from:"Pawlukiewicz Jane"



Hi,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Again, it seems more likely and more technically effective to attack
 internally than physically. Focus again here on the cost/benefit
 analysis from both the provider and disrupter perspective and you will
 see what I mean.
 
 Is there a general consensus that cyber/internal attacks are more
 effective/dangerous than physical attacks.  Anecdotally it seems the
 largest Internet downages have been from physical cuts or failures.

It depends on what you consider and internet outage. Or how you define
that. IMHO.

Jane
 
 2001 Baltimore train tunnel vs. code red worm (see keynote report)
 1999 Mclean fiber cut - cement truck
 ATT cascading switch failure
 Utah fiber cut (date??)
 Not sure where the MAI mess up at MAE east falls
 Utah fiber cut (date??)
 
 Then again this is the biased perspetive of the facet I'm researching
 
 Secondly it seems that problems arise from physical cuts not because
 of a lack of redundant paths but a bottlneck in peering and transit -
 resulting in ripple effects seen with the Baltimore incident.
 
 - Original Message -
 From: William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:04 pm
 Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
 
 
  At 02:45 PM 9/5/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  This obviously would be a thesis of Equinix and other collo space
  providers,since this is exactly the service that they provide. It
  won't, hower, be a
  thesis of any major network that either already has a lot of
  infrastructurein place or has to be a network that is supposed to
  survive a physical
  attack.
 
  Actually, the underlying assumption of this paper is that major
  networks
  already have a large global backbone that need to interconnect in
  n-regions. The choice between Direct Circuits and Colo-based cross
  connects
  is discussed and documented with costs and tradeoffs. Surviving a
  major
  attack was not the focus of the paper...but...
 
  When I did this research I asked ISPs how many Exchange Points
  they felt
  were needed in a region. Many said one was sufficient, that they
  were
  resilient across multiple exchange points and transit
  relationships, and
  preferred to engineer their own diversity separate from regional
  exchanges.
  A bunch said that two was the right number, each with different
  operating
  procedures, geographic locations, providers of fiber, etc. , as
  different
  as possible. Folks seemed unanimous about there not being more
  than two
  IXes in a region, that to do so would splinter the peering
 population.
 
  Bill Woodcock was the exception to this last claim, positing
  (paraphrasing)
  that peering is an local routing optimization and that many
  inexpensive
  (relatively insecured) IXes are acceptable. The loss of any one
  simply
  removes the local  routing optimization and that transit is always
  an
  alternative for that traffic.
 
  
A couple physical security considerations came out of that
  research:  1) Consider that man holes are not always secured,
  providing access to
metro fiber runs, while there is generally greater security
 within
colocation environments
  
  This is all great, except that the same metro fiber runs are used
  to get
  carriers into the super-secure facility, and, since neither those
 who
  originate information, nor those who ultimately consume the
  information are
  located completely within facility, you still have the same
  problem.  If we
  add to it that the diverse fibers tend to aggregate in the
  basement of the
  building that houses the facility, multiple carriers use the same
  manholesfor their diverse fiber and so on.
 
  Fine - we both agree that no transport provider is entirely
  protected from
  physical tampering if its fiber travels through insecure
  passageways. Note
  that some transport capacity into an IX doesn't necessarily travel
  along
  the same path as the metro providers, particularly those IXes
  located
  outside a metro region. There are also a multitude of paths,
  proportional
  to the # of providers still around in the metro area, that provide
  alternative paths into the IX. Within an IX therefore is a
  concentration of
  alternative providers,  and these alternative providers can be
  used as
  needed in the event of a path cut.
 
 
2) It is faster to repair physical disruptions at fewer
  points, leveraging
cutovers to alternative providers present in the collocation
  IX model, as
opposed to the Direct Circuit model where provisioning additional
capacities to many end points may take days or months.
  
  This again is great in theory, unless you are talking about
  someone who
  is planning on taking out the IX not accidently, but
  deliberately. To
  illustrate this, one just needs to recall the infamous fiber cut
  in McLean
  in 1999 when a backhoe not just cut Worldcom and Level(3)
  circuits, but
  somehow let a cement truck to pour cement into Verizon's

Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection



Hi Alex,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   Is there a general consensus that cyber/internal attacks are more
   effective/dangerous than physical attacks.  Anecdotally it seems the
   largest Internet downages have been from physical cuts or failures.
 
