- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

You guys are all missing the point. The only reason for Cisco's prices is because they built proprietary RAM modules. That is ... >non-standard<. Cisco didn't *have* to do that. RAM chips are cheap. RAM modules are only expensive because the mfg *makes* them expensive. Actual COGm is less than $15US. In fact, the PCB costs more than the RAMs do because they are made in smaller volume. By the same token, the sheet metal costs more than the electronics, on a Cat 6509, but they know that you are willing to pay $150K^H^H^H^H^H$200K so *that's* what they charge for it. It's pure marketing. They can use standard PC133 DIMMs, if they want to. 90% of the MSRP goes to the distro channel. |> -----Original Message----- |> From: Brian Whalen [mailto:bri@sonicboom.org] |> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:54 PM |> To: Joe Abley |> Cc: John Fraizer; Leo Bicknell; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' |> Subject: Re: multi-homing fixes |> |> |> |> Well I remember seeing a message on groupstudy where somone |> from the tac |> came on and made a statement along the lines that a |> substantial quantity |> of cases they get are a result of non Cisco memory. |> |> Brian "Sonic" Whalen |> Success = Preparation + Opportunity |> |> |> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Joe Abley wrote: |> |> > |> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:31:29PM -0700, Brian Whalen wrote: |> > > Yes and this non cisco ram can make Cisco's tac have a |> cor or two.. |> > |> > Cisco have certified a number of RAM vendors; you can happily buy |> > RAM from them (at non-inflated prices) without voiding |> your warranty |> > or causing an abnormal palpitations in the TAC. |> > |> > For example: |> > |> > http://www.kingston.com/memory/routerzone/default.asp |> > |> > Last time I priced RAM upgrades for RSP4s (which was a few years |> > ago now) cisco list price was around five times greater than |> > Kingston's price for cisco-approved SIMMs. Hooray, etc. |> > |> > |> > Joe |> > |>

1 0

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

"Joel Baker" <lucifer(a)lightbearer.com> writes: > Or by SCTP - an elegant, protocol-level solution to most of the basic > reasons for small businesses (IE, those not likely to qualify for a > provider-independant block) to want multihoming. > > Unfortunately, it appears to be even more poorly adopted than IPv6 so far, The fatal sentence. To forestall ratholing on this list, I urge people to take this to the rathole-by-charter: multi6 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html /vijay "bring the noise" gill

1 0

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

Daniel Hagerty <hag(a)linnaean.org> writes: > Take prefixes from both providers and use them. Route your egress > traffic appropriately. > > My point wasn't that "there is no need to BGP multihome", but that > many seem to see this as the only way of achieving use of multiple > providers worth of pipe. There are other alternatives, depending on > your application. This is a possible solution (and similar ideas have been bought up in the v6 arena as well). This runs into two things: 1) it is hard to maintain and manage (you've doubled the counting, storing and allocation burden on the end user), as well as debugging. Having been on the enterprise side of things, I believe that these are non trivial problems to solve for a large number of people. 2) proper end unit (host) source address selection. the way around #2 is to use some sort of a NAT scheme, and number internally out of say, net10, and NAT appropriately at the autonomous system edge. With the "servers" as it were (mail, http, ftp et al.) being configured to listen on public address or special ports, etc. These impose a significant added burden upon the end user. It costs them significantly less to "graze upong the commons" as Randy so eloquently put it at the IETF plenary in london. /vijay

2 1

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

Daniel Hagerty <hag(a)linnaean.org> writes: > Please don't confuse "I need more than one pipe into the internet" > with "my organization must place its prefixes into the default free > zone". > > > It is possible to effectively use multiple pipes into many ISPs > without the cost to all of us that introducing your prefix into the > DFZ has. I am all ears as to how you propose I achieve provider independence without introducing my prefix(es) into the DFZ. eg, say I am connected to two upstreams, I would like to still continue reachability with the global net in case of failure of one of the upstreams (as wide failure), or a failure of an upstream POP (which happens to be the only one in my LATA) from one of the providers. /vijay

2 1

RE: resolved Re: should i publish a list of cracked machines?
by Roeland Meyer 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

1 0

RE: XTNS launch alternate domain name system
by Hunter, Jonathan 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Alex Bligh quoth: > > This company is even more bogus then new.net. At least new.net is > > /trying/ to use dns. > > How unforunate it would be if they had a name space clash. I also note that keywords such as "pointless product", "crap realnames" and (somewhat more rude) variations of the same have not been reserved or blocked by RealNames. If it didn't cost actual money I'd be tempted to register a couple for them... :) -- Jonathan (Speaking only for himself)

4 3

Is anyone using GILAT's "Spacenet" service
by Shaun Bryant 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Hi all, Is anyone using Gilat's "Spacenet" we are looking in to them to tie some of our remote offices via there "Frame" service. I would like to know how well they work and what you experience has been with them.. Also they are telling us sub 500ms RTT which I do not believe. Thanks Shaun Bryant

3 2

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Irwin Lazar <ILazar(a)tbg.com> writes: > A while back there was an article in Network World on problems due > to the rise of multihoming: > http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402routing.html which was > discussed in great length in this forum. > > Has the IETF created a working group to deal with a long-term fix for this > issue, and if so, is there a URL for its activities? There has been discussion regarding these issues in ptomaine and on multi6 http://www.shrubbery.net/ptomaine/ http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html /vijay

1 0

multi-homing fixes
by Irwin Lazar 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

A while back there was an article in Network World on problems due to the rise of multihoming: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402routing.html which was discussed in great length in this forum. Has the IETF created a working group to deal with a long-term fix for this issue, and if so, is there a URL for its activities? Thanks in advance, Irwin

1 0

Routescience?
by Irwin Lazar 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Is anyone out there familiar with a company called "routescience"? I caught the below press release at and wanted to find out if anyone can relay any real-world experiences with their system? It almost sounds like they are using something like a Keynote Systems performance monitoring tool to inject BGP path preference information. TIA, Irwin --- ROUTESCIENCE DEVELOPS PLATFORM TO CONTROL BGP INTERNET ROUTING RouteScience, a start-up based in San Mateo, California, unveiled plans for a unique "route controller" platform for optimizing a company's multiple ISP links by providing real-time performance measurements of paths across the Internet to end users. Using these performance metrics and customer preferences for ISP link cost, RouteScience's PathControl platform determines the best ISP path for end-users and can then automatically update the organization's edge routers with the best path routing information. The route performance measurement relies on a patent-pending closed-feedback loop system that does not use pings. Route updates are provided to the edge routers using standard Border Gateway Protocol. A large company with multiple ISPs would use the systems to route traffic to the ISP links that actually deliver the best end-to-end performance. The solution could also be used by a Tier-2/3 service provider to route traffic to multiple backbone carriers depending on cost and real- time performance metrics. The company said default BGP chooses a sub-optimal route 50% - 80% of the time, depending on the number of alternative ISP paths. Of those routes that can be improved, an alternate ISP is on average 2 times faster. RouteScience claims its system provides deep visibility into ISP performance and could fundamentally change network service agreements and pricing by moving control over Internet routing decisions to the network edge. http://www.routescience.com RouteScience, August 20, 2001

20 31