- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Fiber Cut In Sterling VA.
by John J. Buxbaum 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

atleast until the president calls a moretorium on time travel until all the implications can be worked out :) John J. Buxbaum <sorahl(a)tsb.weschke.com> AT&T CBB DNS Support -----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Seastrom <rs(a)bifrost.seastrom.com> To: samini(a)diginetusa.net <samini(a)diginetusa.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: Re: Fiber Cut In Sterling VA. > > Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 04:18:41 -0400 > From: "Shaun S. Amini" <samini(a)diginetusa.net> > > And the trend continues... We had 2 major fiber cuts here @ 1:00 P.M. > thanks to > Joy Construction who was digging for MCI Metro. > >This could be a valuable new technology - notice the date on this >message; we have almost a month to prepare for and try to avert this >upcoming fiber cut! > > ---Rob > > >

1 0

Bonded Pipes
by Scott Landman 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

Does anyone out there have any comment on some of the new, bonded pipe products like the WebRamp M3 or Transendmodem? From what I understand they are saying that multiple lines can be aggregated to act as one, virtual line. My question is: will the ISPs support multiple sessions from the same account (name/password) without charging N X the number of lines per hour? If yes, then these like like cheap alternatives to ISDN. If not, is there any benefit to aggregating?

6 5

Spontaneous vaporization of OSPF routes from Ascend MAX
by Dorn Hetzel 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

Hi, Has anybody experienced the spontaneous disappearance of advertised OSPF routes from Ascend MAX's. The symptoms are a network routed via a radius learned profile will just up and disappear from the OSPF advertisements that the MAX is sending. We are seeing this at 5.0Ap13 and also 4.6C with some occurrences on the TNT at 1.3A. Ideas? Can anybody recommend a less broken version (there are sooooo many to choose from :( ) ? Thanks for any ideas... -Dorn

2 1

DNS
by Jay R. Ashworth 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

> I am not a techie :-)) but it seems to me that the real > power re DNS lies not with adhoc committees but > with the ISPs. If we collectively choose to point our > DNS at other than Internic then new domains will exist > without ad-hoc committees, government interference > etc. Obviously there is concern about some of the current > attempts to provide DNS not being really answerable to > the ISP community and hence their lack of success. > What do you think? Action by NANOG members to get out > of the current poor situation rather than leaving it > to fate? What do I think? I think Paul Ferguson, et al, are going to flame you unmercifully for bringing up "DNS politics" on their precious "operations" list. Of course, I also think you're _right_. Maybe not limited to ISPs, but they're certainly a large part of the audience. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592

1 0

is there a market for this?
by Perry E. Metzger 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

I have a friend who's in the high speed optoelectronics biz and already does lots of OC-[N] equipment, and I mentioned to him that I thought that there was probably a market for PCI cards that spoke IP over OC-3/OC-12. Before I strongly encourage him to do this, I was curious as to whether anyone else felt there was a real market for such things. Perry

12 22

Re: Terminating many T1's
by smd＠clock.org 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

