March 1998 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: IP over SONET considered harmful?
by avg＠pluris.com 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

> Subject: IP over SONET considered harmful? > > I'd hoped that MPLS would solve this problem, but from reviewing > the drafts I believe that the LSRs _WILL_ decrement the TTL. I think this is a non-issue, considering that with the next generation of IP-only boxes ATM will become hopelessly useless. Better yet, the real big boxes are removing any need to do clustering, so the average number of IP hops for an NSP is going to be like 3 or 4. --vadim

6 5

NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
by Chuck Gomes 05 Apr '98

05 Apr '98

Effective immediately, Network Solutions is introducing Domain Name Registration Agreement version 4.0 that will replace version 3.5. The new agreement reflects fee changes for domain name registrations and renewals following the elimination of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund portion of the fee on April 1, 1998, pursuant to an amendment to Network Solutions' Cooperative Agreement with the National Science Foundation. Registration and modification requests will be processed using either version of the agreement (3.5 and 4.0) through April 30, 1998, but the payment terms specified in version 4.0 will apply for registrations and re-registrations starting April 1, 1998. Effective May 1, 1998, only version 4.0 will be accepted for registrations and modifications. The new agreement can be found at: ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/domain-template.txt The main changes are found in Section B of the agreement. An explanation of these changes follows. For domain names with registration or anniversary dates on or before March 31, 1998, the fees are $100.00 U.S. and $50.00 U.S. respectively. These fees include a 30% Intellectual Infrastructure Fund contribution that Network Solutions is required to collect and deposit in an account through an agreement with the National Science Foundation. (Re-registrations of these names, in the future, will not include the 30% fee.) For domain names with registration or anniversary dates on or after April 1, 1998, the current fees are $70.00 U.S. and $35.00 U.S. respectively. These fees do not include the 30% Intellectual Infrastructure Fund contribution because this requirement ends midnight, March 31, 1998 Eastern Standard Time. Please note that the registration or anniversary date determines the fee amount, NOT the date paid. If you have any further questions, please call (703) 742-4777. Best Regards, Network Solutions _____________________________________ Chuck Gomes Director of Customer Programs Network Solutions, Inc.

9 10

Re: Fwd: Quantum device brings end to the "World Wide Wait"
by Chris Parker 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

At 09:31 AM 4/1/98 -0500, Alex \"Mr. Worf\" Yuriev wrote: > >On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 avg(a)pluris.com wrote: > >Happy fools day :) Well actually, this is not all a hoax. The method described in the message is known as Quantum Teleportation. It is being seriously researched and has been demonstrated in controlled experiments. The following links will take you to sites that describe the theory better than I ever could. I only study Quantum Physics for fun. :) It is a real effect, and while the story is based in reality, the announcement that Lucent has succesfully built a device that uses this method of communication is quite doubtful though. The following links are however, not hoaxes. We have nothing to fear, as this technology is still quite a ways from actual commercial use. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ http://www.sciam.com/explorations/122297teleport/index.html >Alex -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ Chris Parker: Systems Administration and Development \ ~ ~ / \ cparker(a)starnetusa.net \ cparker(a)megapop.net | @ @ | \ www.starnetusa.net \ www.megapop.net oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Without C we would have 'obol', 'basi', and 'pasal'

2 1

Re: Root name server
by shields＠crosslink.net 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

In article <E0yK4f3-0000Kd-00@rhenium>, "Dave Haywood" <D.Haywood(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > I need to setup an internal root name server in my private network. Maybe you should ask on a DNS list. NANOG is about the Internet and you are asking about a private network. I think this is covered in Cheswick and Bellovin anyway, but I haven't looked in a long time. -- Shields, CrossLink.

