From owner-freebsd-isp Sun May 31 10:41:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18721 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:41:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.keyworld.net (root@mail.keyworld.net [194.21.164.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18706; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from psycho@keyworld.net) Received: from chrism (ppp71.keyworld.net [194.21.164.134]) by mail.keyworld.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA07000; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:36:32 +0200 Message-Id: <199805311736.TAA07000@mail.keyworld.net> From: "Christopher Martin at Home" To: "Blaine Minazzi" , "Gary Palmer" Cc: Subject: Re: SMTP Relay probing - Should I follow up - advice? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:41:16 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > That is because alter.net does not sell dialup directly. They sell > > them to resellers. While the reseller contract they use could probably > > be beefed up a bit, if the reseller doesn't act UUNet is kinda stuck. > > No, they could terminate the resellers connection if the reseller does > not enforce the AUP. > A reseller, if most of his customers are legit, will not risk loosing > his business over a few spammers. > > They appear to not be willing to do this, and, in turn, we all lose. > > We get spammed, and our services stolen. > They get the bucks for hosting the theives. > And we don't do anything about it, because it might cost us something. > > Sorry state of affairs, is it not? I agree totally. Being a recent victim illicit smtp server use for spam relaying in a region where shitty bandwidth costs big bucks, I assure you that I saw our transmissions (output) from our server farm max out for periods of 18 hours sometimes. I say the law is on the side of the upstream provider, and resellers are law-bound to follow their upstream's policies and ensure that their customers are doing so as well. Uniform code of ethics is probably required. Youse are all tecchies. Some good hardcore legal codexes should be applied though. More important. Otherwise no liability. -- Christopher Martin BDM -KeyWORLD http://www.keyworld.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sun May 31 10:44:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19038 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.keyworld.net (root@mail.keyworld.net [194.21.164.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18993 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from psycho@keyworld.net) Received: from chrism (ppp71.keyworld.net [194.21.164.134]) by mail.keyworld.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA06603; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:25:15 +0200 Message-Id: <199805311725.TAA06603@mail.keyworld.net> From: "Christopher Martin at Home" To: "Karl Pielorz" , Subject: Re: SMTP Relay probing - Should I follow up - advice? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:18:51 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org We have recently been victims of a large scale use of our SMTP server as relay for spamming. I suggest you find out who they are (discreetly) and sue them when the anti-ICBE law comes into effect. Is it already illegal in the US? We are in Malta. -- Christopher Martin BDM -KeyWORLD http://www.keyworld.net ---------- > From: Karl Pielorz > To: isp@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: SMTP Relay probing - Should I follow up - advice? > Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 1:05 PM > > Hi All, > > This isn't strictly FreeBSD relates, but it is very ISP related... > > I've just checked through my morning security logs, and suprise, suprise our > entire address space was scanned again lastnight for SMTP relays... Theres > loads of firewall logs for SMTP connects to machines we don't allow SMTP to, > and on the machines we do allow SMTP to - in the logs are loads of sendmail > catches for 'Relaying Unavailable' (the message we send to people trying to > relay)... > > My question is - I have the IP address these came from, they are a Spamming > Company by the look of it, and to be honest I'm sick of this sort of > thing... > > Is it worth me mailing the people? - Or should I just be grateful we weren't > used as a relay and let them be? > > I'm just annoyed a company that obviously has set out to specialise in > spam/electronic mailing lists doesn't even use it's own servers to send the > damned stuff out... > > Annoyed... > > Karl Pielorz > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sun May 31 10:57:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21341 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:57:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.keyworld.net (root@mail.keyworld.net [194.21.164.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA21328 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:57:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from psycho@keyworld.net) Received: from chrism (ppp71.keyworld.net [194.21.164.134]) by mail.keyworld.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA07646; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:52:28 +0200 Message-Id: <199805311752.TAA07646@mail.keyworld.net> From: "Christopher Martin at Home" To: "Steve Ames" , Subject: Re: Backup Power? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:56:59 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You need a generator, an automatic changeover switch on mains AND a UPS. -- Christopher Martin BDM -KeyWORLD http://www.keyworld.net ---------- > From: Steve Ames > To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Backup Power? > Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 10:38 PM > > > This is more than a little off topic, but here goes. > > My company operates a number of remote POPs and we want to upgrade > our backup power. Our minimum target is 2 hours (would like to > get closer to 8) and most POPs consist of 4-6 Adtran CSU, a Cisco > 4000 and a couple of Ascend Max 4048. > > I've queried a couple of UPS manufacturers and they're going to quote > me up something but I'm not sure UPSs are the way to go... anyone > played with other options such as generators? > > -Steve > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sun May 31 12:24:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA03586 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 12:24:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dt050n33.san.rr.com (@dt053nd2.san.rr.com [204.210.34.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03572 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 12:24:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@san.rr.com) Received: from san.rr.com (Studded@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dt050n33.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12782; Sun, 31 May 1998 12:24:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@san.rr.com) Message-ID: <3571AE5A.12362BA@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:24:10 -0700 From: Studded Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.6-STABLE-0507 i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Lube CC: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bind revisited References: <13371622019371@mpinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brian Lube wrote: > > I'm currently working on securing up our BSD box, I apologize in advance > if this has already been beaten to death, but what is the best way to > secure my copy of bind? Should I upgrade to 8.1.1 and then keep up to date > with patches, or is there going to be some sort of update for the 4 series? > We are currently looking to upgrade to the 8.1.1 series, but we're not > really sure how much work it is going to entail. As covered, you want to upgrade to 8.1.2. There is a port for that, you'll want to use cvsup to get the latest ports collection. As for making the transition itself, here's a little guide that I wrote up: 1. Make good, reliable backups of your current configuration, store them in more than one physical location and TEST to make sure that you can actually recover with them. :) That last step is often skipped by people and you only find out that you're fubar at the worst possible moment. 2. Make sure that your *current* configuration is working as it should be. At minimum I open up two windows to the server, start 'tail -f /var/log/named.log' in one and then shut the server down in the other. I watch the log while it shuts down, then start it up and watch it again to make sure that there are no errors. Once I'm convinced that things are working as advertised I proceed. If I have to make any changes to make things go I repeat step one. 3. Back up the current working binaries. First lesson on first day of sysadmin school, make every change reversible. (On FreeBSD this isn't absolutely necessary if you have the code handy.) 4. Unpack the BIND source and read the installation documentation. (On FreeBSD you're much better off with the port.) 5. Compile and install that bad boy. :) 6. Convert your named.boot file to named.conf using the src/bin/named/named-bootconf.pl script. 7. At this point I usually rotate the named logs so that I know I'll be logging the new stuff in new logs. 8. Delete any secondary zone files you have so that you can be sure they are downloaded with the new installation. BIND 8.x downloads secondary zones asynchronously, so you shouldn't worry if you don't see a secondary zone till after an hour or so. 9. Make sure that you're watching the log in one window (tail -f above) and then start up the new named in the other and with luck watch everything work the way it should. :) At times BIND 8 will find bogons in your zone files that were not a problem for older versions of BIND 4. Underscores in host names are very common errors that pop up after an upgrade, as are various problems with CNAME's. You might want to give the html documentation for the config file a look two or three times before you start it up. There are some options you can tailor to increase named's efficiency based on your particular needs. Several of those options were compile options with BIND 4. Good luck, Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** *** Proud designer and maintainer of one of the world's largest *** Internet Relay Chat servers with 5,328 simultaneous connections *** Try spider.dal.net on ports 6662-4 (Powered by FreeBSD) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sun May 31 18:39:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03743 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 18:39:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from tranq1.tranquility.net (tranq1.tranquility.net [206.156.230.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03737 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 18:39:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from goebel@tranquility.net) Received: from localhost (goebel@localhost) by tranq1.tranquility.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA06840; Sun, 31 May 1998 20:38:47 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from goebel@tranquility.net) Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:38:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Leon Schumacher To: Christopher Martin at Home cc: Steve Ames , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Backup Power? In-Reply-To: <199805311752.TAA07646@mail.keyworld.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Steve- The autochange-over switch is called a double pole double throw switch. This is a must or you can literally kill someone who is trying to repair the line (while you are providing power for yourself). Power will feed down the line in reverse, and when it hits the transformer, rather than step down the current, it will step up the current. In some cases this can take 120/240V power that you are producing and transform it to 7000+ volts... Leon Schumacher Tranquility Internet On Sun, 31 May 1998, Christopher Martin at Home wrote: > You need a generator, an automatic changeover switch on mains AND a UPS. > > -- > Christopher Martin > BDM -KeyWORLD http://www.keyworld.net > > ---------- > > From: Steve Ames > > To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG > > Subject: Backup Power? > > Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 10:38 PM > > > > > > This is more than a little off topic, but here goes. > > > > My company operates a number of remote POPs and we want to upgrade > > our backup power. Our minimum target is 2 hours (would like to > > get closer to 8) and most POPs consist of 4-6 Adtran CSU, a Cisco > > 4000 and a couple of Ascend Max 4048. > > > > I've queried a couple of UPS manufacturers and they're going to quote > > me up something but I'm not sure UPSs are the way to go... anyone > > played with other options such as generators? > > > > -Steve > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Jun 1 21:14:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02057 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:14:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from chipweb.ml.org (qmailr@c1003518-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [24.1.82.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA01988 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:14:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ludwigp@bigfoot.com) Received: (qmail 25197 invoked by uid 666); 2 Jun 1998 04:13:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO speedy.chipweb.ml.org) (172.16.1.1) by 172.16.1.5 with SMTP; 2 Jun 1998 04:13:43 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980601211339.0070ec18@mail.plstn1.sfba.home.com> X-Sender: ludwigp@mail.plstn1.sfba.home.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:39 -0700 To: isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: Ludwig Pummer Subject: Kerberos or NIS/YP? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm looking to set up dialin modem access (so my friends have low-ping access to my quake2 server :) but can't figure out which one is better for shared passwords: Kerberos or NIS. I've got two FreeBSD machines and a Livingston Portmaster 2e (got it free). One FreeBSD machine ('inet', unimaginative, i know) has user accounts, mail (smtp, imap, pop3), quake2, and almost everything else. The other ('fortress' and 'fortressa', i have aliases for DNS purposes) has only root (well, plus my personal account) and DNS. I'm looking to make it my 'secure' server. What I'd like to do is have inet be the shared password server, either Kerberos or NIS, and the RADIUS server for the Portmaster. Which would be better and/or simpler to implement? I'd like to for any password-checking done now (mail, telnet/ftp, chpass) to continue to work with a minimum of fuss. I've found neither the manpages nor the handbook or FAQ have given enough information for this decision. The manpage for NIS doesn't say, for example, what happens to programs which use pwd.h's password-checking functions. I don't have kerberos installed, so I can't check its manpages, but I'd like to know how it works with programs which use pwd.h. Thanks in advance, --Ludwig Pummer ludwigp@bigfoot.com ludwigp@chipweb.ml.org ICQ UIN: 692441 http://chipweb.home.ml.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Jun 2 02:28:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA19596 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:28:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hack.babel.dk (shredder@hack.babel.dk [194.255.106.77]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA19586 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:28:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from shredder@hack.babel.dk) Received: from localhost (shredder@localhost) by hack.babel.dk (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA20608 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:28:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:28:57 +0200 (CEST) From: chrw To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: spammer utilizing fake msgID bypassing my filter Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Im under spam attack, and implemented the "Refuse Mail From Selected Relays" from sendmail.org. It doesnt block relaying at all, but blocks access from sites stored in /etc/mail/DeniedNames Refuse Mail From Selected Relays Problem: Spam -- persistent, offensive mail from various sites. Solution: Refuse connections from the spamming sites. This involves keeping a database of those sites; the key will be the host name of the site and the value will be what you want to say to them. Code: (Downloadable version) Kspammers hash /etc/spammers Scheck_relay R$+ $| $+ $: $(spammers $1 $: OK $) ROK $@ OK R$+ $#error $: 521 $1 It works fine, and filters most of the spammers. However one spammer continues to spam via my server, bypassing the filter. Jun 1 23:32:04 6C:dns sendmail[18136]: XAA18136: from=, size=634, class=0, pri=450634, nrcpts=15, msgid=<199806011887KAA40415@uunet.com.MY.DOMAINNAMEB>, proto=SMTP, relay=1Cust160.tnt19.atl2.da.uu.net [153.36.120.160] look at the msgid: can this by why he succesfully bypasses the filter??? Both uunet.com and earthlink.net has been included in the DeniedNames filter, and the message shoudl therefore be rejected, but it doesnt! It works well with alot of other spammers, I can see in the log that the filter traps the mail and throws it away, but not with the spammer earthlink.net using this false msgID, which carries my domain name appended in the end of the msgID. I have inserted MY.DOMAINNAME instead of my real domain. Any anti-spam or sendmail experts has a comment or some advise? Id rather NOT implement the other anti-spam scheme where relaying is disabled for everyone except hosts listed in some access file. I have alot of customers relaying and would rather avoid maintaining a list of authorized relayers. i rather want to maintain a blacklist of offending spammers, but I havent found any implementation of this approach anywhere. I run sendmail-8.8.7. Can someone help? This is obviously (as i see it) someone faking msgIDs so they may look like they originate from my own domain and it therefore is not captured by the filter. Reagards, Christoffer Walther To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Jun 2 03:04:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23302 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:04:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from jmb@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23294; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:04:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmb) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" Message-Id: <199806021004.DAA23294@hub.