- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

***New Site : IPTelephonyJobs.com***
by ip telephonyjobs 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

Hello, We have launched IPTelephonyJobs.com. The site is dedicated to IP Telephony professionals. The following areas are specifically targeted among others: VoIP (h.323, mgcp, sip, megaco, call agents...) PSTN(ss7, isdn, ain/in,..) Wireless(gprs, cdma, gsm,...) IP Routing/Switching + others Services offered to Job Seekers: - Profile only entries lets you keep your personal information private. - Profile + Resume entries lets the employer have a better understanding of your background. - Control access to your resume on demand. So just drop by our site and fill in your profile. http://www.iptelephonyjobs.com _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

1 0

RE: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

> smd(a)clock.org, Sunday, September 10, 2000 6:38 AM wrote: Excellent Post, BTW. > | The bottom-line appears that everyone is waiting for > everyone else to > | twitch first, then the shoot-out starts. However, no one is all that > | interested in twitching. > > Also, nobody is willing to get shot! > > The deployment of IPv6 is going to be EXPENSIVE in terms of real opex > and probably real capex as well, it IS going to be visible on > the bottom > line of every ISP on the planet, eroding whatever margins one has. > | The real question is whom is benefiting from sustaining the current > | situation? > Now, ironically, in the whole IPv6 selection process in the IETF, > there were multiple proposals which paid a considerable amount of > attention to the problems of partial, incremental deployment at > the initial design level. CATNIP in particular was clever, because > it provided not just a new packet format (which is all IPv6 did), but > also a strategy to transition to practically ANY new packet format, > should the initial assumptions about the pervasiveness of IPX and CLNP > be wrong (which they were). > > IPv6's initial assumptions are WRONG (we will die from > routing dynamicism I tend to agree here that routing is one of our largest bugga-boos. What we have is held together with spit, baling-wire, and liberal amounts of the "racer's edge" (duct-tape). With CERF.NET bouncing all over the place, for the past three weeks, maybe I've become hyper-sensitive to those issues. But, it appears to me that the entire BGP system is a very brittle patch. It is for this reason that I recommend ABOVE.NET to all my globally visible portal/ASP/B2B clients. However, this doesn't relieve the problem of the end-user being outside the ABOVE.NET system and having to live with cold-potato routing, for uploading files to the site. We have too few public peering-points and they are under-sized (what happened to the regional NAP idea?). > Who will take the chance of a huge investment in managing > IPv6 deployment, when it is not a given that IPv6 really > will be the header networks will use after IPv4? > We're talking about stranded assets being > the only thing one gets for the money... What you are saying is that going to IPv6 is a one-way function? I've actually looked at some of this. At the risk of ridicule, may I mention Flemming's IPv8? It nested IPv4 inside the packet, as a sub-set, and actually planned for co-existance and inter-operability with IPv4. It also answered a LOT of routing issues. Regardless of specific implementation, that seems like a more prudent approach. Does anyone know why such an approach-policy wasn't followed by the IPv6 team? Yes, I agree that CATNIP was also clever. With a little work, it "could have been a contender" (Brando<g>). The choice of IPv4 and IPv6 shouldn't be an XOR function and the point remains that transition was not a consideration of the IPv6 design (this is obvious). In most commercial shops, such an approach would not have been accepted/tolerated. Let alone, win any sort of design contest, as did IPv6.

1 0

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by smd＠clock.org 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

The solution is in a complete separation of "what" from "where", and using the "what" part to identify conversations INDEPENDENTLY from the topology across which they are desired/occurring. There are many ways to get there. More on that after dinner... Sean.

1 0

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by Jon Allen Boone 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

smd(a)clock.org writes: > Oh, but alas, the fatal disease IPv4 users are faced with, namely the > failure of the global routing system to cope with increasingly complex > and increasingly dynamic network topology, is not cured by > IPv6-Morphine, it is EXACERBATED by it. Sean, What do you think the solution is? Or, at least, in which direction does it lie? -Jon -------------------------------------------------- Jon 'tex' Boone (610) 466-0477 tex(a)delamancha.org http://delamancha.org --------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by smd＠clock.org 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

Marshall Eubanks asks: | What about wireless IP? Isn't everyone supposed to be forced to adopt IPv6 | once billions of mobile units start using it ? So, the problem here is that the very smart doctors of the IETF observe a number of people complaining about hunger pangs, because they cannot get the number of ROUTABLE addresses that they want. Enter IPv6, the Morphine of the Internet. The bright side is that, like morphine, it makes the patient much less hungry, but there are unpleasant side-effects, and no added nutrition. It also distracts one from real problems by introducing an euphoric "solution" to a migraine headache. Sure, you can have all the addresses you can ever want, and more, but the fact is that they are not ROUTABLE addresses. A 128-bit number is no more useful than a 32-bit number if nobody can use it to contact you. The unfortunate thing about IPv6-Morphine is that like any narcotic one sees things in a dreamy, rosy state, tinted with denial. Those good doctors took away my pain, so they can take away any future pain too. Oh, but alas, the fatal disease IPv4 users are faced with, namely the failure of the global routing system to cope with increasingly complex and increasingly dynamic network topology, is not cured by IPv6-Morphine, it is EXACERBATED by it. Like many narcotics junkies, the wireless folks are simply of the belief that the dealers are their friends. Sean.

