- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Roeland Meyer 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

> From: Stephen Griffin [mailto:stephen.griffin@rcn.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:18 PM > > In the referenced message, Roeland Meyer said: > <snip> > > My latest quote for a new DSL connection is 42 days. T1s > are 6-8 weeks. > > Bigger pipes are 2-6 months for the fastest response, many > cases are longer. > > > > Back to business failures, the DSL world is looking rocky > at best. Rythms > > isn't looking very solid and neither is Covad. Some of the > NorthPoint > > customers are not going with either, electing to go with > the local RBOC > > instead (despite the hassles and long lead-times). What > many businesses > > really need is true multi-homing. > <snip> > > So, if people picked better providers, they wouldn't need to > multihome. > You feel you need to multihome, because you keep picking DSL, > which just > isn't a good choce for "mission critical applications". You can think that way all you want to, right up to the time when your local RBOC decides it will no longer serve you. At which time, good luck shoving those bytes down the wire.

3 2

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Sean Donelan 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

On Wed, 04 April 2001, Stephen Griffin wrote: > So, if people picked better providers, they wouldn't need to multihome. > You feel you need to multihome, because you keep picking DSL, which just > isn't a good choce for "mission critical applications". Name a provider which hasn't had a problem in the last 5 years, and has been around for long enough to have a track record. A lot of provider would rather offer a 100% guarantee than tell you what their actual performance has been. You can tell a lot about a provider by how they handle problems. Even if they only have one problem every five years, what they do is what people will remember. However, that's not the whole story. Perception plays a large role in this game. When a blizzard hits a town, and every coffee shop is closed, only a few people complain and generally there is no permanent damage to a businesses' reputation. Acts of God (or Mother Nature) are just that. However, if every other coffee shop is open, but your shop is closed because your coffee supplier didn't deliver on time, you have a bigger business problem. The problem for Internet businesses when they lose their Internet connection is it doesn't affect everyone. If 60 Hudson fell-over, and most of the East Coast Internet connectivity was lost for a few days, it would be bad. But it wouldn't really change anyone's market share because it would affect almost everyone. But if Northpoint falls over, you are just a dumb shmuck for choosing Northpoint because the competitor down the street is still up because they chose DSLwhatever. No one likse looking like a dumb shmuck, so you buy IBM or you multi-home, or do whatever. Then when it still fails, you can tell you boss you did everything humanly possible, and no one else could have done better.

1 0

Verio's NOC is closed?
by doug＠safeport.com 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Anyone know what is going on here? _____ Douglas Denault doug(a)safeport.com Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601

2 2

AS Leakage
by Marshall Eubanks 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Hello; In our BGP table, there are this morning the following AS's : AS 64610 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 64610 AS 64615 : 2 prefixes : 2 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 64615 AS 64616 : 3 prefixes : 3 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 64616 AS 65008 : 3 prefixes : 3 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 145 2200 65008 AS 65102 : 3 prefixes : 3 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65102 AS 65209 : 12 prefixes : 12 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65209 AS 65498 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65498 In the MBGP table for multicast, there are AS 64580 : 9 prefixes : 9 prefixes supported : 5 hops : as path 1239 5511 2200 2074 64580 AS 65001 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 4 hops : as path 3300 8933 2200 65001 AS 65498 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65498 I thought that these AS's were not supposed to be advertised globally. Is this really a problem ? Is it worth the effort to track the sources of these down and try and get them to remove them ? Regards Marshall Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme(a)on-the-i.com http://www.on-the-i.com

10 11

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Wednesday evening, the 4th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for g.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.42.93.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.36.144.133 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 203.181.106.5 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the old and new IP's for g.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel for enough time to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems Verisign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

2 1

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Richard Noonan 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