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: spammer utilizing fake msgID bypassing my filter In-Reply-To: from chrw at "Jun 2, 98 11:28:57 am" To: shredder@hack.babel.dk (chrw) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org chrw wrote: > > Im under spam attack, and implemented the "Refuse Mail From Selected > Relays" from sendmail.org. It doesnt block relaying at all, but blocks > access from sites stored in /etc/mail/DeniedNames > > Refuse Mail From Selected Relays > > Problem: Spam -- persistent, offensive mail from various sites. > > Solution: Refuse connections from the spamming sites. This involves > keeping a database of those sites; the key will be the host name > of the site and the value will be what you want to say to them. > > Code: (Downloadable version) > > Kspammers hash /etc/spammers > > Scheck_relay > R$+ $| $+ $: $(spammers $1 $: OK $) > ROK $@ OK > R$+ $#error $: 521 $1 check_relay works on the "hostname.domainname $| ip address" of the host that connects to your smtp port, in your case is "1Cust160.tnt19.atl2.da.uu.net $| 153.36.120.160". so, unless you have uu.net 1Cust160.tnt19.atl2.da.uu.net listed in your spammers database, this will not block the mail. (you have to match exactly, cause you dont try to find the last two components of the domainname, you might want to they the rule as listed in /etc/mail/sendmail.cf.additions.) > > > It works fine, and filters most of the spammers. However one spammer > continues to spam via my server, bypassing the filter. > > Jun 1 23:32:04 6C:dns sendmail[18136]: XAA18136: > from=, size=634, class=0, pri=450634, nrcpts=15, > msgid=<199806011887KAA40415@uunet.com.MY.DOMAINNAMEB>, proto=SMTP, > relay=1Cust160.tnt19.atl2.da.uu.net [153.36.120.160] since this mail is coming from earthlink.net, you can add a new rulseset: check_mail. check_mail works on the "user@hostname.domainname" provided with the "mail from: " part of the smtp conversation. so add the check_mail ruleset from /etc/mail/sendmail.cf.additions. (here is an exerpt, but read the whole ruleset, dont cut'n'paste, tabs may be converted to spaces.) R$+ @$+ $: <$1@$2> $2 R<$*> $+.$+.$+ <$1> $3.$4 R<$*> $* $: $(spamsites $2 $: OK $) R$+.REJECT $#error $: 521 $1 R<$*> $* $: $1 > > > look at the msgid: can this by why he succesfully bypasses the filter??? > Both uunet.com and earthlink.net has been included in the DeniedNames > filter, and the message shoudl therefore be rejected, but it doesnt! It > works well with alot of other spammers, I can see in the log that the > filter traps the mail and throws it away, but not with the spammer > earthlink.net using this false msgID, which carries my domain name > appended in the end of the msgID. I have inserted MY.DOMAINNAME instead > of my real domain. the message-id has nothing to do with it, rather they are being nasty and trying to sow FUD. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Jun 2 03:05:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23350 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:05:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from leaf.lumiere.net (j@leaf.lumiere.net [207.218.152.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA23342 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:05:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from j@lumiere.net) Received: from localhost (j@localhost) by leaf.lumiere.net (8.9.0/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA18743; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:05:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from j@lumiere.net) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:05:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jesse To: chrw cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: spammer utilizing fake msgID bypassing my filter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, Can't help much with the sendmail specifics, but what I do whenever someone is spamming me who I'm having trouble filtering with sendmail rules is to filter all traffic from their ip (or range of IPs) to my port 25. No more mail relaying. Hope this helps you. I use ipfw. > Im under spam attack, and implemented the "Refuse Mail From Selected > Relays" from sendmail.org. It doesnt block relaying at all, but blocks > access from sites stored in /etc/mail/DeniedNames --- Jesse http://www.lumiere.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 01:16:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA26395 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:16:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sun-test.hightek.com ([194.74.141.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA26388 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:16:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andreas@klemm2.hightek.com) Received: from klemm2.hightek.com ([195.90.203.76]) by sun-test.hightek.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with ESMTP id AAA2694; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:16:24 +0200 Received: (from andreas@localhost) by klemm2.hightek.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03817; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:16:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from andreas) Message-ID: <19980603101623.05657@hightek.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:16:23 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm To: "Alex G. Bulushev" Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers References: <3.0.32.19980527085445.0073b480@mail.voltage.net> <199805271538.TAA12430@sinbin.demos.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199805271538.TAA12430@sinbin.demos.su>; from Alex G. Bulushev on Wed, May 27, 1998 at 07:38:05PM +0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 2.2.6-STABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 07:38:05PM +0400, Alex G. Bulushev wrote: > > At 09:17 AM 5/27/98 +0100, Karl Pielorz wrote: > > >You should be OK with a couple of hundred - the real killer is when you get > > >apache to write the log files for each virtual host to seperate files... > > >This eats up file-descriptors... > > > > Is it better to log all virtuals into one single file? And if so what > > analyzer works best with this setup? > > separate logs usefull for vhosts users, we use separate logs for 380 vhosts > but FD_SETSIZE = 8192 What exactly influences this define ? The amount of filedescriptors that can be managed per process ... I read something about a bitmap. Would be nice if somebody could tell me. -- B&K Gruppe - Wuppertal phone +49 202 7399 - 170 fax +49 202 7399 - 100 http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/~andreas/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 10:40:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22185 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:40:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gershwin.careergateway.com ([203.127.84.102]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22176 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Douglas@alcamedia.com) Received: by gershwin.careergateway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:29:22 +0800 Message-ID: From: Douglas Ng To: "'isp@FreeBSD.ORG'" Subject: RE: Firewall software Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:29:15 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="---- =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.23DC8830" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------ =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.23DC8830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks guys for all the feedback.=A0 Really appreciate it... Now I've = got a lot of consolidation to do! Douglas Stevenson Ng=20 W3Labs, The Active Idea Company=20 ------ =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.23DC8830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Firewall software
Thanks guys for all the feedback.  Really appreciate it... Now I've got a lot of consolidation to do!

Douglas Stevenson Ng
W3Labs, The Active Idea Company

------ =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.23DC8830-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 10:41:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22268 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:41:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gershwin.careergateway.com ([203.127.84.102]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22259 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:41:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Douglas@alcamedia.com) Received: by gershwin.careergateway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:30:06 +0800 Message-ID: From: Douglas Ng To: Douglas Ng , "'isp@FreeBSD.ORG'" Subject: RE: Tunnel Software Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:30:03 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="---- =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.3F0FF9A0" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------ =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.3F0FF9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks guys for all the feedback.=A0 Really appreciate it.=A0 Got some = work ahead now :) =A0 Douglas Stevenson Ng=20 W3Labs, The Active Idea Company=20 =A0 ------ =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.3F0FF9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Tunnel Software
Thanks guys for all the feedback.  Really appreciate it.  Got some work ahead now :)
 
Douglas Stevenson Ng
W3Labs, The Active Idea Company
 
------ =_NextPart_001_01BD8F15.3F0FF9A0-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 11:05:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA25394 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:05:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.keyworld.net (root@mail.keyworld.net [194.21.164.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA25387 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from psycho@keyworld.net) Received: from chrism (ppp101.keyworld.net [194.21.164.164]) by mail.keyworld.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA29003; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:00:22 +0200 Message-Id: <199806031800.UAA29003@mail.keyworld.net> From: "Christopher Martin at Home" To: "Jesse" , "chrw" Cc: Subject: Re: spammer utilizing fake msgID bypassing my filter Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:05:07 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org We use the reverse subdomain checking filter... -- Christopher Martin BDM -KeyWORLD http://www.keyworld.net ---------- > From: Jesse > To: chrw > Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: spammer utilizing fake msgID bypassing my filter > Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 12:05 PM > > > Hi, > > Can't help much with the sendmail specifics, but what I do whenever > someone is spamming me who I'm having trouble filtering with sendmail > rules is to filter all traffic from their ip (or range of IPs) to my port > 25. No more mail relaying. Hope this helps you. I use ipfw. > > > Im under spam attack, and implemented the "Refuse Mail From Selected > > Relays" from sendmail.org. It doesnt block relaying at all, but blocks > > access from sites stored in /etc/mail/DeniedNames > > --- > Jesse > http://www.lumiere.net/ > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 13:38:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26823 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:38:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from cwie-hfc.phnx1.az.home.net (freebsd@cwie-hfc.phnx1.az.home.net [24.1.224.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26708; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:37:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@cavecreek.net) Received: from localhost (freebsd@localhost) by cwie-hfc.phnx1.az.home.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA16565; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:40:34 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: cwie-hfc.phnx1.az.home.net: freebsd owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) From: FreeBSD X-Sender: freebsd@cwie-hfc.phnx1.az.home.net To: FreeBSD-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: MAXLOGNAME and UT_NAMESIZE Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The standard for FreeBSD 2.2.x is set to 8. I have changed UT_NAMESIZE and MAXLOGNAME in ALL .h files (/usr/include/sys/utmp.h etc... etc) and I recompiled chown.c and getpwent.c and passwd.c but still I get : chown: : illegal user name when exceeds 8 chars. Any ideas anyone ? I need a maximum of 17 chars in a login ID. Thanks Peter. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 14:31:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07200 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:31:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from germanium.xtalwind.net (germanium.xtalwind.net [205.160.242.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07193 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jack@germanium.xtalwind.net) Received: from localhost (jack@localhost) by germanium.xtalwind.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA11051; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:31:13 -0400 (EDT) From: jack To: FreeBSD cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MAXLOGNAME and UT_NAMESIZE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, FreeBSD wrote: > The standard for FreeBSD 2.2.x is set to 8. I have changed UT_NAMESIZE and > MAXLOGNAME in ALL .h files (/usr/include/sys/utmp.h etc... etc) > and I recompiled chown.c and getpwent.c and passwd.c Go back and make world. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack O'Neill System Administrator / Systems Analyst jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc. Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key. PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null Mail from netcom.com blocked until they stop relaying SPAM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 15:52:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20402 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:52:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from darla.swimsuit.internet.dk (Modem1126.internet.dk [194.255.12.58]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA20351 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:52:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from leifn@internet.dk) Received: from darla.swimsuit.internet.dk (darla.swimsuit.internet.dk [192.168.0.10]) by darla.swimsuit.internet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA00521; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:29:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from leifn@internet.dk) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:29:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Leif Neland Reply-To: leifn@internet.dk To: Jay cc: Dan Roberts , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 27 May 1998, Jay wrote: > > I'm putting together a new machine to serve vhost websites.. I want to > > check if there are any limits on the number of sites that can be hosted on > [ . . . ] > > Anything anyone aware of? I don't see anything obvious in any > > documentation I've read, but I want to be sure before we commit our > > customers to this new machine. > > I've successfully run 255 vhosts on a single FreeBSD machine (ips > ifconfig'ed onto lo0) without any trouble. We have two machines in that > configuration right now. They handle all of the vhosts with no problem at > all. I have heard tell of people doing more than that, but I've never > tried. You can run all vhosts off the same ip; you don't need separate ip's. All (?) browsers give the base url when they request a page. Leif Neland leifn@internet.dk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 16:25:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27057 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:25:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from tweetie.online.barbour-index.co.uk (tweetie-vbc.online.barbour-index.co.uk [194.207.51.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27040 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:25:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scot@poptart.org) Received: from localhost (scot@localhost) by tweetie.online.barbour-index.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA07389; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:24:39 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from scot@poptart.org) X-Authentication-Warning: tweetie.online.barbour-index.co.uk: scot owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:24:39 +0100 (BST) From: Scot Elliott X-Sender: scot@tweetie.online.barbour-index.co.uk To: Leif Neland cc: Jay , Dan Roberts , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org That's not entirely true. Most modern browsers support it, but you'd be surprised at how many old browsers are still being used. We put agent logging on our web servers for a few months to test this; around 40% of clients did not have browsers that could cope with host based virtual hosting (ie. based on the Host: HTTP header rather than the IP address the request came in on). Shame really, 'cos it seems an awful waste using IPs for this. Yours, Scot. On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Leif Neland wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 1998, Jay wrote: > > > > I'm putting together a new machine to serve vhost websites.. I want to > > > check if there are any limits on the number of sites that can be hosted on > > [ . . . ] > > > Anything anyone aware of? I don't see anything obvious in any > > > documentation I've read, but I want to be sure before we commit our > > > customers to this new machine. > > > > I've successfully run 255 vhosts on a single FreeBSD machine (ips > > ifconfig'ed onto lo0) without any trouble. We have two machines in that > > configuration right now. They handle all of the vhosts with no problem at > > all. I have heard tell of people doing more than that, but I've never > > tried. > > > You can run all vhosts off the same ip; you don't need separate ip's. > > All (?) browsers give the base url when they request a page. > > > > Leif Neland > leifn@internet.dk > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scot Elliott (scot@poptart.org) | Work: +44 (0)171 7046777 PGP fingerprint: FCAE9ED3A234FEB59F8C7F9DDD112D | Home: +44 (0)181 8961019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public key available by finger at: finger scot@poptart.org or at: http://www.poptart.org/pgpkey.