- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: A New Spawning...
by Bill Woodcock 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

Robert Mathews <mathews(a)gold.chem.hawaii.edu> writes: > For those of you who have not see this, I include the following > Bogus Messages Snarling the 'Net > http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/cwi/netnews/011397/news0117-4.html "For example, Viacom Inc. is working to ensure acceptable access-speed levels for its Web sites' visitors through special service arrangements with its ISP, Uunet..." Wow! I wanna hire the UUnet sales guy that dreamed that up! Wow. "Sign here, it'll make all your Internet access problems go away!" :-) -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)nowhere.loopback.edu user(a)host.domain.com

1 0

A New Spawning...
by Robert Mathews 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

Hello All: For those of you who have not see this, I include the following for your examination and critique. It reads as follows: Bogus Messages Snarling the 'Net http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/cwi/netnews/011397/news0117-4.html By JEFF CARUSO and AMY ROGERS Experiencing Internet delays? You can probably feel safe blaming the Net. Best, Robert. -------

1 0

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

>> Well, AS 666 is owned by the ARMY Weapons Systems Test Center. >And they actually *do* have lots of black helicopters, too, but >I digress. >- paul Ah, kidding. Have you ever seen a live communist? For me, that stuff is all too real. Taking some vacations in North Korea would be a nice cure for infantilism. The technology we're playing with lost it virginity years ago, and it is our duty to remember than it can be an immensely powerful tool in politics and military. We're not in a sandbox anymore. --vadim

5 4

Gullibility
by Paul Ferguson 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

At 07:58 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Ronald Barron Yokubaitis wrote: > >Bay sells to the PRC; Cisco buys from the PRC. > Haven't you figured it out yet? It's a router vendor conspiracy. Boy, have we got you guys fooled. - paul

1 0

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Paul Ferguson 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

At 05:33 PM 1/15/97 -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: > >The technology we're playing with lost it virginity years ago, and >it is our duty to remember than it can be an immensely powerful tool >in politics and military. We're not in a sandbox anymore. > Not everything is a freeking conspiracy either. - paul

3 2

Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft
by Sean Donelan 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

>deny ip 198.32.146.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (543 matches) >deny ip 198.32.176.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (10 matches) >deny ip 192.157.69.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (96 matches) >deny ip 198.32.128.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (335 matches) > > ya, ya, teh last four aren't rfc1918 but i filter them anyway (nap >dmz's) :) lot's of people announcing them. the first two are the >only rfc1918 nets i see announced on our nap routers. I used to wonder about announcing them too. I came up with reasons on both sides, and in the end decided it didn't matter for real traffic. Real traffic isn't sourced or destined for the exchange point networks. On the other hand, the users most likely to send traffic to or from an exchange point network are also the network engineers configuring the announcements. Announcing the networks make network debugging (and other network hacking) a lot easier. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

3 3

BGP4
by Derek Elder 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

Who has the best WWW pages outlining BGP tricks of the trade? And don't tell me Cisco :) I've read them... | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder(a)accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |

3 2

Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft
by Brett D. Watson 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

i wondered the same thing. here's what i see at mae-east being announed by some (i filter): deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 255.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 (227 matches) deny ip 192.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (603 matches) deny ip 198.32.146.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (543 matches) deny ip 198.32.176.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (10 matches) deny ip 192.157.69.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (96 matches) deny ip 198.32.128.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (335 matches) ya, ya, teh last four aren't rfc1918 but i filter them anyway (nap dmz's) :) lot's of people announcing them. the first two are the only rfc1918 nets i see announced on our nap routers. -brett > Why aren't people actively filter on RFC1918 announcements?? > > - paul > > >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:00:03 GMT > >Subject: 01/16/97 Internet Routing Problems > > > >Reserved Network and Host Announcements > >--------------------------------------- > >10/8 at Mae-East from DIALnet (5552) ASPATH=5552 3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at Mae-East from INAP.net (5646) ASPATH=5646 3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at Mae-East from PRIMENET (3549) ASPATH=3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at Mae-East from CAIS (3491) ASPATH=3491 3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at Mae-West from PRIMENET (3549) ASPATH=3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at Mae-West from INAP.net (5646) ASPATH=5646 3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at AADS from INAP.net (5646) ASPATH=5646 3549 Incomplete > >10/8 at AADS from 198.32.130.55 ASPATH=3549 Incomplete >

1 0

Re: Info on MAE-EAST
by Paul A Vixie 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

Brett writes: > MAE-Houston, a small NAP in the scheme of things, but it makes for a good > example so we'll use it. $2000/month to get your foot in the door, then > another large chunk of cash to connect to the Gigaswitch which all things > considered, isn't really needed. Rather than waste their money on equipment > that all in all just doesn't need to be there, why not make it more economic > for local players to get involved and cross connect to eachother. In the end > you not only save money by not bringing in useless hardware but you garner > more customers by lessening the price of the private interconnect. Hmmm. According to what I learnt in school, the cost of a connected network like a GIGAswitch or Catalyst or DELNI with N participants is: (N x interface_cost) + (N x port_cost) ...while the cost of a connected network made up of wire peers is: (2 x sum(N - 1) x interface_cost) "sum(N-1)" is an interesting function. Here are some examples: % calc > define sum(n) = n > 0 ? n + sum(n-1) : 0; "sum" defined > for (n = 2; n < 20; n++) print n,2*sum(n-1); 2 2 3 6 4 12 5 20 6 30 7 42 8 56 9 72 10 90 11 110 12 132 13 156 14 182 15 210 16 240 17 272 18 306 19 342 That means with 19 ISP's in a GIGAswitch-free room, there are 342 FIP's at a cost of, what, US$12000 each after discount? I'll betcha I can buy quite a few GIGAswitches for US$4.1M. Oops, that's not a fair comparison, since with a GIGAswitch I also need 19 FIP's. Figure that a fully configured GIGAswitch retails without discount for US$80K and that 19 FIPs are going to run another US$228K. That's still a *lot* less than 2*sum(n-1). This also assumes that we all have VIP2 cards and want to burn 9 7513 slots just on local peering, and it further assumes that a 7513 won't just simply melt if all the interfaces ever get hot at the same time. The breakeven is between N=3 and N=4. On the Internet, N never stays small. (And that breakeven assumes that the 4 people have to buy the whole GIGAswitch with noone like MFS to underwrite the costs of the unused ports; that means four people in a room together could SAVE MONEY buying the GIGA- switch.) Gah.

10 12

RE: Info on MAE-EAST
by Rodney Joffe 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

>-----Original Message----- >From: dave o'leary [SMTP:doleary@cisco.com] >Sent: Friday, January 17, 1997 3:18 PM >To: Howard C. Berkowitz >Cc: Dorian R. Kim; Brett L. Hawn; Michael Dillon; nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Info on MAE-EAST > >At 7:00 -0800 1/16/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >>Web cacheing would seem to encourage traffic to stay local. > >ahhh....yup. > > dave > > >Web Cacheing would seem to be good, except that with most commercial >interactive web sites, you have to deal with state. And until you can >guarantee that the entire state will always be carried by the client (no Ziff >Davis cookie deleter), cacheing is only a partial panacea. > rodney > Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net >

2 1