- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: FW: DECNet over IP?
by Kevin Oberman 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:49:03 -0800 (PST) > From: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle(a)oracle.com> > > Kevin, > > I'm surprised to see YOU (an old DECnet person :)) recommending this. You > know he's gonna die if he's running pipes larger than T1s. The > process-switching will eat him alive, no? You can do better than a T-1 with most routers, but I can't argue that it's efficient. If TGV was still around, I'd whole-heartedly recommend it. I should have looked at the current offering from Process. I see that the current version does support DECnet over IP. But even though MultiNet was VERY well written in this area, it is still limited bandwidth. It's just that the bottlenecks are at the end systems and not at the routers. But this is definitely a better way to go. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman(a)es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634

2 1

Thanks Merit!
by Patrik Greenspawn 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Thank you for censoring my email coming from greenwell_is_a(a)corporatedirtbag.com. :) Patrik _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Not that I am advocating that the government should mandate something like IP portability, but if they did, it could force a sufficient rethink so that routing actually becomes much more scaleable because routing is forced to work based upon physical location. Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before the phone call is connected, a translation is made between the logical number and the actual number. The actual number is based upon geography, and consists of country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then physical port number. As a result, the routing tables in telephone networks are small. For example, if you are in the US and need to call the UK, the network only needs one entry for all telephone networks in the UK (plus a few more for redundancy). This is quite a contrast to how IP addresses have been allocated. And therefore, we have 96K and counting prefixes in the Internet with continuing exponential growth. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not a new proposal, and probably could have been implemented years ago. Besides the obvious problems (is there sufficient address space allocatable to make this work), it would require an IP translation lookup at the beginning of each "call" to translate the logical IP address to the physical IP address. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:10 AM > To: Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > At 23:39 14/03/01 -0800, Stephen Stuart wrote: > > > > Do you see many scandals around people who own cool IP > addresses? :) > > > >IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of > 16.1.16.1; I don't > >think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of > the scandal > >remained relatively small. > > Lets see, the US gov't mandated phone number portability. > How long will it > be before they mandate IP address portability? Then everyone > will want > their /32 to be portable. Even Junipers handling of 2.4M prefixes: > http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testing&doc_id=4 009&page_number=10 will begin to buckle. -Hank >(The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.) > >Stephen

