Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15196; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709211758.NAA15196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #255 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 13:58:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN (Judith Oppenheimer) 800/888 Problem - Suggestions Welcome (Jay R. Ashworth) Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup (Douglas Reuben) Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" (Rob Slade) AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Chris Mathews) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:18:24 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN For years the RespOrgs say all numbers are the same, no one has any rights or interests in numbers, and the FCC buys into this and makes it law. During which time, however, the FCC facilitates the RespOrgs setting aside "valuable" 888's matching "valuable" 800's in which their customers have an "interest." Then the customers who've set aside their 888's want them, so the FCC says they can have them, *if* they assert no interest in them. (Who else besides me has said "huh?" yet.) So this goes on for a whole YEAR, until the FCC issues its guideline codification aka the April Report and Order, at which time the SMS says, a ha!, RespOrgs have been abusing the release process to grab 'their' numbers in violation of the FCC edict that they have no 'interest' in them. (I gotta tell you here, when the release of 888 set-asides was first ordered by the FCC in June '96, an SMS insider who shall remain anonymous told me it was because the FCC was getting pressure from 800 subscribers who wanted THEIR numbers.) But I transgress. So now, June 1997, the SMS changes policy, batches 888 set-aside releases and tells everyone what numbers are coming out, so that everyone has an equal chance to grab these "valuable" 888's, per the FCC's first-come-first-serve scenario. Except now the RespOrgs are complaining that other RespOrgs are "stealing" numbers out of 888 release that "belong" to their customers. (There's sort of an "honor system" among 'real' RespOrgs: that you don't touch "my" numbers, ie that 'belong' to my customers, and I don't touch yours. And if you do by mistake, of course, we'll settle it among ourselves. Not that we're brokering or dealing in numbers, of course.) Now remember: the 'my numbers' and 'belong' here refer to 888 numbers in the set-aside pool that have been assigned to no one, and according to the FCC, belong to no one. Heck, they even say numbers assigned to you and working for you that you PAY for, don't belong to you. SO, NOW, the SMS, as of September 17, "based on recent RespOrg input", will discontinue issuing a weekly list of 888's being released, and will release them in some un-defined timeframe as well. Presumably, it will be harder for "thieves" to "steal" the numbers. Of course, it will also be harder for RespOrgs to capture 888 releases "belonging" to their customers (which customer said they "assert no interest in" in order to get them released.) Who's had enough of this absurdity? If all these years everyone is saying that customers have no interest in these numbers -- as the Industry Guidelines, written by RespOrgs themselves, have always clearly stated -- then why are these same RespOrgs duking it out over their customers' proprietary interest in specific numbers? Perhaps it's time for everyone to get it that the Emperor is waddling down the street NAKED. (Gee, maybe someone should tell the FCC?) Judith 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: 20 Sep 1997 14:57:33 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Well, here we go again. A client of mine, who's had the same doesn't-spell-anything-in- particular 800 number for about ten years now, started getting calls this week that they didn't expect. 300 or more of them. For "AESolutions", which is apparently the power utility in Pennsylvania, somewhere. You see, the folks at AE Solutions apparently went to their carrier, MCI (big surprise) and said "we'd like a number that spells out our name". Presumably, the MCI people looked up my client's 800 number, discovered that it was assigned, and then said "well, 800-AESOLUT is already taken ... but 888-AESOLUT is available, why don't you take that". The customer, not knowing any better, of course said "sure". The expected chaos is ensuing. _My_ outlook on this is that the culpable party is the utility's sales rep at MCI, who should understand his business well enough to know, as we all do, why assigning a branded number in 888 is probably a bad idea just now. Obviously, the real culprits are the customers, but hell, you can't expect people to _read_ or anything. Would anyone like to challenge my appraisal of the situation, or offer suggestions are to which is the best approach to a solution? We can't even run a prompter front end to let callers pick the right number ... because their INWATS carrier and ours are different. I agree with Judith, as those who read my DNS NOI notes will know: branded numbers belong in 800, numbers that don't need to be branded should only be assigned in the other blocks. I'd grandfather, but if your brand ain't available in 800, lump it: find another way to spell it. Same problem as the "new big 7", which suck, BTW. :-) Please email, I'll summarize. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You could always answer with a taped announcment on the front saying 'this is Company X ... repeat, this is Company X; this is not AE Solutions. If you are calling AE Solutions you have reached a wrong number; please hang up now; if you are calling Company X at 800-whatever please remain on the line for an answer." Stress the 'eight hundred' part of the number, and maybe add a line saying 'this is not 888-whatever' stressing the 888 part. Of course some people will dial over and over when they hear that, but at least you can dump them after 15 seconds or so each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dreuben@tiac.net (Douglas Reuben) Subject: Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup Date: 20 Sep 1997 20:38:53 GMT Organization: Interpage Network Svcs Inc / +1 510 254-0133 / www.interpage.net After receiving some feedback as a result of a recent post regarding Bell Atlantic's Alpha Messaging product on their Digitial Choice CDMA plans, I'd like to make a few corrections and add a few observations. 1. I noted that there should not be any alpha messaging in the ex-Contel Cellular of Vermont/00300 system, covering northern Vermont (north of a line running roughly from Rutland to White River Jct., more or less along US-4, and generally north of I-89), and that the switch servicing the 00300 system was probably still a Motorola EMX. Neither of the above are correct: Despite what BAMS told me (and I mean this only in a constructive way; the product manager was very helpful in explaining the issues involved), there IS alpha messaging in the areas I have traveled in the 00300 system, mainly from White River to Montpelier. Messages come in very quickly, and not only was it a pleasant surprise after being told that it would be "a while" before messaging worked there, but since my pagers do not work there, it was very useful being able to get my pages on the mobile phone. Interestingly, it seems that the switch recordings I get in the 00300 system say "119", which is the BAMS/A-side switch ID for the Connecticut system. Perhaps Vermont is being run off of the CT switch in some manner, similar to the way the Dutchess and Orange County (00486/00404) systems appear to be operating off the Albany (00078) switch (and thus receiving messages)? Additionally, the switch serving 00300 is definitely not an EMX, and sounds like an AT&T Autoplex, so that would perhaps support the notion that it is somehow run off of the CT switch or something along those lines. Just a guess, though. 2. I also unintentionally confused the two Vermont systems; to clarify: 00300 - is the "B" side in Northern VT, which used to be owned by Contel, and is now run by BAMS. It does not cover southern VT or New Hampshire (as does the A carrier), but handoffs work well (at least on I-89 and I-91 in the White River area) between the 00300 and the growing United States Cellular 01484 system serving Southern VT and southwestern NH. (The 01484 is on the NACN even though US Cell in this market is the "B" carrier, "A" roamers can roam on the system and receive calls, use features, etc. You can even set your phone to roam on the strongest signal, A or B, and receive calls, place them, and use features on either the 01484 or it's A-side counterpart, the Atlantic Cellular 00313 system. Roam charges, if any, may vary between the two system; check with your home carrier.) As noted above, the 00300 seems to be an Autoplex, although I think under Contel it was an EMX. 00313 - Cell One/VT and Western NH. This system is owned by Atlantic Cellular, which seems to own a number of RSA's, mainly in mountainous areas :) (Seriously, they also own a system in El Dorado County, CA, also in the hills southwest of Lake Tahoe. You can spot these systems by the male recording they employ in (seemingly) all their markets.) They cover all of Vermont (they took over the failing Montpelier and northen Vermont system a few years ago), as well as a good chunk of western New Hampshire. They also operate half a system (along with Cellular One/Boston) in the Lakes Region of eastern NH, which is so mismanaged it is laughable (the SID is 01485 or 87, I forget...one is in NH, the other is in NJ). They are the premier carrier in the region, offering by far the best coverage and service area. They finally got their EMX switch well integrated into the NACN, and calls and features for all NACN roamers work fine there. They also operate a small area near VT on the NY state side, and Franklin County, Mass, which they purchased from BAMS maybe 3 years ago. 3. Maine is NOT included in the BAMS extended "home roam" airtime plans, so if you go to Maine, you don't get the free incoming minute, or the off peak airtime plans (if you subscribe to them.) I do believe Maine's B side is run, at least in Southern Maine, off of the BAMS switch for the 00028 or 00428(?) system, so perhaps Alpha Messaging does work there. Anyone test that yet? Additionally, Rochester NH and the immediate surrounding area is covered by the Maine B side, so be careful if you roam there. Most people I know living in seacoast NH or in Rockingham County and Portsmouth are very disgusted with their cellular service: The A side has 3 systems all bleeding into each other in the area, and the B has two, none of which reciprocate in terms of airtime plans on their respective sides, so customers have to frequently pay higher roaming charges