1 0

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by smd＠clock.org 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

If I charge a customer more for IPv6 connectivity than for IPv4 connectivity, to offset the costs of dealing with ships-in-the-night routing (deploying it, training everyone to understand it), do you think my entire customer base is going to transition over to IPv6? Ask yourself, as an ISP, how much more you are willing to pay your transit providers for IPv4 + IPv6 transit, and how you are going to get the money for that and for the deployment/retraining costs. Then ask yourself, as an ISP, what benefit you get from IPv6. My answers: not a chance, none, and zero, respectively. Sean.

10 16

AT&T connectivity (was RE: UUnet Kansas City/Denver )
by Sean Donelan 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

AT&T Worldnet reports a problem near Columbia, Missouri. I don't know how much shared fiber or right of way UUNET and ATT have in the area. Apparently I'm still on the blacklist at WCOM since they won't talk to me. "Adam Korab" <adam(a)inetnebr.com> writes: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:21:15PM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > UU is claiming a fiber cut, however we utilize all local > > carriers with > > numerous circuits which are all running fine. > > > Thank you Bryan. Do you use AT&T? I was thinking that AT&T > might be the "carrier" UUnet was referring to, and as I > udnerstand, they > were also having pretty major problems.

1 0

RE: UUnet Kansas City/Denver
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

My upstream is Cerf.NET, whom is apparently now owned by AT&T. They are absorbing the CERF.NET backbone into AT&T. I have been having sporadic connectivity for the past three weeks. Apparently, the feast isn't going quite as smoothly as planned. I expect sporadic major outages for the remainder of the year, from this bunch. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Heitman [mailto:bryanh@communitech.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 5:37 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver > > > > Yes Erik we use AT&T, however that is for only local > circuits. We don't > have any long haul with them which is probably why we're not > seeing any > problems... > > If I had to guess I would say that Kingdom City is in AT&Ts path that > connects KC and St. Louis. As it is about in the center of the state > directly east of KC. > > Best, > > > > Bryan Heitman, Vice-President > CommuniTech.Net, Inc. - (800) WEB-HOST > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Korab" <adam(a)inetnebr.com> > To: "Bryan Heitman" <bryanh(a)communitech.net> > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 7:29 PM > Subject: Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver > > > > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:21:15PM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > > UU is claiming a fiber cut, however we utilize all local > carriers with > > > numerous circuits which are all running fine. > > > > Thank you Bryan. Do you use AT&T? I was thinking that AT&T > > might be the "carrier" UUnet was referring to, and as I > udnerstand, they > > were also having pretty major problems. > > > > --Adam > > -- > > Adam Korab System Administration > > Internet Nebraska (402) 434-8680 x 110 > > > > RFC 882 put the dot in .com, not Sun Microsystems > >

1 0

Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver
by Bryan Heitman 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

Yes Erik we use AT&T, however that is for only local circuits. We don't have any long haul with them which is probably why we're not seeing any problems... If I had to guess I would say that Kingdom City is in AT&Ts path that connects KC and St. Louis. As it is about in the center of the state directly east of KC. Best, Bryan Heitman, Vice-President CommuniTech.Net, Inc. - (800) WEB-HOST ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Korab" <adam(a)inetnebr.com> To: "Bryan Heitman" <bryanh(a)communitech.net> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 7:29 PM Subject: Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:21:15PM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > UU is claiming a fiber cut, however we utilize all local carriers with > > numerous circuits which are all running fine. > > Thank you Bryan. Do you use AT&T? I was thinking that AT&T > might be the "carrier" UUnet was referring to, and as I udnerstand, they > were also having pretty major problems. > > --Adam > -- > Adam Korab System Administration > Internet Nebraska (402) 434-8680 x 110 > > RFC 882 put the dot in .com, not Sun Microsystems

1 0

UUnet Kansas City/Denver
by Adam Korab 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

My T1s to UUnet's Kansas City POP began having routing trouble this afternoon about 3:00pm central time. The lines are up, but no data is passing through them. A sh ip bgp sum reports that only 563 prefixes are coming through, as opposed to the normal 70k-80k. www.noc.uu.net is terribly vague about the trouble, and I can't get through to anyone on their tech support line; does anyone have a ticket number, ETR, or other information about this problem? Thanks. --Adam -- Adam Korab System Administration Internet Nebraska (402) 434-8680 x 110 RFC 882 put the dot in .com, not Sun Microsystems

2 1