2 1

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:22 PM > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > It has to do with refresh rates, just like DRAM. > > It has to do with the way the redundancy is handled in the brain. > Long-term potentiation is not a terribly reliable process. If you ask my wife, she'll catagorically state that short-term potentiation is equally unreliable (yes dear, I promise to remember the milk, next time). > Actually i do not propose any new layers. The "layer" in > question exists > already, in form of address books, hyperlinks and search engines. Okay, I'll grant you that. > > up, you will be assimilated. You have been in retreat for > years. You just > > didn't realize it. > > Actally i am not in retreat. I just have a funny habit of > doing different > things, seeing new things and trying to know what other people are > thinking. I just have a problem with being told what I can do, what I can see, and what is correct to think. The Unified root theology has a bad habit of doing that. > What i learned so far - if technology aims to change human nature, it > fails. It is very naive to assume that brotherhood of > technologists will > stay cooperative when real money gets in. I do not like it > any more than > any other techie, but let's face reality. The control of domain name > space is passing from technologists to lawyers and politicos. Only because there is a single point of control. We need a de-centralized system. > > The real answer was to stop the incursion of trademark > crowd into the DNS. > > You can thank Dave Crocker, Kent Crispin, and their IAHC > for that smooth > > move. > > You can't stop them. They are the guys who are making laws. > The only way > to actually stop them is to organize revolution. Can i opt out? :) I disagree, as I have also disagreed with the ORSC in this. The ORSC has opted out of ICANN involvement. I have not. BTW, there are laws that protect existing business, even a TLD registry. I continually remind my self of the result of Patrick Henry's boycott of the US Constitutional Convention. It happened anyway and he wasn't part of it. > > Now if you think that they'd stop just because you have retreated > > behind yet another layer of abstraction, you are indeed naieve. They > > will come and hunt you out. > > What i am proposing is to remove the contention point. When > "names" do not have intrinsic value, nobody'll fight over them. An identifier on that level will always have some intrinsic meaning. Your plan will only effect the degree of value. > Now, the lawers will keep > hunting trademark violators - but with nothing as tangible as > single name, > they will have to prove the intent to defraud; for now > courts think that > just acquiring a well-known brand name (thus depriving > "rightful" owner of > its use) is an ample proof of such intent. Actually, existing is already that way. UDRP circumvents existing law with contract law. You give up your rights to a court trail, with UDRP. UDRP is administered by WIPO, not ICANN. UDRP decisions often run counter to US trademark law, or anyone elses TM law. UDRP pushes the burden of TM enforcement out to the ICANN, away from the legally designated steward, the TM holder. > > The inclusive root zone efforts, like that of the ORSC and > PacRoot, are > > actually trying to keep the root intact. We saw the > probability of outfits > > like new.net, years ago. We also recognised what it meant. > > It means that the ICANN soapbox is only fine because > Microsoft has bigger > fish to catch. Now imagine they ship an OS with a resolver with > "additional" functionality - conviniently pointing to _their_ > registry if > "public" root didn't yield the result. You cannot charge them > with unfair > competition because this is just an additional convinience to their > customers, and besides they already do similar things with > keyword search > and messaging. If i understand correctly, no O.S. vendor has > a contract > with ICANN specifically prohibiting expansion of search > capabilities. I > think the present new.net scandal is bound to attract their attention. Actually, this has already occurred. Have you taken a good look at Win2K yet? Pay particular attention to Dynamic DNS and Active Directory. > > We spoke the warnings, we spoke them again at the Nov00 > ICANN meeting > > that it is okay to create conflicting delegations. After all, the > > ICANN is doing it ... why can't they? There is no law that regulates > > that. > > Because the current DNS has a single contention point, it is very > vulnerable. It can be very easily taken over by a large > corporate entity. The let's design a better system. > > There's a lot of other stuff behind that, but, I think that > you get the point. > > The Internet is successful precisely because it is > decentralized. There > is absolutely no reason to make the few "natural" central points > vulnerable by having them to dispense what is considered intrinsically > valuable property. (Thanks God, NAT made IP address > allocations somewhat > less critical). > > And if you think .COM fight is nasty... in other places conflicts like > that are sometimes resolved by means of sending goons with guns. I > personally was threatened over a domain name dispute, because of my > affiliation with one popular community resource. Fortunately, > that time > that was merely a bluff.

4 4

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Patrick Greenwell 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

>Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:33 PM -0800 >From: Simon Higgs <simon(a)higgs.com> >To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> >Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. >So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the >help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and >using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else >would help minimize the load on the network help desks? > >I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net >CEO myself. I would suggest that he take a long hot bath with a razorblade. :). _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

