Intellectual Property Claim Service for .BIZ


It appears that the specific form of the UDRP for .biz, which incorporates
what is called "STOP", isn't available to you. Please drop a note to legal,
that's or, and ask. Factual error #2.

Distinct from the IP Claim Service is a substring matching and notice service,
you can ask for that also. The larger the Hamming-Distence I have to search,
the more I'm going to charge, so try to avoid "watch-on-letter-a" and its raft
of equivalents. Factual error #3 (or #1 revisted).

Specific knowledge beats general inference, usually. There are nuances in
the ICANN contracts, what else are contracts, SLAs, and attornies for, neh?

Of course, specifics do get in the way of moral outrage. Is it still a "sham"
or one solution to a problem you personally consider intractible, and we have
found interesting, challenging, and occasionally quite funny?



We have a small network (5 /24�s) and we need to host our web applications internally because they access backend servers that absolutely cannot be collocated. I am thinking about getting 2 T1�s or fractional DS3�s from InterNAP from different P-NAPS (1 from Philly and 1 from NY) each circuit from a different CO

The reason that I�m thinking InterNAP is because we don�t qualify for a /20 and we would not be able to efficiently multi-home. It seems that InterNAP is perfect in our situation because they buy transit from multiple providers and claim to not have any black holes in their network.

I hear many great things about InterNAP and I hear the opposite as well.

Any thoughts would GREATLY be appreciated



/24's are sufficient to multihome with most if not all providers out
there. Why not conventionally multi-home to 2 large well established


"Seth M. Kusiak" wrote:

If indeed they adhere to a "no black holes" policy, they are to be
commended. Who would have thought this will become a strong selling
point? Access to the whole uncensored Internet, available only from
a few select providers...


/24's are sufficient to multihome with most if not all providers out
there. Why not conventionally multi-home to 2 large well established


  People sometimes forget that you can multihome effectively with just a
single /24 provided:

  1) You pick two (or more) providers that meet with each other directly in
several places (or at least are well-connected to whoever is announcing the
larger block the /24 comes from).

  2) Both (or all) providers agree to accept/announce your /24.

  3) Your /24 is inside a larger routable block advertised by a provider that
is unlikely to ever withdraw the route entirely. Your two providers are
extremely unlikely to lose contact with each other.

  This provides all the benefits of multihoming with your own block with only
four disadvantages:

  1) You aren't quite as well protected against certain complex multiple
failure scenarios. (For example, if the provider who owns the block your IPs
come from withdraws that route, or if you lose your link to that provider at
the same time it loses all its links to the provider you still have
connectivity to.)

  2) You can't as easily add or delete providers (they have to, at least,
agree to announce your /24 and you need to make sure they have good
connectivity to whoever is announcing the larger block the /24 comes from)
and you are to some extent controlled by the ISP who assigned you the
addresses you are using (you can't stop getting service from them without

  3) You may experience finger pointing in the even that you are having
connectivity problems. Because of the unusualness of the setup, it tends to
be harder to figure out who is really at fault than when you multihome with
your own block.

  4) Your setup is a bit more fragile with your providers. You run the risk
that a configuration change will somehow break your setup, and it's more
likely with this type of setup to wind up blackholing traffic then with a
convnetional setup where it's more likely to just not carry traffic.

  Even providers that filter your /24 will still have the route to the larger
block it is part of. So they will still get your traffic closer to you,
which is good enough to ensure full connectivity.


Apparently AboveNet doesn't use the RBL in BGP form anymore.