Re: Equal access to content
Sean Donelan wrote: Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? Erm .. the content 'belongs' to the supplier, why shouldn't they be allowed to chose who can and can't get access to it. The electronic retailer I work for deny access to all content that they own/supply to several networks, as a matter of policy. Noone should be able to tell us that we have to start supplying it. We also give some third-parties more content based on commercial relationships in place. Similarly, google own all of the data that they've crawled/indexed/archived - why shouldn't they be able to hold that data to ransom. Why shouldn't google be able to supply extra content to networks that it runs ? [...] What rules should exist on how Google operates? Or is it just traditionally lobbying? Google says regulate the other guy, but not itself. The other guys say regulate Google, but not them. So google charge for their data (either by subscription, or forcing users to join GoogleNet to get access to what they want). Fine. If Google do, someone else will be perfectly willing to crawl/index/archive a new set of data. And many webmasters will be quick to deny access to google's spider. -a
Re: Equal access to content
That's a wonderful bluring of what Randy's issue was to the point of indistinction. Yes, try to flip it. The issue is when a consumer buys access to the Internet what do they get? One way of tackling this is a truth in advertising defintion of what selling access to the Internet means. If you sell access to the Internet does that mean everybody except companies that offer services that compete with you? (for example: competing VOIP for phone companies, or competing IPTV for cable networks) Does access to the Internet include prefixes of: * prefixes of networks willing to pay you money * prefixes of networks willing to call it even * prefixes of networks that wanted you to pay money At some point, what you would be selling would not be access to what the average business customer or consumer would call the Internet, in which case you shouldn't be allowed to market it that way. You should have to call it access to the Partial Internet, or Some of the Internet, or The portion of the Internet willing to pay us money. i.e. Contains only 50 percent Internet. (heh, just like a can of mixed nuts letting you know the amount of peanuts, or fruit juice that discloses whether it really has any fruit juice in it at all.) Most of us can probably agree that you should be free to sell whatever concontion of network connectivity you want. Certainly AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy were all walled gardens before the Internet. Knock yourself out, just don't call it Internet access. Mike. On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote: the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? If Google sets up a WiFi network in San Francisco or buys AOL with Comcast, can Google create a custom content for users on its networks? Or must Google offer the same cotent on the same terms and conditions to everyone? Should AOL be able to offer selected content to only its customers, such as music downloads? Or must AOL supply that content to everyone equally? Comcast offers its users access to the Disney Connection web site, should Disney be required to offer it to all Internet users equally? The NFL offers its Sunday Ticket exclusively through DirecTV? Or must the NFL offer the same content to every network? What rules should exist on how Google operates? Or is it just traditionally lobbying? Google says regulate the other guy, but not itself. The other guys say regulate Google, but not them. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Equal access to content
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Mike Leber wrote: Certainly AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy were all walled gardens before the Internet. Before in the sense of before they connected to it. (not literally of course) +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Equal access to content
That's a wonderful bluring of what Randy's issue was to the point of indistinction. Yes, try to flip it. The issue is when a consumer buys access to the Internet what do they get? for some help, see rfc 4084, though it is weak in the area of interest. randy
Re: classful routes redux
Please pardon the crossposting between ppml and nanog... Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why /48 rather than /47 or /49? - alignment to nibble boundaries to make DNS delegation easier. It has recently come to my attention that we are in error when we expect n[iy]bble to have the same amount of popular awareness as byte. In point of fact, my guess is that most people who are not programmers (or particularly assembly language programmers) have minimal or no exposure to the term. Particularly in public policy discussions, such people abound, and their engagement in the process is no less important than that of a protocol implementer. Future proposals involving a preference toward doing things with 4-bit alignment should take care to explain what precisely a n[iy]bble is and hexadecimal numbering, and why it matters. ---Rob
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc to hold up her end of the conversation? Historically, aunt tillie's residential telephone line was subsidized by charging more for business lines. When you called aunt tillie, a portion of what you paid for the call passed through settlement charges and access fees to compensated both your service provider and aunt tillie's service provider for the call. These were usually implemented for social policy reasons, and its been a slow process to re-allocate the various billing practices to eliminate them. Aunt tillie saw it mostly as her local phone bill increased as she lost the benefit of the subsidy. if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go to http://content.provider, why should content.provider pay to give the sbc paying customer what they're already charged for? When aunt tillie watches a home shopping channel, the channel usually gives a percentage of everything aunt tillie buys from the channel to the local cable operator. When aunt tillie watches basic cable channels, usually the channel gives the local cable operator several minutes of advertising time every hour, even though aunt tillie already paid for her cable. When aunt tillie calls a toll-free (1-800) number, the business answering the call pays for the call including the settlement and access charges for aunt tillie's service provider in addition to the business' service provider. Google pays compensation to some web sites to include sponsored links on their web pages. Why do businesses do this? Some believe it benefits advertisers to subsidize consumers basic cable, toll-free phone access and web sites so more consumers have access to their content, and in turn gives businesses a bigger market to sell too. Why would you want to prevent businesses from paying for part of aunt tillie's Internet access? If a business wants to pay for better than best effort access for users coming to its web site or using some other service such as VOIP, shouldn't it have that option?
