Re: Reasons for attendance drop off
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:09:40PM -0800, William B. Norton wrote: On 12/4/06, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Focusing on expense is a short term way to manage a loss in the front end, the bottom line. It would be useful to talk about solutions that drive attendance, IMHO. I agree and would like to see if we can brainstorm some ideas that might spur discussions, other ideas, etc. 1) Provide a mechanism for vendors to send to NANOG a box of schwag (Tshirts, USB memsticks, USB disks loaded with freeware, product literature, whatever). This might provide a subtle enticement to get a NANOG vendor kit. I know some people purposely bring a bag with too few clothes with the expectation of getting tshirts to wear on the way home. since you can't register w/o specifying a shirt size, this is not an unreasonable assumption. 2) Identify/recruit Adhoc Working Groups that may be for small public groups, and provide sign-outable breakout rooms for these meetings. This would leverage the we are all in the same place at the same time aspect of NANOG, and facilitate additional value for the attendees that attend these meetings. Their alternative might be going out to dinner, which may or may not work as well. I guess the addition here as compared with previous break out rooms is to assign a schedule (time and a meeting name, a facilitator) to allocated meetings and descriptions of the meeting. for me, NANOG is mostly irrelevent to me, I'm not a Tier-X ISP, and my networking needs only tangentially involve the 2x32 routes, MPLS/circuit switching @ 100Gb, or the like. So if I come to NANOG, its to (borrowing from friend Gibbard) get a new/fresh perspective on topics that are interesting to me. I would hope that there is plan in place to address this for the Toronto meeting. --bill
Exotic meeting locations in North America
There really is no need for all NANOG meetings to have the same format. In fact, if we accept the idea of varying formats, then some of the cost issues can be tamed. For instance, one full meeting, one regional meeting, and one special-focus meeting per year. The full meeting could be the one that is done in conjunction with ARIN in a major center with full free networking, beer and gear etc. The regional meeting would be in a smaller city with the expectation that the majority of attendees are from the local area and don't have access to big travel budgets. And the special focus meetings would target some specific topic and pick a location to match. Some of the regional and special focus meetings would not supply comprehensive free Internet access. If Internet access is available people would pay for it and expect bandwidth limitations and higher than normal latency. Depends on the location. Here are some exotic locations that could work with a special focus. Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut is rather exotic. The native language is neither English nor French nor Spanish. It has the issues of remoteness and reliance on satellite telecommunications. New Orleans has dealt dramatically with disaster recovery and rebuilding infrastructure. It is exotic because it is still in the process of rebuilding unlike most American cities. St. John's, Newfoundland - a British colony until 1949 when it joined Canada, this is located on a large island, has a history in trans-atlantic telecommunications and still has a certain amount of undersea fiber connectivity. Montpelier, Vermont is the smallest state capital in the USA, located in the Vermont,New Hampshire, Maine area which is rather more rural than the average in the USA as well as being somewhat mountainous terrain. If you don't count New Orleans before Katrina, I'd guess that well over 90% of NANOGers have never been to any of these four cities. Other special focus areas might be: Government and the Internet, Government and IPv6 - Washington DC. The Research Community and the Internet - Ann Arbor MI Network Security from a Military Viewpoint - Sierra Vista AZ near US Army's CECOM-ISEC headquarters Strategic Aspects of Network Security - Harrisburg PA not far from US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute in nearby Carlisle The idea of regional meetings is mainly to have a scaled down NANOG to reach a much wider audience that does not have a large conference travel budget. This is rather similar to RIPE's meetings in Qatar, Moscow, Bahrain, Nairobi and Tallinn. The idea of special focus meetings is to do something entirely new, perhaps redefining the NANOG role and audience in the process. It is clear that the traditional NANOG audience is shrinking because the traditional Internet provider has been mostly replaced by larger general telecommunications providers. The same old topics and same old restricted set of participants doesn't have enough future potential to keep NANOG running in the long term. Special focus meetings can help bring in new blood. --- Michael Dillon Capacity Management, 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 20 7650 9493Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com One Community One Connection One Focus
Re: Fwd: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry