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 16:37:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA29680 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:37:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.westbend.net (ns1.westbend.net [207.217.224.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA29667; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:36:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hetzels@westbend.net) Received: from admin (admin.westbend.net [207.217.224.195]) by mail.westbend.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA20740; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:36:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hetzels@westbend.net) Message-ID: <02f801bd8f48$7e67efc0$c3e0d9cf@admin.westbend.net> From: "Scot W. Hetzel" To: "FreeBSD" Cc: , Subject: Re: MAXLOGNAME and UT_NAMESIZE Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:36:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BD8F1E.951C69A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BD8F1E.951C69A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: FreeBSD >The standard for FreeBSD 2.2.x is set to 8. I have changed UT_NAMESIZE and >MAXLOGNAME in ALL .h files (/usr/include/sys/utmp.h etc... etc) >and I recompiled chown.c and getpwent.c and passwd.c > >but still I get : chown: : illegal user name > >when exceeds 8 chars. > >Any ideas anyone ? I need a maximum of 17 chars in a login ID. It seems to work here. Did you do a "make world", and re-build the kernel? As I believe, this change also affects other programs and libraries. I have been using the attached patches on my 2.2.x-STABLE sources for long user names. These patches are designed to be placed one directory lower in the src tree (i.e. /usr/src/patches ). Then to update your sources and keep long user names, you do the following: make update ( cd /usr/src/patches/usersize16 ; make ) make world Scot ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BD8F1E.951C69A0 Content-Type: application/x-compressed; name="usersize16.tgz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="usersize16.tgz" H4sIAIfTdTUAA+1Z+W/iRhTOr/Zf8ZZEq4SC8fgk5FAR0ISKSxzaqloJGRjAWmNTH5vsRvnfOzO2 A04gdFtCqtafkviYd8zMm/fNGyfwsOuZ3zHSCkdvBVBEXVXhCCjE6KpH1+glaKqINFlFIrlHInk6 AvXNerSGwPMNF+DIdRz/NbmRaR+iO4dGsIp/0/iCp6aF9+6DxFRTlK3xR0iSnuIvauQeSQoi8Rf3 3pMN+J/H/5g/hjjwMHVcWC0I/pjvlPuV26ul4Y/nkJ/wg36zM6zWu1cnD0Jl0CV3jwVBoD+mPbaC CeZ7/Wq9HYnE0o/ETLfc3KzoffPoL1+uVge97maZwHMFj8x/wZhMaPd43rCsErBu8Ty7lHjuZzye O5Dp0EfTnkHgL5bCHARByJDGkwc2lkdY6xdcwpovZgd7hVBPiKy/MOv5E9PZaPdp7FsMR5pbLS8N 11hstPw0f1ssR5pbLUfzJiyxa20wv5r7LfbX9WMnQhRyuBx5E8ELRhPTFRZfrvn3XtEpfgRr/B9H e+8+fmD/V0QRUf6XdC3d/w+BDfF/me3/0MfO/V/W4/jLqiaTN5ooSen+fwhks9nE9iA4rjnj+gGG Kh6DLIKISopYEmVA5+c6n8/nE+LcJzwh9YNLgkgESkgtIYlKFvlsEvQZpHM9J4sKsBcAfBj/uzmp PU7RGTzQF9yJbSwwXMHHsWNPTXcxtEzPP83UbB+H1Qltz+QA5SBj5L+L+fNhnjxmMmcX/AfgzCmc Wtie+fNTZukMrqFIbZM25s1wbcgMIjtgemA59oyY9ueGDUUYzw3X+2x8tjMXpDtMxcb3Pnt4pH8s w/OBevlo47shy58hNTX8aljmJHaK/4Dw7oLNWTxycp8/5MiR9peHjrQ3GPt7L+8UO7CB/xPV5D58 7OJ/lZBHyP+SIrPzv6IrKOX/Q4DSchzwkPrnAfwa2AAqoGKJsr+0ov5IMsH6RUL5JVnZzvqamtPR GucfT8hp08Zcs/xbpd1s1Foc0jiukIWFcQ9jZ7Ew7AkwhnLxAi9G2CXesoWkZr3Vr3U7nCw9aZqU JpcupmTJTrPMREiIVP3DunqjfdMqN2scWulbzsy0nyslfA463QrHVW7rjeqQPMaKnrkILN+wsRN4 sHSdMfY87CW1W5Vy96bHceQvU411R998IkrP3YSB8T3ZcqeBPfZNx36mf9NtDzrEQHSz7t8O6BzB zHWCJXNLIxVO+mq7+TdNuiT+Byf9vRP5b2ID/ye+U+zDxw7+B500Rvyv6brO+J+e/1L+f3tQgo4D zvi/Z/jwCx6BhECUS7IWlf5FxiqR5DP+l9WSqL5S9etijpzn4x0gyjFzapM0g2G51asPe+1Bt1Ij r0l20dXIknNM1yapKuWzCxj0h5Q6evXfa/ATLYA9jOEy/FR3nSSaxjBS5M6T1EcaCE0tSAMSJYVL uAobmKtOuX9LMz3sZ1i9RyOI6PRwI0D6PobwWvw35P/6B9C9rLFd9R9pjvOfnP/p939Fk9P8Pwho gkYB313+hYLPsl/US4q2PfsVLadKce7H63jIVuinfrPDZQpfDbdA6oDCHbGeeSHUKPf6pHBYk6OH UHKlomtJs5ZfXJFlBsmvVdFBKhW4pP9siErY6+RWT7Qb9VaknXx/2+712XukxXwQjiligwONiZRr bzeo916FKVKkSJEiRYoUKQ6FPwGzInvIACgAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BD8F1E.951C69A0-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 17:14:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08851 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:14:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA08689 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:13:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from manar@ivision.co.uk) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [194.112.59.46] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0yhNf8-0006xv-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:13:47 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980604011242.00856210@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 01:12:42 +0100 To: leifn@internet.dk From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers Cc: Jay , Dan Roberts , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >All (?) browsers give the base url when they request a page. If they all did then you'd see a LOT more vhosts like this. There are an annoying few that don't including the default AOL browser (until fairly recently at least). Manar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 17:24:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11527 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:24:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from home.dragondata.com (toasty@home.dragondata.com [204.137.237.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11453 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:23:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from toasty@home.dragondata.com) Received: (from toasty@localhost) by home.dragondata.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id TAA19532; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:23:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Day Message-Id: <199806040023.TAA19532@home.dragondata.com> Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers In-Reply-To: from Leif Neland at "Jun 4, 98 00:29:12 am" To: leifn@internet.dk Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:23:38 -0500 (CDT) Cc: jay@oneway.com, droberts@gwis.com, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > I've successfully run 255 vhosts on a single FreeBSD machine (ips > > ifconfig'ed onto lo0) without any trouble. We have two machines in that > > configuration right now. They handle all of the vhosts with no problem at > > all. I have heard tell of people doing more than that, but I've never > > tried. > > > You can run all vhosts off the same ip; you don't need separate ip's. > > All (?) browsers give the base url when they request a page. > Not all do, unfortunately. IE and Netscape 2.x or lower don't. Lots of versions of lynx don't. www.apache.org has a page somewhere discussing this. :) Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jun 3 18:40:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA26975 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from roble.com (roble.com [207.5.40.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26893 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:40:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sendmail@roble.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by roble.com (Roble) with SMTP id SAA23110 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:39:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Marquis To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Leif Neland wrote: > You can run all vhosts off the same ip; you don't need separate ip's. You can but it's not necessarily a good idea. All sorts of things can corrupt a virtual server based on domain names only (as opposed to a virtual server based on IP addresses) including various browsers, DNS problems, dropped packets, relative references ... If you must use virtual domains mapped to a single IP at least be sure to check the error logs. Any problems should be readily apparent. Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/consulting To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 00:34:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA18046 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from caladan.tdx.co.uk (caladan.tdx.co.uk [195.188.177.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA17989 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:34:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk) Received: from tdx.co.uk (lorca-tx.tdx.co.uk [195.188.177.242]) by caladan.tdx.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA07373; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:33:47 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk) Message-ID: <35764DDB.197D7470@tdx.co.uk> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 08:33:47 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz Organization: TDX X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Marquis CC: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Roger Marquis wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Leif Neland wrote: > > You can run all vhosts off the same ip; you don't need separate ip's. > > You can but it's not necessarily a good idea. All sorts of things can > corrupt a virtual server based on domain names only (as opposed to a > virtual server based on IP addresses) including various browsers, DNS > problems, dropped packets, relative references ... > > If you must use virtual domains mapped to a single IP at least be sure > to check the error logs. Any problems should be readily apparent. > > Roger Marquis Hmmm... 'Corrupt'? - We use them here, and we've never seen anything corrupt... Nor have we had any problems with relative addresses etc. We make sure that the default server for the IP has a nice page explaining how to get to the domains if your browser doesn't support HTTP 1.1... I think it also explains why we chose this method (to save precious address space on our network)... I've seen sites with over 300 servers running this way - that's saving 299 IP addresses! Regards, Karl Pielorz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 05:25:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA28016 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:25:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.8.15.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA28009 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:24:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from danny@panda.hilink.com.au) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA08346; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:24:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:24:48 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: cyclades problem. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've just connected a 3rd 16 port serial adapter (white box) to my system. Previously, I had two, each on its own ISA card. This third is connected as an extension of cy1, so it should provide ttyc1g - ttyc1v. Unfortunately, when connecting to ttyc1{g-v} I get "device not configured" errors. Is there any trick to making this work? I'm using 2.2-980123-SNAP, which is about 2 months before 2.2.6-RELEASE. Danny /* Daniel O'Callaghan */ /* HiLink Internet danny@hilink.com.au */ /* FreeBSD - works hard, plays hard... danny@freebsd.org */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 10:20:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18134 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18119 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:20:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcs@znep.com) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id LAA19083; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:19:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA05498; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Slemko To: Karl Pielorz , Roger Marquis , Scot Elliott , Andreas Klemm cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache/freebsd limits on vhost servers In-Reply-To: <19980603101623.05657@hightek.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org (replying to several messages here...) On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Karl Pielorz wrote: [...] > Hmmm... 'Corrupt'? - We use them here, and we've never seen anything > corrupt... Nor have we had any problems with relative addresses etc. We make > sure that the default server for the IP has a nice page explaining how to > get to the domains if your browser doesn't support HTTP 1.1... I think it There seems to be a very common misconception that if a client doesn't send HTTP/1.1 requests and support HTTP/1.1, it won't send the Host: header. That is completely incorrect. While the Host: header is defined in the HTTP/1.1 spec, many HTTP/1.0 clients (eg. Navigator 4.x, IE 3.x) still send it. In fact, most of the clients sending it are HTTP/1.0 clients. [...] On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Roger Marquis wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Leif Neland wrote: > > You can run all vhosts off the same ip; you don't need separate ip's. > > You can but it's not necessarily a good idea. All sorts of things can > corrupt a virtual server based on domain names only (as opposed to a > virtual server based on IP addresses) including various browsers, DNS > problems, dropped packets, relative references ... Erm... this is nothing but FUD. Yes, some clients don't support it. Other than that, please explain how DNS problems suddenly impact only name based virtual hosts. I have no idea why you think dropped packets will impact anything, and "relative references", whatever you mean by that, are not impacted at all. If you have some details, please give them. Otherwise, I have to say that there is little basis to your remarks other than the fact that not all clients support it. On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Scot Elliott wrote: > That's not entirely true. > > Most modern browsers support it, but you'd be surprised at how many old > browsers are still being used. We put agent logging on our web servers > for a few months to test this; around 40% of clients did not have > browsers that could cope with host based virtual hosting (ie. based on the > Host: HTTP header rather than the IP address the request came in on). Your stats are very atypical. A far higher percentage of clients support the Host: header on nearly every website I have checked the stats. Are you sure you did not make a mistake in how you analyzed the logs? On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Andreas Klemm wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 07:38:05PM +0400, Alex G. Bulushev wrote: > > > At 09:17 AM 5/27/98 +0100, Karl Pielorz wrote: > > > >You should be OK with a couple of hundred - the real killer is when you get > > > >apache to write the log files for each virtual host to seperate files... > > > >This eats up file-descriptors... > > > > > > Is it better to log all virtuals into one single file? And if so what > > > analyzer works best with this setup? > > > > separate logs usefull for vhosts users, we use separate logs for 380 vhosts > > but FD_SETSIZE = 8192 > > What exactly influences this define ? The amount of filedescriptors > that can be managed per process ... I read something about a bitmap. > Would be nice if somebody could tell me. This define influences the size of the fd_set data structure used by select(). You can use descriptors over FD_SETSIZE just fine, presuming there aren't other problems that prevent it, however they will not work when you try to set them in a fd_set for use by select(). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 13:51:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03903 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from unix.kawartha.com (unix.kawartha.com [204.101.15.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03763 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:51:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@kawartha.com) Received: from kawartha.com (tech.kawartha.com [204.101.15.95]) by unix.kawartha.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15469 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35770A7A.7EB35DCB@kawartha.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 16:58:34 -0400 From: Paul Stewart X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Long Question...:) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi there... I'll try to make this short but detailed...:) We have two lans right now which we need to hook together. Currently LAN #1 is our internal lan which has a full class C (no subnetting YET). We need to break off 5 IP addresses from our class C (for easyness we are going to take 8 of them due to overheads of subnetting). This new subnet will range from .248 to .255 in range which is fine (we've moved everything in this range that was in use). Here come the questions..:) On the remote network we are using the following: Server IP Address .249 Server Gateway Address .53 (the server at our end) Netmask 255.255.255.248 Workstation IP's .250,.251,.252,.253 respecitively On the workstations, same netmask but gateway of 204.101.15.249 (make sense?) On our local server we are using the following: Server IP Address .53 Netmask 255.255.255.0 Workstation IP's range from .1 (Cisco) right up to .225 currently in use Gateway .1 When we changed our netmask on the local server to 255.255.255.248 the only thing it will see is the remote network (which by the way is connected via ISDN). Currently this whole setup is being done on Windows NT but we are considering doing this on FreeBSD (my personal preference). Which brings me to another quick question.... the reason for going to NT currently is that the workstations need to run Wordperfect Suite and print to a LaserJet 6L (connected to server). The whole login mechanism is done via a remote Radius server (on our local LAN). Therefore we've added RRAS for NT which allows Radius authentication for logins. As you can see this whole thing is a tad bit complicated. I've posted numerous messages to different mailing lists and have yet to find a solution yet I know on the other hand it's really not that complicated (at least on paper...heehehe..). I know there are errors in the above settings and need some guidance. Our router is managed by Bell Global (our upstream provider) and they have said they can add static routes to our Cisco router which will fix our local netmask problems (we don't want to adjust our local netmask values). This whole project is running overdue and I"m lost (I think I've been staring at the computer screen too long heehehee...) Thanks very much, Paul Stewart To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 15:37:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25470 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:37:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from java.dpcsys.com (java.dpcsys.com [206.16.184.