- Test - lists.nanog.org

Anyone from UUNET out there??
by Vinny India 27 May '98

27 May '98

Why can't people connected to UUNET in the southeast get to my network. This problem has been going on for quite some time, and I have had no luck with the UUNET NOC. I am in as 3064 multi-hommed with AS1239 and AS4647, here is an example of a traceroute through UUNET in Atlanta. I'm looking for some help from a tech at UUNET on this matter. Thank you, Vinny India WAN Administrator CyberGate NOC 954-429-8080 traceroute to hypertek.net (207.36.74.137), 200 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 router (208.233.58.129) 13.977 ms 3.265 ms 9.639 ms 2 disdn-2-MEM-TO.mem.net (208.233.48.142) 28.099 ms 28.900 ms 28.185 ms 3 border-1-MEM-TO.mem.net (208.233.48.129) 30.999 ms 30.737 ms 33.123 ms 4 Loopback0.GW1.ATL1.Alter.Net (137.39.2.42) 44.481 ms 41.481 ms 40.564 ms 5 103.ATM10-0-0.XR1.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.34) 42.013 ms 59.390 ms 42.370 ms 6 195.ATM5-0-0.CR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.25) 43.246 ms 51.334 ms 41.801 ms 7 102.ATM11-0-0.XR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.30) 41.970 ms 41.476 ms 49.120 ms 8 194.ATM5-0-0.CR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.29) 45.594 ms 42.698 ms 41.979 ms 9 102.ATM11-0-0.XR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.30) 63.663 ms 41.157 ms 41.841 ms 10 194.ATM5-0-0.CR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.29) 41.789 ms 43.079 ms 42.759 ms 11 102.ATM11-0-0.XR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.30) 43.895 ms 46.727 ms 43.638 ms 12 194.ATM5-0-0.CR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.232.29) 42.019 ms 48.979 ms 46.465 ms

2 1

Re: The Great Exchange
by Tom Walton 27 May '98

27 May '98

You're assuming that the internet will persist in its current form, and just "scale up". I'd argue that, as network technology becomes useful for non-nerds, consumers will pay for packaged data services and not just for "access" to an expanded version of today's web-morass. These information services, e.g., entertainment, news, etc., will be big bandwidth burners. Simple economics will drive the providers of these high-bandwidth services to the edges of the network, and hence to a regional model for content distribution. Thus, the majority of bits, if not the majority of net "accesses" (one ten minute video stream will likely dominate a residential consumer's daily consumption) reaching consumers will be delivered regionally. You can see the beginnings of this trend in the proliferation of www-caching research, products, and services (e.g., the nlanr caching studies, Inktomi and Skycache). ISPs are already finding it economical to set up ad hoc "tiered" content distribution schemes to reduce their backbone bandwidth requirements. Under this model, the ISPs are themselves regionalizing content distribution; what was global traffic, once cached, becomes local. As the data services industry matures, and exands to serve the enormous residential consumer market, large volume content providers will follow this model, locating servers at regional sites to minimize their backbone costs. Of course, this blue-sky-ish sort of argument depends on the widespread deployment of high-speed last-mile access technologies, and the development of worthwhile services offerings. This will occur at different paces in different locales; yet its hard (for me, at least) to see a much different outcome in the long run. Tom twalton(a)dimension.net > >"Pickett, David" writes: >> 1) More needs to be done to leverage locality of traffic > >In the long run, why are we assuming there will be locality of >traffic? > >It is true that the old PSTN has locality of traffic, but it doesn't >have flat rate pricing, or the usage patterns that the Internet has. I >argue that users are rarely more likely to be trying to download a web >page from near to their homes than from far away. If there is >locality, it is probably weak, and in the long run would only account >for a fraction of the traffic. > >Perry

2 1

Things I forgot
by Susan Rebecca Harris 27 May '98

27 May '98

Eek. In my 'draft NANOG agenda' message yesterday, I forgot to mention two activities scheduled for Sunday, June 7: - SUNDAY AFTERNOON TUTORIAL, 1-4pm: "Routing Coordination Through the Internet Routing Registry" (Cengiz Alaettinoglu, ISI, and Curtis Villamizar, ANS). Take this opportunity to find out about Routing Policy Specification Language, the new standard for expressing global routing policy. - SUNDAY EVENING TOOL DEMOS, 6:45-7:15pm: "Tools From the Internet Performance Measurement and Analysis Project" (Sushila Subramanian, University of Michigan/Merit). Introduces ASExplorer, NetNow, and other Java tools for diagnosing and troubleshooting network routing problems. For details, see http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9806/agen0698.html . --Susan