1 0

Cisco Misrepresents Results of First Independent Test of Core Routers
by Robert Beverly 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Appologies if some of you have already seen this. Cisco reached some interesting conclusions from this test in their press release: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010314/0647.html stating that their 12416 performed the best. Lightreading issued a subsequent warning about the inaccuracies of Cisco's statement: http://www.bigcharts.com/news/articles.asp?newsid=776376576&symb=JNPR&sid=1… rob > Readers of this list may be interested > in the results of a four-vendor > core router bakeoff just posted here: > > http://lightreading.com/testing > > Each vendor supplied: > > up to 12 x OC-192c > up to 48 x OC-48c > > The entries were: > > Charlotte's Networks Aranea-1 > Cisco 12416 > Foundry NetIron > Juniper M160 > > Tests included: > > IP baselines > MPLS baselines > BGP table capacity > MPLS LSP capacity > longest-match lookup > route flapping > route convergence > filtering > class of service > > There's also a discussion of packet reordering.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Scott Francis [mailto:scott@virtualis.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:13 PM > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell > had this to say: > > > > > > Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large > majority of 1) users, > > > and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular > > > segments of the population tend to be. > > > > Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you > want to write > > them off so quickly? > > the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for > technical expertise - Not! They pay for connectivity and for you to meet their expectations. Operators are NOT programmers. Operators didn't build the system, programmers did. Operators are hired to simply keep the system running. Guess who they both work for? ... that's right, Managers whom report to owners/stockholders, who want you to keep customers happy, so that they make more money. Your technical expertise is almost incidental to that process. > if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make > informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need > to hire a network operator? Because they would rather be doing more important things, like make money, pay mortgages, go on vacation ... It's the reason that AOL stays in business. > I'm not saying that users, clients and management don't have > their place - Wrongo, they don't have a place, they OWN the place! Whatever else they may be, the customer is always right! You are simply their servent. > but I _AM_ saying that place is _not_ in making critical > _technical_ decisions that will have a significant, > possibly severely detrimental, effect on the > future of the networks they have hired _us_ to operate for them. I remember such statements, from the IBM priest-hood, in the early 80's. It was considered beyond arrogant, even then. Tell this to your CEO. They will humor you and then do what they want anyway. They may, or maynot, keep you around. But, you will certainly be marked as a typical geek-without-clue and upward mobility will thereafter be restricted. It's called a glass-ceiling. Back in the day ... you rarely saw ex-IBM System Operators higher than middle-management. > > You might want to take a long, careful, hard look at who has been doing > > the sanctioning and how they've been making those decisions before jumping > > on the bandwagon. Just a friendly suggestion. > > This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, > what way is the > Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me > (and a few others) > that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an > ultimate authority - > not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying > to do: create an alternate ultimate authority. How exactly will a user know > which site foo.com takes them to, if new.net's response and the rest of > the Internet's response a la *.root-servers.net don't jibe? The concept of > unique and separate > domains breaks down when you have conflicting responses to > the question, "Where > does this domain actually point?" > > What some of us are saying is the new.net concept in its current forms is > _guaranteed_ to create exactly that kind of confusion, all arguments about > politics or alternate addressing possibilities aside.

3 2

DSL backhaul provisioning
by William Allen Simpson 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Getting to something more operational, we've been deploying DSL here and there in onesies and twosies (well, even a dozen) alongside the dialup POPs, and not bothering a lot about adding more capacity. I've been keeping the number of modems to about 8 customers per modem, and 200 modems per T1 (roughly 8 per 56K channel), just as a rule of thumb. In our experience, this keeps the dialin lines busy at no more than 20 minutes per day at peak, and the T1s average 70% utilization at peak. Customers seem reasonably happy. We just got a bid on DSL service saying they provision at 200 DSL per T1. That seems awfully high to me, since DSL potentially runs a lot more traffic than 56Kbps modems. I was planning at 24 per T1. Who's right? We don't have enough aggregate experience with DSL, even though we've been offering it for about a year now. Individually, the chicken plant (our first installation), car parts factory, jeans factory, bookstores, etc, don't give a very consistent usage pattern. Any of the bigger folks have a rule of thumb? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOq7NtNm/qMj6R+sxAQEAfQP/VsU6X6lJ8HbAFw4N73ThML5jXDvCZE6G AfO12mLxSWNyigxGkkf/nvsDWVFFnoMgs2v+yIxm/l+ec11i3EG3P3x0efYAyAX6 Xet28KyNx335kkT+WI1dz06nVfeWqUlldS+lgQPgODV8KlJms6T8fbkCT09As3t3 cORbWFxG6mw= =Nqoi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