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA25348 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:37:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dpcsys.com) Received: from localhost (dan@localhost) by java.dpcsys.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA28128; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:37:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Busarow To: Paul Stewart cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long Question...:) In-Reply-To: <35770A7A.7EB35DCB@kawartha.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Paul Stewart wrote: > We have two lans right now which we need to hook together. Currently > LAN #1 is our internal lan which has a full class C (no subnetting > YET). We need to break off 5 IP addresses from our class C (for > easyness we are going to take 8 of them due to overheads of > subnetting). This new subnet will range from .248 to .255 in range > which is fine (we've moved everything in this range that was in use). The only way to do this using a subnet from your C space is to also subnet the rest of the LAN. A simpler way to accomplish this would be to setup a FreeBSD box as the gateway and run ipfw and natd on it. Then number the remote LAN using RFC1918 address space, i.e. 192.168.1.0/24 This pretty painless to setup and the handbook section on it is step by step. As for Radius, I'm pretty sure there's a radius in ports/packages. We run the Livingston V2 radius here on 2 FBSD systems. Dan -- Dan Busarow 949 443 4172 DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 15:51:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29042 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from unix.kawartha.com (unix.kawartha.com [204.101.15.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28979 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:50:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@kawartha.com) Received: from shell.kawartha.com (shell.kawartha.com [204.101.15.43]) by unix.kawartha.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA19895; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:04:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Stewart To: Dan Busarow cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long Question...:) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Our upsteam provider is telling us that we don't need to change our LAN as they can tell our LAN router to route all packets in that range to the server that connects the remote LAN to ours... does this make sense? They say it's just a matter of static routing? Thanks again, Paul On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Dan Busarow wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Paul Stewart wrote: > > We have two lans right now which we need to hook together. Currently > > LAN #1 is our internal lan which has a full class C (no subnetting > > YET). We need to break off 5 IP addresses from our class C (for > > easyness we are going to take 8 of them due to overheads of > > subnetting). This new subnet will range from .248 to .255 in range > > which is fine (we've moved everything in this range that was in use). > > The only way to do this using a subnet from your C space is > to also subnet the rest of the LAN. > > A simpler way to accomplish this would be to setup a FreeBSD > box as the gateway and run ipfw and natd on it. Then number > the remote LAN using RFC1918 address space, i.e. 192.168.1.0/24 > This pretty painless to setup and the handbook section on it is > step by step. > > As for Radius, I'm pretty sure there's a radius in ports/packages. > We run the Livingston V2 radius here on 2 FBSD systems. > > Dan > -- > Dan Busarow 949 443 4172 > DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com > Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82 > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 16:06:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02342 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from java.dpcsys.com (java.dpcsys.com [206.16.184.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02295 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:06:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dpcsys.com) Received: from localhost (dan@localhost) by java.dpcsys.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA28373; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:07:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Busarow To: Paul Stewart cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long Question...:) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Paul Stewart wrote: > Our upsteam provider is telling us that we don't need to change our LAN as > they can tell our LAN router to route all packets in that range to the > server that connects the remote LAN to ours... does this make sense? They > say it's just a matter of static routing? Yes and no. You could enter static routes for each machine on the remote net but only packets going to/through the router will see them. So Internet traffic for the remote site would work fine. LAN to LAN wouldn't unless you added static routes to everything on the LAN. Going with NAT and private address space is much easier. Dan -- Dan Busarow 949 443 4172 DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 16:13:57 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03385 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:13:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from uhf.wireless.net (uhf.wireless.net [209.189.23.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA03364 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:13:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bad@uhf.wireless.net) Received: from localhost (bad@localhost) by uhf.wireless.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00768; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:10:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: Paul Stewart cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long Question...:) In-Reply-To: <35770A7A.7EB35DCB@kawartha.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Server Gateway Address .53 (the server at our end) > Netmask 255.255.255.248 > Workstation IP's .250,.251,.252,.253 respecitively > > On the workstations, same netmask but gateway of 204.101.15.249 (make > sense?) Yes. > On our local server we are using the following: > > Server IP Address .53 > Netmask 255.255.255.0 > Workstation IP's range from .1 (Cisco) right up to .225 currently in > use > Gateway .1 But you need a network route to .249 netmask 255.255.255.248 on the gateway. > When we changed our netmask on the local server to 255.255.255.248 the > only thing it will see is the remote network (which by the way is > connected via ISDN). > > Currently this whole setup is being done on Windows NT but we are > considering doing this on FreeBSD (my personal preference). How does one enter network routes under NT? I haven't the foggiest. Under BSD you would say on your internal lan's gateway: route add -net 204.101.15.248 -netmask 255.255.255.248 204.101.15.249 Don't forget, that you have to set up your cisco to route to the freebsd (or NT gateway/router), or you have to use proxy-arp. > Which brings me to another quick question.... the reason for going to NT > currently is that the workstations need to run Wordperfect Suite and > print to a LaserJet 6L (connected to server). The whole login mechanism > is done via a remote Radius server (on our local LAN). Therefore we've > added RRAS for NT which allows Radius authentication for logins. Why can't this be done with Samba and radiusd under BSD? > I know there are errors in the above settings and need some guidance. > Our router is managed by Bell Global (our upstream provider) and they > have said they can add static routes to our Cisco router which will fix > our local netmask problems (we don't want to adjust our local netmask > values). Ok. so you need to tell them to route .248 -netmask 255.255.255.248 via the local ethernet's ip address of the gateway. > This whole project is running overdue and I"m lost (I think I've been > staring at the computer screen too long heehehee...) > You could always hire me :) Especialy if you make it possible for me to leave California!!! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 16:30:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05969 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:30:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ua1.cnnet.com (ua1.cnnet.com [207.229.6.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA05890 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:30:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cnnet@cnnet.com) Received: from [207.229.6.12] by ua1.cnnet.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.aikr) with ESMTP id sa359546 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:27:38 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980604173341.007b2b10@cnnet.com> X-Sender: cnnet@cnnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 17:33:41 -0600 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: CNNet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Slight problem We have radius and apache on the same server. We are trying to read the radius log files via a perl script via the web. If we put the log file in the cgi-bin directrory it works fine but if we leave the log file in the /usr/adm/radacct directory it doesn't work. Any help would be appreciated , we are not sure if it is a permissions thing or a setting in apache Thanks in advance To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 17:48:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21691 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:48:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from uhf.wireless.net (uhf.wireless.net [209.189.23.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21643 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:48:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bad@uhf.wireless.net) Received: from localhost (bad@localhost) by uhf.wireless.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA00972 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Bernie Doehner To: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: 900 MHz. ISA full height wavelan cards. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Is there anyone interested in the old 900 MHz. NCR Wavelan cards? I am selling 3 for $100 each. Bernie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 21:12:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA21392 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:12:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from npc.haplink.com.cn ([202.96.192.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21333; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from xiyuan@npc.haplink.com.cn) Received: (from xiyuan@localhost) by npc.haplink.com.cn (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07169; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:42:05 GMT Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:42:05 GMT From: xiyuan qian Message-Id: <199806051142.LAA07169@npc.haplink.com.cn> To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: setting up ppp dialin with FreeBSD2.2.5 Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, I have installed a Hayes33.6 modem to my FreeBSD2.2.5 to let my customer dialin and get an IP address as the handbook document told me. But there are some problems I can not resolve them. 1. The Client (windows95 dialup network) can only make the connection at 9600 rate speed and even can not set hardware control and IP header compress. 2. When the client connected (9600 rate speed), it can operate the server with the FreeBSD command. When enter the pppd command, the server shows that My ip address is 192.168.1.1 and Remote address is 192.168.1.101 as I have configured at /etc/ppp/options.ttyd0 file. It seems the server is running well. But, at the client side, can NOT ping through the IP 192.168.1.101 and also the 192.168.1.1. Why? 3. Can I config the same modem act as a dialout modem with ppp? Is there anything I must take care? Best regaurds! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 4 23:04:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA11589 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (gdi.uoregon.edu [128.223.170.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA11373; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:03:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA26977; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:02:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:02:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White Reply-To: Doug White To: xiyuan qian cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: setting up ppp dialin with FreeBSD2.2.5 In-Reply-To: <199806051142.LAA07169@npc.haplink.com.cn> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, xiyuan qian wrote: > Hi, I have installed a Hayes33.6 modem to my FreeBSD2.2.5 to let my customer > dialin and get an IP address as the handbook document told me. But there are > some problems I can not resolve them. > 1. The Client (windows95 dialup network) can only make the connection at > 9600 rate speed and even can not set hardware control and IP header > compress. I don't get the 9600 bit, and you can set VJ compression in the profile properties, and the handshaking in the modem properties. > 2. When the client connected (9600 rate speed), it can operate the server > with the FreeBSD command. When enter the pppd command, the server shows > that My ip address is 192.168.1.1 and Remote address is 192.168.1.101 > as I have configured at /etc/ppp/options.ttyd0 file. It seems the server > is running well. But, at the client side, can NOT ping through the > IP 192.168.1.101 and also the 192.168.1.1. Why? Do you have gateway_enable=YES in /etc/rc.conf? > 3. Can I config the same modem act as a dialout modem with ppp? Is there > anything I must take care? Make sure pppd isn't running when you try to dialout. Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major NOTICE: gdi.uoregon.edu is going down, please use dwhite@resnet! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 5 06:48:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23985 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:48:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from wpmail.gbr.epa.gov (wpmail.gbr.epa.gov [204.46.159.160]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA23974 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:48:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jenkins.mike@epamail.epa.gov) Received: from gbdomain-Message_Server by wpmail.gbr.epa.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 05 Jun 1998 08:44:06 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 08:41:31 -0500 From: MIKE JENKINS To: paul@kawartha.com Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long Question...:) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Paul, I think something similiar to the following should work. You won't have to add a static route in the cisco if you use proxyarp on 53. Mike ========================================== C.C.C.248/29 (248-255) | +-------------+ /etc/rc.conf | C.C.C.249 | gateway_enable="YES" | FreeBSD | default_router="C.C.C.53" +-------------+ | | ISDN | +-------------+ /etc/rc.conf | FreeBSD | gateway_enable="YES" | C.C.C.53 | arpproxy_all="YES" +-------------+ static_routes="subnet" | route_subnet="-net C.C.C.248/29 C.C.C.249" | =========================================== C.C.C.0/24 | | +-------------+ +-------------+ | C.C.C.1 | ... | C.C.C.247 | | Cisco | | Workstation | +-------------+ +-------------+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 5 07:03:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26357 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 07:03:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.walls-media.com (ns1.walls-media.com [12.6.113.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA26352 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 07:03:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bryanb@walls-media.com) Received: from ntwksbry ([12.6.113.54]) by ns1.walls-media.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id AAA220 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 09:01:00 -0500 Message-ID: <006901bd908a$bd958020$3671060c@ntwksbry.walls-media.com> From: "Bryan Bunch" To: Subject: Sendmail Question Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 09:03:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have read through the 'bat' book and online docs and cannot figure this one out.. I have a user account on my box that needs all mail to be forwarded to two different remote e-mail addresses. I have placed a .forward file in the home dir of the user and sendmail will only forward to one address. The 'bat' book states that the .forward file can contain multiple recipients. I have tried: user@abc.com user@def.com and it forwards to user@def.com and not user@abc.com Have also tried: user@abc.com, user@def.com and I get the same result as the first. What am I missing here? Thanks for any help. Bryan bryanb@walls-media.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 5 10:54:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA08993 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:54:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from uranus.planet-three.com (homer.duff-beer.com [194.207.51.241] (may be forged)) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA08970 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:54:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scot@planet-three.com) Received: from localhost (scot@localhost) by uranus.planet-three.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA21100; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 18:53:55 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from scot@poptart.org) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 18:53:55 +0100 (BST) From: Scot Elliott X-Sender: scot@uranus.planet-three.com To: Bryan Bunch cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sendmail Question In-Reply-To: <006901bd908a$bd958020$3671060c@ntwksbry.walls-media.