- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by John Golovich 29 May '98

29 May '98

I think either I am missing the point or others are. We plan on sending traffic through each others backbones. In essence we will be one huge network. Sharing traffic. I can do this with private as numbers? > On Fri, 29 May 1998, John Golovich wrote: > > > In the Detroit area alot of smaller ISPs are looking to create a > > peering between each other to create shorter router for wherever > > traffic needs to go (ie. transit routing). > > > > This plan has been placed on hold and almost officially shelved > > because alot of the smaller ISPs dont see the need for an AS number. > > Since it's private peering anyway, why not use 64xyz numbers? > > Not to sound spoiled or something, but once those ISPs stop being small > ISPs and become reasonably large ISPs they'll need an AS number anyway. > $500 is way too much for an ASN, but it's not much compared to what I pay > for a 4500 router. > > With regards, > > -- > Niels Bakker, * * EuroNet Internet BV > Network Operations * * Herengracht 208-214 > * 1016 BS Amsterdam > NJB9 * +31 (0)20 535 5555 >

2 1

RE: Cable & Wireless buys MCI Internet
by Pete Farmer 29 May '98

29 May '98

J.D. Falk [mailto:jdfalk@vix.com] wrote on Friday, May 29, 1998: > God, this is all so DERANGED. > >> It would if MCI was selling off the entire Internet segment >> of the company. Right now it looks like they're actually >> only selling a tiny chunk (probably the chunk that's got >> "Internet" in the name as opposed to "data services"), so >> it's pretty clearly just a token effort -- but it might >> work, leaving MCI Worldcom free to screw us all over. ISP/C's objection to the MCI/WorldCom combination was stated as follows: ++++++++++ Worldcom's UUNet division has made recent changes in its peering and pricing policies which lead us to be concerned about possible predatory actions in this regard [if the merger is allowed]. Furthermore, Worldcom has control of most of the peering points domestically through its MFS division, while international peering points are controlled by Worldcom's division of UUNet... If the merger is approved, we urge strong consideration to the divestment of InternetMCI from the merger equation. ... [Additionally,] the extent of [MCI/WorldCom's] underlying [transmission] capacity poses a reasonable threat to a broad spectrum of traditional stratification in the telecommunications marketplace. http://www.ispc.org/policy/filings/fcc19980320.shtml ++++++++++ I assume that their concerns stated in that first paragraph are satisfied by MCI's action. Commercial ISPs will be contracting with C&W, not MCI/WorldCom, for wholesale access and peering. The second concern is not addressed. However, I regard it as without merit. The merger will not cause undue concentration of transmission capability, given strong direct competitors (AT&T, Sprint) and numerous upstarts (Level 3, Qwest, IXC, Williams, et. al.). Any reaction from current MCI wholesalers or other ISPs? Pete ______________________________________________________________________ Peter J. Farmer E-mail: pfarmer(a)strategies-u.com Strategies Unlimited Voice: +1 650 941 3438 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205 Fax: +1 650 941 5120 Mountain View, CA 94040 WWW: http://www.strategies-u.com

2 1

Re: The Great Exchange
by Tim Salo 29 May '98

29 May '98

> Subject: Re: The Great Exchange > Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:56:15 -0400 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > [...] You appear to be confused, or perhaps confusing, on a couple of points. > The business case in all telecom > markets is going towards distance insensitive pricing, and even flat > rate pricing. This isn't particularly true. The cost of a phone call shows distinct changes in pricing based on geography: from my free local calling area to intra-state to inter-state to international. You are correct that the pricing within one of these four "bands" (for lack of better term) is becoming less sensitive to distance. However, there are distinct differences in prices between "bands." Once you start using the phone analogy, you might consider pricing based on several zones: o Time-insensitive, distance-insensitive communications analogous to a toll-free, unmetered local calling area. Is this traffic that uses a local Internet exchange? o Time sensitive, distance-insensitive communications analogous to interstate phone calls. Is this usage sensitive pricing for Internet services? o Time sensitive, distance-sensitive communications analogous to international calls. Is this pricing for overseas Internet traffic for countries that have significant differences between the cost of intra-country and inter-country services? It should also be noted that the phone companies have trying to eliminate unmetered (on the basis of time) local phone service. I believe that there are fewer and fewer areas with unmetered (based on time) local phone service. So, I think a closer examination of your example may yield a different result. > The cost of providing service is very low, and not > particularly traffic or distance sensitive in reality. > [...] Again, I don't know whether you are confused or confusing, but your statement ignores the differences between the average cost of providing a service and the incremental cost of providing a service. The incremental cost of forwarding a packet is obviously very small. However, the cost of operating a large, high-quality ISP is very high. We seem to expect an ISP to have, for example, a 24x7 NOC. Someone has to pay for that expense. That someone is generally the ISP's customers. The only question is how to allocate the cost of a NOC to the customers. It probably seems reasonable to charge "larger" customers more than "smaller" customers. It also seems reasonable to allocate this cost on the basis of some other variable cost, such as the size of their Internet connection, or (oh no!), the amount of traffic they generate. [I want to be there when someone tries to use this "the [incremental] cost of providing service is low" argument at the rental car counter to get a rental car for the cost of the gasoline. If someone volunteers at the next NANOG or IETF, I would like to come watch.] -tjs