  It depends on what you consider and internet outage. Or how you define
  that. IMHO.
 
 Lets bring this discussion to a some common ground -
 
 What kind of implact on the global internet would we see should we observe
 nearly simultaneous detonation of 500 kilogramms of high explosives at N of the
 major known interconnect facilities?

N? Well, if you define N as the number of interconnect facilities, such
as all the Equinix sites (and I'm not banging on Equinix, it's just
where we started all this) then I think globally, it wouldn't make that
much difference. People in Tokyo would still be able to reach the globe
and both coasts of the US. Maybe some sites in the interior of the US
would be difficult to reach. I'd have to run a model to be sure, but
every one of the major seven have rerouting methodologies that would
recover from the loss. And I don't think they exclusively peer at
Equinix. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that they don't.
However I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
Jane
 
 Alex

Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection



Hi,

batz wrote:
 
 On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
 
 :would be difficult to reach. I'd have to run a model to be sure, but
 :every one of the major seven have rerouting methodologies that would
 :recover from the loss. And I don't think they exclusively peer at
 
 Even if we were to model it, the best data we could get for
 the Internet would be BGP routing tables. These are also
 subjectve views of the rest of the net. We could take a full
 table, map all the ASN adjacencies, and then pick arbtrary
 ASN's to fail, then see who is still connected, but we are
 still dealing with connectivity relatve to us and our peers,
 even 5+ AS-hops away.

I want to make sure I understand this. As I understand it, this would
work regarding routing only. It would be a model that would have a
result of ones and zeros, so to speak, meaning either you're connected
or you're not. What this doesn't take into consideration, I believe, is
the effects of congestion regarding increased traffic due to news
traffic and rerouting that takes place whenever there is a loss of a
site.

 
 I would imagine this is one of the tasks CAIDA.org is probably
 working on, as it seems to fall within their mission.
 
 So even if we all agreed upon a common disaster to hypothesize
 on, there would be little common ground to be had, as our
 interpretations could only be political arguments over what is
 most important, because there is no technically objective view
 of the network to forge agreement on.

I totally agree. I think what I envision as not a huge impact would be
devastating to others. That's mostly because I'm looking at it globally,
like, if you take all routes as the denominator, and the lost routes as
the numerator, four colo sites, even the big ones, wouldn't be *that*
much effect. Proportionally. At first. 

Of course, if you're a smallish ISP operator and your one peering site
happens to be at one of the four sites, you're done.

Jane
 
 Cheers,
 
 --
 batz

Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection



Hi Alex,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
   Lets bring this discussion to a some common ground -
  
   What kind of implact on the global internet would we see should we observe
   nearly simultaneous detonation of 500 kilogramms of high explosives at N of the
   major known interconnect facilities?
 
  N? Well, if you define N as the number of interconnect facilities, such
  as all the Equinix sites
 
 Lets say that N is 4 and they are all in the US, for the sake of the
 discussion.

Which four? Makes a big difference. And there, we just got
proprietary/classified. I've often wondered what difference there would
be in attacking cable heads instead of colo sites. Cut off the country
from everywhere. How bad would that be. 

 
  (and I'm not banging on Equinix, it's just
  where we started all this) then I think globally, it wouldn't make that
  much difference. People in Tokyo would still be able to reach the globe
  and both coasts of the US.
 
 This presumes that the networks peer with the same AS numbers everywhere in
 the world, which I dont think they do.

Hadn't thought of that. I'm not sure then of the impact. 
 
 The other thing to think about is that the physical transport will be
 affected as well. Wavelenth customers will lose their paths. Circuit
 customers that rely on some equipment located at the affected sites, losing
 their circuits.
 

For individual users, it might be devastating. Overall, globally, that's
a different story.

Jane

Re: your mail

2002-08-21 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane



Sounds like a nuclear power plant I used to work at. Except the nuke
plants don't trust the marines to do the job. They hire and train their
own security teams. 