Thanks very much for this link (and the summary). I see an interesting (if not surprising) trend in Advertised AS Count. Up until 2001 it was accelerating... and after 2001 its stayed linear. However, unadvertised AS count which was basically stagnant has increased markedly before then. Those are not unadvertised ASNs. Those are only ASNs which have been issued but are undetectable by his monitoring tools. That doesn't mean that they are not advertised, just that his tool cannot detect them. Given the fact that the Internet is now thoroughly global with rich interconnectivity in most regions of the globe, it is hardly surprising that lots of ASNs do not get advertised globally. The trend you see is likely cause by rich local interconnectivity becoming the norm rather than a few circuits from the capital city to some big U.S. city. --Michael Dillon
Re: Exotic meeting locations in North America
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The idea of regional meetings is mainly to have a scaled down NANOG to reach a much wider audience that does not have a large conference travel budget. This is rather similar to RIPE's meetings in Qatar, Moscow, Bahrain, Nairobi and Tallinn. I am just back from very successful Regional Meetings in Moscow and Bahrain, where it's true that the focus is local members, and where regional meetings of any kind are often a rarity. But Tallinn is the venue for RIPE 54, in the same vein as Istanbul (RIPE 52) and Stockholm (RIPE 50). -- Roland Perry Public Affairs Officer, RIPE NCC
Best Email Time
Ok, so the question of when is the best time to spam has come up. I cited the ReturnPath 2004 study (http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?). Anyone have any data on such? Sorry if this question seems offtopic here, but I figure the question of net congestion data is appropriate. -Dennis
Re: Best Email Time
Dennis Dayman wrote: Ok, so the question of when is the best time to spam has come up. I cited the ReturnPath 2004 study (http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?). Anyone have any data on such? Sorry if this question seems offtopic here, but I figure the question of net congestion data is appropriate. That study seems rather off-base, but explains why the spam patterns have changed over time (I'm one of those silly people that has kept my non-worm spam that makes it past basic filters since 1999.) I see a lot of spam in the 2am to 8am EST frame. Phishing seems to peak Fri-Sat instead, presumably to avoid the weekday mitigation departments The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam. That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives! Systemwide, it's only 0.6%! On the false negative side, I'm seeing 4.2% personally, 2.8% systemwide. I conclude the parameters and filters are set a bit liberally, allowing too much spam.
Re: Reasons for attendance drop off
On 5-Dec-2006, at 05:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: since you can't register w/o specifying a shirt size, this is not an unreasonable assumption. [For context, this is a thread that is happening on the nanog-futures mailing list. To subscribe, echo subscribe nanog-futures | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not entirely sure how the thread escaped onto this list, but it might be nice if it could be herded back.]
Re: Best Email Time
On 12/5/06, William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam. That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives! Systemwide, it's only 0.6%! Depends on - 1. How large your network is (how many millions of mailboxes) 2. How you define spam [that study probably defines anything that's can-spam compliant as non-spam? haven't checked]
Re: Exotic meeting locations in North America
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There really is no need for all NANOG meetings to have the same format. For instance, one full meeting, one regional meeting, and one special-focus meeting per year. I'll truncate the rest of Michael's excellent post for the sake of brevity, but say that this is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long, long time. At once, it addresses both of the big issues that NANOG is facing: scope creep, and irrelevancy. Though I'd assumed the best way of dealing with the former would be trimming back to two meetings a year, I like Michael's way better. -Bill
Re: Best Email Time
On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:14 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote: The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam. That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives! Systemwide, it's only 0.6%! My experience with running an anti-spam service is that 20% is probably not far off for non-technical end-users. I might put it closer at 10%, but it's certainly larger than you would expect. First of all, they never check the stuff that gets dumped into the spam folder in their app or service--so the filters don't get fine tuned. Secondly, they ignore legit bounces (heck, gmail flags all bounces as spam). Thirdly, they tend to delete anything from anyone they don't recognize--that particularly includes receipts for stuff they bought online, and subscriptions that they knowingly or unknowingly signed up for. The main point is that even if they've got a spam filter with a low false positive rate, that doesn't mean all legit mail gets through. Speaking of bounces. For the past month or so I've been getting daily spam bounce-backs that are from lists very similar to those that I actually subscribe to (i.e. similar technical content). I'm beginning to wonder if the spammers aren't trying to get through to mailing lists that authenticate based on sender email address.