3 2

rfc-1918 reverses broken again (still?)
by Marc Slemko 29 May '98

29 May '98

The reverse lookups for the RFC-1918 address space are broken again, or still. $ dig -x 172.16 any @blackhole.isi.edu ; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> -x any @blackhole.isi.edu ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; res_send to server blackhole.isi.edu 128.9.64.26: Connection timed out blackhole.isi.edu and rs0.internic.net are timing out, while ns2.internic.net is giving wrong answers: $ dig -x 192.168.1.1 @ns2.internic.net ; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> -x @ns2.internic.net ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 10 ;; flags: qr rd; Ques: 1, Ans: 0, Auth: 0, Addit: 0 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; 1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; Total query time: 145 msec ;; FROM: valis.worldgate.com to SERVER: ns2.internic.net 198.41.0.11 ;; WHEN: Fri May 29 01:33:24 1998 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 42 rcvd: 42 $ dig -x 192.168.1.1 @blackhole.isi.edu ; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> -x @blackhole.isi.edu ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; res_send to server blackhole.isi.edu 128.9.64.26: Operation timed out Heck, not having any servers for the space is a lot better than the current situation. It makes traceroutes over links using private address space (it happens and some people recommend it, even though I'm not fond of the idea...) annoying.

2 2

Oversea's ISP
by Nathy Thongphok 29 May '98

29 May '98

I need to find an ISPs that can provide me multiple least T-1s in the following countries and give me the least latency. France, United Kingdom, Russia, Portugal, Pakestan. I also need to know the latency between Bethesda Maryland to an ISPs in the above countries. Can someone direct me to the right direction in completing this project. Thanks, nathy

2 1

nice...
by John Fraizer 29 May '98

29 May '98

>Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 18:45:32 -0500 >From: "Jeff Miller" <Jeff_Miller(a)oldnational.com> >To: John.Fraizer(a)EnterZone.Net >Subject: Re: >Content-Disposition: inline > >I will be out of the office Wed., Thurs, and Fri. >Will return Monday June 1st. > > >J_ Time to teach someone how to use procmail. It seems that Jeff is sending his canned message to the sender of EVERY message going to NANOG. ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

2 1

AUTORESPONDERS
by jamie＠dilbert.ais.net 29 May '98

29 May '98

OK.. People need to learn how to use autoresponders for nanog e-mail. I received three replies to my last post saying "I'll be out of the office". If this were my list, those people with less than a quarter clue (as ass-u-med in my last post) would have earned themselves auto unsubscribes. Please.. Please people :) If you're going to set up autoresponders, take appropriate measures to make sure your listmail doesnt get replied to. Here's a procmailrc for those who cant figure it out. Please, change "jamie" to "youremailaddress". :-p :0 h c * !^FROM_DAEMON * !^X-Loop: jamie * ^TO(jamie@) | (formail -r -A"Precedence: junk (autoreply)" \ -A"X-Loop: jamie" ; \ cat $HOME/.autoreply) | $SENDMAIL -t and then I have "~/.autoreply" with the body of what I want to reply with. Then again, if you set up an autoreply and don't know how to do it right, you probably aren't important enough to matter, and you should remove it anyhow. Now I go back to my lil' lurk hole. -jamie -- jamie rishaw (dal/efnet:gavroche) American Information Systems, Inc. rdm: "Religion is obsolete." gsr: "By what?" jgr: "Solaris." (1996) Tel:312.425.7140, FAX:312.425.7240

1 0

RE: ingress filtering
by John Fraizer 29 May '98

29 May '98

At 08:57 AM 5/29/98 -0400, you wrote: >> Actually it has nothing to do with WINS. If all the ISP's would >implement > >Bzzt. Thank you for playing, though. If it were not for WinS, there >wouldn't >be a second packet being sent, no matter what junk is the payload. Thanks. I knew I wasn't crazy and seriously doubted that my sniffer was inventing these packets just to piss me off. >Now I agree ISP's should do better DNS resolution, but every MS box >plugged into >the net sending a second packet adds up to a lot of junk packets eating >up >expensive bandwidth. MS catches the blunt of the critisizm because they >are the >only ones to have adopted such a lame networking scheme, and then forced >it >down others quotes. As stated before: [OverKill]:/# nslookup www.stefcam.com Server: NS1.ENTERZONE.NET Address: 209.41.244.5 Name: STEFCAM.COM Address: 209.41.244.238 Aliases: www.stefcam.com [OverKill]:/# nslookup 209.41.244.238 Server: NS1.ENTERZONE.NET Address: 209.41.244.5 Name: StefCAM.Com Address: 209.41.244.238 By the way, Stronghold will refuse to bind to an address that does not reverse so, I knew it was right even before the lookup. ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

1 0

RE: PC Bozo's World bites again (CNN, too)
by Jeff Victor - Sun Microsystems Systems Engineer 29 May '98

29 May '98

Of course, instead of just theorizing about which factors have the greatest impact after changing the client's MTU, someone could end this discussion by performing the following experiment with: * PC with MS Windows * Macintosh * Unix box Hook each box up to the same dial-up line, using the same dial-up service. Measure response time to visit various web sites, ftp sites, etc. Perform various runs with different MTUs. Of course, to ensure validity of the data, memory and disk caches must be cleared between tests, and the tests must be run multiple times to remove the effects of caching at the servers and between the servers and the client. If the PC shows a significant performance improvement at smaller MTUs, but the other two don't, we can conclude that Windows is unusual (in a new way). But if they all behave similarly according to MTU size, Windows would be "innocent." I would be very interested in the results. Unfortunately, I don't have the equipment at home to do this. Does anyone out there? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Victor Voice#: 518-782-1046 Systems Engineer Fax#: 518-783-7359 Sun Microsystems jeff.victor(a)east.sun.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Cable & Wireless buys MCI Internet
by hhui＠arcfour.com 29 May '98

29 May '98

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,22519,00.html well, this should be interesting. --- Tung-Hui Hu (HH26) Network admin and poet hhui(a)arcfour.com

10 9