I had to go through more screening to work there than anything I've gone
through re security clearances and the government. The scary thing is,
(IMHO) the nuclear industry is being held up as the model for all other
industries re security. 

Of course, there isn't the issue of many companies sharing one facility,
which makes things far more interesting. A colo is no place for guns,
imho.

Jane

David Lesher wrote:
 
 Unnamed Administration sources reported that N. Richard Solis said:
 
 
  If you haven't worked in an environment where you had to turn in your
  cellphone and pager at the front desk, show a badge to a camera around every
  corner, and get your office keys from a vending machine you dont know what
  real security looks like.
 
 You missed the places w/ real security. That's where the very
 polite Marine Security Guard with the 870 shotgun asks to see
 your badge again...
 
 --
 A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
 Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433

Re: your mail

2002-08-09 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane



Hi Brian,

I know other people have posted about this, re almost getting fired.
Many companies now are adopting new rules regarding employee's posting
on listserves. The policy here is that employees must get another
address through aol or yahoo or some other free mailserve if they want
to participate in listserve discussion. The reason is spam, supposedly.
My boss knows I post here, and he doesn't care that I use my work mail
address. I'm smart enough to deal with spam myself. (at least he thinks
so ;)

The point is, that there are many companies now, at least in the Wash
metro area, that are requiring employees to use an alternate mail
address for any listserves they participate in. 

Hope this sheds more light on the subject.

Jane

Brian Wallingford wrote:
 
 Perhaps it's time to bar posting privileges from those who insist on
 remaining entirely anonymous?
 
 I doubt that anyone who has anything substantive to offer would need to
 use a hushmail/yahoo/etc. return address.
 
 The initial posts from Bandy, Vaul, et al were mildly amusing at first,
 but the novelty wore out very quickly.
 
 cheers,
 Darl Kenninger
 
 Sorry, but Wrian Ballingford just didn't have a good ring, so I needed
 to improvise.
 
 On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 :
 :
 :On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
 :
 : What would be useful in all this discussion would be if someone gives a
 : list of good root servers to put in my named.boot.
 : i.e. generally fast response time and no blocking prefixes
 :
 :What would be even more useful would be if you read up on how BIND works.
 :
 :As long as you have one reachable root server in your hint zone you'll end up
 :with them all in your cache.
 :
 :- Dalph Roncaster
 :
 :Communicate in total privacy.
 :Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
 :
 :Looking for a good deal on a domain name? 
http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople
 :
 :

Re: cw outage?

2002-08-02 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane



Not a really great one.

http://sla.cw.net/

Dan Hollis wrote:
 
 Did cw just take a huge dump?
 
 Does cw have a status page?
 
 -Dan
 --
 [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message



HA!

I remember pegasus! That was ages ago. 

before windows... Our branch got all macs (the really old shoebox ones)
before we'd succumb but we were over ruled eventually. They have them in
the smithsonian now.

enough ot.  back to work.

Jane

Gerardo A. Gregory wrote:
 
 Guess no one uses Pegasus Mail anymore,
 
 *reminiscence of the good ol days when that was all that the Department of
 Defense used*
 
 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Majdi S. Abbas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:56 AM
 Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its
 annoying and no one can see your message
 
 
  On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
 
   Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer
   references.  I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random
   X-Mailer discussion on NANOG.  (X-Mailer discussion seems
   to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the
   last month.)
  
   The breakdown:
  
   Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%)
   Mozilla 11.41%
   Eudora 10.86%
   ELM 6.63%
   exmh 5.25%
   Web Mail 5.20%
   Mutt 4.70%
   New MH 3.64%
   VM 2.36%
   Mulberry 1.90%
   Gnus 1.27%
   MH 0.96%
  
   If we include the postings with no X-Mailer in the sample,
   Microsoft drops to 18.08% of the total -- I'm not aware of any
   M$ email product that didn't include an X-Mailer header.
  
   Of course, about the only thing you can conclude from this
   is that people with no X-Mailer post more often than anyone else ;)
 
  Most of those are likely pine, which you can tell by looking at the
  message-id...
 
  James Smallacombe   PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am
  =

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Itsannoying and no one can see your message



Good ol Frank, we can always count on you! Get a job, man.