for using their phone because they happen to live on the line between systems. (A good market for Nextel? :) ) 4. The BAMS Eastern New Hampshire/00428 system also has alpha messaging. Thus, it would seem that the largest "holes" in the BAMS messaging "network" area: NY: Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), Richmond (Staten Island), Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, and Southern Putnam Counties in NY (all in the 00022 system -- do they even sell Alpha in NY? Who'd want it?) (Note: Kings County is Brooklyn, not the Bronx as I indicated in my earlier post.) RI: No Alpha Messaging anywhere in RI, except perhaps extreme northern sections of the state and Woonsocket, ie, near the Boston part of the 00028 system, where messaging does work. MA: No Alpha Messaging in the SE Mass area, New Bedford, Taunton, etc. CT: No Alpha Messaging in Litchfield, which is not run by BAMS. PA: Areas of Philadelphia seem to have it, and others don't; can't figure it out yet. I could also just be due to occasional delays in getting messages. Overall, though, with messaging now available in the BAMS Hudson River corridor (00486, 00404, 00078), VT (00300 - it may have worked there for a while; I was told it didn't), and Eastern NH (00428), the utility of the service has increased, at least for me. Now if they could only get all their markets online and allow more than 55 characters per page! ... Well, at least there is some progress :) Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:36:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference", Que Corporation, 1997, 0-7897-1144-3, U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 %A Que Corporation euteam@que.mcp.com 72410.2007@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-7897-1144-3 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 202 %T "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference, Second Ed." As with most quick reference guides, this contains all the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags and commands up to version 3.2. As a matter of fact, it goes a little beyond, listing obsolete and proposed commands as well. Each element is listed by name, and contains information on compliance. (The listings are for Netscape, Internet Explorer, Mosaic, HTML 2, and HTML 3.2. The codes for the graphical browsers indicate only the "latest version".) In addition, there is a brief description of syntax, some discussion of purpose and use, and an example or two. Some entries also contain screen shots, or lists of related commands. Surrounding this central reference are a number of aids. The tables grouping related commands are quite useful, as are the character code and colour listings. The newsgroup resources are somewhat less so, with a number of groups included by only the most tenuous connections. The expanded table of contents, alphabetically listing the alphabetically arranged element entries, is a twenty-one page waste of space. The choice of what to include and what to leave out is always problematic. In general, the guide concentrates on more recent or more esoteric commands, which is understandable in a work which is, after all, not tutorial in nature, but meant for experienced users. Less understandable is the brevity of both functions of the vital anchor tag in comparison to individual listings for each of the six header () tags, occupying a total of eight pages. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1997 10:43:00 +0100 From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Subject: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Forwarded from alt.peeves... ## Nachricht vom 19.09.97 weitergeleitet ## Ursprung : /alt/peeves ## Ersteller: fps@netcom.com Spotted in news.admin.net-abuse.email, reposted FYAmusement. So who wants to break out the bubbly? In article <5vu8rd$pqq@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Mark Boolootian wrote: > In http://207.87.233.68/outage.html, Sanford laments: > Network Outage Update Page > 9-19-97 10:00am > Letter to Cyber Promotions' customers by Sanford Wallace, President... > Dear Customers, > Cyber Promotions has experienced serious network problems for the last few > days. These problems have affected every customer in one way or another. I > have finally collected the information which explains this circumstance, and > I think it may make you quite mad. Cyber is also calling out for your help. > You can be part of this fight right now. > The major network problems started on Wednesday, 9-16-97. Our primary > backbone provider, AGIS, took responsibility for the problem. The following > is a quote from AGIS' web site... > Philadelphia Route Reflector > Posted at 23:45 EDT on September 16, 1997 > At 16:00 EDT, our Philadelphia Route reflector went down. After extensive > troubleshooting with the vendor, it was discovered that the ATM card the > reflector runs off of is defective. ETA for a replacement part on site is > 22:00 EDT on 9/17. Customers in the North East US will experience moderate > to high ping times and traces, but traffic is getting through. We have > opened Ticket# 032499 on this issue, and will update this page when we have > more information or an updated ETR. > Well, since that problem was detected, our network connection was never > restored back to normal. We called AGIS' network operation center over and > over again, every 10 minutes, to