2 1

RE: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
by Goldstein_William＠bns.att.com 01 Apr '98

01 Apr '98

TO ALL NANOG PROPELLERHEAD TYPES MAKIN' REMARKS ON ATM: Da switch makers, ya know, dese guys had a problem. No matter how good business was, da stock keeps goin' down. Wid MPOA solvin' alla da problems, dey figured dis was unfair, dat dey should be solid, steadily growing stocks now dat dey no longer had to live life in da fast LANE. So, da ATM Forum has decided to sorta upgrade da public relations approach. Please be advised dat all youse geniusues makin' skeptical an' udderwise unsundry remarks on ATM is now subject to a personal interview from a special representative udda ATM Forum. On da boat. On a nice, long ocean voyage... (And alla youse gigabit ethernet wanks--ya know what we can do wid a little ether, heh, heh, heh!) Bill "The Mangler" Goldstein Chief Crusher and Mixer Dept. of Concrete Overshoes Enforcement Division The ATM Forum ;-) ---------- From: dlr Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 6:41 PM To: nanog Cc: dlr Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP Received: from wayne1.bns.att.com (wayne1.bns.att.com [135.170.166.240]) by pawayn01.bns.att.com (8.8.6/1.3) with ESMTP id SAA13273 for <Goldstein_William/bcs_pawayn01(a)pawayn01.bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from caig1.att.att.com (caig1.att.att.com [192.128.52.73]) by wayne1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with ESMTP id TAA19164 for <goldstein_william(a)bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from nuucp@localhost) by caig1.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id SAA11015; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:21 -0500 (EST) >Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998 Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24784; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:07 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA24671 for nanog-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from daver.bungi.com (daver.bungi.com [207.126.97.2]) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24666 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by daver.bungi.com via sendmail with stdio id <m0yJoAm-0000DnC(a)daver.bungi.com> for nanog(a)merit.edu; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.94 1997-Apr-22 #8 built 1997-Jun-19) Message-Id: <m0yJoAm-0000DnC(a)daver.bungi.com> From: dlr(a)bungi.com (Dave Rand) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 PST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Content-Type: text -------------------------------------------------- Several of my peers at PB NAP are reporting significant loss (>10%) over the PB NAP. All are OC3 connected, and it seems that PB doesn't have the ability to look too closely at OC3 connections. Death of the 'net predicted: film at 11. So, does this mean that ATM NAPs also have problems with high traffic load? -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

2 1

RE: Seattle Sprint outage - update?
by Peter Murray 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

I've not had any problems recently getting through to knowledgeable people at Sprint via their Virginia call center. Try (800) 232-6895, and select option 3. I was talking with one of the fellows there on Friday afternoon, and he was fully aware of the fiber cut. Best Regards, -Pete Pete Murray - FASTNET(tm) / You Tools Corporation > pete(a)fast.net (610) 954-5200 - http://www.fast.net > FASTNET - Business and Personal Internet Solutions > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Rhett [SMTP:jrhett@ISite.Net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 2:00 PM > To: randy(a)psg.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Seattle Sprint outage - update? > > > > > Any one from Sprint care to enlighten us on the major fiber cut in > > > > Seattle? > > > Isn't it a damned shame that a company the size of Sprint does not > have a > > NOC. <sigh> > > Try sarcasm that isn't true. It is a damn shame, and they don't have > anything to speak of. Their response center is downright useless, even > when > you pay them for the priveledge. > > The only way to get something out of Sprint is to know someone. If you > don't know someone, it would seem that lists like Nanog are your only > choice. > > I don't agree, but I don't see a better path either. > > -- > Joe Rhett Systems > Engineer > JRhett(a)ISite.Net ISite > Services > > PGP keys and contact information: > http://www.navigist.com/Staff/JRhett

1 0

Re: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
by dlr＠bungi.com 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

[In the message entitled "Re: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP" on Mar 31, 14:53, "Kent W. England" writes:] > > I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Not likely that the ATM switches are > backplane loaded like the MAEs. These are Stratacom BPXs that replaced the > Newbridge 36150s over three years ago. Correct. > High bandwidth-delay product paths on a heavily loaded OC-3 to OC-3 virtual > circuit will strain the ATM switch buffers. If you can detect regularly > recurring losses on a high BDP path across an all-OC3 virtual circuit, then > look for buffer exhaustion on the OC3 interfaces. If no one at Pac Bell > knows what to do, tell them to look in the files in Fred Chang's Network > Engineering Group for Kent England's ATM NAP switch test plan and go out and > get some test gear that will stress an OC3 link in the lab. Mike Rudik in > the lab knows what to do to test for this. But my recollection was that the > BPX had enough buffers to run UBR over a full OC3. Nope. The problem is link congestion between SJC and SFO. Pacbell was apparently not monitoring this. By rerouting some traffic, they were able to shift the peers that it affected. It, with 100% certainty, is within the cloud that makes up the PB NAP. > > If the loss is on DS3-OC3 virtual circuits then perhaps you are pushing more > than 45 Mbps toward the DS3. There might be a Kentrox ADSU or two left on > the NAP that could have trouble with the cisco OC3 interface at much less > than 45 Mbps. Again, these are OC3 to OC3 in all cases. -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