Hm, Neil, isn't the fact that we are in total agreement again one of the Signs of the Apocalypse? :-) "Neil J. McRae" <neil(a)domino.org> writes: > The solution to this is for someone to make a > Channelised SONET/SDH interface. Designers should look at the Cisco (sorry, Neil) CT-3 card: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/733/CT3IP/ct3_ds.htm which takes in an electrical PDH 45Mbps DS3 circuit and pulls out 28 DS1s. This is a beautiful card for anyone aggregating lots of DS1s together, and I'm pleased Cisco built it. (Consider that two CT3s get rid of most of the equipment seen in this picture: http://www.stupi.se/Bilder/3266-2012-0599/jpg1/img0011.jpg) Unfortunately it's all on the U.S. PDH standard, but hey, what can you do? --:) Like you, I would like to see one deal with SDH/SONET, and be able to pull out European PDH formats as well as U.S. PDH formats. I believe there is a market for such a card that consists of more than just you and me, although big traditional telcos will still like the CT3 for a while to come (testing and procedures reasons mostly). For the moment, however, if you have a telco supplying you with U.S.-style PDH circuits over SONET, you can pull a DS3 trib out of an OC3, and drop that onto the CT3 card, and handle 28 DS1s that way. Eliminating the need for the DS3 tributary card at the MUX and pulling an optical connection into a router would be a Good Thing as a next step, and I think that Cisco understands this. I dunno what your vendors are up to, but hey, if they want to build such an interface, then that's way cool too. The end goals, just to amplify your comments, are: -- one pair of fibres from MUX to router -- many many many lines of various bandwidths encapsulated in that pair of fibres -- de/aggregation of things like STM-1/OC3 or faster bundles of PDH and SDH circuits to be done by the telco side -- SDH/SONET is cool, and worth paying for -- SDH/SONET is cheaper facilities-wise for telcos to provide Ultimately I would like to be able to divide telcos into two varieties: those that offer fast concatenated point-to-point bandwidth (STM-1c to STM-16c, for customer and inter-POP connections, for example), who will never need to worry about PDH equipment ever; and those who will aggregate large numbers of PDH circuits into SDH/SONET in the standard way (to talk to lower-speed customers). [*] This meshes nicely with the idea of evolving three principal types of IP routers: ones that handle a number of very fast POS ports (STM-16c is nice), ones that handle one or two very fast POS ports and have massive de/aggregation facilities, much like the Cisco CT3, only at larger scale, and ones that are "special case" boxes which trade off interface steroids for packet-per-second processing time and general computational steroids (right now these are generally what I would call "edge" boxes, for use principally in talking with peers and/or customers at exchange points where rate limiting and other policy issues; in the future they could be huge NAT boxes, or only heaven knows what :) ). > SDH and SONET are multiplexing technolodgies and I wish the router > manufacturers would wake up and grab this idea. Agreed! Talk to your vendors, I'll talk to mine. :-) Sean. Footnote: [*] For the sceptical, there are already alternative suppliers of high-speed concatenated SDH in Europe. The traditional PNOs so far Just Don't Get It, and will probably not take advantage of the potential revenue stream for a while yet (big hint: if you're a potential supplier of high-speed concatenated SDH and aren't seriously thinking of pricing a few percentage points off a linear extension of PTT tariffs, talk to me :) ). The traditional PNOs are also no longer the only options for offering up a bunch of PDH circuits concatenated into SDH/SONET, either, so they face competition on that front too.

2 1

DNS
by Bill Unsworth 25 Jul '97

25 Jul '97

I am not a techie :-)) but it seems to me that the real power re DNS lies not with adhoc committees but with the ISPs. If we collectively choose to point our DNS at other than Internic then new domains will exist without ad-hoc committees, government interference etc. Obviously there is concern about some of the current attempts to provide DNS not being really answerable to the ISP community and hence their lack of success. What do you think? Action by NANOG members to get out of the current poor situation rather than leaving it to fate? Bill U-NET Limited - Global Transit Division mailto:world@u-net.net http://world.u-net.net Tel 44 1925 484444 Fax 44 1925 484466

1 0

re: nanog mailing list
by Jason Storm 24 Jul '97

24 Jul '97

My apologies to the wide variety of people aparently offended by my request for subscription, and many thanks to the people who pointed me towards the proper subscription channels. I recall being told this list was private and required references, my mistake. Jason Storm

1 0

Judge Deferes AlterNIC Action
by Randall S. Benn 24 Jul '97

24 Jul '97

Appologies in advance for the politics, but I thought many would be interested. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5414.html Regards, Randy

2 1

Re: Non-ISP companies multi-homing?
by John J. Buxbaum 24 Jul '97

24 Jul '97

Mark, You have been told by the State who you have to use as a provider? -----Original Message----- From: Mark Bixby <markb(a)spock.dis.cccd.edu> To: netops <netops(a)flycast.com> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: Re: Non-ISP companies multi-homing? >netops writes: >> >> Does anyone know of any non-ISP companies that have decided to >> multi-home? Is this a major trend for non-ISP companies running >> mission-critical applications on the Internet? > >We will be going multi-homed in about 2 weeks because the state of California >has mandated that all community colleges sign up with 4C.net, but we don't >want to give up our existing CERF.net connection. >-- >Mark Bixby E-mail: markb(a)cccd.edu >Coast Community College Dist. Web: http://www.cccd.edu/~markb/ >District Information Services 1370 Adams Ave, Costa Mesa, CA, USA 92626-5429 >Technical Support +1 714 438-4647 >"You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M) >

2 1