RE: DECNet over IP?
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Actually, you can do it using just a single ethernet port on a router. Here are the config's that we used on our routers for Banyan Tunneling: End1 ===== int tunnel1 no ip address bandwidth 1000 vines metric 45 tunnel source ethernet0 tunnel destination 10.2.1.1 int e0 ip address 10.1.1.1 vines metric 2 End2 ==== int tunnel1 no ip address bandwidth 1000 vines metric 45 tunnel source ethernet0/0 tunnel dest 10.1.1.1 int e0/0 ip address 10.2.1.1 vines metric 2 ====== That's pretty much it. Now, if you have a lot of sites and you want to keep your tunnel config's pretty simple, I would recommend just setting up a router some where on your network and point all of your tunnels to that router., but this would really depend on your network and how it is configured. Does this help? Spencer **************************************************** Spencer Wood, Network Administrator Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us Phone: 614.644.5422/Fax: 815.361.0714 **************************************************** "Stillman, Kevin" <STILLMKT(a)sysadm.suny.edu> Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu 03/14/2001 03:09 PM To: "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> cc: Subject: RE: DECNet over IP? Thank you all for your advise. Unfortunately I am working with a Bay/NortelNetwork environment. Nortel's implementation of GRE tunneling does not support DECNet Phase IV. The kludge of a solution that has been proposed to me by Nortel is transitioning the native DECNet phase IV communication to DECNet phase V, which works in OSI, then tunnel the OSI using GRE. I'm going to try it in a lab, but I have serious doubts about how well it will work. It is a scary proposition. If anyone has actually seen this work I love to hear from you. The solution that I need to create is one that will not require the DEC administrators on LANs using our WAN for DECNet interconnectivity to make any changes on their VAXes, printers... etc. That means Compaq or third party software on the VAX cannot be part of the solution. Basically it needs to be transparent to the LAN. If Cisco is capable of tunneling DECNet phase IV right out of the box, then I think I may have my solution. This would mean the router would run DECNet on the ethernet and run a GRE tunnel over the IP network on the sync port(s). Does this sound like the right idea? Thanks again! Kevin

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Mathew Butler 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Cube B23, 871 Fox Lane, San Jose, California, USA, North-Western Quadrisphere, Earth, 3rd planet of Sol, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe. I just hierarchally described my work location. Assertion (2) given at least one counter-example, assumed to be false until either restated or counter-example disproven. Assertion (1) assumed true. How do multiple roots assist #1? When I can type 'new.net' and, depending on the root zone that I'm using, believe either ICANN's idea of new.net or my personal root's delegation of the new.net. zone? Your assertion about ICQ: ICQ provides a lookup function, and the only UIN that I used on my ICQ list was my own to get it installed. Are you suggesting that instead of DNS zones, we should instead use an LDAP directory (or something similar) to look up what we're searching for? I think the idea of 'chosen' domain names is a stupid concept, in any case -- though I do admit I -like- the mnemonic convenience of my email address at home. I think it's more likely that the DNS has probably scaled to the point that it needs to be examined to be replaced. -Mat Butler -----Original Message----- From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:46 PM To: Mathew Butler Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mathew Butler wrote: > The problem is, of course, that it's NOT human-to-human communication. It's > machine-to-machine communication, and human-to-machine communication, and > DNS was designed to create a mnemonic representation of a way to reach a > machine. If it is machines communicating there's no need to do any mnemonics. In fact, it is still humans communicating, with the aid of the machines. So... we have two design constraints: 1) people need to be able to locate and revisit somethings in the network 2) any meaningful hierarchial labeling of the real world is quite impossible, and runs into problems of scaling, adversity, and entrenched notions of ownership. Propping up DNS as-is only guarantees that the whole thing is going to be pushed off the cliff on the second side. Neither it is very good on the first count. So, instead of trying to fix the broken concept, and raising ridiculous protests and indignation when someone tries to rock the boat, isn't it easier just to go for a real permanent solution? Which is to replace "mnemonic" DNS with something deliberately mnemonic-free (like numeric strings :) and leave the human-interaction part to the better and wildly successful concept of navigation in a general graph. The exising deployed software is nearly sufficient (and in many cases quite adequate) to make this mode of communication easy to use. My proposal is to create a special hierarchy (similar to tpc.int) which can _only_ be used to register numeric "names" on first-come first-served basis. The "current" DNS then can go down in flames, for all i care. Actually, I think this is inevitable, since some day someone will find a way to win a lawsuit against the whatever central naming authority is. Anyone who thinks numeric IDs do not work when "better" alphanumeric IDs are possible needs to take a look at the ICQ. It is _very_ successful in case you didn't notice. And so is telephony. And in case you didn't notice that most people in the world do not speak english, and do not use latin script, let me tell you the simple (and quite obvious to someone who is not spoiled by American isolationism) fact: for the majority of world population ASCII strings are only marginally better than numbers in being "mnemonic" - and it is much easier to pronounce numbers in a native language. --vadim

1 0