I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd
prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy.
For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet
for example. I realize there are many other factors including
relyability, cost,
At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
>I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally,
>and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by
>personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
>
>- Daniel Golding
Oh come now Dan, t
At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
>I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or
>debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite
>clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements
>from these carriers se
I guess one of the concerns it the definition of peer. The policies as
I read bhem by cnw and uunet seem to be so overly restrictive that none
of the newer carriers will meet them. I've litterllly, not from uunet
and or cw but from other carriers received responses to peering requests
"Well
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 10:17:38AM -0700, Scott Granados wrote:
>
> I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd
> prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy.
> For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet
> for exam
I imagine "public relations" depts of CW and UUNET will not allow them to
just admit they would not peer, and this is why they "have" peering policies.
In reality however, UUNET will peer with anyone who pays them money for
the peering traffic and they do provide good discounts on this. Add t
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:39:41AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> One interesting note is that UUNET does peer with CW itself in number of
> new locations, for example big peering point for both of them is Equinix
> in San Jose. Since I can't imagine those companies going there just to
> pe
Chris Parker wrote:
>At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
>>You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful
>>effect.
>
>It informs other networks of the actions taken by said carrier. Od
carrier. Other
>networks may in turn change *their* business decis
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Dean S Moran wrote:
> >>I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally,
> >>and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by
> >>personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
> >
>
> How can I not take it personall
On Mon, 6 May 2002 09:59:24 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
>>Is that true? I thought the space belongs to ARIN, and they loan it to
>>certain parties. Those parties can use the IPs in accordance with ARIN
>>rules.
>The way you've written the above statements makes them true. However,
Just because policies are in place that suggest an assignment may or may
not be justified is wholly irrelevant to whether or not that assignment
takes place (or in the case of the original thread, stays in place). ARIN
is not in the business of saying "do" or "do not".
Ralph wrote:
> >>Is that
On Thu, 9 May 2002 18:16:52 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
>Just because policies are in place that suggest an assignment may or may
>not be justified is wholly irrelevant to whether or not that assignment
>takes place (or in the case of the original thread, stays in place). ARIN
>is not
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 probabl
Just a note here I think needs to be said. In my case at least my
experiences with peering and working with other networks has been
extremely positive. I had the pleasure of for example having a loop in to
Paix Pao1 and that was a very positive thing for my network and frankly
business. Mo
DS writes:
> Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its
> policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the
worthiness of an additional address space request. It doesn't look at nor
care about non-
Clarification:
ARIN plays, at most, an advisory role during appropriate assignment
*disputes*. That last word is very important :>
>
> DS writes:
> > Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its
> > policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
>
> In the real wor
On Thu, 9 May 2002 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
>DS writes:
>>Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its
>>policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
>In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the
>worthiness of an
I'm not a lawyer and cannot answer the questions you pose.
However I fail to see why the interesting legal principles you are
espousing have anything to do with the original topic of this thread: an
upstream revoking an assignment upon the severing of its relationship with
its downstream.
| I lost a lot of money due to Mr. Jansen
Tough.
Sean. (who do you blame for losing alot of credibility? aliens?)
> 2002-04-05 | 116
> 2002-04-04 | 125
> 2002-04-03 |91
> 2002-04-02 |88
> 2002-04-01 |97
> (33 rows)
>
> go ahead and "Just Hit Delete" if you want.
if this idiot idea ("the `you can delete it' one) continues on, there's
going to be a market for ultra long life, MILSPEC, D
On Thu, 9 May 2002 20:17:32 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
>I'm not a lawyer and cannot answer the questions you pose.
>
>However I fail to see why the interesting legal principles you are
>espousing have anything to do with the original topic of this thread: an
>upstream revoking an assi
> > We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
>
> Then the way to do this is to make the cost of sending mass mail more
> expensive than sending only a few here and there. In short, we need a
> way to prevent the use of the $19.95 throw-away account that is used
> to send the
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:10AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote:
>
> Now there's a good idea, and it works, I have several sites running a
> "port 25" trap to stop smtp abuse.
>
> To stop port 25 abuse at some schools, the firewall grabs all outgoing
> port 25 connections from !"the mai
--On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:26 PM -0600 Joel Baker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Earthlink was doing this for basically all of their consumer-grade
> (dialup, most of the ADSL, etc) customers in 1999 (well, almost certainly
> earlier than that, but I can only personally speak to it being in pla
For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see:
http://help.earthlink.net/port25/
Best regards,
Al Rowland
-Original Message-
From: Joel Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
--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 anywhe
26 matches
Mail list logo