Re: Equal access to content
I think this whole debate is really funny. Back in the days, email was content, USENET was content. Then FTP. Then IRC and the like. Oh, eventually the Web emerged. And so on. And somehow, because it's now movies or whatever, the rules changed. Give me a break. Truth is, the RBOCs keep trying to treat non-telephony like telephony, and it's fundamentally broken. They keep trying to impose a PSTN billing model on the world and really have trouble with any other models. MSOs are realy the same. Disruptors have emerged and will disrupt the post-mature industry. It's not like this is the heyday, as much as there's an illusion of that in certain boardrooms. Money that could've been used to evolve has been squandered on dividends, inefficiencies etc over periods of decades. MSOs are a bit different there. So, to now sit here and somehow justify this as is really funny to watch because when all you know is hammers, everything looks like a nail. And it'll work for a while. Screws will go in eventually. But at some point you'll figure out that you're just out of luck because you haven't spent any money being near the leading edge, the 'fast follower' monicker has become a joke all in itself, and you're not able to figure out what else you need to add to the toolset before all other costs eat you alive (pension funds, healthcare, costs to maintain existing 'paid for' infrastructure that has finally reached its limits for good, etc -- there are enough riders of the apocalypse). So, your hammer will be inefficient and you will have no money left to buy a next gen hammer. Or if you do, all other lines of revenue that sustain you will suffer and break your back. It's a catch 22. Or that's my admittedly cloudy crystal ball. Now, they all got what it takes to be successful. The rbocs with their yellow pages were the google advertising revenue of decades past. They got the basic elements, but they cannot innovate themselves out of a wet paper bag because they're all terrified of cannibalization of existing revenue. Only if they do cannibalize, they stand a chance. And if that's no executed right, it'll break their spines in the process as their dividend happy investors will dump them wholesale. And, let's not forget that the RBOCs aren't the only ones doing this. MSO perspectives are just as bad. MSO's are actually much more protective of their 'content' and how gets to do what on their network for what price. And at some point in the future, they both will look like a lot of energy companies (or steel, pick your poison). The content debate is nicely spun, but it's really ridiculous hype. What people derive value from is what 'content' is. But apparently the industry has as a whole fallen into this spin trap. Particularly how ownership has replaced licensing in all this. Ownership doesn't even exist in some virtual reference. I can't help but find all this amusing.