Jane

Rizzo Frank wrote:
 
 Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
   I remember pegasus! That was ages ago.
 
 How did you install it, did it come on 8mm tape?  Or did you download it
 from the local WaReZ BBS?
 
   enough ot
 
 Jane, have you EVER posted anything on-topic?
 
 Frank Rizzo

XO



Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?

I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype.

Thanks for any help.

Jane

Re: XO



no

I'm not interested in hold or music over a phone line or whatever xo
thinks is what customers want to listen to.

Jane

Ian Cooper wrote:
 
 One assumes 888.699.6398 (customer care line for data services) isn't what
 you're looking for?
 
 --On 10 July 2002 11:00 -0400 Pawlukiewicz Jane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
 
  Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
 
  I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype.
 
  Thanks for any help.
 
  Jane

Re: XO



did

guess I'm just not as good at it as you are. Thanks for the info.

Second rule of nanog, you shall get the information you wish if you are
willing to:

1) ask
2) ignore flame

thanks again, the contact info is great.

Jane

Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
 
 On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 11:00:58AM -0400, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
  Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
 
  I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype.
 
 Jane, had you actually read many of the postings on this
 list before jumping right in and posting 20 times a day, you'd be
 aware of the NOC list:
 
 http://puck.nether.net/netops/
 
 Additionally, googling for XO Communications NOC nets
 us all sorts of information:
 
 
http://www.paix.net/participants/Participant_address_telcos/XO_Communications.htm
 
 The first rule of NANOG:
 * Use a search engine before asking NANOG.
 
 --msa

Re: XO



lol!

Maybe I should've tried their website. who'dathought! 

thanks for making me laugh. 

Hoffman, Sandra wrote:
 
 One could also just go to http://www.xo.com... ;)
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Ian Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: 10 July 2002 16:13
 To: Pawlukiewicz Jane
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: XO
 
 One assumes 888.699.6398 (customer care line for data services) isn't what
 you're looking for?
 
 --On 10 July 2002 11:00 -0400 Pawlukiewicz Jane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
 
  Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
 
  I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype.
 
  Thanks for any help.
 
  Jane
 
 This e-mail (and any attachments) contains information, which is
 confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named
 addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy,
 distribute or use it for any purpose or disclose the contents to any person.
 If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] The information contained in this e-mail (and any attachments)
 is supplied in good faith, but the sender shall not be under any liability
 in damages or otherwise for any reliance that may be placed upon it by the
 recipient. Any comments or opinions expressed are those of the originator
 not of NTT Europe Ltd unless otherwise expressly stated.

Re: WorldComm Fiber Cut????

2002-07-08 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane



MFNs status page is:

http://www.mfn.com/network/ip_networkstatus.shtm#sjc

Jane

Sean Donelan wrote:
 
 On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Gerardo A. Gregory wrote:
  Can someone from WorldComm please verify a fiber cut that happened today at
  around 11:30 am (Central).  I have bveen informed that a fiber cut in
  Illinois (or Indiana) has been in effect (until just a few minutes) for all
  of the afternoon and most of the evening.
 
 Worldcom is reporting a problems near Chicago.  Earthlink is reporting
 problems affecting its customers in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,
 Wisconsin and Ohio.
 
 http://help.mindspring.com/netstatus/
 http://www.noc.uu.net/
 
 Cable  Wireless is showing delays out of Cleveland, Ohio
 
 http://sla.cw.net/
 
 ATT and Sprint aren't reporting any problems.
 
 http://ipnetwork.bgtmo.ip.att.net/index.html
 http://www.sprint.net/
 
 MFN's and PSI's network status pages have stopped working for me, so I
 don't know if they are having problems.
 
 http://www.above.net/html/techlog.txt
 http://www.psi.net/cgi-bin/netstatus.pl5

Cook Report down?

2002-07-01 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane



Link isn't working this morning.

Jane

Re: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN

Hi Christopher,

Christopher J. Wolff wrote:

Jane,

This brings up a good point about IM. IMHO, IM is a security risk and I am
establishing a company standard where users behind the firewall are
prohibited from using IM, IRC, and peer-to-peer file sharing programs. My
opinion is that these types of programs contribute more to lack of
productivity than to real problem solving.