My experience with these issues (as a customer): I have a corp lan and space in 6 colo's around the US. Connectivity between corp and the colo's is mission critical. Initially this was addressed by two T1's each from different providers and we advertised a /24 for the corp. This was hugely benficial b/c just prior to one of the providers imploding problems arose with the circuit that they could not manage to resolve with the telco (probably b/c they weren't paying their bills). Data could still get down the line at a poor rate and I was able to maintain it as a backup to the good circuit until another was provisioned. I was able to do this effectively and quickly b/c I had a measure of control over my routing. I intended to get the 2nd circuit from another provider, but my existing (good) provider asked for the opportunity to convince me otherwise. They happen to be a smallish, local ISP and I happen to deal directly with one of their principals who is an excellent network engineer. He came in and made one of the most detailed and lucid proposals I have ever seen from a vendor. The bottom line was, I have one fiber access into the building. Nothing to be done from me to the CO. But, he was able to get me a 2nd circuit through Worldcom (first being Verizon) take it to another POP which is in-turn connected to a different set of carriers than the other. "Oh, and by the way, this 2nd circuit with us will be dirt cheap." Sold, with caution. I still maintain a BGP session to him and advertise the /24. Why? If this turns out not to have been such a great idea, I can cancel that 2nd circuit, go back to plan A, with minimal re-engineering. If things continue to run smoothly for another 6 to 12 months, then maybe I'll feel confident enough to turn over all routing control to him. My points: We have colo'd as much as possible, but in the end we still have a critical need to reach those facilities. Maitaining an EBGP session and advertising a non-aggregated block gives me control and flexibility. However, the right provider can possibly provide another solution. We should see more providers marketing this and maybe I wouldn't be so cautious. But, a big part of why I was even willing to experiment with this was what I felt to be the quality of engineering on the ISP's side and total understanding of the situation I was in (in addition to having direct access to their knowledgable, senior staff at any hour). This is, in my experience, simply not the norm and an ISP customer is forced to take the matter into their own hands. Hope I haven't been too redundant, but half my time is spent as exactly the type of customer you're all discussing. -Rich -----Original Message----- From: Travis Pugh [mailto:tpugh@shore.net] Subject: Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 hardie(a)equinix.com wrote: > Why are customers spending money on this? My belief is that they > want more say in their own fate. That may express itself as > a desire for redundancy in the case of catastrophic business failures, > better ability to express their own routing policies, or a simple > worry that they won't get the best price if they have only one supplier. > At the core of this, though, is a desire for more control over something > that they see as increasingly important to their own fate. > <text removed> I'm at a multi-POP network in Boston. We've had great luck selling customers a Verizon circuit into one of our POPs and a Worldcom circuit into a different one. It costs more, but they don't have nearly the exposure of a single circuit customer. However, if you're not set up to do this, the appropriate level of paranoia calls for circuits to two different providers. Maybe if SPs really addressed availability requirements of their customers, it wouldn't be such an issue. -travis

1 0

Re: Verio's NOC is closed?
by Sean Donelan 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

On Tue, 03 April 2001, doug(a)safeport.com wrote: > > Anyone know what is going on here? I'll let Verio explain, if they want to. Sometimes external factors require a company to relocate the folks who answer the phones.

1 0

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Greg Maxwell 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote: > At 08:37 03/04/01, Greg Maxwell wrote: > >Replace the internet with a highly aggregated IPv6 network > >which uses transport level multihoming and you gain a factor > >of 1000 improvement at core routers (and 100,000x further > >from the core where you no longer need to be default-free) > >and still have the oppturnity for a further 5x by going > >to a state-of-the-art CPU (providing that your cpu speed > >reasoning is valid). > > Precisely which "highly aggregated IPv6 network > which uses transport level multihoming" is one talking about ? > What's the RFC on this ? It's possible to 'solve' these problems in the future: Forbid IP level multihoming for IPv6 which crosses aggregation boundaries. I.e. absolutly no multihoming that inflates more then your providers routing tabling, connect to whoever you want, but no AS should emit a route for any other AS without aggregating it into their own space without a special agreement of limited scope (i.e. not globally!) > AFAIK, IPv6 multihoming is identical to IPv4 multihoming, > with all the same adverse implications on the default-free routing > table -- hence the creation of an IETF MULTI6 WG to try > to change this. If I've missed some recent advance in the > IETF specifications, please share the details (preferably citing > RFC and page number :-) with the rest of us. IPv6 multihoming *is* the same. What I argue is that: Routers are the wrong place to do multihoming for anything but Tier-1 connectivity. Multihoming belongs in the end node. SCTP (2960) is a transport level protcol which offers what amounts to a superset of TCP. One of it's features is multihoming (2960; section 6.4). With such a protcol it is possible to accomplish all of the realibility benifits of IP multihoming while achieving much greater scalability, flexibility, and performance. We need to stop looking at IP addresses as host-identifyers (thats what DNS is for) and look at them as path-identifyers. I'm not sure of an RFC detailing specifics of an Internet architecture based on these concepts, thats one of the reasons I asked here. I'll troll around more and see if I can find anyone working on such a document and if no one is, I'll create one.

8 13

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Richard Welty 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Travis Pugh <tpugh(a)shore.net> wrote: > Verizon even has a diversity > option on their tariff, although there's some doubt as to > whether or not > they bother to make sure it is really diverse. i have had some discussions about getting such diversity with Verizon folks in upstate NY, and it was clear that their engineers understood the issues, giving us all the right answers about how they were going to do it. there still would have been some risks involved; the diverse circuits would have crossed at one specific location in the RPI tech park (they pointed this out explicitly), and the connection to the IXCs on the other end of the local Sonet ring would have been in a single CO, and thus still a single point of failure, but this was really hard to avoid. they were quite honest with us, actually, which was a complete suprise given that it was the phone company (we had previously talked to other Verizon reps who were total idiots, so if someone disagreed with me on this assessment, i would expect that they were dealing with one of the idiots and never got past that to the folks who knew what they were doing). since we didn't go forward with the project in question, i have no idea how it would have worked out in practice. richard

1 0

Correction - gTLD Informational Message]
by Brad Verd 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Please note that the correct date is Wednesday evening the 4th of April.

1 0