OT: Cisco Patches 'Black Hat' IOS Flaw
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1881303,00.asp Apparently now all the bluster about people capable of fixing problems with the internet without a congressional mandate worked still. -Henry
Re: New Rules On Internet Wiretapping Challenged
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 in-line: Adam Chesnutt wrote: This whole thread is silly! It's not hard to trap and trace a suspect. It doesn't require a Whole new generation of routers and switches - -- That was exactly my understanding but I think it goes beyond that. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that it's a fairly trivial task to mirror and upstream, and isolate the traffic required. I've performed such taps before and usually find it to easily performed with a single FreeBSD box, and a mirrored port on the router. - --- true enough. Or maybe I'm just missing the point of this thread. - - You might want to take a look at rfc 2804 for some background. regards, /virendra Flounder Vicky Rode wrote: comments in-line: Peter Dambier wrote: Vicky Rode wrote: ...Raising my hand. My question is on Terry Hartle's comments, maybe someone with more insight into this could help clear my confusion. Why would it require to replace every router and every switch when my understanding is, FCC is looking to install *additional* gateway(s) to monitor Internet-based phone calls and emails. In a datacenter you have lines coming in and lines going out. And you have internal equippment. You have to eavesdrop on all of this because the supposed terrorist might come in via ssh and use a local mail programme to send his email. -- How do you differentiate between a hacker and a terrorist? For all you know this so called terrorist might be coming from a spoofed machine(s) behind anyone's desk. So you have to eavesdrop on all incoming lines because you dont know where he comes in. Via aDSL? via cable modem? Via a glass fiber? And you have to monitor all internal switches because you dont know which host he might have hacked. Guess a cheap switch with 24 ports a 100 Mbit. That makes 2.4 Gig. You have to watch all of these. They can all send at the same time. Your switch might have 1 Gig uplink. But that uplink is already in use for your uplink and it does not even support 2.4 Gig. - There are ways to address over-subscription issues. How about switches used in datacenters with 48 ports, 128 ports, ... Where do you get the capacity for multiple Gigs just for eavesdropping? On the other hand - most switches have a port for debugging. But this port can only listen on one port not on 24 or even 48 of them. So you have to invent a new generation of switches. I don't believe this is the primary reason for replacing every router and every switch. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) it has to do with the way wiretap feature (lack of a better term) that .gov is wanting vendors to implement within their devices, may be at the network stack level. I guess it's time to revisit rfc 2804. How about the routers? They are even more complicated than a switch. As everybody should know by now - every router can be hacked. So your monitoring must be outside the router. The gouvernment will offer you an *additional* gateway. I wonder what that beast will look like. It must be able to take all input you get from a glass fiber. Or do they ask us to get down with our speed so they have time to eavesdrop. - powered by dhs w/ made in china sticker :-) I'm not being smarty pants about this...it is actually happening. That's all I can say. regards, /virendra I can see some sort of network redesign happening in order to accodomate this but replacing every router and every switch sounds too drastic, unless I mis-understood it. Please, I'm not advocating this change but just trying to understand the impact from an operation standpoint. Yes, it is drastic. But if they want to eavesdrop that is the only way to do it. Any insight will be appreciated. regards, /virendra Here in germany we accidently have found out why east germany had to finally give up: They installed equippement to eavesdrop and tape on every single telefone line. They could not produce enough tapes to keep up with this :) Not to mention what happened when they recycled the tapes and did not have the time to first erase them :) Kind regards, Peter and Karin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDakYzpbZvCIJx1bcRAv2XAKDxgQqfs+nZMrUCR7zyKATJjfEBbgCg9/lu N7waCSlgruy6yecfnFwO17M= =1vBJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: New Rules On Internet Wiretapping Challenged
The 1994 law will have a devastating impact on the whole model of technical innovation on the Internet, said John Morris, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, which filed an appeal of the rules with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday. The Internet evolves through many tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of innovators coming up with brand new ideas, he said. That is exactly what will be squelched. Implementation of the mechanisms for compliance is relatively straightforward. Depending on how scalable and/or automated the mechanisms are, the complexity certainly increases. However, I hardly agree that including these requirements in the design of the network hardware or architecture equates to the 'squelching' of innovation or a 'devastating impact' on the Internet. Especially when compared to the alternative of providing an unfettered command control communications network for the miscreants. ___ Wayne Gustavus, CCIE #7426 IP Operations Support Verizon Internet Services ___ Can you ping me now? Good!