I think the road you've chosen is a tough one. A great many people have
contributed to this who are far more experienced than I. I believe we
won't see IM going away. Everyone uses it, and like all humans, make it
forbidden and the people in your company will view it as all the more
desirable. There are a great many management tapes and videos and books
out there, and they basically say the same thing. Trust your people to
do their job and don't worry if they play games or talk on IM. Measure
them by the metrics you've given them. And don't sweat the small stuff.
(Easy to say, I know.)

My teenager can play a computer game, chat with his friends through IM
and talk on the phone, all while he's writing his science report. And
the reports not all that bad because I proof everything he turns in
(except the French). As long as his grades are in the A-B range, I
restrict nothing. well, almost nothing. But if his grades drop . . . the
ax comes down.

If the issue is viruses, there are a great many ways to screen viruses
even through IM. I trust our staff to be sure they are all implemented.

My two cents, for what its worth. I've tried micro managing and it never
never (I'm restraining myself from saying never 20 times) works.

So my question for the group is, do chat programs (IM, IRC, yahoo) serve a
substantial network support purpose or are they more of a distraction,
allowing staff to communicate with friends, relatives, drifters, interlopers
on company time?

I think people do this anyway, we used to chat around the coffee pot. I
think its funny when office mates are chatting away on IM. People cannot
produce 24/7 or even 8/5. They have to take a break every hour or so.
Human nature. We have a game room here at work . . . People are going
to play, so create the environment where they can.

Opps, got my own deadline slipping now!

Hope you can resolve this soon.

Jane

Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories
http://www.bblabs.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Pawlukiewicz Jane
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How important is the PSTN

Hi all,

Thanks so much for all the great answers. (Could everyone please stop
telling me that im = instant messaging). I knew I should've never gotten
out of bed this morning.

Anyway, 75% of the respondents said the phone is critical. 25% said some
form of IM is critical.

Just in case anyone was curious.

Is it me or is it very quiet in here today?

Jane

begin:vcard
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

Re: How important is the PSTN


Jason Lewis wrote:
 
  Is it me or is it very quiet in here today?
 
  Jane
 
 All the frequent posters have been banned for 6 months.  ;)

No way. I've seen them post about not being able to post. Maybe they're
being shy.

Dunno.

Have a great day. Big meeting at noon and I really have to prepare.

Jane

begin:vcard 
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a 
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

Re: Fwd: WorldCom Investor News: WorldCom Announces Intention toRestate 2001 and First Quarter 2002 Financial Statements


Hey,

dumb question. Does WCOM own Cox? Or is that ATT?

Just curious.

Jane

blitz wrote:
 
  From their own press report:
 
 WorldCom Announces Intention to Restate 2001 and First Quarter 2002
 Financial Statements
 
 CLINTON, Miss., June 25, 2002 - WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM, MCIT) today
 announced it intends to restate its financial statements for 2001 and the
 first quarter of 2002. As a result of an internal audit of the company's
 capital expenditure accounting, it was determined that certain transfers
 from line cost expenses to capital accounts during this period were not
 made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
 The amount of these transfers was $3.055 billion for 2001 and $797 million
 for first quarter 2002. Without these transfers, the company's reported
 EBITDA would be reduced to $6.339 billion for 2001 and $1.368 billion for
 first quarter 2002, and the company would have reported a net loss for
 2001 and for the first quarter of 2002.
 
 The company promptly notified its recently engaged external auditors, KPMG
 LLP, and has asked KPMG to undertake a comprehensive audit of the
 company's financial statements for 2001 and 2002. The company also
 notified Andersen LLP, which had audited the company's financial
 statements for 2001 and reviewed such statements for first quarter 2002,
 promptly upon discovering these transfers. On June 24, 2002, Andersen
 advised WorldCom that in light of the inappropriate transfers of line
 costs, Andersen's audit report on the company's financial statements for
 2001 and Andersen's review of the company's financial statements for the
 first quarter of 2002 could not be relied upon.
 
