- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: The future of NAPs & IXPs
by etignor＠rhsmith.umd.edu 16 Apr '99

16 Apr '99

>> Will co-operative IXPs proliferate in regional markets? Will this give small >> ISPs, acting collectively, more leverage with the larger carriers (Exodus and >> GTE )? >What is it about exodus? Are you sure they wont peer? I was referring to the row between Exodus and GTE sometime back when GTE decided they didn't want to peer with Exodus anymore. Exodus, collectively with other ISPs, was able to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with GTE. My knowledge of the altercation is superficial and I may have my facts wrong. I think it is interesting that smaller ISPs may be able to act collectively to negotiate on somewhat more even footing with the major ISPs.

1 0

Re: Spring 1999 NOC contact drill
by David Lesher 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

What, if any, representation does the TCP/IP-using community have in the underground utilities community? I submitted the URL of an underground utility locating magazine and know that there is a quasi-consortium -- the "Before you dig" center, the locators that respond (often contract) and the owners of the glass/copper/steel/concrete in the ground. Perhaps someone should work on getting us on their radar...? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

3 2

Re: Spring 1999 NOC contact drill
by Nathan Stratton 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Jon Zeeff wrote: > Sounds like there is a need for increased use of highly accurate positioning > systems. Actually there is, there are a few companies that will make you highly accurate maps, but they take time and cost lots of money. Some cables that are in the ground are very very hard to track. -- Check out the new CLEC mailing list at http://www.robotics.net/clec ><> Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting http://www.robotics.net nathan(a)robotics.net

4 3

NYC Outage Info Request Please
by scott w 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

Anyone got anything on the NYC outage? I heard it's fiber in the air and a truck brought it down. 350 DS3s and 12 OC3s is the word. Can anyone confirm or provide details? Thanks scott

1 0

Re: Spring 1999 NOC contact drill
by Matthew_S_Cramer＠armstrong.com 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

tech(a)ebiznet.com wrote: >Some organization needs to figure out how to have these vehicles >or machines NOT cut fibre. Geeze it's not like these people have >never seen a "Call xxxxx before digging" sign before. Who makes >sure these companies know where not to DIG or DRILL or BORE???? >What's their professional certification organization? (union?) Believe it or not fibre cuts are not always the fault of the people operating the machines or the operator's bosses. They'll call (as the sign indicates), a telco tech will come out and point to the place on the ground where it is "safe" to dig (after consulting his/her trusty docs), and then 20 minutes later **CRUNCH**. "Oops - I guess my docs are off my 10-20 meters". It happens. I'd bet a significant number of cuts are because of this. Matt

4 3

Re: IRRs
by Sean Donelan 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

amb(a)gxn.NET (Alex Bligh) writes: >Transits - I did a survey on NANOG a few months ago as to who filtered >and how (both peers and customers). About 50% of those who replied >used RADB or another similar database (possibly their own, like >CA*NET, MCI/CW, Level3 etc.) for filtering either peers or customers. >However, I suspect this number is heavilly skewed in favour of vocal >NANOG people who like IRRs. Filtering customers was way more prevalent >than filtering peers. I had asked if the routing registries had become irrelevant with the end of ANS. Alex's survey indicated some possibly influential networks still filtered based on the contents of the IRR-like databases. Although it doesn't affect Alex, April 15th is a date which means something to about 40 million Americans. Tax forms are due today. The IRS web site www.irs.gov is based at IP address 192.239.92.47. What's interesting is the lack of correct information about this address in the IRR databases which makes it very difficult for any network service provider to verify the correct source of this route announcement. 192.239.92.47 is announced by NTIS's ASN 10616 via UUNET ASN 701. I could not find a valid aut-num object for ASN 10616, and the covering route object for 192.239.92.47 was an old SURANET/BBN block for 192.239/16 indicating a source AS 1. The lack of correct current routing registry information for the IRS web site doesn't seem to have hurt its connectivity. Other the other hand, it also wouldn't hurt the connectivity of someone impersonating the IRS web site network route. The rest of the Internet just has to take the routes on faith. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

5 4

The future of NAPs & IXPs
by etignor＠rhsmith.umd.edu 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

I would like to know what net professionals think about the future of NAPs & IXPs. Given UUNET's inclination to peer only with national backbone providers, what is the future of settlement free peering arrangements? Will non-profit, cooperative organizations that require multilateral peering to participate (LINX) survive or thrive going forward, or will we see more for profit NAPs run by Sprint and co. run the non-profits out of business? Will co-operative IXPs proliferate in regional markets? Will this give small ISPs, acting collectively, more leverage with the larger carriers (Exodus and GTE )? I know these aren't truly operational question, but peering and transit is an issue that will have an impact on the international infrastructure and may result in increased regulation in the future. Are there other lists where people might have some thoughts about these issues? __________________________________ Ed Tignor, MBA\MS Candidate 1999 9204 Lindale Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (W) 301/405-4380 (H) 301/581-9478 etignor(a)rhsmith.umd.edu

1 0

The future of NAPs & IXPs
by etignor＠rhsmith.umd.edu 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

I would like to know what net professionals think about the future of NAPs & IXPs. Given UUNET's inclination to peer only with national backbone providers, what is the future of settlement free peering arrangements? Will non-profit, cooperative organizations that require multilateral peering to participate (LINX) survive or thrive going forward, or will we see more for profit NAPs run by Sprint and co. run the non-profits out of business? Will co-operative IXPs proliferate in regional markets? Will this give small ISPs, acting collectively, more leverage with the larger carriers (Exodus and GTE )? I know these aren't truly operational question, but peering and transit is an issue that will have an impact on the international infrastructure and may result in increased regulation in the future. Are there other lists where people might have some thoughts about these issues? __________________________________ Ed Tignor, MBA\MS Candidate 1999 9204 Lindale Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (W) 301/405-4380 (H) 301/581-9478 etignor(a)rhsmith.umd.edu

1 0

BGP table melder?
by Louis A. Destree 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

Greetings, I'm wondering if there is some kind of gizmo which would take a 'sh ip bgp' table from two routers, meld them, and break down by next hop AS the percentage of best routes per next hop AS. I'm looking for a better way to evaluate possible upstream providers for my network than just turning them up and seeing what happens. Thanks, Louis -- Louis A. Destree Senior Network Engineer FlashNet Communications destree(a)flash.net

2 1

Re: How good is the CIX's connect?
by Sanjay Dani 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

> > I'm debating whether to buy a crossconnect to CIX's 7513 and use it for > > UUNet traffic. I tried pushing 701 through the shared FDDI and it > > crawled, but that could have been the FDDI. > > Well I have a @Home connection right now in PA and everything going to 701 > is via CIX. Some days it is ok, but the connection sucks most days. I don't understand why @home can't get a private peering to UUnet. Both UUnet and @home got a dedicated port on the CIX router (good) but essentially are using most of that for traffic to each other. We stopped using CIX to UUnet a while ago due to flaky performance. Sanjay.

3 2