost guaranteed that the transfer request will fail to deliver. If it does deliver, make it hard by needing a reply within 96 hours. Also, losing a few emails, like a modify for the admin-c by the tech-c if the expire date of the domain is only a week away works wonders too. It's nice not having to deal with that BS anymore. All of my domains are in OpenSRS, and for the ones that aren't I let the customers manage themselves. It usually doesn't take much convincing to get them to switch, especially at a savings of $27 per year. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
$27 per year savings? Over $35? OpenSRS sells its resellers regs for $10, not $8. Are you saying you pay $8 and not $10 to OpenSRS for .com, .net, .org ? Or that you pay $10 and only charge them $8? At 05:28 PM 5/10/02 -0700, you wrote: On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 02:17:59AM +0200, Paul Wouters wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2002, Adam McKenna wrote: They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). Ofcourse it is. Only ask the admin-c (clueless client) for approval to transfer (not the tech-c, whose email address actually works and who is in fact moving the domain) and you're almost guaranteed that the transfer request will fail to deliver. If it does deliver, make it hard by needing a reply within 96 hours. Also, losing a few emails, like a modify for the admin-c by the tech-c if the expire date of the domain is only a week away works wonders too. It's nice not having to deal with that BS anymore. All of my domains are in OpenSRS, and for the ones that aren't I let the customers manage themselves. It usually doesn't take much convincing to get them to switch, especially at a savings of $27 per year. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
