May 2001 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 23 May '01

23 May '01

> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:02 PM > > > Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use > of INT internally > > would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT > TLD from the > > clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions > it has been > > suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for > internal use only. Let > > me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My > personal preference > > is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The > next question is; > > should this be an RFC? > > > INT was originally earmarked for multinational > organizations. It > was then inclusive of INTernet infrastructure and only > later was > the multinational charter clarified to restrict these groups to > international treaty organizations. > > There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private > use TLD. Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with ICANN/DNSO. It is the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the IETF. In order tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make attempts to surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, ICANN doesn't know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. I'm very much involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, in the DNSO. This effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want to catch a LOT of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need to widen the visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy directly and IETF isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO. -- ROELAND M.J. MEYER /USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN/DNSO member

2 1

<OT> OPNET information...
by Bulger, Tim 23 May '01

23 May '01

Does anyone have any experience with OPNET Technologies products? I'm particularly interested in the ITGuru package. Please send responses off-list.. TIA, Tim Bulger EA.com Network Engineering (650) 628-5178 ___________ Minimalism is the fine balance between what is necessary and what is unnecessary -- Richie Hawtin

1 0

Re: Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs
by Danny McPherson 23 May '01

23 May '01

This is one of the reasons some folks opt to avoid the route servers (i.e., the data and control plane aren't congruent). -danny > NANOG members, > > I have a question to the group regarding how best to avoid blackholing > routes to peers on an ATM NAP when using route servers. > > There is a case wherein my peering partner and I both have active PVCs to > the route servers, but the PVC between my peering partner and my router is > down. Thus, we both see routes from the route server with each other's IP as > next-hop, but since our direct PVC is down that next-hop is no good. > > It'd like a way to automatically and efficiently detect loss of next-hop and > discard routes accordingly. Are folks generally using OAM keepalives, and if > so, any parameters for OAM interval time and dead/alive count that seem > practical? > > Thanks, > > -- > Reid Knuttila > Network Engineer > Onvoy

1 0

Re: More demand or less supply?
by rs＠seastrom.com 23 May '01

23 May '01

Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> writes: > Why is 2 to 3 times more capacity offline this year compared with previous > years? I don't know. It appears the "supply" shortage is not due to > increased demand, or even the lack of new power plant capacity; but due > to the shutdown of existing capacity by generation companies at a higher > rate than normal. My understanding is that there is a seasonal "online / maint" cycle for the generation plants, and that many of them were not taken offline for normal PM several months ago because of energy usage _then_... my unsubstantiated guess would be that just like letting your car go 30,000 miles between a pair of oil changes, procrastination of the maint cycle eventually comes home to roost and that's what we're seeing now. ---Rob

25 28

Traffic per Prefix Length
by Paul G. Donner 22 May '01

22 May '01

does anyone collect stats that would facilitate the derivation of the number of packets forwarded per prefix length (per unit time) in the routing table or per prefix length range? percentages would work too.

5 5

RE: RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question )
by Irwin Lazar 22 May '01

22 May '01

The MPLS-OPS mailing list on www.mplsrc.com has had frequent discussions on MPLS VPNs. Irwin -----Original Message----- From: Yu Ning [mailto:yuning@ns.chinanet.cn.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:18 PM To: Nanog-Post Subject: RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question ) Hi All, Does anyone know RFC2547 VPN discussion group ? I can only find generic MPLS discussion from IETF. Better cisco oriented, because we use Cisco RFC2547 solution. Here is one of the problem we encountered now. Can anyone help ? We have 3 PEs connected with 3 CEs. PE1, PE2 are in the same AS4134, while PE3 in AS41340. It's not so luck that PE1 and PE3 is not back-to-back connected, but can be reached via a tag-switching enabled intermediate network. PE1-PE2 has MP-iBGP peer, while PE1-PE3 has MP-eBGP peer. Then we verify the traffic, and see that CE3, CE1 can ping each other, while CE3 can't ping CE2 ? But all three CEs can see prefix from other CEs. AS4134 AS41340 |----| |---| |---| |CE1 |-------|PE1|--(Tag switching )--|PE3| |----| |---| enabled inter- |---| | mediate network | | | | |---| | |CE3| |----| |---| |---| |CE2 |-------|PE2| |----| |---| BTW, We run PE on IOS Version 12.1(5)T6 regards, Yu Ning ____________________________________________ (Mr.) Yu Ning, Chief Engineer ChinaNET(AS4134) Sr. Sup.& New Sev. R&D Internet Product Dep. DCB, China Telecom Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-62072357/62072354 ____________________________________________

1 0

(no subject)
by srihari varada 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hello: I am in search of pointers for the following: -- Note(s) on the ML-PPP Deployment experiences I would appreciate, if any of you could provide information on the above. Regards, Srihari Varada Principal Engineer TranSwitch Corporation 3 Enterprise Dr. Shelton, CT 06484

1 0

your talk on v6 (fwd)
by Bill Manning 22 May '01

22 May '01

% most of your talk was ok, but i was frankly offended by the % gratuitous hype at the end -- advertising on behalf of any vendor, % independent of product, is inappropriate at a conference like NANOG. % worse, your freebie plug was literally all hype and no substance, and i % believe that it is not unreasonable for you to apologize to everyone for this % appalling misbehaviour at the end of an otherwise informative and even % interesting operationally-focused presentation. I apologize for making reference to a specific vendor announcement at the end of the presentation. It was uncalled for. --bill

1 0

Reference to the internet traffic growth
by Sudheer Dharanikota 22 May '01

22 May '01

Could somebody point me to a well respected referece on the Internet traffic growth trends. Thank you for the help. Regards, sudheer

1 0

RE: Request for a clue!
by Thomas Gainer 22 May '01

22 May '01

Aye, FCAPS is what I was looking for. Thanks Thomas Gainer -----Original Message----- From: Vinay Bannai [mailto:bannai@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:31 PM To: Thomas Gainer Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Re: Request for a clue! Thomas Gainer wrote: > I have heard a whisper about a network equipment evaluation standard called > FCATS. I have never heard of it (only NEBS) and I can not find any > information on it. All my searches turn up information on the Florida > standardized tests but nothing regarding technology evaluation and > reporting. Does anyone have a hint I can follow to find information, like > maybe what the acronym stands for? > > Thanks, > > Thomas Maybe you are referring to FCAPS. It stands for Fault Configuration Accounting Provisioning and Security. This is used to represent the various functionalities that a network equipment is typically required to support. I personally have not heard of FCATS in reference to network equipments. Vinay

1 0