1 0

Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
by Tim Salo 27 May '98

27 May '98

> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:02:47 -0500 (CDT) > From: Tim Salo <salo(a)networkcs.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic > [...] > I believe that all four of the winning NSFNET NAP submissions proposed > nationwide "NAPs". I believe that the reason they didn't happen is that > the NSF asked for and assumed it would get four geographically-focused > solutions. I suspect that the notion of awarding four NAPs, all of which > covered all of the country, provided the NSF a certain amount of heartburn. > I believe that the nationwide NAP concept died, (or was killed), at the > time for administrative, not technical, reasons. But, this is all > speculation on my part... > [...] A presumably well informed observer sent me private e-mail that questioned my account. I read only one of the winning NAP proposals, the one I worked on. My speculation that all of the winning proposals talked about nationwide NAPs was based on conversations after the fact, including with authors of competing proposals. So, I believe that all of those who submitted winning NAP proposals were thinking about nationwide NAPs, but some may not have, based on the e-mail I received, included those thoughts in their proposals. At any rate, my thesis is that the concept of a nationwide layer-two solution has been around for several years, at least since the time that the NAP proposals were written. I might add, however, that we are collectively still learning about how best to make use of these very large layer-two services. -tjs

2 1

Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
by Michael Gibson 27 May '98

27 May '98

CANIX is a co-operative peering point for National Canadian Traffic. Currently, they are seven national ISPs exchanging traffic at that point. Mike Gibson - Netcom Canada -----Original Message----- From: Damian O'Gorman <damian(a)cyberdude.com> To: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: 5/26/1998 17:31 Subject: Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic >> Of course, not every local ISP participates. The state subsidized >> education network doesn't connect, nor do some the dialup ISPs. But >> it gets a reasonable level of support from several of the larger >> area providers. >> > >The same type of project was attemted in Toronto. CANIX was essentially set >upto cross connect traffic rather than having to traverse the entire US >network to get >to the other side of Toronto. The problem was, it became an exclusive >bilateral peering >arrangemt with 6 players. That was 1 1/2 years ago. Currently only 2 are >peered. What in fact was the point. UUnet and Sprint were the big players up >here and nobody appears to want to cooperate. > >> But exchange points are one of those weird creatures. If I'm paying >> a big expensive backbone, why would I get anything from a local exchange >> point? And of course, the ever popular "What's the catch?" Since >> local exchange points are generally run on a non-profit basis, that >> means there isn't a large marketing organization, or a huge gaggle of >> salespeople trying to sell it. If you like, we can call it a "managed >> connection" and charge you $1,000/month. But that seems steep for >> essentially a port on a catalyst switch. >> >> > >Damian O'Gorman > >

2 1

Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
by Sean Donelan 27 May '98

27 May '98

>Currently there are at least 60 ISPs serving the San Diego county >area. There are LOTS of packets from "home" to "office" that make a >round-trip via MAE-West. Some people have decided that this is >silly. Even if it is "cost-effective", it *squanders* bandwidth at >MAE-West that could best be used for other traffic. This is true in almost every major metro area. I help found an exchange point in St. Louis. Not MAE-East levels of traffic, the exchange peak at about 2.4 Mbps of traffic (more than a T1's worth). http://www.stlouix.net/ But that's 2.4Mbps of traffic that didn't travel 2,000 miles to get across town. Of course, not every local ISP participates. The state subsidized education network doesn't connect, nor do some the dialup ISPs. But it gets a reasonable level of support from several of the larger area providers. But exchange points are one of those weird creatures. If I'm paying a big expensive backbone, why would I get anything from a local exchange point? And of course, the ever popular "What's the catch?" Since local exchange points are generally run on a non-profit basis, that means there isn't a large marketing organization, or a huge gaggle of salespeople trying to sell it. If you like, we can call it a "managed connection" and charge you $1,000/month. But that seems steep for essentially a port on a catalyst switch. But we've found once an ISP connects, they generally keep it. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

5 4

Re: The questions stand
by John Fraizer - Administrator 27 May '98

27 May '98

>You're saying that you never experience packet loss to _any_ destination >unless it's some kind of emergency situation? I find that hard to >beleive. What if the destnation's network is chronically congested? Or >if the exchange point between your upstream provider and the destination's >provider is congested? Or some other fill_in_the_blank ongoing >non-emergency problem at the destiantion? No. I was referring to packet loss due to problems here at ENTERZONE or at FNSI.NET. God knows I we can't control what happens to a packet once it hits that VA based ISP. I would swear that they are releaving congestion on their internal network by load balancing between /dev/null and /dev/void at the MAEs. (grin) >I have no doubt that you maintain an excellent network, and that you have >an excellent working relationship with your upstream provider, but how are >they going to control what is occuring within {big Tier 1 provider}. They can't. But they can weight their session with "medium Tier 1 provider" as preferred if the agreement allows until "B.T.1.P" gets a clue or enough complaints from their peers and customers. ------- John Fraizer (tvo) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:tvo@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

