June 1997 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

NANOG MEETING-TAMPA FL- JUNE 5 & 6
by Pam Ciesla 03 Jun '97

03 Jun '97

Registration lists fro the NANOG meeting & tuturial are closed. If you are not registered you can still do so on-site. Please do not send any request via e-mail. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Re: RFC 1918 addresses
by prue＠ISI.EDU 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

Paul, >> I agree that ever having a source or destination IP that's RFC1918 outside >> the domain is a very bad thing. >I don't see anyone here disagreeing with that, but apparently a number of >ISP's did not consider the ICMP case when they gave numbers to their T1's, >and so it's a question of definition rather than of intent. Transit nets >are public, not private, and so they have to have public, not private, >addresses. I want to respectfully disagree. I do run internal routing protocols that can't handle VLSM or CIDRization permitting cutting up a class C into 64 disconnected pieces. , igrp in particular. Because of this I would burn too many network numbers by having to use public network numbers for all my T1's. I never permit a case where both sides of a router have RFC1918 address space so there is no confusion in a traceroute at to where to address questions about routing issues. Purity of addresses is valuable but I am willing to compromise on this in this instance. Walt

1 0

Bye...
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

-IF- there is a kind person who would be willing to forward me material relevent to network operations I'd appreciate it. Voting w/ his unsubscribe key.... --bill

11 11

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Justin W. Newton 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

At 04:06 AM 6/1/97 -0400, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: >On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Circuit wrote: > >> comments, rants, flames? > >Do satellites really stand a chance against fibre? Most people think not, >and more specifically that their competitiveness shall continue to decline >as time progresses. Not exactly the kind of thing one wants to lay out >large capital expenditures on... High orbit, geosyncronous sattelites do not stand much of a chance against land lines as the latency on the links is quite high. Low orbit satellites, however, can be quite effective competition assuming that they have enough satellites to get coverage. These types of satellites are the ones that Gates is thinking of launching as well as several other companies/consortiums. When we can all have > 1MB/sec connectivity wireless to our laptops/video portable phones, with global coverage, satellites will rule the day. Justin "I still like land lines" Newton Justin W. Newton Senior Network Architect Priori Networks http://www.priori.net ISP/C, Director at Large http://www.ispc.org

6 6

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Circuit 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

Hi all, I have been following this thread with some interest. A few months ago a friend of mine from Fore Systems told me about the 'ACTS' project. NASA and Ohio-State and quite a few others were doing research into the Gigabit Satelite Network. There was a test between Sony in Japan and I 'BELIEVE' JPL in Pasadena of hight def video transmissions over an OC-3 circuit. I heard something about a quasi commercial deployment of another ACTS project. Anybody heard anything about this? If enough birds like ACTS were sent up, this could be a boon for ISP's maybe. Of course I live in this ideal world where everybody is reasonable, intelligent, and well yea I know things are just quite the opposite. If MCI/AT&T/NTT/GTE put this into motion then were doomed, but if Hughes (read someone who doesn't own an ISP yet) put one up, it might be a bit more promising. Who knows... comments, rants, flames? ---- From: Mark Ansboury <mansboury(a)yesvirtual.com> To: Sean M. Doran <smd(a)clock.org>; avg(a)pluris.com; bgreene(a)cisco.com; jesse(a)netthink.com Cc: map(a)iphil.net; nanog(a)merit.edu; smd(a)clock.org Date: Saturday, May 31, 1997 7:34 PM Subject: Re: connectivity outside the US >The only ISPs that can really afford to stay in the game >in a big way "over the long haul" are now the carriers themselves. The end >result??? The marketing and pricing strategies of the ISP and market are >being commercialized and in the overseas markets looking more like the >pricing strategies of the typical telephone service offering.The cost for >overseas cables are not going to be coming down in a big way over the next >couple of years. They will more likely go up. At least for our foreseeable >future. The next few years. The pent up demand is to great. > Now where is Judge Green (is he retired ?) when you need him?! Feds are sleeping as usual....I usually don't like the Feds sticking their noses into places, but I loath the telcos and their continuing lies and extortion of consumers and businesses. Ack. I can't tell you how many times GTE screwes everything up! Chris "Don't get me started bitching about telcos/carriers"

4 3

gTLD-MoU Web Site (fwd)
by jamie＠dilbert.iagnet.net 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

----- Forwarded message from Robert Shaw ----- >From owner-iahc-info(a)imc.org Sun Jun 1 17:52:06 1997 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:44:28 -0700 From: Robert Shaw <robert.shaw(a)itu.int> Subject: gTLD-MoU Web Site To: iahc-info(a)iahc.org Message-id: <33925DBC.1C280DDA(a)itu.int> Organization: ITU X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sender: owner-iahc-info(a)imc.org Precedence: bulk Hi, The gTLD-MoU web site is now officially available and can be found at: http://www.gtld-mou.org Some important information is now available. 1. Draft application form for becoming a Registrar under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU. Applications cannot yet be made but there is a draft of the near finalized application form with the probably final criteria. 2. Draft of the Council of Registrars (CORE) Memorandum of Understanding. 3. Draft of the Council of Registars (CORE) Articles of Association. Queries/comments concerning these and related documents should be addressed to poc-submit(a)gtld-mou.org Robert ----- End of forwarded message from Robert Shaw ----- -- jamie g.k. rishaw dal/efnet:gavroche Internet Access Group 'whois JGR2' for PGP keyID/Fingerprint __ Network Operations/TSD DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800.637.4IAGx5455 DES: Help Crack the code! http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm

1 0

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Bill Woodcock 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

My recollection is that ACTS is free for use by public universities, but that the footprint doesn't reach very far north, and that the latency is high enough that not very many schools are actually using it. -Bill

1 0

Re: RFC 1918 addresses
by Matthew James Gering 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

> Exposing an RFC 1918 private address in, say, a "Received:" header in e-mail > is less of a problem, though the spammers who do it are actually better able > to cover their origins, there's no way to prevent it and no normal damage > from doing it. Unless the SMTP server used to proxy email through a firewall is able to strip headers, it's unavoidable. I would like to see that feature added to SMTP servers, however, I do hate letting internal host names and addresses out. Matt

2 1

Re: connectivity outside the US
by Sean M. Doran 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

| Worldcom and Cable & Wireless are in the process of laying a 20 Gbps Thanks for the ad. Now to try to make this more operations-relevant... Vadim Antonov and I had a brief exchange wherein I pointed out that the biggest costs (noted in part by others) of trans-oceanic cables are, principally, insurance, rental of cable-laying fleets, ongoing management and repairs, acquisition of landing rights, and restoration-bargaining. SDH (I know of no trans-oceanic SONET deployments, however people have been discovering that some ADMs don't care while others light up like Christmas trees when one is used instead of the other) helps reduce the costs of bargaining for restoration capacity, since a properly engineered route _ought_ not to fail across both paths for the most common reasons, however, even really well planned SDH loops will fail from time to time. This sort of technology (TAT-12/TAT-13 for example) is a huge plus. CWI has an "in" on fleet rental and on ongoing management, however it does not reduce the price to zero as CWI and its partners (e.g. SPRINT in PTAT Systems Inc.) can attest. Landing rights to London are relatively inexpensive. However, London isn't the only place in Europe, and it will be interesting to see how Worldcom manages keeping costs down on end-to-end international private lines between the U.S. and Europe. The technical aspects of the Gemini cable deployment between NYC and London are staggering. I expect that clever ISPs (UUNET anyone?) could arrange trial services on the first path when (if?) it becomes available at the end of 1997 or the start of 1998. However, it would be insane to bet one's business on the cable being fully reliable for some time, and doubly insane to bet on not needing a full restoration contract in place until several months after the second path comes up probably about a year later. AFAIK there are no practical means yet to acquire as much restoration capacity as there is bandwidth on Gemini and until other paths are brought on line an operator should consider acquiring backup either at the IP level or by spending real $ on a restoration contract. What would be dead keen, however, is people getting together to use whatever is available on Gemini initially as a size-large battle net to test out the next generation of IP routers and the like in a relatively public fashion. | All this means that we should see a significant drop in trans- | atlantic bandwidth (and even intra-europe) charges in the near | future. Intra-Europe charges will fall for many reasons beyond MFS's deployments. I would be interested in a formal and binding assertion that the Gemini owners will substantially undercut their competition's pricing structures, otherwise, frankly, this seems like the kind of hubris one shouldn't plan real networks around. Finally, for the "bandwidth-is-free" crowd, this only amounts to maybe 8 STM-16s (maybe more if people take chances and parallelize across the two paths rather than use the two paths for redundancy), which means this cable is really not that far ahead of the apparent bandwidth-demand curve. Consequently, don't expect the current model of being shy of taxable short-term high-capacity deals to stop as Gemini becomes available. On the other hand, that CWI is willing to continue taking large risks in developing private submarine cable systems and is able to find investment and risk partners bodes well for being able to continue terrestrial growth, and maybe alot less well for LEOs and similar technologies. This is good news for people building parts of the global Internet. Of course, a cream-skimming path that's being built, so perhaps I overestimate the degree of risk perceived by the two Gemini partners... Sean.

3 2

RE: connectivity outside the US
by Chad Skidmore 01 Jun '97

01 Jun '97

Well . . . most people may not think satellites stand a chance but Bill Gates and Craig McCaw seem to think they do. Teledesic is planning build a long-haul communications network based on low earth orbit birds. In the past neither of these guys have been too stupid so I wouldn't rule out satellite communications just yet. Just my .02 worth, Chad ------------------------------------------ Chad Skidmore VP Operations & Engineering Data Source, L.L.C. http://www.dsource.com cskidmore(a)dsource.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Graham Lewis [SMTP:lists@reflections.eng.mindspring.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 1997 1:07 AM > To: Circuit > Cc: North American Network Operator Goobers > Subject: Re: connectivity outside the US > > On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Circuit wrote: > > > comments, rants, flames? > > Do satellites really stand a chance against fibre? Most people think > not, > and more specifically that their competitiveness shall continue to > decline > as time progresses. Not exactly the kind of thing one wants to lay > out > large capital expenditures on... > > Of course, I'm just a tool of conventional wisdom, as poorly conveyed > by > the media, when it comes to these issues. Sean, if you're still a > jobless > bum then you should consider starting your own newsletter. 8^) > > -- > Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises > tlewis(a)mindspring.com

1 0