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You can use multiple recipients in /etc/aliases, coma seperated, such as: user: user@abc.com,user@def.com You could also use a mailing-list file in .forward, such as: "/home/user/.forward-list" with ~/.forward-list containing the addresses to deliver to. Yours, Scot On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Bryan Bunch wrote: > I have read through the 'bat' book and online docs and cannot figure this one > out.. > > I have a user account on my box that needs all mail to be forwarded to two > different remote e-mail addresses. I have placed a .forward file in the home dir > of the user and sendmail will only forward to one address. The 'bat' book states > that the .forward file can contain multiple recipients. > > I have tried: > > user@abc.com > user@def.com > > and it forwards to user@def.com and not user@abc.com > > Have also tried: > > user@abc.com, user@def.com > > and I get the same result as the first. > > What am I missing here? > > Thanks for any help. > > Bryan > bryanb@walls-media.com > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scot Elliott (scot@poptart.org) | Work: +44 (0)171 7046777 PGP fingerprint: FCAE9ED3A234FEB59F8C7F9DDD112D | Home: +44 (0)181 8961019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public key available by finger at: finger scot@poptart.org or at: http://www.poptart.org/pgpkey.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 5 12:02:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21547 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:02:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA21506 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michael@memra.com) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA17044; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:02:04 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id MAA11793; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: US West and RADSL (fwd) Message-ID: Organization: Memra Communications Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Band together to make sure telcos give fair access to ADSL... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:18:39 -0600 From: Marianne Granoff To: dkelson@inconnect.com Cc: jarneault@inet-solutions.net, nanog@merit.org, CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, nmisp_only@technet.nm.org, andyo@ora.com Subject: US West and RADSL >On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Jonathan Arneault wrote: > >> I just read (http://www.internews.com/isp-news/1998/06/0301-bell.html) that >> Bell Atlantic is looking to finally roll out xDSL. However, not as a >> wholesale, unbundled service, but as an Internet service which will directly >> compete against ISPs. >[snip] >> for us "little guys" to compete against the behemoths? Has anyone had >> similar experiences with their primary iLEC (such as PACBell and US West)? > >US West just rolled out RADSL in Utah. > >$40/month for a 256k bi-directional DSL line > >USWEST.NET, US West's ISP, will sell you dedicated internet access over >that connection for $19.95/month. > >Of course, the number to order either service is the same. > >Of course when you call to order the DSL line they might give you a hard >sell to also sign-up with USWEST.NET. > >Of course they might give out inconsistent and false information that >changes with every time you talk to them. > >We are a DSL enabled ISP. Our first DSL customer ordered his DSL line and >told them he wanted us as his ISP. When the installed his line, they >mapped him to USWEST.NET's ISP!!! I also know of two other confirmed >cases were the customer chose a local DSL ISP, and they mapped them >instead to USWEST.NET. > >I could go on and on about the VERY APPALLING situation here with USW and >DSL and Internet access, about regulated and unregulated services, etc, >etc. > >Dax Kelson >Internet Connect, Inc. The preceeding message was forwarded to me by one of our NM ISPs. US West has been co-marketing its Internet service _with_ its RADSL service in all of its 14 states (http://www.uswest.com/com/customers/interprise/dsl/). Actions by ISP groups in Oregon and New Mexico may provide some relief to local ISPs there. I have just put up a listserve for ISPs in the US West states to use in sharing information. Technet has had one for the NM ISPs for several years - it has been a big help in getting out the word about some of these actions. How about uswisp@lists.nm.net? Please feel free to send this out to any interested ISPs. To subscribe, just send an empty note to: uswisp-subscribe@lists.nm.org I believe that all the RBOCs/ILECs have taken or will be taking similar actions. Even Sprint's new ION services are part of this trend. In my opinion, this is anti-competitive behavior by monopoly organizations. I think that many local ISPs will be severly hurt by such actions, and more than a few will close their doors. As I see it - the biggest problem is that local ISPs are not organized and do not know how - or have the forums - to work together to fight actions by a company the size of US West (or other RBOC/ILEC). My company, New Mexico Technet, is one of the larger ISPs in NM. We wholesale Internet access to other ISPs. We have intervened in the NM tariff filing for US West's Megabit services (see http://www.technet.nm.org/press.htm) to attempt to correct some of the things that are very anti-competitive about the proposed tariff. So far it has cost us over $30,000 in legal fees and we have not even had the hearing yet. Most local ISPs cannot do this. Most local ISPs do not know how to take the actions with the FCC or with the state public regulatory agencies so that their concerns can even be heard. Frankly - most ISPs are not members of CIX or of ISP/C - and many of them do not even know about those organizations, or understand why they should care. In NM, the local ISPs come in mostly 2 flavors: those that serve urban areas (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos) who "may" be affected by what US West does but are not sure, and those in rural areas who do not feel they will ever be affected by these actions, and so do not care. In much of US West's 14 state territory - I suspect that this is similar. The local ISPs in the urban areas have mostly seen the other local ISPs as competitors, not collaborators. They have seen US West (or the RBOC/ILEC) as a vendor, not as a competitor. Most local ISPs worry about retribution from US West (or other RBOC/ILEC) (delayed service, unresponsiveness on outages, unfilled orders) if they come on too strong in criticizing a company that they are _so_ dependent on. I am not sure that their concerns are not valid. The local (state) regulatory agencies are overworked and underfunded in this age of telecommunications transition/revolution. It is not that they don't care. It is that they simply have too much on their plates already. Few states provided extra funding to handle all the _new_ issues raised by the 1996 Telecommunications Act at the _state_ regulatory agency level. No one is championing any of this in most states. I think probably because it is not considered a problem by the vast majority of ISP _customers_. I had one of my customers tell me to "just get out of the way" and let US West introduce the high speed service because the customer needed it right away and I was just holding it up. They never saw that US West owned some of the blame in the constant delays, counterfilings, interrogatories, motions to compel, and other actions that have caused this intervention to drag on. Unfortunately, this person is more typical of ISP customers than local ISPs want to believe. The saddest aspect of this is that unless something changes, US West and the other RBOCs/ILECs will likely dominate the supply of Internet access in large urban areas in a few years - and the rural areas will have a great deal less Internet access than they do today. I think the answer is that the local ISPs _and their customers_ have to come together if they want to have choices about ISPs in the future. It will take some of the larger ISPs reaching out to the smaller local ISPs to help them get _all_ of their respective customers informed of the issues. It will take the larger ISPs intervening in more state and FCC proceedings. It will take constant email, listserves, and newsgroups spreading such information - and reaching customers - not just ISPs. It will take some national politicians to "champion" this cause - some who are not worried about losing RBOC/ILEC campaign contributions - which are considerable. It will take involvement by media organizations that are not worried about losing the RBOC advertising revenues - which are also considerable. It will take every local ISP who is harmed by US West actions calling, writing, or emailing their local and national politicians and letting them know that they have informed all of their own customers about the actions by US West or other RBOC/ILEC and informing their customers of the fact that the politician has not responded to these illegal/unethical/anti-competitive actions. In NM, it is now other internet professionals and businesses that have joined ISPs in questioning the actions of US West. Web designers, web page hosting services, internet trainers, web-advertising services and other businesses are starting to realize that US West wants to take their Internet-based business as well. This is a start. Regards, Marianne Marianne Granoff Director of Operations New Mexico Technet, Inc. 5921 Jefferson NE Albuquerque, N.M. 87109 Ph: (505) 345-6555 FAX: (505) 345-6559 email: granoff@nm.net or granoff@technet.nm.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 5 13:10:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02634 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:10:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from In-Net.inba.fr (arthur.inba.fr [194.51.120.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02622 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phschack@inba.fr) Received: from uther.inba.fr (uther.inba.fr [194.51.120.62]) by In-Net.inba.fr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA16843 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:10:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980605221028.015d5100@mail.inba.fr> X-Sender: psc@mail.inba.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Demo [F] Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 22:10:28 +0200 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: Philippe SCHACK Subject: popper problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id NAA02626 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, We have a strange problem with popper 2.4 on a FreeBSD 2.2.6-RELEASE server. For some users it take very long time to read the mail, i.e: 4 minutes for 1 Mb on a local area network. On the same lan an other win 95 bow take 4 secondes. The problem is the same on this one with Explorer and Netscape. Some other users connected with modems cannot read some mail greater than 30 kb because of timeout. We have two other sites with the same type of servers and clients without any problems (network and modems). We change popper from 2.4 to 2.41beta1 without any change. It seems this problem appear recently. Any idea ? -- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Vous cherchez un bien immobilier ? consultez http://www.ImmoSearch.inba.fr/ *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Philippe SCHÄCK IN'NET BORDEAUX-AQUITAINE Tél. : + 33 57.24.18.11 Chauveau - CD 239 Fax : + 33 57.24.18.28 33420 ESPIET E-mail : phschack@inba.fr *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 5 13:23:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05425 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ovbis01.ovb.ch (ovbis01.ovb.ch [195.65.24.144]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA05419 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:23:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 310@ovb.ch) Received: from zhwbs-e1-12.limmat.ch [194.191.121.212] by ovbis01.ovb.ch with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yi31Y-00047p-00; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:23:40 +0200 From: 310@ovb.ch (Oliver von Bueren) To: Paul Stewart Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long Question...:) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:23:43 GMT Organization: private Message-ID: <35794fee.84359572@mail.ovb.ch> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id NAA05420 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello. On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:04:42 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >Our upsteam provider is telling us that we don't need to change our LAN as >they can tell our LAN router to route all packets in that range to the >server that connects the remote LAN to ours... does this make sense? They >say it's just a matter of static routing? That does work for all the traffic from/to this router and therefore to the internet. But all other machines on your local class c net don't know anything about that, they assume the other hosts are also on the local net. This means that these hosts need to answer ARP request (what they can't because the aren't on the same net). And here comes what I did at a friends site with a similar setup. But please be careful, it's not the nicest solution but works very good on a FreeBSD 2.1.7. I compiled the Proxy-ARP option into the kernel and setup the box as a router between these two "networks". Assume ed0 is your base network and ed1 your small "subnet": ifconfig ed0 inet 204.101.15.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig ed1 inet 204.101.15.248 netmask 255.255.255.248 IP-Forwarding enabled. That should do it too. That way the "gateway" does the ARP for the addresses on the small "subnet" and can be connected by all hosts without static routes. For the hosts on this "small subnet" exists no problem, because the have the correct netmask for such a subnet and send the right addresses to the gateway. About the kernel option, extract from LINT: # ARP_PROXYALL enables global proxy ARP. Beware! This can burn # your house down! See netinet/if_ether.c for the gory details. # (Eventually there will be a better management interface.) # options ARP_PROXYALL # global proxy ARP Cheers, Oliver To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 08:07:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10766 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bvhd.bmt.net (root@bvhd.bmt.net [205.138.105.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA10761 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:07:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from danc@bmt.net) Received: from aerie (ppp-s50.bmt.net [208.132.56.249]) by bvhd.bmt.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA24795; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:57:14 -0600 Message-Id: <199806061457.IAA24795@bvhd.bmt.net> From: "Dan D. Compton" To: Cc: , , Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:06:45 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >We are a DSL enabled ISP. Our first DSL customer ordered his DSL line and What are the requirements to be a "DSL enabled ISP"? Dan D. Compton BlueMoon Technologies danc@bmt.net 610 N Montana VOICE: 406.683.9816 Dillon MT 59725 DATA: 406.683.6745 bluemoon@bmt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 09:05:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17541 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA17533 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:05:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michael@memra.com) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02526; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:05:06 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id JAA22665; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:05:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199806061457.IAA24795@bvhd.bmt.net> Message-ID: Organization: Memra Communications Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Dan D. Compton wrote: > > >We are a DSL enabled ISP. Our first DSL customer ordered his DSL line > and > > What are the requirements to be a "DSL enabled ISP"? You have to ask your ILEC or CLEC about that. Most phone companies that allow ISPs to use DSL do it by selling the ISP some sort of big pipe (SMDS, ATM, or maybe even a T1) and then routing customer packets from the DSL connection to the ISP. The architecture looks a bit like this: LEC building ---------------------- | | ---------- DSL | ------- -------- | ------- |customer|-----------|--|DSLAM|--|router|-------| ISP |--------Internet ---------- | ------- ---|---- | ------- | | | ---------------|------ | Internet If a DSL customer uses the telco as their ISP then the telco routes their packets through their own Internet connection. But if the customer chooses an alternate "DSL-enabled" ISP then the telco routes the packets through a local connection to that ISP. This local connection is what makes the ISP DSL-enabled. Note that this is different from what most ISPs want. Most ISPs want to install their own DSLAM in the telco building and hook the customer's copper directly to that. Or alternatively they want to be in a building next door with reasonable low rates for access to the copper something like zero-mile circuits that are found in colo facilities. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 11:34:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04595 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:34:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hypermall.com (exim@hypermall.com [209.54.42.