- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: The Cidr Report
by William Allen Simpson 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

> From: randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) > > > Date Prefixes > > 171196 40844 > > 171196 40868 > > 181196 40933 > > 191196 42076 > > 201196 40674 > > 211196 40583 > > 221196 40525 > > Tony, I suspect that you and your weekly report are, in a large part, > responsible for this. I thank you. Our routers thank you. > Date Prefixes 280996 42250 290996 42040 300996 42235 011096 42228 021096 42249 031096 42109 041096 41894 Yeah, me, too! Comparing with nearly 2 months ago pasted in above, this is a fantastic trend! Down 1700 routes (except sometimes). > Frank, if you're out there, has the curve changed since Tony started > publishing again? > One of the things that I'm curious about: have any of the "interesting aggregates" been acted upon? The list seems to be getting _more_ entries, instead of the fewer I'd expect. Perhaps I don't understand the algorithm. I find it hard to compare and check by eye. By simple diff, I can see that ANS and UUNET have been fixing them, since they've mostly disappeared from the list. But others seem to pop in and out, and sometimes spawn many where there was only one line before, particularly AGIS, MSEN, PREPnet and PSInet, all of whom should know better. Could that be automatically added to the weekly summary? "Recent aggregations", just before Interesting? A tally of successes that would be more clear than withdrawn route counts.... But folks _are_ withdrawing routes by the hundreds! WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Scott Huddle 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

Bill Manning (bmanning(a)ISI.EDU) wrote > > > > Include total exchanged traffic, or presented traffic, as well. > > Rank order the different exchanges by this metric. > > > > > > btw, would there be any interest in the growthrates of > > > > selected exchanges? > > > > > > Not a likely possiblity. With some of the exchanges, > this data is near impossible to gather. I'd be happy > to post growth rates in the form of participants. How about routes presented? I'm looking for a relative measure of size for the participants at the IXP, as opposed to just a count of number of participants. -scott

2 1

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

At 02:52 PM 11/26/96 -0800, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU wrote: > > btw, would there be any interest in the growthrates of > selected exchanges? > > I could whip up some numbers if folks are interested. > Yes, please do. - paul

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Rob Liebschutz 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

> > On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > If there's going to be a discussion of route-reflectors at peering points, > > I'd be happy to give a quick update on teh state of PCH, and I'd very much > > like to see a similar update on the state of CIX... (number of peers, > > average number of routes each contributes, filtering/bogon policy, etc.) > > How is the MLPA at the SF Pac Bell NAP implemented? I understand that > there currently are 8 signatories to that agreement. http://www.pacbell.com/products/business/fastrak/networking/nap/mlpa.html http://www.pacbell.com/products/business/fastrak/networking/nap/nap2-5.html

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Bill Woodcock 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

If there's going to be a discussion of route-reflectors at peering points, I'd be happy to give a quick update on teh state of PCH, and I'd very much like to see a similar update on the state of CIX... (number of peers, average number of routes each contributes, filtering/bogon policy, etc.) -Bill

3 3

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by jagnese＠pbi.net 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

>I'd very much like to see a similar update on the state of CIX... (number >of peers, average number of routes each contributes, filtering/bogon policy, >etc.) I would be interested in a CIX update also. Joe

2 1

Re: A stat on billing costs for LD...
by Vadim Antonov 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

Scott Huddle <huddle(a)mci.net> wrote: > Bell Atlantic... > In model, Binford said that against long distance revenue it > estimated charges of 28% for access, 20% marketing and sales, 19% > transport, 6% billing services, 8% administration, customer care > and fund for uncollectables. He said that left 19% in pretax > margins. >Anyone thinking that billing costs are 50%+ of charges are >encouraged to short BA, as they are about to lose a bundle. It's an RBOC model. The 50% figure was floated in relation to LDCs which have entirely different econmical model. BTW, the usage accounting costs are also hidden in "transport" and "administration". And don't forget capital sunk into the machinery required to support that. Meaningless figures again... I'd love to see some real statistics. --vadim

1 0

A stat on billing costs for LD...
by Scott Huddle 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

>From today's Communications Daily... >TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996 VOL. 16, NO. 229 > >Today: [...] > Access Reform Addressed > > BIG PLAYERS SHAPE STRATEGIES TO ENTER COMPETITIVE MARKETS > > Telecom giants plan aggressive ad-intensive campaign next year > to raid competitors' markets and expand beyond traditional base > into untested territories, executives told security analysts at > N.Y. conference. ... Bell Atlantic startled analysts by sharing > financial model showing company expected 19% pretax margin from > long distance entry. [...] > In model, Binford said that against long distance revenue it > estimated charges of 28% for access, 20% marketing and sales, 19% > transport, 6% billing services, 8% administration, customer care > and fund for uncollectables. He said that left 19% in pretax > margins. Anyone thinking that billing costs are 50%+ of charges are encouraged to short BA, as they are about to lose a bundle. -scott

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
by Derek Elder 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

This will be the first nanog that I was planning to attend. The February time frame will conflict with another obligation I have as well. I have -NO- problem with attending nanog over Good Friday. Us network guys aren't supposed to have lives anyway, are we? ;) | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder(a)accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 | ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:59:15 -0500 From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> To: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen(a)vii.com> Cc: "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)merit.edu>, nanog(a)home.merit.edu Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change This date also precludes my attending, but what the heck. Can't please everyone, I suppose. :-) - paul At 01:16 PM 11/25/96 -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote: >On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, William B. Norton wrote: > >> Hi all - >> >> Thank you to those who pointed out that Friday March 28 is Good Friday. >> >> We have worked with PacBell to move the NANOG 9 meeting up to >> Monday and Tuesday February 10th and 11th. The location is the same: The >> Grand Hyatt in San Francisco. > > Wooo there.... After already ordering my airline tickets etc.... I >think we should still have it as planned. > >Christian > > >

5 9

YAIWR
by Hank Nussbacher 26 Nov '96

26 Nov '96

Yet Another Internet Weather Report: http://www3.clearink.com/weather/ Cheers, Hank Nussbacher Israel

1 0