October 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Vadim Antonov 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

Deepak Jain <deepak(a)jain.com> wrote: >I suspect that they will be going completely switched and have very few >total points on the whole network (depending on what configuration they >go to). A network of OC12s or OC48s in a redundant star will have >significant performance benefits because 1) no routing, or very symmetric >routing. Except for what is in the center. Or is piling trouble into one place makes less of it? I guess just opposite. >2) very low latency <8ms coast to coast I'd suspect. Sure, dude. Faster than light networks are coming. FYI, latency in rouetrs in the existing backbones is only about 15% of wire dalays. >3) priority queues, quality of service, reserved bandwidth, etc. And nice salaries to the activists and "research" grants for something any qualified network engineer knows as A-B-C. >I am not even touching the Mae-East at 30% fantasy. All I know is that the >UUNet <--> Sprint OC3 private connect at Tysons Corner is at better than >24Mbits average and mostly limited to router CPU problems. FYI, that interconnect _is_ a part of planned extension of MAE-East which is conviniently located next to Tysons Corner (Tysons Corner is a shopping mall). The ablility to bypass shared medium by simply dragging a 10' piece of cable is why the colocated IXP architecture was selected in the first place. --vadim

1 0

RE: Internet II is coming...
by Jim Browning 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

>From: Sean Doran[SMTP:smd@cesium.clock.org] >Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 2:28 PM > >Finally, I assert that we are already at the point where anything >that can be deployed today that is based on ATM (which incidentally >typically rides over SONET/SDH) can be kludged up (or even done right) >with Cisco gear and SONET/SDH. ATM has a temporary edge in being >multivendor and making it easy to do TDM-style and point-to-multipoint >things, however the former is likely to be short-term and the latter >is something that can be done better for Internet traffic anyway, >with a bit of cleverness in the latest and in the next generation >of IP routers. "IP Unter Alles", in other words, right? Okay, I'll take the bait. This past weekend, we demonstrated (1) video-conferencing, (2) streaming video, (3) 155 Mbps to the desktop Internet connectivity, and (4) connectivity to the Public Switched Telephone Network, all over our ATM OC3c backbone, simultaneously and continuously. #1 & #2 can be either IP or native ATM, and in this case we ran it over IP. #3 requires ATM, although you can get close to it using other technologies. But what about #4? Connection to the PSTN? Please explain to me how to, in a non-kludgey manner, provide the PSTN connectivity using only Cisco routers. I certainly believe that most customers would consider speaking into a microphone attached to their PC and listening to the PCs speaker just a tad on the kludgey side. Not to mention that they would need an extra sound card to avoid having to say "over" every time they were through speaking. No, I think they want to use the nifty 900Mhz Sony cordless phone they just bought at Circuit City, and have a level of service (note I avoided the dreaded 'Q' word) similar to what they get from their POTS line. Oh, and by the way, given that the local loop provider has OC-48 SONET provisioned to this particular location, we could just as easily have provisioned the connection to our backbone at OC12 as opposed to OC3. Did I miss the Cisco announcement of an OC12 IP-SONET card? >Since these routers will be needed with or without ATM, the time >to ponder whether ATM really has that much added value in the >long run is upon people already. As is the time to ponder how all the various technologies can work well together. What is long past is the time to flame a technology which has already become an integral part of the Internet infrastructure, and which will remain so for a long time to come. There are plusses and minuses to the widespread deployment of ATM, just as with *any* technology, however it does have some undeniable advantages, and one of them is its ability to carry voice traffic independent of IP traffic, and to connect in a reasonably straightforward manner to the PSTN. Would you prefer to have voice traffic clogging up the IP backbone?? -- Jim Browning "My views do in fact reflect the views of my sponsor, and I am now going to go look for that asbestos suit said sponsor provides to those of us who are inclined to support the merits of ATM on Nanog"

2 1

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Sean Doran 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