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA04590 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bazyar@hypermall.com) Received: from bazyar by hypermall.com with local (Exim 1.73 #2) id 0yiNnI-0005o3-00; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:34:20 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:34:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Jawaid Bazyar To: inet-access@earth.com cc: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Michael Dillon wrote: > If a DSL customer uses the telco as their ISP then the telco routes their > packets through their own Internet connection. But if the customer chooses > an alternate "DSL-enabled" ISP then the telco routes the packets through a > local connection to that ISP. This local connection is what makes the ISP > DSL-enabled. > > Note that this is different from what most ISPs want. Most ISPs want to > install their own DSLAM in the telco building and hook the customer's > copper directly to that. Or alternatively they want to be in a building > next door with reasonable low rates for access to the copper something > like zero-mile circuits that are found in colo facilities. Let's examine what ISPs *think* they want. The cheapest DSLAM setup that can host more than a single customer and scale to anything reasonable costs in excess of $10,000. Yes, you can get a onesy-twosy Pairgain modem type thing for a grand or two, but do you really want to pay $2K per port long-term? I didn't think so. Alright, the Denver metro area as an example has approximately 30 central offices. Instantly, in order to reach the whole potential customer base, you're looking at $300,000. Just in equipment. Now you have to tie all that together, in which case you're probably still looking at (minimum) 30 T1 ports into an ATM cloud, at $400 per month each, for a total of $12,000 a month. Not to mention co-location/rent fees, anywhere from a couple hundred to a couple thousand a month. And yes, you *have* to hit the entire area for this to make economic sense, because we're seeing loop qualification rates of 15% to 25%. That means that less than a quarter of the phone lines coming into the office are even capable of having DSL run over them. So, take your existing customer base, divide by two to weed out those who won't pay more than $20/mo for anything, divide by five to get the number you can reach at all with DSL, and divide by two again for those who are happy with their existing internet service. Are you *really* going to invest $300,000 cash and $12,000 to $50,000 a month so you can serve DSL to maybe 1/20th of your customer base? Exactly which "most ISPs" can afford that? Ohh, right. The *big* ones. Let the telco make this infrastructure enhancement. That's what it is. The economics of this dictate that some one single company make the investment, and since it's the telco's copper and the telco's central office, and since the telco is willing to sell the service at a very reasonable price, let the telco pay for it. For ISPs to try to get Washington DC to 'force' telcos to give them access to something that doesn't make any economic sense is a complete waste of energy. That energy should be spent on spam legislation, or fighting the comeback of Internet censorship. Force the telcos to let ISPs in, and you'll get it. But it won't be "most ISPs". In fact, forcing this may well make it impossible for small ISPs to get access, whereas only the largest ISPs can afford the "drop a DSLAM in every CO" arrangement. The above might be feasible in a small town with one or two COs. But not in any large metro area - and that's where the big money is. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 12:22:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA10100 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from niagara.int.sesol.dataphone.net (niagara.int.sesol.dataphone.net [194.23.94.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10085 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mikael.hugo@dataphone.net) Received: by niagara.int.sesol.dataphone.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:28:12 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mikael Hugo To: "'Jawaid Bazyar'" Cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: RE: US West and RADSL (fwd) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:28:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Force the telcos to let ISPs in, and you'll get it. But it won't be "most >ISPs". In fact, forcing this may well make it impossible for small ISPs >to get access, whereas only the largest ISPs can afford the "drop a DSLAM >in every CO" arrangement. I dont think the issue is about having the cash to get started with DSLAMs, but rather if the telcos are blocking the way for those who can. Dont forget - Every large ISP started with one customer. We have almost 300 local number areas in Sweden, and we serve the entire nation. Im having nightmares about how we are going to become DSL enabled, and how much money we have to put down to get it working. Today we run a single megapop in Stockholm and haul all the telephone and leased lines to that POP (Sweden is aprox 2000 Km long and 800 Km wide). We hope to maintain only the one megapop, or a couple of strategic superpops. Isent that a way to do it in the US? In that way you wont have to buy DSLAMs all over the place. Regards Mikael Hugo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 12:27:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA10693 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:27:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from netdev.comsys.com (netdev.comsys.com [192.94.236.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10652 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:27:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@comsys.com) From: alex@comsys.com Received: from comsys.com ([204.202.49.59]) by netdev.comsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22021; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 13:24:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3579976D.6974D1FA@comsys.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 12:24:29 -0700 Organization: RCS, Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jawaid Bazyar CC: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I don't agree. "Let the phone companies...." has little meaning. What you suggest.. is that the phone company monopoly is a good thing. That the on-ramp to the Internet is a better serviced by the telephone company, and that the telephone company really should collect the local loop charges for access to all networks of the future. Your figures for qualified copper are not representative of the US telco copper plant. We have lots of Personal T1 modem customers and ISPs that have little trouble getting qualified copper and competing in the local market with the ILECs, CLECs and CAPs of the world. There is no reason that ISPs with a POP adjacent to COs or those wishing to collocate in telco COs shouldn't pursue that. Free enterprise is why the Internet is a viable, lively place to be. Imagine the Internet dominated by the leading telco companies. Wouldn't it look much like the telephone system does? There's really been very little innovation from the telephone companies, unless you'd like to count advances such as $.50 to complete your Directory Assistance call, $.50 to find out who rang your telephone, $.50 to make a directory inquiry, $.50 to conference in another party. and on. I can't imagine the Internet becoming a network of billing machines. In fact, over 49 billion a year is spent just on facilities for billing in the telco marketplace. I suspect that $.45 of each service bill goes to pay for the billing equipment and $.05 pays for the amortized cost of the digital switch. ISPs should unite, make as much noise as possible to their congress representatives and senators. Insure an open and free enterprise environment for ISPs, the bulk of whom we can thank for low cost Internet access, great service, integrity, innovation and much of the excitement of the past 4 years in the technology economy. The economy is changing in ways yet not to clear to most. The efforts to centralize the Internet under the old-world telco development, billing, service and maintenance umbrella isn't attractive. Distributed, open, competitive, innovative is much healthier for the US economy What would the cost of a hub be if they were being built by only 3 companies? There are many ISPs that compete in high density financial districts and there are many who offer service in rural locations. It makes great sense to set up POPs since every one can produce money. It isn't necessary to create POPs in every CO area, just as the telco's demonstrated with ISDN availability. Keeping copper accessible to all ISPs, it's an important part of an on-ramp to the Internet, and networks of the future. A toll road owned by a few centralized businesses isn't my cup of tea. Hang in there and keep the roads open. Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > If a DSL customer uses the telco as their ISP then the telco routes their > > packets through their own Internet connection. But if the customer chooses > > an alternate "DSL-enabled" ISP then the telco routes the packets through a > > local connection to that ISP. This local connection is what makes the ISP > > DSL-enabled. > > > > Note that this is different from what most ISPs want. Most ISPs want to > > install their own DSLAM in the telco building and hook the customer's > > copper directly to that. Or alternatively they want to be in a building > > next door with reasonable low rates for access to the copper something > > like zero-mile circuits that are found in colo facilities. > > Let's examine what ISPs *think* they want. > > The cheapest DSLAM setup that can host more than a single customer and > scale to anything reasonable costs in excess of $10,000. Yes, you can get > a onesy-twosy Pairgain modem type thing for a grand or two, but do you > really want to pay $2K per port long-term? I didn't think so. > > Alright, the Denver metro area as an example has approximately 30 central > offices. Instantly, in order to reach the whole potential customer base, > you're looking at $300,000. Just in equipment. Now you have to tie all > that together, in which case you're probably still looking at (minimum) > 30 T1 ports into an ATM cloud, at $400 per month each, for a total of > $12,000 a month. Not to mention co-location/rent fees, anywhere from a > couple hundred to a couple thousand a month. > > And yes, you *have* to hit the entire area for this to make economic > sense, because we're seeing loop qualification rates of 15% to 25%. That > means that less than a quarter of the phone lines coming into the office > are even capable of having DSL run over them. > > So, take your existing customer base, divide by two to weed out those who > won't pay more than $20/mo for anything, divide by five to get the number > you can reach at all with DSL, and divide by two again for those who are > happy with their existing internet service. > > Are you *really* going to invest $300,000 cash and $12,000 to $50,000 a > month so you can serve DSL to maybe 1/20th of your customer base? Exactly > which "most ISPs" can afford that? Ohh, right. The *big* ones. > > Let the telco make this infrastructure enhancement. That's what it is. > The economics of this dictate that some one single company make the > investment, and since it's the telco's copper and the telco's central > office, and since the telco is willing to sell the service at a very > reasonable price, let the telco pay for it. > > For ISPs to try to get Washington DC to 'force' telcos to give them > access to something that doesn't make any economic sense is a complete > waste of energy. That energy should be spent on spam legislation, or > fighting the comeback of Internet censorship. > > Force the telcos to let ISPs in, and you'll get it. But it won't be "most > ISPs". In fact, forcing this may well make it impossible for small ISPs > to get access, whereas only the largest ISPs can afford the "drop a DSLAM > in every CO" arrangement. > > The above might be feasible in a small town with one or two COs. But not > in any large metro area - and that's where the big money is. > > -- > Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions > Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business > bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 > --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 13:00:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14340 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from berlin.atlantic.net (berlin.atlantic.net [204.215.255.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14320 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 13:00:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mp@atlantic.net) Received: from rio.atlantic.net (mp@atlantic.net [204.215.255.3]) by berlin.atlantic.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA01547; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:00:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (mp@localhost) by rio.atlantic.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA13520; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:00:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:00:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Marty To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org As a side note, Most metro areas have a high concentration of t1 or high-speed ("Cream") customers/users concentrated into very few central offices. Last time I read, I think GTE of Florida has 80% of their T1's in the state concentrated in 2 central offices. So, a strategy might be to use this to catch the metro areas and skip the residential CO's; thats what essentially every CLEC is doing anyway. BTW, IOC (Inter-Office Mileage), at least in FL is very expensive (for running T1's between CO's, ATM, frame, etc). -marty mp@atlantic.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 14:43:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24990 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 14:43:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hypermall.com (exim@hypermall.com [209.54.42.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA24982 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 14:43:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bazyar@hypermall.com) Received: from bazyar by hypermall.com with local (Exim 1.73 #2) id 0yiQkP-0001gS-00; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:43:33 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:43:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Jawaid Bazyar To: alex@comsys.com cc: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3579976D.6974D1FA@comsys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On a note not directly related to Alex, folks, *please* be careful not to let your lines exceed 80 columns. Actually, 75 or 76 is a good margin. There are still lots of us who use (*gasp!*) UNIX mailers from time to time. On Sat, 6 Jun 1998 alex@comsys.com wrote: > I don't agree. "Let the phone companies...." has little meaning. What you > suggest.. is > that the phone company monopoly is a good thing. That the on-ramp to the > Internet > is a better serviced by the telephone company, and that the telephone company > really should collect the local loop charges for access to all networks of the > future. Let's drop all the loaded words. What you're saying is that end-user access to the Internet should *not* be provided by telephone companies. Well, they're in a good position to do this because the Internet infrastructure itself is provided entirely by telephone companies. So let's drop the fallacy that small ISPs somehow solely make up "The Internet" and that large telcos are somehow trying to muscle in on a business they had nothing to do with creating. > Your figures for qualified copper are not representative of the US telco copper > plant. That may be, but even if half your customer base is within distance limits, that's still a substantial cost for not much incremental benefit to the ISP. > We have lots of Personal T1 modem customers and ISPs that have little trouble > getting > qualified copper and competing in the local market with the ILECs, CLECs and > CAPs > of the world. > > There is no reason that ISPs with a POP adjacent to COs or those wishing to > collocate in > telco COs shouldn't pursue that. Oh, I agree. We looked at that and found it unviable. A couple local ISPs actually tried it, and also found it unviable. > Free enterprise is why the Internet is a > viable, lively place > to be. Ok, keep in mind you said "free enterprise". > Imagine the Internet dominated by the leading telco companies. Wait! The government-chartered monopolies are ended. No longer are there laws on the books that mandate a single phone company. There used to be, and that's how you got Ma Bell in many places. The Internet is already dominated by the big telcos. WorldCom, Sprint, MCI, etc? Many users go with a local ISP for better service, but many of those dollars all end up at the big boys. > Wouldn't > it look > much like the telephone system does? There's really been very little innovation > from the > telephone companies, unless you'd like to count advances such as $.50 to > complete > your Directory Assistance call, $.50 to find out who rang your telephone, $.50 > to make > a directory inquiry, $.50 to conference in another party. and on. We have these great "features" because the *governments* of many places mandated telephone monopolies. Those ended only two years ago. And, what's still in place is that telcos have to ask the permission of government bureaucrats to do *anything* related to POTS. It's hard to be innovative when you have to spend months and thousands of hours of lawyer-time in front of the PUC to haggle over a 5 cent raise in the price of directory assistance. I personally consider US West installing DSL and actively working to make that network accessible to ISPs and businesses to be highly innovative. It's even better, because US West has the capital and manpower to roll it out in force, to very quickly make it a viable choice in the eyes of consumers. Small ISPs get to ride US West's coattails. We're benefitting from US West's marketing and product education efforts. > I can't imagine the Internet becoming a network of billing machines. In fact, > over 49 billion > a year is spent just on facilities for billing in the telco marketplace. And we see how successful they are :) We're currently being billed by two separate divisions of MCI *for the same service*. But, the fact is, that not all services can be sold on a flat-rate basis, nor does that always make sense for the customer or the provider. > I suspect that $.45 of each > service bill goes to pay for the billing equipment and $.05 pays for the > amortized cost of the > digital switch. And advertising and customer support and network operations personnel and reserves for upgrades and R&D and... > ISPs should unite, make as much noise as possible to their congress > representatives and senators. > Insure an open and free enterprise environment for ISPs, the bulk of whom we can > thank for > low cost