Re: Best Email Time
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:14:06 EST, William Allen Simpson said: The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam. Somewhere around 85% of all mail attempts to us are summarily rejected because the source is in some block list or other, resulting in the spam not being delivered to our user's inboxes as the spammer intended, largely because it is recognized as spam. Statistics are what you read into them pgp5CIhtodfVt.pgp Description: PGP signature
U.S./Europe connectivity
I am doing some work on a network in central Illinois that is currently peering with Sprint and McLeod. They have a number of customers in the U.K. and they want to reduce latency to that part of the world. They've been offered a point to point 100 mbit link between their facility and a location in London from Cogent, but this isn't IP service. They've asked me to sort out how they can use this link or to find a good alternative for them. A long time ago I think Teleglobe peering would have been the snap answer for European connectivity, but its been a few years. Who would I look to in terms of a carrier on that side of the pond? We've got on net termination with Sprint as a starting point for a link ...
Re: U.S./Europe connectivity
Hi, few strong links in Europe and specially UK are: COGENT, LEVEL3, CW,TELEFONICA COGENT win most of our US links to Europe even better than LEVEL3, but i would not be surprise if LEVEL3 win most of the links to the UK. for sprintlink, from Caribbean CW goes to sprintlink Miami and from there to telefnoica even though there's a path through cogent/LEVEL3. in terms of connectivity inside telefonica i am not happy with, alot of latency for too many places, and alot of failures around Spain(i assume telefonica is spanish) CW is very strong in UK, as well as LEVEL3 and cogent. but this is not enough to come to any conclusion, so i would start by analyzing ip scopes where most of the European clients are connecting from and run some BGP queries and traces. and checking up sprintlink peering to differenet london locations. hope it's not too vague and it gives you anything useful, Lior On 12/5/06, nealr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am doing some work on a network in central Illinois that is currently peering with Sprint and McLeod. They have a number of customers in the U.K. and they want to reduce latency to that part of the world. They've been offered a point to point 100 mbit link between their facility and a location in London from Cogent, but this isn't IP service. They've asked me to sort out how they can use this link or to find a good alternative for them. A long time ago I think Teleglobe peering would have been the snap answer for European connectivity, but its been a few years. Who would I look to in terms of a carrier on that side of the pond? We've got on net termination with Sprint as a starting point for a link ...
Re: U.S./Europe connectivity
Lior, No, this is very helpful. We just turned up AdventNet's Net Flow Analyzer for this customer's two production cisco 7507s and we should be able to see where the European customers are very shortly. It is good to know that Cogent is a decent choice for this job - we've seen not so positive stuff about them here in the past. If we can narrow things down to Cogent and Level 3 right away that is a good place to start. Someone sent me to peeringdb.com and it looks like I have plenty of places to choose from in London. Neal outageslist outages wrote: Hi, few strong links in Europe and specially UK are: COGENT, LEVEL3, CW,TELEFONICA COGENT win most of our US links to Europe even better than LEVEL3, but i would not be surprise if LEVEL3 win most of the links to the UK. for sprintlink, from Caribbean CW goes to sprintlink Miami and from there to telefnoica even though there's a path through cogent/LEVEL3. in terms of connectivity inside telefonica i am not happy with, alot of latency for too many places, and alot of failures around Spain(i assume telefonica is spanish) CW is very strong in UK, as well as LEVEL3 and cogent. but this is not enough to come to any conclusion, so i would start by analyzing ip scopes where most of the European clients are connecting from and run some BGP queries and traces. and checking up sprintlink peering to differenet london locations. hope it's not too vague and it gives you anything useful, Lior On 12/5/06, nealr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am doing some work on a network in central Illinois that is currently peering with Sprint and McLeod. They have a number of customers in the U.K. and they want to reduce latency to that part of the world. They've been offered a point to point 100 mbit link between their facility and a location in London from Cogent, but this isn't IP service. They've asked me to sort out how they can use this link or to find a good alternative for them. A long time ago I think Teleglobe peering would have been the snap answer for European connectivity, but its been a few years. Who would I look to in terms of a carrier on that side of the pond? We've got on net termination with Sprint as a starting point for a link ...