get an update and estimated time of repair. > I understood the damage that our customers would incur with each and every > minute of downtime. But AGIS' answer was always the same... "Engineering is > working on it. They won't give us any more info." Yesterday, their answers > began to change. At 8am, their network operation center told me that there > was only one engineer that could resolve the problem, and he wasn't in yet. > He was expected to get there in an hour. At 9am they then said he didn't > come in yet, but rather, he was in an off-premise meeting. But they would > page him. At 10am, they simply said, "He's not here yet." I even went so far > as to offer my personal assistance. At this point, I personally tried to > reach AGIS' CEO, Phil Lawler, to fill him in on the details. But, Mr. Lawler > was apparently out of town on business, and wouldn't return until Monday. > In a desperate move, we started asking our customers to call AGIS and > pressure then into escalating this repair. Within minutes, AGIS > representatives quickly changed their story. They started telling our > customers that the connection was down because Cyber Promotions had breached > some sort of security protocol, and that their routing equipment was never > broken (despite the fact that on their own web page, they still admitted > that the equipment was faulty). And since this was a "security issue" they > stated that they could no longer give out any further details. > At that point, we called in our legal representatives to contact AGIS. Our > lawyers actually got through to AGIS' in-house counsel. Within an hour or > so, we received a copy of affidavits that were prepared by AGIS' engineers. > You're never going to believe this... but in their affidavits, they claimed > that they had to turn off Cyber Promotions' connectivity because Cyber was > being ping attacked by a third party! > The following is important: Agis had filtered ICMP (ping and traceroute) for > months until they upgraded their routers a few weeks ago. When they upgraded > their routers, they stopped filtering ICMP for some unknown reason. We were > concerned, because they left the door open for ping attacks by > anti-spammers. > Here are some quotes from AGIS' affidavits (that were not marked > confidential in any way): > By Adam Hersh, senior engineer: "I attended (a) meeting with Les Addison and > Rick Pado, and we analyzed the status of AGIS network performance problems, > and I determined and recommended that the circuits of Cyber Promotions and > Quantcom needed to remain off in order for AGIS not to suffer further > network performance problems ... The ping flood attacks observed originating > from the west coast into AGIS network and directed to the Washington routers > and Philadelphia routers, severely degraded AGIS network performance to (an) > unacceptable level ... AGIS had no alternative but to shutoff services to > Cyber Promotions and Quantcom." > By Richard Pado, senior engineer: "Les Addion, AGIS Chief Engineer, worked > with me to reset configuration settings in attempts to resolve the AGIS > network disruption. These attempts failed ... I attempted several ICMP > debugs and consequently lost connectivity because of the massive ping flood > attacks ... I performed and analyzed TCP dumps regularly ... I resolved the > AGIS network disruption by shutting down the interfaces of Cyber Promotions, > Inc. and Quantum ..." > In other words, AGIS admitted just three days ago that their equipment was > faulty, and then admitted that their so-called senior engineers don't know > how to stop a ping attack without disconnecting their customers. > Also bear in mind, Phil Lawler, CEO of AGIS, signed the connectivity > contract with Cyber Promotions. I am not allowed to disclose the details of > the contract, but let it be known that immediate termination is blatantly > against the provisions of the agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that > since Mr. Lawler was out of town, the terms of our contract were not even > considered. > What can you do? You may wish to call AGIS and explain to them the damaging > affect of having your connectivity shut down. You may wish to suggest > alternatives to them. You may wish to offer your help. You may wish to give > them a piece of your mind. That is up to you. Our official recommendation is > that you should realize that we are all in this together. Cyber Promotions > will fight hard, and so should you. > At this time, our lawyers are preparing temporary restraining order papers. > We plan to bring this issue to federal court immediately. We are also > transferring many of our services to our backup connections with other > backbone providers. We can not give you an exact ETA on full service > restoral until we get more information about the status of the AGIS > connection. Please come back to this web page to see frequent updates. Thank > you for your continued support. Free commerce on the Internet WILL PREVAIL! > (Agis contacts below). > Regards, > Sanford Wallace > President and CEO > > Cyber Promotions, Inc. > > AGIS contacts: > AGIS engineering: Adam Hersh, Les Addison, Richard Pado (313) 730-1130 > AGIS Network Operation Center (313) 730-5151 > AGIS Fax (313) 563-6119 (submitted to the net by) > Mark Boolootian > booloo@cats.ucsc.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #255 ******************************