Internet access, great service, integrity, innovation and much of the > excitement of the > past 4 years in the technology economy. You cannot ensure "free enterprise" by chaining somebody. It is inherently contradictory to say "guarantee a free market by regulating some companies". Now, as I've said before, the situation is a BIG MESS because of the many years of government coercion in the telephone industry. Did the shareholders of the telcos come by their assets legitimately, or illegitimately? Should the telcos have been auctioned off CO by CO? There are many philosophical questions here, but it's clear that where we need to go does not involve perpetually regulated telephone companies. Regulation begets regulation. > The economy is changing in ways yet not to clear to most. The efforts to > centralize the Internet > under the old-world telco development, billing, service and maintenance umbrella > isn't attractive. Those efforts will fail if it doesn't provide what consumers want. If it *does* provide what consumers want, then who are we to say that's wrong? > Distributed, open, competitive, innovative is much healthier for the US > economy This is a pragmatic/utilitarian argument, and completely ignores one important element of our society: rights. Particular, property rights. You're saying that competition is good - unless that competition is coming from a big telco? In that case, your formula really breaks down to this: Small Good Big Bad Stop Big From Doing Anything Make Big Give Away Stuff To Small That's certainly "distributive" - as in, a socialist redistribution of wealth. > What would the cost of a hub be if they were being built by only 3 > companies? I'm not sure what you mean by this. > There are many ISPs that compete in high density financial districts and > there are many who offer service in rural locations. It makes great sense to > set up POPs since every one can produce money. It isn't necessary to > create POPs in every CO area, just as the telco's demonstrated with ISDN > availability. Who says the telcos have ever made money with ISDN? ;) Seriously, though, yes, you could conceivably grow incrementally like that. But most likely, you'll find it's simply not cost-effective for a small company. But, and here's the point I was trying to make earlier, if one company (whether it's the telco or a third-party co-located) makes the investment, then re-sells to ISPs, all ISPs can benefit, as many consumers as possible can benefit, and both customers and ISPs have the widest possible market. As I said before, the economics of the situation lend themselves to the development of one or a few service providers who will own and operate the DSLAMs. ISPs will then rent access to those DSLAMs. These service providers don't *have* to be the local RBOC, but I fear the backlash that will be caused by people screaming to *stop* the RBOC from doing so. It doesn't make sense for most ISPs to try to build their own DSLAM network, just as it doesn't make sense for them to try to build their own POTS network. > Keeping copper accessible to all ISPs, it's an important part of an > on-ramp to the Internet, See, the problem here is that that copper is the property of the shareholders of the telco. It's not yours. It's not any other ISP's. It does not belong to you, and you have no rights over its use or disposition. The telco has a moral (albeit not currently legal) right to sell or rent it -- or not -- to anyone they like. Your arguent boils down to this: just take what you want, to hell with property rights. Now, I would have argued that telco properties in any government-mandated monopoly zone were essentially nationalized and should have been auctioned off. But, that didn't happen, and so we now have a variety of independent private businesses, which benefit in many cases from those years of government-coerced monopoly. There's nothing that can be done about that now. This may make it take longer to reach a proper free-market equilibrium - but it will not prevent it. A company that's being stupid can only bleed money so long. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. > and networks of the future. A toll road owned by a few centralized businesses > isn't my cup of tea. But it may not be your decision. Ultimately, it's the consumer's decision, since it's the consumer that pays for the services that keep ANY company - ISP, telco, whatever - in business. Don't tell me you want what's best for the consumer, then say that if they pick a system that doesn't include you that you will make such a system illegal. That's a slap in the face to the freedom and choice that you say you want for the consumer. It may be that the what the consumer wants does not include you continuing in the marketplace. If that's so, you need to deal with it in a way befitting a civilized society, instead of proclaiming that you're going to pass laws to tie down the big guy so you can rob them at your leisure. > Hang in there and keep the roads open. Let's hang in there and protect *everyone's* property rights. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 15:58:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA04980 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:58:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mercury.shreve.net (mercury.shreve.net [208.206.76.23]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA04944 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from am@shreve.net) Received: from callisto (callisto.shreve.net [208.214.45.10]) by mercury.shreve.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13469; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:57:34 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980606175744.00ff7320@mercury.shreve.net> X-Sender: am@mercury.shreve.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 17:57:45 -0500 To: inet-access@earth.com From: Allen Marsalis Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) Cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:34 PM 6/6/98 -0600, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: >Let's examine what ISPs *think* they want. > >The cheapest DSLAM setup that can host more than a single customer and >scale to anything reasonable costs in excess of $10,000. same cost as USR TC, PM4's, etc.. albeit less ports though.. >Yes, you can get >a onesy-twosy Pairgain modem type thing for a grand or two, but do you >really want to pay $2K per port long-term? I didn't think so. Pairgain HDSL units run under $1K per port.. > >Alright, the Denver metro area as an example has approximately 30 central >offices. Instantly, in order to reach the whole potential customer base, >you're looking at $300,000. Just in equipment. Now you have to tie all >that together, in which case you're probably still looking at (minimum) >30 T1 ports into an ATM cloud, at $400 per month each, for a total of >$12,000 a month. Not to mention co-location/rent fees, anywhere from a >couple hundred to a couple thousand a month. The cloud would be priced so high by the telco as to eat up 75% of the gross revenues.. Just like they do now. If I have a customer with a second "modem" line (~$20) and internet service (~$20), then the telco gets ~$28 out of $40 for the service. Yet we provide much more information, entertainment, and quality service for the $12 we get to keep. The telcos will fight this thing "tooth and nail" anyway they can. That's why my idea is to locate adjacient to the CO and build a spread spectrum multipoint cloud to backhaul the bandwidth and totally stay off the phone network entirely.. A dozen or so 75' towers would do the job nicely and would be no different than the dozen or more cellular towers already here. Our NOC is in a 24 story highrise that can be shot at nicely from 360 degrees.. Anyone have any opinions on this "crazy" idea? > >And yes, you *have* to hit the entire area for this to make economic >sense, because we're seeing loop qualification rates of 15% to 25%. That >means that less than a quarter of the phone lines coming into the office >are even capable of having DSL run over them. kinda low isn't it.. >So, take your existing customer base, divide by two to weed out those who >won't pay more than $20/mo for anything, divide by five to get the number >you can reach at all with DSL, and divide by two again for those who are >happy with their existing internet service. > >Are you *really* going to invest $300,000 cash and $12,000 to $50,000 a >month so you can serve DSL to maybe 1/20th of your customer base? Exactly >which "most ISPs" can afford that? Ohh, right. The *big* ones. No one can afford that senario and expect to make a dime; big or small.. cable modems would rule if this were the case.. >Let the telco make this infrastructure enhancement. That's what it is. >The economics of this dictate that some one single company make the >investment, and since it's the telco's copper and the telco's central >office, and since the telco is willing to sell the service at a very >reasonable price, let the telco pay for it. I cannot name a service that the telco is willing to sell at a very reasonable price with the exception of maybe residential phone service which basically hasn't changed in decades.. Clearly compared to microcomputer technology, the phone companies have sat on their ass. And why not without any competition.. I really don't think they have a clue as how to compete fairly.. > >For ISPs to try to get Washington DC to 'force' telcos to give them >access to something that doesn't make any economic sense is a complete >waste of energy. That energy should be spent on spam legislation, or >fighting the comeback of Internet censorship. Who is lobbying for spam? Who is lobbying for internet censorship? and compare those organizations to the telecommunication lobby groups and you will see my point.. clearly it's like "grass roots" compared to major century old political and economic powers.. > >Force the telcos to let ISPs in, and you'll get it. But it won't be "most >ISPs". In fact, forcing this may well make it impossible for small ISPs >to get access, whereas only the largest ISPs can afford the "drop a DSLAM >in every CO" arrangement. Equiment is not the cost prohibitive factor here. On average, we spend 10 times as much each month to connect a port to the telco than the port costs as an equipment expense. ($5 verses $50/mo) In areas without serveral competing CLEC's to lower costs, the LEC dictates what our margins are by charging $1500/mo for a PRI.. (bellsouth) Believe me, these guys don't want to help me make money.. > >The above might be feasible in a small town with one or two COs. But not >in any large metro area - and that's where the big money is. > >-- that's not true either. You can get access in dallas for $9.95/mo verses $25-30 in some rural markets.. And many rural area have extended calling areas making the total market large even though the biggest town served might only have a population of 25k or less.. I know of one isp exactly the same size as us even though his largest city served is 1/10 the size of ours.. He pays less for PRI's and could care less about DSL since his customers are spread out 5 miles apart anyway.. He seems to be sitting prettier than some "metro" isp's in other states.. Allen _____________________________________________________________ Allen Marsalis President Voice: 318.222.2NET (2638) Shrevenet, Inc. mailto:am@shreve.net 333 Texas St. Suite 619 FAX: 318.221.6612 Shreveport, LA 71101 http://www.shreve.net _____________________________________________________________ Thoughtful Provider of Internet Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 16:17:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07428 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:17:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from netdev.comsys.com (netdev.comsys.com [192.94.236.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA07417 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:17:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@comsys.com) From: alex@comsys.com Received: from comsys.com ([204.202.49.59]) by netdev.comsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA22343; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:14:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3579CD5B.87CF88DC@comsys.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 16:14:35 -0700 Organization: RCS, Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jawaid Bazyar CC: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org According to the Telcom Act 96, the local loop must be made available. I'll call it their personal property if my only choice was to pay for it the past 35 years. I don't agree that ISPs aren't making money on DSL deployment. I agree there are things telcos could do to improve what they do and be more profitable and a benefit to consumers. I don't think this recent proposal is one of them. I think you have one option to go with US West's proposal, but you have no other option from a similarly positioned company. That sucks. It will suck even worse if it succeeds in stopping anyone else from getting into that business. The conflicts arrise in being a monopoly, and wanting to be an even bigger one. Personally, I view the local telcos troubles akin to the communist factories of the old USSR. They were garrenteed revenue, why would they work harder? That system didn't work there, why would I want to encourage one-choice business here? When there are several local telephone companies working on a level playing field you can argue 'personal property' more effectively, and show that choice (marketforce) drives the local loop economy. Until then the "one DSL supplier" in town idea still sucks. In a recent speech, the goverment stated that 30% of the growth in the US economy came from Internet associated companies. I'm pretty sure that doesn't have much to do with very large businesses which created an lock on Internet techologies. Compare this with the SS7 network sometime for fun. PS: How does Netscape email work? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 16:45:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10723 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:45:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA10693 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:45:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michael@memra.com) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA08931; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:44:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id QAA25952; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:44:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Memra Communications Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > The cheapest DSLAM setup that can host more than a single customer and > scale to anything reasonable costs in excess of $10,000. Yes, you can get > a onesy-twosy Pairgain modem type thing for a grand or two, but do you > really want to pay $2K per port long-term? I didn't think so. Wait a sec. What if the customer is paying $120/month for that circuit on a 3 year contract? The $2k port cost is paid for in just under 18 months and the next 18 months is profitable. Now what if you are buying 100 of these Pairgain type thingies? I think most ISPs could negotiate some sort of discount based on that quantity. > Alright, the Denver metro area as an example has approximately 30 central > offices. Instantly, in order to reach the whole potential customer base, > you're looking at $300,000. Just in equipment. Sounds like a job for your local neighborhood bank. They love to finance equipment purchases by established profitable companies with a steady growth curve and a stable customer base. > Now you have to tie all > that together, in which case you're probably still looking at (minimum) > 30 T1 ports into an ATM cloud, at $400 per month each, for a total of > $12,000 a month. Some of this ADSL gear, like Westell's FlexCAP2 RADSL gear, can do pretty decent speeds like 2.24Mbps downstream and 1.088Mbps upstream. In some cities you may be able to tie together the COs with your own RADSL circuits. http://www.westell.com/products.html > Not to mention co-location/rent fees, anywhere from a > couple hundred to a couple thousand a month. Anybody looking to supply a whole city with ADSL is basically getting into the CLEC business and needs to be able to raise CLEC style funding even if they are going to specialize in IP only and use some cheaper technology as a result. > And yes, you *have* to hit the entire area for this to make economic > sense, because we're seeing loop qualification rates of 15% to 25%. That > means that less than a quarter of the phone lines coming into the office > are even capable of having DSL run over them. Depends on a lot of things including the DSL gear that you use. HDSL works on less lines than ADSL and CAP modulation works on more lines than DMT modulation. It also depends on the copper plant. Some cities are better than others. > So, take your existing customer base, divide by two to weed out those who > won't pay more than $20/mo for anything, divide by five to get the number > you can reach at all with DSL, and divide by two again for those who are > happy with their existing internet service. > > Are you *really* going to invest $300,000 cash and $12,000 to $50,000 a > month so you can serve DSL to maybe 1/20th of your customer base? Exactly > which "most ISPs" can afford that? Ohh, right. The *big* ones. You are making a lot of assumptions about the business model here that I don't think are justified. Yes it is true that you can't fling ADSL at the customer base and expect enough of it to stick. You need to plan carefully and for smaller ISPs it will not be possible to do anything other than be a DSL-enabled ISP of one of the LECs. But some people will be able to make a business case for supplying DSL service from just one CO. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 17:45:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18141 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:45:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hypermall.com (exim@hypermall.com [209.54.42.