 The company will issue unaudited financial statements for 2001 and for the
 first quarter of 2002 as soon as practicable. When an audit is completed,
 the company will provide new audited financial statements for all required
 periods. Also, WorldCom is reviewing its financial guidance.
 
 The company has terminated Scott Sullivan as chief financial officer and
 secretary. The company has accepted the resignation of David Myers as
 senior vice president and controller.
 
 WorldCom has notified the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of
 these events. The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has retained
 William R. McLucas, of the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler  Pickering, former
 Chief of the Enforcement Division of the SEC, to conduct an independent
 investigation of the matter. This evening, WorldCom also notified its lead
 bank lenders of these events.
 
 The expected restatement of operating results for 2001 and 2002 is not
 expected to have an impact on the Company's cash position and will not
 affect WorldCom's customers or services. WorldCom has no debt maturing
 during the next two quarters.
 
 Our senior management team is shocked by these discoveries, said John
 Sidgmore, appointed WorldCom CEO on April 29, 2002. We are committed to
 operating WorldCom in accordance with the highest ethical standards.
 
 I want to assure our customers and employees that the company remains
 viable and committed to a long-term future. Our services are in no way
 affected by this matter, and our dedication to meeting customer needs
 remains unwavering, added Sidgmore. I have made a commitment to driving
 fundamental change at WorldCom, and this matter will not deter the new
 management team from fulfilling our plans.
 
 Actions to Improve Liquidity and Operational Performance
 
 As Sidgmore previously announced, WorldCom will continue its efforts to
 restructure the company to better position itself for future growth. These
 efforts include:
 
 Cutting capital expenditures significantly in 2002. We intend 2003 capital
 expenditures will be $2.1 billion on an annual basis.
 
 Downsizing our workforce by 17,000, beginning this Friday, which is
 expected to save $900 million on an annual basis. This downsizing is
 primarily composed of discontinued operations, operations  technology
 functions, attrition and contractor terminations.
 
 Selling a series of non-core businesses, including exiting the wireless
 resale business, which alone will save $700 million annually. The company
 is also exploring the sale of other wireless assets and certain South
 American assets. These sales will reduce losses associated with these
 operations and allow the company to focus on its core businesses.
 
 Paying Series D, E and F preferred stock dividends in common stock rather
 than cash, deferring dividends on MCI QUIPS, and discontinuing the MCI
 tracker dividend, saving approximately $375 million annually.
 
 Continuing discussions with our bank lenders.
 
 Creating a new position of Chief Service and Quality Officer to keep an
 eye focused on our customer services during this restructuring.
 
 We intend to create $2 billion a year in cash savings in addition to any
 cash generated from our business operations, said Sidgmore. By focusing
 on these steps, I am

Re: Fwd: WorldCom Investor News: WorldCom Announces IntentiontoRestate 2001 and First Quarter 2002 Financial Statements


Andy Warner wrote:
 
 Neither WCOM, nor T owns Cox. Cox is independent. T recently acquired
 Comcast which may be the source of your confusion.

I am always confused.

No, I think the source of my confusion is RoadRunner. Its all over their
website, and that's a ATT name. isn't it? at least it was...

Jane
 
 --
 Andy Warner
 
 On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
 
  Hey,
 
  dumb question. Does WCOM own Cox? Or is that ATT?
 
  Just curious.
 
  Jane
 
  blitz wrote:
  
From their own press report:
  
   WorldCom Announces Intention to Restate 2001 and First Quarter 2002
   Financial Statements
   
   CLINTON, Miss., June 25, 2002 - WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM, MCIT) today
   announced it intends to restate its financial statements for 2001 and the
   first quarter of 2002. As a result of an internal audit of the company's
   capital expenditure accounting, it was determined that certain transfers
   from line cost expenses to capital accounts during this period were not
   made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
   The amount of these transfers was $3.055 billion for 2001 and $797 million
   for first quarter 2002. Without these transfers, the company's reported
   EBITDA would be reduced to $6.339 billion for 2001 and $1.368 billion for
   first quarter 2002, and the company would have reported a net loss for
   2001 and for the first quarter of 2002.
   
