- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Opnet, Wandl, etc.
by Tom Holbrook 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

We are looking into using a full or partial mesh MPLS overlay for traffic characterization on our network and need a tool to model utilization and simulate failures. At first we won't be doing any real TE. Does anyone know of any open source tools (maybe similar to Wandl) that have this functionality? I could do what I need with spreadsheets really but it would be more time intensive. Thanks -Tom __________________ Tom Holbrook Sr. Network Engineer Atlanta Earthlink

1 0

Re: Sprint peering policy
by George William Herbert 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

>> i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to grow >> a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our industry, >> a lot of deals are done which only make money for the investment bankers and >> don't actually "grow business". closed peering is all about greed and not >> about service levels, competitive pricing, or overall sector health. > >The reason we have this industry alive is investment bankers. Had we not had >it, there would not have been abundance of fiber, abundance of competition >and easy accessibility of IP. Like it or not, without these games we would >have still though of a T1 as of a huge pipe. This is getting off topic, but... I think this is putting the cart before the horse. We were getting upgraded bandwidth capabilities, fiber put in the ground, etc from traditional Telcos prior to the rise of the Internet; they were finding cheaper ways to run phone service around. The rise of the Internet as a telecom bandwidth demand driver attracted the attention of investment bankers and capital, which then became somewhat of a set of complex feedback loops (capital going into all sorts of internet industries, infrastructure, etc, partly because it appeared to be good business and partly because of hype). The result was that speculation and hype drove overcapacity. Before anyone had invested serious money in any of the internet infrastructure companies, people were building out 10 megabit, T3 backbones and were talking to telco gear providers about what it would take to do 155 megabit and 622 megabit backbones and so on and so on. It was clear to those of us in the late 80s and early 90s that if demand kept pulling, we needed to keep creating bandwidth. It was not clear at all that demand would keep pulling until 2000 at the same rate it had been... people kept proposing the growth curve and then everyone would discount it as ludicrous. But in no way can you claim that it took a terabuck in capital push to make it happen. Demand pull was fully operational and working just fine before ISPs started being snapped up by phone companies and visa versa, and the huge money came into play. Hype might have been lower and growth somewhat slower, but I can easily see the set of people who were building out backbones with T-1s and the early fiber links having grown them up to networks capable of today's traffic. And they'd probably make a lot more topological and engineering sense and run more smoothly, to bring it back to an operational point here at the close ;-) -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

2 1

RE: Ebone going off the air (at last)...
by Daniska Tomas 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

the shutdown is in process see the webcam or #ebone... -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first. > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon@radianz.com] > Sent: 2. júla 2002 15:43 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Ebone going off the air (at last)... > > > > >From what I can see personally, all BGP sessions with Ebone at major > >peering points in Europe went down in the last two hours, > and all their > >customer interfaces appear to be shut (or in the process of > being shut > >down). SDH and DWDM customer circuits are also being torn down as we > >speak. > > Hmmm.... > Try a traceroute from inside the Ebone IP network at > http://www.ebone.net. > A few minutes ago it was still > working. > > Have you got any confirmation that they are, in fact, > shutting down the > DWDM equipment? This would leave everyone in the dark except for IRU > customers... > > --Michael Dillon > ex-Ebone > > >

1 0

Re: Ebone going off the air (at last)...
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

>From what I can see personally, all BGP sessions with Ebone at major >peering points in Europe went down in the last two hours, and all their >customer interfaces appear to be shut (or in the process of being shut >down). SDH and DWDM customer circuits are also being torn down as we >speak. Hmmm.... Try a traceroute from inside the Ebone IP network at http://www.ebone.net. A few minutes ago it was still working. Have you got any confirmation that they are, in fact, shutting down the DWDM equipment? This would leave everyone in the dark except for IRU customers... --Michael Dillon ex-Ebone

1 0

Ebone Shutdown
by German Martinez 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

http://www.nocpeople.org/ebone/broadcast2.html

2 1

Re: Sprint peering policy
by Ukyo Kuonji 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

>From: Clayton Fiske <clay(a)bloomcounty.org> > >Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit. But, looking at today's $/bit ratio, peering is not a big of a monetary beneift as it used to be. BAck when you only needed a DS3 to the naps for peering, and transit cost $1200 a megabit, peering was a great cost savines. Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the router, plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthly costs for your OC-48 into the router... What's the true cost of peering? An OC48 to PAIX, and let's say you serve all your traffic needs from there, and ignore connection charges, or an OC48 to a transit provider at $50 a meg? I'm pretty sure that the peering model does not hold up as well as it should. Now... Do I believe that there is added benefit to peering? Yes, of course, but not nearly what it used to be. If it's a benefit to your customers, and helps increase your number of customers, then it may still be a good thing. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

9 9

Ebone going off the air (at last)...
by Lars Erik Gullerud 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

Yes, I realize this is NANOG and a lot of people here doesn't seem very interested about events over in Europe, but for those who might be interested and have not already seen this: http://nocpeople.org/ebone/broadcast2.html >From what I can see personally, all BGP sessions with Ebone at major peering points in Europe went down in the last two hours, and all their customer interfaces appear to be shut (or in the process of being shut down). SDH and DWDM customer circuits are also being torn down as we speak. Note, this is only the Ebone part of the bankrupt network, not the KPNQwest part. So, guess it's time to finally wave goodbye... -Lars Erik

1 0

RE: Sprint peering policy
by Grant A. Kirkwood 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

At 09:54 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote: >My math shows ~500bps per US citizen: >Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens. This also assumes US citizens don't sleep. -- Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4AED

3 2

RE: AOL mail netblocks
by Daniska Tomas 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

what the second line is for? if i block all first then why care about rest (which equals to none in such case) :) -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan@fugawi.net] > Sent: 2. júla 2002 14:40 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: AOL mail netblocks > > > > > Folks, is there still only a certain block of allowed addresses > that send mail from AOL i.e. block smtp from any any and then allow > 1.2.3.0/24 etc? > > Thanks, > > -M > > > > Regards, > > -- > Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net > Boston, MA http://www.fugawi.net > >

2 1

AOL mail netblocks
by Martin Hannigan 02 Jul '02

02 Jul '02

Folks, is there still only a certain block of allowed addresses that send mail from AOL i.e. block smtp from any any and then allow 1.2.3.0/24 etc? Thanks, -M Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net Boston, MA http://www.fugawi.net

1 0