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA18136 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:45:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bazyar@hypermall.com) Received: from bazyar by hypermall.com with local (Exim 1.73 #2) id 0yiTaW-00067p-00; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:45:32 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:45:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Jawaid Bazyar To: inet-access@earth.com cc: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Michael Dillon wrote: > Wait a sec. What if the customer is paying $120/month for that circuit on > a 3 year contract? The $2k port cost is paid for in just under 18 months > and the next 18 months is profitable. Now what if you are buying 100 of > these Pairgain type thingies? I think most ISPs could negotiate some sort > of discount based on that quantity. Ahh, well the assumption I was making was for "consumer" service. That market just won't respond to $120/mo. Much of it doesn't want to pay the $40/mo US West wants for a DSL-enabled line. I went through the business case, and in sufficient quantity I can actually amortize the CO-end DSL equipment at $15/month/port over 3 years. But that's just the equipment - not the interconnects. > > Alright, the Denver metro area as an example has approximately 30 central > > offices. Instantly, in order to reach the whole potential customer base, > > you're looking at $300,000. Just in equipment. > > Sounds like a job for your local neighborhood bank. They love to finance > equipment purchases by established profitable companies with a steady > growth curve and a stable customer base. Anyone that can talk a bank into that, I will give them nothing but encouragement. > In some cities you may be able to tie together the COs with your own RADSL > circuits. http://www.westell.com/products.html That would be interesting. > Depends on a lot of things including the DSL gear that you use. HDSL works > on less lines than ADSL and CAP modulation works on more lines than DMT > modulation. It also depends on the copper plant. Some cities are better > than others. Right. My point is that US West providing this service is GOOD for ISPs, especially small ones, because it enables them to provide a service they simply couldn't otherwise. Whereas a lot of people are complaining that US West providing this service is BAD for ISPs. > You are making a lot of assumptions about the business model here that I > don't think are justified. Well, the assumptions I used are valid in the Denver market. :) YMMV. > Yes it is true that you can't fling ADSL at the > customer base and expect enough of it to stick. You need to plan carefully > and for smaller ISPs it will not be possible to do anything other than be > a DSL-enabled ISP of one of the LECs. But some people will be able to make > a business case for supplying DSL service from just one CO. That's very true, and there's nothing stopping anyone from doing that as far as I know. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 17:53:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18959 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:53:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hypermall.com (exim@hypermall.com [209.54.42.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA18954 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bazyar@hypermall.com) Received: from bazyar by hypermall.com with local (Exim 1.73 #2) id 0yiTi8-0006H5-00; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:53:24 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:53:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Jawaid Bazyar To: alex@comsys.com cc: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3579CD5B.87CF88DC@comsys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998 alex@comsys.com wrote: > The conflicts arrise in being a monopoly, and wanting to be an > even bigger one. The telcos want to continue to grow, just like any other business. They're no longer government-created monopolies. But to expect massive changes in just two short years is unrealistic. Give the industry 10 or 20. > Personally, I view the local telcos troubles > akin to the communist factories of the old USSR. They were garrenteed > revenue, why would they work harder? That system didn't work > there, why would I want to encourage one-choice business here? Because it's not one-choice here. As long as CLECs are free to install their own infrastructure (including wireless.. take a good look at Winstar, they are making serious headway), as long as the government doesn't stop competition with the kinds of laws telecom was saddled with for 50 years, then there will be as many choices as people are willing to pay for. > When there are several local telephone companies working on a level > playing field you can argue 'personal property' more effectively, > and show that choice (marketforce) drives the local loop economy. If there is no government interference, then everyone has the same rights and that is as level as you can get. Just because someone else has accumulated resources you don't have, doesn't mean they are stopping you from doing anything. > Until then the "one DSL supplier" in town idea still sucks. Well, it may not be ideal, but why not work with what you've got now, in addition to working on a better long-term solution? > In a recent speech, the goverment stated that 30% of the growth > in the US economy came from Internet associated companies. > I'm pretty sure that doesn't have much to do with very large > businesses which created an lock on Internet techologies. I'm not sure what you're referring to here.. > Compare this with the SS7 network sometime for fun. This was developed in a One Telephone Company situation. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 18:13:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21121 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:13:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hypermall.com (exim@hypermall.com [209.54.42.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA21116 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:12:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bazyar@hypermall.com) Received: from starburst [209.54.42.9] by hypermall.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #2) id 0yiU0x-0006bU-00; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:12:52 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980605153338.031fb300@hypermall.com> X-Sender: bazyar@hypermall.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 15:33:38 +0800 To: inet-access@earth.com, inet-access@earth.com From: Jawaid Bazyar Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) Cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:01 PM 6/5/98 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > >Band together to make sure telcos give fair access to ADSL... What do you mean by "fair"? US West's marketing spiel doesn't stop my customers from signing up with me. Here's a clue - place the DSL physical line order *for the customer*. Then they need never talk to US West. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 18:17:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21613 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:17:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA21603 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:17:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michael@memra.com) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10237; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:17:03 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id SAA26623; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 18:17:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980606175744.00ff7320@mercury.shreve.net> Message-ID: Organization: Memra Communications Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Allen Marsalis wrote: > more cellular towers already here. Our NOC is in a 24 story highrise > that can be shot at nicely from 360 degrees.. Anyone have any opinions > on this "crazy" idea? How much will you pay me to *NOT* build a 26 story highrise next door to you? -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 21:33:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA04827 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:33:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from netdev.comsys.com (netdev.comsys.com [192.94.236.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA04822 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:33:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@comsys.com) From: alex@comsys.com Received: from comsys.com ([204.202.49.59]) by netdev.comsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA22769; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 22:30:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <357A1778.82AEF57F@comsys.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 21:30:48 -0700 Organization: RCS, Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jawaid Bazyar CC: inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) References: <3.0.5.32.19980605153338.031fb300@hypermall.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org If I may interject. I'd say fair access to plant is a national copper tariff, making the copper plant available at a fixed installation and monthly fee across the board for all resellers. I believe this is what the Telcom Act had in mind, and what the FCC would like to see happen without their involvement. However if it doesn't, the US economy may be in for a real reversal. It's important enough to write your congress person or senator, and to contact your local PUCs as well. Keep the market open to free enterprise. Keep the 'net open. Cheers, -Alex Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > > At 12:01 PM 6/5/98 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > >Band together to make sure telcos give fair access to ADSL... > > What do you mean by "fair"? > > US West's marketing spiel doesn't stop my customers from signing up with > me. > > Here's a clue - place the DSL physical line order *for the customer*. Then > they need never talk to US West. > > -- > Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions > Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business > bazyar@hypermall.com | 910 16th Street, #1220 (303) 228-0070 > --The Future is Now!-- | Denver, CO 80202 (303) 789-4197 fax > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 21:53:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA05952 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA05943 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA05458; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:53:18 -0400 (EDT) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Mikael Hugo cc: "'Jawaid Bazyar'" , linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: RE: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Mikael Hugo wrote: > We hope to maintain only the one megapop, or a couple of strategic > superpops. Isent that a way to do it in the US? In that way you wont > have to buy DSLAMs all over the place. *Someone* has to have DSLAMs all over the place, either you or the telco. DSL is limited in range, so there's now way to backhaul copper all the way to a MegaPOP... Personally, I *know* we can't afford to put a DSLAM in every CO in Manhattan and all the other boroughs. That's a ton of cash. The idea of the telco swallowing the cost is appealing to me. Between the cost of the DSLAMs and the cost of hauling all that bandwidth around (I would venture that more than a T1 would be needed or you're seriously doing a disservice to your customers) you could quickly go broke. Buying a single big pipe seems economical if you've got the customers. In smaller locales, I feel it's worthwhile to go with your own equipment and file all the paperwork to be a CLEC. You could even get a competitive edge in areas where the incumbent telco is using ADSL at 640K/1.54M/7.1M down and 90K/640K up. If you offered a more symmetric service you could position yourself to obtain more business customers that may want to host services on the line. Let's also not forget the more creative CLECs out there. XCOM (www.xcom.com) is a CLEC that currently sells ISDN/POTS ports to ISPs. You just provision bandwidth to them and give them a radius server to point at. They have some very interesting technology that bypasses the need for all those 5Es. And in NYC, they will be doing the same with DSL. Now that they've been bought by Level 3, they have the cash. Don't doubt the power of competition... I think the CLECs will fair well and hopefully keep up their relationships with local ISPs. Charles > > Regards > > Mikael Hugo > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 23:03:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA11426 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:03:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ravel.n2.net (dsmith@ravel.n2.net [207.113.132.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA11421 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:03:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dsmith@ravel.n2.net) Received: (from dsmith@localhost) by ravel.n2.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA23992; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <19980606230310.28306@n2.net> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:03:10 -0700 From: Dave Smith To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: UUCP and rnews Reply-To: Dave Smith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.76 X-Organization: N2 Networking Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have a customer that is connecting to one of our servers via UUCP. The server is running FreeBSD 2.2-stable and is working fine delivering e-mail and news over the UUCP connection. The customer is also able to send e-mail without problems. The problem comes when the customer tries to deliver news posts from his bulletin board to our system. The files are transfered to our system and when our system attempts to run rnews on the file, the permissions are set wrong. The owner and the group on the file are "uucp" and the permissions are set to 600. Since rnews is run as user "news", it can not read the file and exits with an error. I know the files are OK, because I can manually set the permission bits to 644 and run rnews by hand on them and they work fine. I know that I can cob something together to make this work, but I would really like to find out what I have done wrong and fix it the proper way. I have RTFM and neither the UUCP book nor the USENET book describe this aspect in any detail. Has anyone already solved this problem, and if so how? Thanks, Dave -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Smith e-mail: dsmith@n2.net Voice: (619)694-8540 N2 Networking FAX: (619)694-0220 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 23:45:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA14565 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:45:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA14560 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:45:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michael@memra.com) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15280; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:45:30 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id XAA28970; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:45:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Memra Communications Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > Ahh, well the assumption I was making was for "consumer" service. That > market just won't respond to $120/mo. Much of it doesn't want to pay the > $40/mo US West wants for a DSL-enabled line. Really? I know of an ISP in a market of population 17,000 that has a waiting list of 80 customers that want ADSL to the home. The monthly rate they are charging works out to US$40. Right now they are hooking up small business customers with ADSL which is why there is a waiting list for the consumer service. When you look at the monthly rate that people will pay for cable TV service, I don't think it will be that hard to sell a lot of "always-on" Internet connections. ADSL is sometimes a bit faster than a modem link for regular browsing but not that much unless you run a proxy cache; then it will speed up significantly. But the always-on capability means that people can have ICQ running all the time or run a personal webserver etc. > Whereas a lot of people are complaining that US West providing this > service is BAD for ISPs. US West providing the service is good for ISPs. US West blocking anyone else's access to copper so they can run a competing service is bad for ISPs. Substitute your local ILEC for US West if you are elsewhere. > > You are making a lot of assumptions about the business model here that I > > don't think are justified. > > Well, the assumptions I used are valid in the Denver market. :) YMMV. Yup. And your mileage might vary if you revise your strategic plan and look at the business case from a different angle. The market for Internet access is growing and will continue to grow for many more years. Somebody is going to be providing DSL to 90%+ of the homes in your city one day and you might as well try to get a chunk of that business. After all, who has the better expertise to do this than the ISPs who have been providing Internet access for the past four years. All you need is the capital to expand so that you can afford to wait 3 to 5 years for break even. 3 years ago the future was a lot murkier than it is today and that means it is time to shop for investment capital. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Jun 6 23:48:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA14859 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:48:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA14852 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:48:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michael@memra.com) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15304; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:48:29 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id XAA29000; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:48:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: inet-access@earth.com cc: linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu Subject: Re: US West and RADSL (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980605153338.031fb300@hypermall.com> Message-ID: Organization: Memra Communications Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > At 12:01 PM 6/5/98 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > >Band together to make sure telcos give fair access to ADSL... > > What do you mean by "fair"? If they will sell a service to their ISP subsidiary then sell the same service at the same price to any other ISP. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message