Re: New Rules On Internet Wiretapping Challenged
and, if you're interested, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3924.txt 3924 Cisco Architecture for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks. F. Baker, B. Foster, C. Sharp. October 2004. (Format: TXT=40826 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) On Nov 3, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Vicky Rode wrote: You might want to take a look at rfc 2804 for some background. -- Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. (Charles Schulz ) PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Barak Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:18 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions snip like to point out for the record that none of the recent depeering battles have involved any RBOCs... Which makes sense when you consider much of the current traffic flows. It gets even more interesting when you look at the fast-increasing number of fat FiOS pipes. When you take (edonkey/kazaa/ptp-du-jour)+FiOS you get a network of distributed 'content providers'. Reference the earlier post about broadband getting a lot less interesting w/o the content. Well this rings true when you weigh the traffic load of 100K's of users poking around in a portal vs. 100K's of users 'shopping' for music movies! ___ Wayne Gustavus, CCIE #7426 IP Operations Support Verizon Internet Services ___ Can you ping me now? Good!
Re: classful routes redux
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries. The importance of this comes in when deciding how to lay out a routing table in a gate array or memory-based table. A routing table capable of handling a flat 2^128 addressing space goes beyond the realm of known physics -- and flat 2^64 comes close, at least for a while (consider semiconductor atomic weights, and the fact that 1 mole is approximately 2^79 atoms). That's quite a stretch, but should give a hint as to why flat addressing does not work for every model. Routing tables become much simpler when you have N-level (tree-like) tables, a concept also used in MMUs. A tree done one bit at a time, while the most compact form in many cases, is not very efficient at lookups. If you divide the bitspace into sized chunks, the lookup time can be a better tradeoff between speed and tree size. Specifically, 8-bit dividing lines make this even easier. Much logic programming (FPGA or similar) depends on power-of-two data sizes with a minimum of 4 or 8 bits. This has led to well established 4-bit and 8-bit data movement patterns that have been better optimized over time. If using a store-and-forward mechanism with a more generic data processor (such as a CPU), 8-bit dividing lines are all the more important for speed. Or in summary of all of the above, 8-bit building blocks in routing tables make writing the physical routing code much easier, and in many cases makes the forwarding operation much faster. -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
L3 having issues on the west coast?
I was trying to get some IOS and compare a few images in FN, and found I cisco.com was being sluggish, and FN wouldn't load at all. Packets Pings Hostname%Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst ... 6. ge-6-2-0.mp1.Orlando1.Level3.net 0% 44 44 54 13120 7. ae-0-0.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net 14% 38 4475 74 75 77 8. ge-11-1.ipcolo1.SanJose1.Level3.net 23% 34 4475 75 75 76 9. p1-0.cisco.bbnplanet.net 10% 40 4475 75 81160 10. sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com 0% 44 4477 75 82292 11. sjck-dmzdc-gw2.cisco.com 25% 33 4476 76 76 77 12. www.cisco.com 59% 18 4476 76 77 78 That doesn't look right. Anyone know what's going on out there? -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: classful routes redux
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries. The importance of this comes in when deciding how to lay out a routing table in a gate array or memory-based table. A routing table capable of handling a flat 2^128 addressing space goes beyond the realm of known physics -- and flat 2^64 comes close, at least for a while (consider semiconductor atomic weights, and the fact that 1 mole is approximately 2^79 atoms). That's quite a stretch, but should give a hint as to why flat addressing does not work for every model. Come on now, a lot of new routing gear made today can just barely handle 2^18 routes, and even the high end stuff tops out at 2^20. We're nowhere near handling 2^32 routes even for IPv4, nor should we be, so lets not start the whole but ipv6 has more space therefore routes will increase to 7873289439872361837492837493874982347932847329874293874 nonsense again. Removing the extreme restrictions on IP space allocation by being able to allocate chunks so large that you would RARELY need to go back for a second block would immediate reduce the size of the routing table. Let me state the stats again for the record: Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 20761 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18044 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:8555 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2717 There are just not that many distinct BGP speaking networks out there, nor will there ever be. NOW is the time to make certain that IPv6 deployments makes sense in practice and not just in theory, so we don't work ourselves into exactly the same mess that we did in IPv4. Lets stop trying to solve theoretical scaling problems which will never happen at the expense of creating problems which actually DO exist, and apply a little bit of common sense. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: classful routes redux
