- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Need help w/internet draft.
by Forrest W. Christian 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

I've been working on an internet draft on using NAT techniques for agreggating the core routing tables. I'm to the point that I need some assistance with general internet-draft writing practices. I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction or otherwise offer general assistance. The RFC's and other docs on the registrar's web site are of little real use. Technical suggestions are also welcome. What I've got so far is up on the web at: http://www.mt.net/~forrestc/route.txt Another question I have is related to the appropriate forum(s) to discuss this particular draft in. I have no desire to add greatly to the noise level in non-relevant lists. -forrestc(a)imach.com

1 0

Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Kent W. England 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

At 04:08 PM 13-01-97 -0500, Bob Metcalfe wrote: > > ... >Is the Internet's sometimes bogging down due mainly to packet losses or >busy servers or what, or does the Internet not bog down? > ... >If 30% loss impacts are noticeable, what should be done to eliminate the >losses or reduce their impacts on Web performance and reliability? > Bob; There has been a sea change in expectation for the Internet in the last few years from "did my mail get through last night?" to "why is this telnet so damn slow?" to "why don't my web graphics download faster?" Today's Internet is pretty astounding with respect to email delivery. I don't think we are anywhere near saturating the network with email. No one is complaining about a lack of email volume or timeliness of delivery (except for server scaling problems experienced from time to time by rapidly growing ISPs). Nobody cares much about telnet today -- the Internet is synonomous with the web, which means HTTP. The recent discussions on packet size distributions substantiates that. The web is slow, almost necessarily so. The web is a completely unarchitected data delivery system with some pretty significant flaws that make the web very sensitive to path delay. The relationship between data location and subscriber location is completely unarchitected. That's fine for hobbyist use, but not for large scale information delivery. But it is pretty mind boggling to me that people think that the Internet is creaky and clanky when the web protocol and data (un)architecture is what it is. As I say, the Internet works pretty damn well for email. Anything more sophisticated needs an architecture as well as a topology. The Internet topology today is pretty well engineered for an architected web. Once HTTP 1.1 is deployed, if web caching and mirroring business deals are made between content providers and Internet access providers, the data will end up in pretty much the right place and we'll see a much better match between the data flows and the topology. The web will be fast. And multicast Internet TV and radio channels can be addressed about the same way. Architect the channels and have content providers make transport deals with access providers. And from now on let the access providers architect the data systems. :-) Or at least re-architect the wildly popular apps before they grow too large. --Kent

1 0

Predictions for 1997 [humor]
by Paul Ferguson 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

See: http://techweb.cmp.com/nc/801/801colfrezza.html - paul

1 0

RE: Info on MAE-EAST
by Chris A. Icide 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

I thought the sizes were comparable as follows... 7010 ~7505 (5 slots, including 1 RP/RSP and 1 SP for the 7010?) 7000 ~7507 (7 slots including 1RP/RSP and 1 SP for the 7000) 7513 (13 slots, no 7000 series comparable) Chris ---------- From: Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 11:18 AM To: Todd R. Stroup Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Info on MAE-EAST > Does anyone have any info on if MAE-EAST allows collocation of a 7507 now or > is it still stated that the size has to be about the size of a 7010. > > Please return email direct to tstroup(a)fibernet.net > > Thanks. > > Todd R. Stroup > Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. The 7507 is the same size as the 7010, give or take a few cm, I believe. And unlike Pennsauken, many at MAE-East have full racks available to them. In fact, Netscape has a bunch of purple beasties there (SGIs) last I looked... Avi

1 0

RE: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Peter Cole 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

People want/need information, Lots of it and lots of different kinds of it. They don't/won't wait on it. Packet loose limits the growth of the Internet by reducing the desire to use the Internet to move different kinds of information. The better it works the more we will all use it, until we get tired of waiting for it. Then we back off and: place a phone call, send a fax, turn on the radio, go to the library or the post office, turn on the TV, read a magazine or newspaper, Install a lease line, etc. ISPs that provides better quality of service will attract content providers and content consumers that want more from the net. As consumers become aware of the differences in service, low performance ISPs will decline in popularity for demanding consumers. Try and find a customer that says they like to wait 30 seconds for a web page. Several of the dialup nationwide systems are 30 second slow. As customers of slow ISPs see faster response from higher quality of service ISPs they will switch or continue to wait. As new solutions are made available to consumers like personal video conferencing, consumers will tend to higher performance ISPs. Even if a carrier delivers ever packet they receive to the Gigaswitch at an exchange point the customer doesn't care where the packet was lost. The increase in private crossconnects sends a message to the exchange points, while giving the exchange point some breathing room. In summation packet loose is here to stay. The amount will be determined by the free market system. P.S. If someone can prove they have better access than what I am buying now I'll plan on switching. AS7201

1 0

Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Bob Metcalfe 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