Re: U.S./Europe connectivity
You can check out LINX out of the UK. Its is a decent public exchange point out of the UK and currently has the most participants out of all other peering points in the UK. You could also try www.peeringdb.com -- a great resource for peering data from a global standpoint. Hope that helps... Pablo On 12/5/06, nealr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am doing some work on a network in central Illinois that is currently peering with Sprint and McLeod. They have a number of customers in the U.K. and they want to reduce latency to that part of the world. They've been offered a point to point 100 mbit link between their facility and a location in London from Cogent, but this isn't IP service. They've asked me to sort out how they can use this link or to find a good alternative for them. A long time ago I think Teleglobe peering would have been the snap answer for European connectivity, but its been a few years. Who would I look to in terms of a carrier on that side of the pond? We've got on net termination with Sprint as a starting point for a link ...
SBC RBL
We started getting these, for reasons unknown, for some pacbell.net email addresses, 550 5.0.0 ylpvm35.prodigy.net Access Denied. To request removal, send the complete error message, including your ip addresses, in an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With great trepidation, I went ahead and tried the email address despite Googling it first and seeing few success stories and in fact some chat on this list about the sooper-lameness. But I had to laugh when I got this bounce back, On 12/5/2006 at 12:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: User's mailbox is full: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to deliver mail Guess they're a little behind on their removals. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications B¼information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SBC RBL
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:06:34PM -0800, Crist Clark wrote: We started getting these, for reasons unknown, for some pacbell.net email addresses, 550 5.0.0 ylpvm35.prodigy.net Access Denied. To request removal, send the complete error message, including your ip addresses, in an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interesting... we just started getting a bunch of these too. I wonder if there's a glitch on their side. w
Re: SBC RBL
550 5.0.0 ylpvm35.prodigy.net Access Denied. To request removal, send the complete error message, including your ip addresses, in an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interesting... we just started getting a bunch of these too. I wonder if there's a glitch on their side. I just did an MX lookup for sbcglobal.net, which yielded a bunch of hosts with prodigy.net hostnames: ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;sbcglobal.net. IN MX ;; ANSWER SECTION: sbcglobal.net. 4021IN MX 10 sbcmx4.prodigy.net. sbcglobal.net. 4021IN MX 10 sbcmx5.prodigy.net. sbcglobal.net. 4021IN MX 10 sbcmx6.prodigy.net. sbcglobal.net. 4021IN MX 10 sbcmx1.prodigy.net. sbcglobal.net. 4021IN MX 10 sbcmx2.prodigy.net. sbcglobal.net. 4021IN MX 10 sbcmx3.prodigy.net. And when I connected to one of them it seemed not to know it was an sbcglobal.net MX: mail:~ postmstr$ telnet sbcmx1.prodigy.net 25 Trying 207.115.57.15... Connected to sbcmx1.prodigy.net. Escape character is '^]'. 220 ylpvm21.prodigy.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.6 inb/8.13.6; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:22:34 -0500 helo mail.alfordmedia.com 250 ylpvm21.prodigy.net Hello mail.alfordmedia.com [12.106.209.189], pleased to meet you mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 2.1.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Sender ok rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 553 5.3.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Relaying is NOT allowed here quit 221 2.0.0 ylpvm21.prodigy.net closing connection I'm going with clueless until proven otherwise. -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
Re: SBC RBL
I'm going with clueless until proven otherwise. Okay, maybe I'm the clueless one-- that's a typo. If I add the silent invisible g into sbcglobal it works. Sigh. On the other hand, we do appear to have some nonresponsive machines in the round-robin: mail:~ postmstr$ telnet sbcmx1.prodigy.net 25 Trying 207.115.57.15... telnet: connect to address 207.115.57.15: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host mail:~ postmstr$ telnet sbcmx1.prodigy.net 25 Trying 207.115.57.15... telnet: connect to address 207.115.57.15: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host mail:~ postmstr$ telnet sbcmx1.prodigy.net 25 Trying 207.115.57.15... Connected to sbcmx1.prodigy.net. Escape character is '^]'. I still think there is a real problem on their end, besides my fat fingers. ;-) -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