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries. The importance of this comes in when deciding how to lay out a routing table in a gate array or memory-based table. A routing table capable of handling a flat 2^128 addressing space goes beyond the realm of known physics -- and flat 2^64 comes close, at least for a while (consider semiconductor atomic weights, and the fact that 1 mole is approximately 2^79 atoms). That's quite a stretch, but should give a hint as to why flat addressing does not work for every model. Come on now, a lot of new routing gear made today can just barely handle 2^18 routes, and even the high end stuff tops out at 2^20. We're nowhere near handling 2^32 routes even for IPv4, nor should we be, so lets not start the whole but ipv6 has more space therefore routes will increase to 7873289439872361837492837493874982347932847329874293874 nonsense again. Removing the extreme restrictions on IP space allocation by being able to allocate chunks so large that you would RARELY need to go back for a second block would immediate reduce the size of the routing table. Let me state the stats again for the record: Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 20761 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18044 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:8555 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2717 There are just not that many distinct BGP speaking networks out there, nor will there ever be. NOW is the time to make certain that IPv6 deployments makes sense in practice and not just in theory, so we don't work ourselves into exactly the same mess that we did in IPv4. Lets stop trying to solve theoretical scaling problems which will never happen at the expense of creating problems which actually DO exist, and apply a little bit of common sense. ack that. assign one ipv6 prefix to every asn of sufficient size that most will not need to request additional space whilst i'm at the mic here, ditch the idea of microassignments, just give out a standard /32 block ... lets not start out with ge 33 prefixes in the table when theres no need Steve
Re: classful routes redux
whilst i'm at the mic here, ditch the idea of microassignments, just give out a standard /32 block ... lets not start out with ge 33 prefixes in the table when theres no need Steve there is this wonderful, apparently US phenomeon, called the warehouse store aka Stuffmart. Single guys go in for a quart of milk and some TP and walk out w/ a MINIMUM of four gallons of milk, 144 rolls of TP, and a side of beef. saving the poor routing table is a laudable and worthwhile goal, but dumping the excess into the edges, just cause its easy strikes me as lame. a routing table slot is a slot is a slot. It holds a /96 as well as a /32 as well as a /112. If we are going to ditch microassignments (and boy is that term an oxymoron) then we should also dump one-size-fits-all and really and truely give folks what they need. RIRs have -never- assured the routablity of delegations. --oat willie (as a lone voice)
Re: classful routes redux
On Nov 3, 2005, at 4:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: saving the poor routing table is a laudable and worthwhile goal, but dumping the excess into the edges, just cause its easy strikes me as lame. a routing table slot is a slot is a slot. It holds a /96 as well as a /32 as well as a /112. If we are going to ditch microassignments (and boy is that term an oxymoron) then we should also dump one-size-fits-all and really and truely give folks what they need. RIRs have -never- assured the routablity of delegations. Disagree. The one saving grace I can see of v6 is that there is enough space to give everyone the space they need in a single allocation. It's not a waste if it keeps people from needing a second block. Maybe not everyone needs a /32, but let's not get stingy with plentiful resources (IP space in v6) and risk using too much of a not- so-plentiful resource (routing table slot). -- TTFN, patrick
Re: L3 having issues on the west coast?
Jon Lewis wrote: I was trying to get some IOS and compare a few images in FN, and found I cisco.com was being sluggish, and FN wouldn't load at all. Packets Pings Hostname%Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst ... 6. ge-6-2-0.mp1.Orlando1.Level3.net 0% 44 44 54 13120 7. ae-0-0.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net 14% 38 4475 74 75 77 8. ge-11-1.ipcolo1.SanJose1.Level3.net 23% 34 4475 75 75 76 9. p1-0.cisco.bbnplanet.net 10% 40 4475 75 81160 10. sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com 0% 44 4477 75 82292 11. sjck-dmzdc-gw2.cisco.com 25% 33 4476 76 76 77 12. www.cisco.com 59% 18 4476 76 77 78 That doesn't look right. Anyone know what's going on out there? I am not sure what is going on there, but Cisco has been this way for a month or more for me. I do not have problems bringing up their website but I do notice that ICMP packet loss to them has been horrible the last month or so.