Hello, and best wishes for what's left of 1997. Now, if you would, ... Below are some questions I hope you'll help me answer about packet loss on the Internet. Here are two paragraphs taken from: http://www.merit.edu/~ipma/netnow/docs/info.html: "Early experiments with NetNow show that 30% packet loss between public exchange points is common for major Internet service providers during peak usage periods. The initial investigation also suggests that loss rates are closely related to bandwidth usage and congestion problems. Although some of the packet loss is inadvertent, a large percentage of the public exchange point connectivity problems reflect intentional engineering decisions by Internet service providers based on commercial settlement issues. "The high packet loss may not generally reflect problems seen by the majority of customers of the larger network service providers. In fact, increasing levels of Internet traffic are not traversing the public exchange points. Instead, many large service providers are migrating their inter-provider traffic to private exchange points, or direct connections to other providers. Merit is working closely with providers to develop tools and infrastructure that more closely reflect Internet performance as observed by the majority of backbone customers." Questions: Are you familiar with this packet loss data from Merit? If not, please see above URL. Is Merit's packet loss data (NetNow) credible? Do packet losses in the Internet now average between 2% and 4% daily? Are 30% packet losses common during peak periods? Is there any evidence that Internet packet losses are trending up or down? If Merit's data is not correct, where has Merit gone wrong? Where is there better data? Were Merit's data correct, what would be the impact of 30% packet losses on opening up TCP connections? On TCP throughput, say through a 28.8Kbps modem? On Web throughput, since so many TCP connections are involved? On DNS look-ups? On email transport? How big a problem is HTTP's opening of so many TCP connections? Does TCP need to operate differently than it does now when confronted routinely with 30% packet losses and quarter-second transit delays? What is the proper response of an IP-based protocol, like TCP, as packet losses climb? Try harder or back off or what? How robust are various widespread TCP/IP implementations in the face of 30% packet loss and quarter-second transit delays? Is the Internet's sometimes bogging down due mainly to packet losses or busy servers or what, or does the Internet not bog down? What fraction of Internet traffic still goes through public exchange points and therefore sees these kinds of packet losses? What fraction of Internet traffic originates and terminates within a single ISP? Where is the data on packet losses experienced by traffic that does not go through public exchange points? If 30% loss impacts are noticeable, what should be done to eliminate the losses or reduce their impacts on Web performance and reliability? Are packet losses due mainly to transient queue buffer overflows of user traffic or to discards by overburdened routing processors or something else? What does Merit mean when they say that some of these losses are intentional because of settlement issues? Are ISPs cooperating intelligently in the carriage of Internet traffic, or are ISPs competing destructively, to the detriment of them and their customers? Any help you can offer on these questions would be appreciated. /Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe VP Technology, International Data Group InfoWorld columns: www.infoworld.com Mail: metcalfe(a)infoworld.com Telephone: 617-534-1215 Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center, March 1-5, 1997 Registration information: www.acm.org/acm97 Register now at 1-800-342-6626 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

10 11

FYI: IP NetMonitor for MacOS
by Tom Easterday 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

FYI: If you have a Mac there is a tool called IP NetMonitor by Peter Sichel that has whois, tracroute, ping, and a subnet calculator. It is very nice and long overdue (IMHO). I have no ties to it other than I like it. You can try it for free, and it is only $10 to register... http://www.ultranet.com/~psichel/ We now return you to your regularly scheduled program of name calling and finger pointing.. Tom

5 4

NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

Other hotels within walking distance to the Grand Hyatt (415- 398-1234). Sir Francis Drake 415-392-7755 $169 Queen, $179 2 Doubles $189 King Cartwright 415-421-2865 Queen or 2 Doubles $109. Kensington Park 415-788-6400 $119 Queen or 2 Doubles. I do not have an answer yet for the room rate at the Grand Hyatt for 2/11, I will let you know ASAP. Pam Ciesla

2 1

RE: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Peter Cole 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

People want/need information, Lots of it and lots of different kinds of it. They don't/won't wait on it. Packet loose limits the growth of the Internet by reducing the desire to use the Internet to move different kinds of information. The better it works the more we will all use it, until we get tired of waiting for it. Then we back off and: place a phone call, send a fax, turn on the radio, go to the library or the post office, turn on the TV, read a magazine or newspaper, Install a lease line, etc. ISPs that provides better quality of service will attract content providers and content consumers that want more from the net. As consumers become aware of the differences in service, low performance ISPs will decline in popularity for demanding consumers. Try and find a customer that says they like to wait 30 seconds for a web page. Several of the dialup nationwide systems are 30 second slow. As customers of slow ISPs see faster response from higher quality of service ISPs they will switch or continue to wait. As new solutions are made available to consumers like personal video conferencing, consumers will tend to higher performance ISPs. Even if a carrier delivers ever packet they receive to the Gigaswitch at an exchange point the customer doesn't care where the packet was lost. The increase in private crossconnects sends a message to the exchange points, while giving the exchange point some breathing room. In summation packet loose is here to stay. The amount will be determined by the free market system. P.S. If someone can prove they have better access than what I am buying now I'll plan on switching. AS1702

1 0

Grand Hyatt for NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

Now has the room rate for 2/11 at $159.00. If you have already made reservations at the higher rate call and have them change it. Pam

1 0