Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
Carl Karsten wrote: I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud. You got what you ordered. You used it. You pay for it. It's that simple. That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free samples. If a registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that. It is not even close to that simple, And I'm saying that it can be. Even you have already made a couple of good suggestions to that effect. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
Carl Karsten wrote: That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller. I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud. You got what you ordered. You used it. You pay for it. It's that simple. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: ARIN sucks?
Hank Nussbacher wrote: It is indeed simple if you know what needs to be done and what is expected. Even in your case above you mislead people into thinking that one can "request the AS and a Subnet from ARIN". After setting up the various POCs (step #1), step #2 is getting an ORG. Step #3 is requesting the IP space and *not* the ASN. One can't get an ASN from ARIN *until* you have IP space. Hank, The real answer is "it depends". From my correspondence with ARIN on behalf of one of my customers just a few months ago: "Will you be requesting an AS number from ARIN? Under the intent to multi-home policy, we've been asking customers to first submit a request for an AS number." For this particular (new) customer, the entire process was 3 weeks with majority of the delay getting payment remitted to get the allocation and then the ASN. My experience with ARIN has always been positive (thank you). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: wrt joao damas' DLV talk on wednesday
Paul Vixie wrote: I have not seen any writings that indicate that Paul was at b&g or bofs or other portions of the conference. i was at the B&G, having first checked with the host to find out if visitors were welcome. while my intent was to pick somebody up for dinner, i admit that i also ate and drank and socialized. Based upon that data, I am inclined to support Paul. now that you know the whole story, perhaps you'll reevaluate your position. Let's see: 1) You attended a b&g after checking with the host 2) You attempted to attend a q&a with the purpose of providing additional input for the ops community and that provided support for a speaker. Is there a better way to have handled the situation? Perhaps. The positive outcome of this issue is that we are discussing how to handle "drop-ins" (freebie conference attenders?). I still don't see that you fall into this category with regard to this incident.
Re: wrt joao damas' DLV talk on wednesday
Paul Vixie wrote: i intended to be present for the Q&A after joao's DLV talk but i was told that being there without having registered was rude. you were attending nanog without registering and paying? that is rude. have you offered to pay retroactively? that would be the honorable thing to do. attending nanog wasn't an option. i hadn't realized that sitting in on joao's talk so i could be there for Q&A equalled attendance, and so i neither paid nor offered retroactively to pay. do you really think i should? (i asked everybody i met on site, and was universally told by those i asked to "stop worrying about it".) Having not been present at this nanog, I'm going to respond at face value based upon what I've read. If Paul is present specifically and only for Q&A that pertains to subject matter with which he is knowledgeable, his presence helps the ops community. I have not seen any writings that indicate that Paul was at b&g or bofs or other portions of the conference. Based upon that data, I am inclined to support Paul. The proper procedure would have been to let Merit know that he would be there to support the individual presenting the talk. Other than that, I see no offense.
Re: Anti-spam System Idea
At 02:11 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, Jon R. Kibler wrote: "Christopher L. Morrow" wrote: > > There was never any central control/enforcement for the Internet, and time > and again Governments have been shown that its next to impossible to BE > that central enforcer... I am NOT advocating government regulation or policing of the Internet. Rather, my point is that ISPs should proactively enforce their AUPs, instead of most ISP's current policy of reactive enforcement. Proactive enforcement of AUPs would save everyone a lot of time, money, and grief. This is like expecting the police to be proactive and prevent crimes.
Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Sean Donelan wrote: > Microsoft has asked ISPs to make changes on its behalf, such as enabling > the XP firewall. But is it wise for an ISP to change the settings on > a user's computer? If Microsoft is reluctant to make the changes itself, > what problems is the ISP creating? Increased tech support expense for other Microsoft products.
Re: UUNET instability?
At 03:14 PM 4/25/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:03:52 PDT, Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > >On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Daniel Kelley wrote: > > > > > UUNET support says that the outage relates to a train derailment > in the > > > > > northeast that occured this morning. master ticket no. 562655. > > > > Thought this happened YESTERDAY - 4/24 ... Another one? > >No, the train derailment was yesterday. It's just they've got the route >flap damping constant set in units of days, so it's only now propogating. ;) LOL! The client in question with the C&W span didn't go down until 11:30 CDT. However, their circuit is tied to the C&W master ticket that defines the outage as a train derailment. Maybe we've just hit WorldCom's maintenance window (don't spaz, I'm just kidding).
Re: UUNET instability?
At 02:51 PM 4/25/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >That's unusual. A train derailment usually effects more than one >provider, and normally does not cause network-wide BGP resets. Some C&W transport was lost as well. They also have a master ticket open. >On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Daniel Kelley wrote: > > UUNET support says that the outage relates to a train derailment in the > > northeast that occured this morning. master ticket no. 562655. > > > > dan > > > > > Anyone else seeing routing instability through UUNET or have any more > > > details? I saw a significant drop in my inbound and outbound traffic to > > > them around 10:00AM EDT. UUNET has a prompt on their phone menus about > > > network instability, but didn't elaborate. Their NOC doesn't have any > > > more details as of yet that they're passing along. > > > > > > jms > > > > > > > > > >