   The company promptly notified its recently engaged external auditors, KPMG
   LLP, and has asked KPMG to undertake a comprehensive audit of the
   company's financial statements for 2001 and 2002. The company also
   notified Andersen LLP, which had audited the company's financial
   statements for 2001 and reviewed such statements for first quarter 2002,
   promptly upon discovering these transfers. On June 24, 2002, Andersen
   advised WorldCom that in light of the inappropriate transfers of line
   costs, Andersen's audit report on the company's financial statements for
   2001 and Andersen's review of the company's financial statements for the
   first quarter of 2002 could not be relied upon.
   
   The company will issue unaudited financial statements for 2001 and for the
   first quarter of 2002 as soon as practicable. When an audit is completed,
   the company will provide new audited financial statements for all required
   periods. Also, WorldCom is reviewing its financial guidance.
   
   The company has terminated Scott Sullivan as chief financial officer and
   secretary. The company has accepted the resignation of David Myers as
   senior vice president and controller.
   
   WorldCom has notified the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of
   these events. The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has retained
   William R. McLucas, of the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler  Pickering, former
   Chief of the Enforcement Division of the SEC, to conduct an independent
   investigation of the matter. This evening, WorldCom also notified its lead
   bank lenders of these events.
   
   The expected restatement of operating results for 2001 and 2002 is not
   expected to have an impact on the Company's cash position and will not
   affect WorldCom's customers or services. WorldCom has no debt maturing
   during the next two quarters.
   
   Our senior management team is shocked by these discoveries, said John
   Sidgmore, appointed WorldCom CEO on April 29, 2002. We are committed to
   operating WorldCom in accordance with the highest ethical standards.
   
   I want to assure our customers and employees that the company remains
   viable and committed to a long-term future. Our services are in no way
   affected by this matter, and our dedication to meeting customer needs
   remains unwavering, added Sidgmore. I have made a commitment to driving
   fundamental change at WorldCom, and this matter will not deter the new
   management team from fulfilling our plans.
   
   Actions to Improve Liquidity and Operational Performance
   
   As Sidgmore previously announced, WorldCom will continue its efforts to
   restructure the company to better position itself for future growth. These
   efforts include:
   
   Cutting capital expenditures significantly in 2002. We intend 2003 capital
   expenditures will be $2.1 billion on an annual basis.
   
   Downsizing our workforce by 17,000, beginning this Friday, which is
   expected to save $900 million on an annual basis. This downsizing is
   primarily composed of discontinued operations, operations  technology
   functions, attrition and contractor terminations.
   
   Selling a series of non-core businesses, including exiting the wireless
   resale business, which alone will save $700 million annually. The company
   is also exploring the sale of other wireless assets and certain South
   American assets. These sales will reduce losses associated with these
   operations and allow the company to focus on its core businesses.
   
   Paying Series D

Big meetings should never be held at noon!


Hi,

We ran out of time.

Anyway, question for the best network operators in America, and beyond. 

Is there a way to download _part_ of a BGP table from a router?

Can I use something like logic, sql to download just a piece, a specific
piece of the BGP table?

I can't believe this is impossible...

Thanks for any help on this,

Jane

begin:vcard 
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a 
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

COX



This just in:

RoadRunner is a service of AOL Time Warner, but AFAIK, it's only an ISP
that has cable companies (MSO's) as affiliates.

Road Runner isn't a cable television provider, itself.

I believe, however that Andy is right. I think my confusion is that COX
bought the ATT home groups, which includes roadrunner. usually ATT is
the one buying.

Thanks for the info.

Jane

Re: Bet on with my boss

2002-06-25 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane




Martin Hannigan wrote:
 
 Regards,
 
 --
 Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Boston, MA  http://www.fugawi.net
 
 On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Vincent J. Bono wrote:
 
 
  We recently had a piece of equipment fail outside of Bronson, FL.  This was
  in a regeneration hut, 50 miles from almost anywhere useful.  There is no
  cellular service and no POTs in the HUT.  The closest employee was a woman
  who although bright was not very familiar with the equipment installed.
  Because the management channel (IP) was still working to the site, an
  engineer here in Quincy, MA was able to step her through fixing the problem
  using nothing but IRC and two-way pager.  It took her 35 minutes to correct
  the issue.
 