1 0

different thinking on exchanging traffic
by Jonathan Arneault 27 May '98

27 May '98

A few days ago I posted a proposal for traffic exchange across an ATM backbone specifically designed for that purpose. I am suggesting an NxOC-48 network with peers purchasing DS3 connections at their various geographic locations, and establishing ATM PVCs with specified CBR's to their respective peers. Each DS3 connection would allow up to 5 PVCs, with over-subscription at a 2 to 1 maximum. In this scenario, a flat pricing for a port would be about 5K/month, and CBR's would be set at a maximum of 10K/mo for full DS3 bandwidth. Since the beginning of this thread, I have been in contact with several venture capital firms to feel out the support from the financial world about making this do-able. I have estimated the costs involved with the fiber and switch purchases at about US 691MM for sunk capital costs, and approximately 250K/mo for operating expenses. With strong indications of its fiscal viability, I am now asking you, the potential consumers of such a service, your distinct opinions, and whether or not you would purchase such a service if made available. Specifically, if I build it, will you come. Your response will determine whether or not I will proceed in my discussions with the VCs, and will probably be incorporated into a supporting document in the application for funding. It is understood that no statement you make in regard to this letter will be legally binding, and will in no wise obligate you to purchase this service if and when it becomes available. I'm really asking you all to do me a favor by letting me know if you'd like to see this or not. If so, great. If not, I'd rather spend my energy on something that'll be successful. Please respond to me directly, and include your name, title, your company's name, and a day-time telephone number. Thanks much, Jonathan Arneault jarneault(a)inet-solutions.net

5 4

Suggestion for improved identD
by Ehud Gavron 26 May '98

26 May '98

Suggestion: PPP access devices intercept identD requests and return the authenticated access string. Reasoning: Modern ``stacks'' used by end-users -- especially those on throwaway accounts, fake any identD response. This makes tracking those people tougher. Methods: 1: identD v2, new port, intercepted by access devices which support it. 2: modification to hosts requirement RFCs, making access devices responsible for intercepting identD requests to their PPP clients. 3: a security RFC ``suggesting'' 1 or 2 Thoughts appreciated, as are comments, flames, blames, and anything of some content. Ehud gavron(a)aces.com p.s. new beta traceroute at ftp.aces.com cd pub/software/traceroute/beta

19 30

Draft NANOG Agenda
by Susan Rebecca Harris 26 May '98

26 May '98

Greetings - here's a draft agenda for the June 1998 NANOG. On Monday evening, we'll also feature demos of freely available routing tools and other BOFs - stay tuned for more information. For meeting details, see http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9806/update.html . Looking forward to seeing you! ---------------------------------- SUNDAY, June 7: Evening Tutorials 7:15 p.m. Introduction to Multicast (Dave Meyer, Cisco Systems) 8:45 p.m. Interesting Things You Can Do With OSPF (Howard Berkowitz) MONDAY, June 8 9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, Future Meetings (Bill Norton, Merit) 9:30 a.m. Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet (Van Jacobson, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 10:00 a.m. QoS and Ebone: Issues and Potential Solutions (Sean Doran, Ebone) 10:30 a.m. BREAK 10:45 a.m. Differentiated Services Panel: Working Group Update and Viewpoints From the Community (Kathleen Nichols, Bay Networks, moderator) Priority Service for Internet Traffic (Van Jacobson, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) Differentiated Services Support in Cisco Routers (Fred Baker. Cisco) TBA (Peter Ford, Microsoft) 12:15 p.m. - 1:45 p.m. LUNCH 1:45 p.m. Introduction to the NETPERF.NET Inter-Provider Network Performance Monitoring Project (Avi Freedman, Net Access) 2:00 p.m. Path and Round-Trip Time Measurements: a New Project at CAIDA (Daniel McRobb, CAIDA (Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis)) 2:30 p.m. Building Large-Scale Internet Measurement Infrastructure (Vern Paxson, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 3:00 p.m. Update from the IPMA Project (Craig Labovitz, Merit) 3:30 p.m. BREAK 3:45 p.m. Roadmap to a Distributed Registry: Transition to RPSL (Routing Policy Specification Language) (Cengiz Alaettinoglu, ISI, Curtis Villamizar, ANS) TUESDAY, June 9 9:00 a.m. Overview of FBI Computer Investigations (Scott Larson, FBI) 9:45 a.m. Network-based Denial of Service Attacks: Descriptions and How to Protect Your Network (Craig Heugen, Cisco) 10:15 a.m. What Is a VPN? (Paul Ferguson, Cisco) 10:45 a.m. BREAK 11:00 a.m. Dial-in VPN Using Layer 3 Tunneling (Gary Malkin, Bay Networks) 11:30 a.m. Broadband VPNs - Outsourcing ISP services to Cable TV and XDSL Providers (Bruce Perlmutter, Bay Networks) 12:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. Implementing Simplex IP Bandwidth Augmentation and IP-based News and HTTP Broadcast Services via Geosynchronous Satellite (Avi Freedman, Net Access) 2:00 p.m. Scaling and Other New BGP Features (Mark Turner, Cisco) 2:30 p.m. ARIN Update (Kim Hubbard, ARIN) 2:45 p.m. BREAK 3:00 p.m. InterNIC Update (Mark Kosters, InterNIC) 3:30 p.m. Update on UCAID, Internet2, and the Abiline Project (Guy Almes, UCAID) 4:00 p.m. Closing Remarks (Bill Norton, Merit)

1 0