Call for Volunteers for Mailing List Administration Panel
There is an opening on the NANOG Mail List Administration Panel. According to the draft charter[1]: ... The NANOG list will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee. Accordingly, the Steering Committee is soliciting nominations for this open position, from now through 17:00 GMT Thursday, November 17, 2005. ** Procedure ** To volunteer yourself or nominate someone else, please send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following information, no later than 17:00 GMT Thursday, November 17, 2005: - Your name - Nominee's name (if not you) - Nominee's email address - Nominee's phone number - Nominee's employer - Reasons why you believe the nominee is qualified to serve on the Mail List Panel. A panel member will contact each of the nominees to verify interest and possibly request additional information. Once all nominations have been received, the Steering Committee, in cooperation with the Mailing List Panel, will select the new member from among the nominees. The result will be announced on the nanog-announce mailing list. ** Eligibility ** Anyone actively reading the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list is eligible. A nominee may not be a member of the NANOG Program Committee or the NANOG Steering Committee. ** Duties ** Basic duties include reading the mailing list and assisting with keeping things on-topic. The team also deals with abuse issues as they arise. ** Length of term ** The charter does not specify ML Panel member term lengths. Open discussion of this is being led by the NANOG Steering Committee. If you have any questions, please post to the meta-discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally, on behalf of the Mailing List Panel and the Steering Committee, we would like to thank the outgoing panel member, Steve Gibbard, for his dedication to the mailing list and the reform process as a whole. Chris Malayter for the Mailing List Panel Randy Bush for the Steering Committee [1] The draft charter is available at http://www.nanog.org/charter05.html -30-
freebsd hands on in westin?
anyone around who can do a freebsd hands-on in westin this eve or tomorrow? rob austein, genuine good guy and hero of the revolution, has an antique 2ru freebsd 4.11 box in my rack in on the 18th. boot blocks are mashed, there is no vga card, and it is not talking over the serial. so it needs a cdrom job. but rob is in cambridge mass and i am in hawai`i. the suggested plan is in an email from rob i have stashed at http://rip.psg.com/~randy/051103.hands-on.txt. thanks! randy
Re: classful routes redux
actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A. ...which makes the /32s-and-shorter that everybody's actually getting double-plus-As, or what? no, super *duper* A's. -- Paul Vixie
Re: L3 having issues on the west coast?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 They could be possible rate-limiting it. That's why tools such as mtr and others do not necessarily tell you the whole truth. regards, /virendra Elijah Savage wrote: Jon Lewis wrote: I was trying to get some IOS and compare a few images in FN, and found I cisco.com was being sluggish, and FN wouldn't load at all. Packets Pings Hostname%Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst ... 6. ge-6-2-0.mp1.Orlando1.Level3.net 0% 44 44 54 13120 7. ae-0-0.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net 14% 38 4475 74 75 77 8. ge-11-1.ipcolo1.SanJose1.Level3.net 23% 34 4475 75 75 76 9. p1-0.cisco.bbnplanet.net 10% 40 4475 75 81160 10. sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com 0% 44 4477 75 82292 11. sjck-dmzdc-gw2.cisco.com 25% 33 4476 76 76 77 12. www.cisco.com 59% 18 4476 76 77 78 That doesn't look right. Anyone know what's going on out there? I am not sure what is going on there, but Cisco has been this way for a month or more for me. I do not have problems bringing up their website but I do notice that ICMP packet loss to them has been horrible the last month or so. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDauHNpbZvCIJx1bcRAnUQAJ9g/6HFPLH5XeKk14iiYxfNE+dsVQCfd7LJ 3ecLHsu0tJ8iDvzJJ9pOCaQ= =r4me -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: freebsd hands on in westin?
we have it lined up for tomorrow morning. if we hit a snag, you'll hear the rattling of my tin cup. thanks! randy