  Harder than with a phone?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.  Without that IP channel
  running?  It would have taken closer to an hour and a half by my guess but
  still doable.  Smoke signals or semaphore?  I won't hazard a guess.
 
  -vb
 
 Regards,
 
 --
 Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Boston, MA  http://www.fugawi.net
 
 On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Vincent J. Bono wrote:
 
  Harder than with a phone?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.  Without that IP channel
  running?  It would have taken closer to an hour and a half by my guess but
  still doable.  Smoke signals or semaphore?  I won't hazard a guess.
 
 That's it. I'm giving semaphore classes at the BBQ. :)

BBQ? really? When? Where?

Jane

begin:vcard 
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a 
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

How important is the PSTN

2002-06-25 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane


Hi all,

Thanks so much for all the great answers. (Could everyone please stop
telling me that im = instant messaging). I knew I should've never gotten
out of bed this morning. 

Anyway, 75% of the respondents said the phone is critical. 25% said some
form of IM is critical.

Just in case anyone was curious.

Is it me or is it very quiet in here today?

Jane

begin:vcard 
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a 
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

Re: Bet on with my boss

2002-06-22 Thread Pawlukiewicz Jane

Hi Greg

Gregory Hicks wrote:

  Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:22:29 -0100
  From: Pawlukiewicz Jane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: Bet on with my boss

  [...]

  No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry.

  The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads.

 [...]

 Actually, the moderator (list 'owner') for nanog told the instigator to quit or
 '... off the list...'

they say, timing is everything. And COB Friday was the bet, of course,
cob friday on what continent was never discussed so . . .

Jane

Bet on with my boss


Hi,

How important is the phone to you? I mean, given some situation that
arises, can we solve it without the phones?

Just curious.

You can ignore me if you want. That's okay.

Jane

begin:vcard 
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a 
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

Re: Bet on with my boss


Oh you made me laugh ...

thanks,

Jane

Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
 
 On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
  How important is the phone to you? I mean, given some situation that
  arises, can we solve it without the phones?
 
  Just curious.
 
  You can ignore me if you want. That's okay.
 
  Jane
 
 To me, personally, as an individual and not speaking as an
 admin, i could give a damn. Try not to use the flipping things
 except very rarely, irritating nuisances they are.
 
 To me, speaking as someone who works as a clec/cable company/isp,
 they're purty damn important. Phones can save lives. Without them,
 its damn hard to reach emergency service so nearly every house now
 has one. But the internet, you can get by just fine without it now.
 It doesn't yet have a killer app ;)
 
 sam

begin:vcard 
n:Pawlukiewicz;Jane
tel;cell:703 517-2591
tel;fax:703 289-5814
tel;work:703 289-5307
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Booz Allen Hamilton;Visit us on the Internet: a href=http://boozallen.com;BoozOnline/a 
adr:;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Jane Pawlukiewicz
end:vcard

Re: Bet on with my boss

Andy Dills wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:

Hi,

How important is the phone to you? I mean, given some situation that
arises, can we solve it without the phones?

Just curious.

You can ignore me if you want. That's okay.

I probably should take your advice, but that's an interestingly ambiguous
question so I'll indulge on a slow Friday afternoon. Anything to derail
that spews thread.

phone is a tricky word. By phone do you mean an actual handset? Or do
you mean a handset with a pots line? Or does your definition include
voip? Or do you mean phone to encompass all audio communication devices?
Or do you mean phones to represent the entire PSTN?

What kind of situation are you referring to? A small bowel accident? Or a
fiber cut? Your kid got in a fight at school? Or are most of your frame
relay circuits bouncing?

Basically, anybody can answer whatever they want based on the lack of
detail in the question. I'd love to take both sides of the bet so I can
collect from both you and your boss...

I bet you could.

By phone I mean PSTN and by situation, I mean something involving a
SNAFU on your network (excuse me, IP network), another network your
network depends on.

Clear?

Andy

Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net

Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access

Thanks for not ignoring me ;)

Jane

BTW, what does FIARK mean?

Re: Bet on with my boss