1 0

Re: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
by Kent W. England 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

>Several of my peers at PB NAP are reporting significant loss (>10%) over the >PB NAP. All are OC3 connected, and it seems that PB doesn't have the >ability to look too closely at OC3 connections. > >Death of the 'net predicted: film at 11. > >So, does this mean that ATM NAPs also have problems with high traffic load? > >-- >Dave Rand >dlr(a)bungi.com >http://www.bungi.com > I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Not likely that the ATM switches are backplane loaded like the MAEs. These are Stratacom BPXs that replaced the Newbridge 36150s over three years ago. High bandwidth-delay product paths on a heavily loaded OC-3 to OC-3 virtual circuit will strain the ATM switch buffers. If you can detect regularly recurring losses on a high BDP path across an all-OC3 virtual circuit, then look for buffer exhaustion on the OC3 interfaces. If no one at Pac Bell knows what to do, tell them to look in the files in Fred Chang's Network Engineering Group for Kent England's ATM NAP switch test plan and go out and get some test gear that will stress an OC3 link in the lab. Mike Rudik in the lab knows what to do to test for this. But my recollection was that the BPX had enough buffers to run UBR over a full OC3. If the loss is on DS3-OC3 virtual circuits then perhaps you are pushing more than 45 Mbps toward the DS3. There might be a Kentrox ADSU or two left on the NAP that could have trouble with the cisco OC3 interface at much less than 45 Mbps. If the cisco OC3 interfaces haven't been thoroughly shaken down, you might look there for things like buffer exhaustion. If the ciscos are losing, my test plan should show that effect if the ciscos are included in the test path. If no one at PacBell seems interested in the problem, you can talk to the Texans who run the place now. I can give you some names to call in Richardson, Texas but I wouldn't hold my breath. If you happen to be a Texan, then you can probably get something to happen, but if you are an avocado-sucking Hawaiian-shirt-wearing ears-pierced laid-back California dude, then you won't get far with the prime-rib-for-lunch crowd. ;-) --Kent

1 0

Root name server
by Dave Haywood 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I need to setup an internal root name server in my private network. I am using bind v8.1.1 (Solaris 2.5.1). Does anyone have any pointers on how to achieve this? For those of you not already asleep, the primary nameserver for the root domain and the organisation domain are the same server (I know this is a bad idea but that's just how it is). The nameserver starts up OK (no errors) but when I query the nameserver (dig xxx) it returns zero responses. If I use a FQDN (dig xxx.org.dom) I get the correct result. I do have "domain org.dom" in /etc/resolv.conf and "dns hosts" in /etc/nsswitch.conf. If I dump the nameserver database it looks OK. Perplexed, England. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNSEjwFtv3tEWY+eVEQKR2ACfdOYy65pzhwQ4RfybTQ7UyZD1f7cAoNLU h9DPr9cYJdPhmPOwGr/zJzAZ =PNJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- Dave Haywood Network Manager ICL-CFM +44 194 223 5609 C85A 41F5 350F 0F5B 1489 C4BA 5B6F DED1 1663 E795

2 1

Seattle Sprint outage - update?
by Jay Stewart 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

Any one from Sprint care to enlighten us on the major fiber cut in Seattle? Any word on when the Sprint facilities in this area will be back up, or what was/is the problem? Jay Stewart Vice President Olympia Networking Services - "Premier Internet Access" Phone (360) 753.3636 Fax (360) 357.6160 http://www.olywa.net/

8 10