Come on, Vadim, this is a great idea. They should build this cheaper faster better network to be used exclusively for meritorious traffic because it's in the national interests of the USA. Moreover, the the members of the Internet II consortium (hi University MIS types and management!) and any governmental funding body involved should mandate that any meritorious traffic use IPv6 *only* and set an end-to-end IPv6 option to indicate which traffic should go across Internet II and which should go across whatever IPv6 Internet exists as provided by Evil Commercial Interests at the ridiculously high prices which are being charged universities and research labs. Moreover, they should also mandate that Internet II be built on ATM, use ABR, and also use RSVP to guarantee the kinds of qualities of service that the R&E community requires. This would be a boon to network researchers throughout the USA. You can bet that I (not a U.S. national, and an Evil Greedy Commercial Bastard) also will be singing the praises of the folks from PSU, Stanford and Chicago, and their EDUCOM ally Mike Roberts and their representative George Strawn, the NSF's chief proponent of Internet II-like initiatives, because it's a fantastic idea, and the implication that it is either pork or a bad or unworkable idea is one that is beneath you, Vadim, even if the proposers leave the other requirements out of the final solicitation, award, or both. I mean, you can't possibly believe that the industry will solve or even wants to solve the issues most of the folks at University campuses have been complaining about, just as you shouldn't believe that it can't use a push to deploy ATM, ABR, RSVP and IPv6. A group of some thirty-four or so high-power customers is exactly the sort of push that will finally just get this stuff done. I can't wait until other countries jump on the bandwagon. Maybe the EU will ressurect its similar ideas, or the G7 will keep going with their talks, or maybe this could end up right in the lap of the U.N. That would be way cool. Sean.

10 12

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Sean Doran 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

| I suspect that they will be going completely switched and have very few | total points on the whole network (depending on what configuration they | go to). A network of OC12s or OC48s in a redundant star will have | significant performance benefits because 1) no routing, or very symmetric | routing. 2) very low latency <8ms coast to coast I'd suspect. 3) priority | queues, quality of service, reserved bandwidth, etc. #0: well, nobody's physical topology is shaped like a redundant star. at very fast rates, for (2) above in particular, having the network topology follow rights-of-way is a good plan #1: *something* somewhere has to do routing, and has to know the full details of what the topology looks like and make decisions based on that information and any constraints. Problem A in the current Internet is that boxes that have to know everything are feeling the crunch of complex topology and instability; I don't see how Internet-II can get around this, and moreover, I do see how easily additional parallel infrastructure can worsen Problem A for everyone (and in particular for the Internet-II connectees). Also, have you noticed Vern Paxson and Van Jacobson saying that path symmetry really doesn't seem to matter with respect to TCP throughput, or that path asymmetries even on point-to-point circuits has existed for some time in the real world? I dunno, maybe very symmetric routing might help, but aren't you building some bad failure modes by trying to force this by building a star? #2: Are you planning on building photon accelerators? BTW, what kind of delay do you get between Stanford and UCSD if you have a star topology? You can assume that your physical topology is built out of the four principal right-of-way carriers' fabric, whether leased or otherwise. #3: What type of per-packet and per-flow time budgets do you think you have at OC12 and OC48? If you can make all this happen with existing technology (or can make new technology), then there are at least four companies that will want your resume ASAP, particularly if you can do this and accomplish your #2 (assuming you accidentally missed a digit) simultaneously. Sean.

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by swolff＠cisco.com 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

>Even with "recreational" use of the Internet, the Internet today is much >faster then it was 6 years ago (T1 national backbone (singular)). <ahem> UUNET had one. PSI had one. NASA had one and so did DoE. Oh yes NSF had one too. Stephen Wolff Business Development ciscoSystems 202 337 1213

2 1

RE: Internet II is coming...
by Sean Doran 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

| The institution in the situation you describe, procure an ATM interface to the | provider. Have the provider two PVC's. Set both PVC's for EPD. Contract | the Researchers PVC as a VBR PVC, and contract the other as a ABR or UBR | PVC. In other words, somewhere close to the edge of a network fabric, some router is making a decision based on things like origin/destination or protocol number or what-have-you to send traffic across a point-to-point line instead of the Internet. Instead of building a real point-to-point line, you build a PVC using ATM, and then play games to make sure the ATM fabric does the right thing or some approximation thereof if there is contention in the ATM fabric. In the brave new world of an ATM-free future (assuming the ATM people don't get _cheap_ SVCs out the door before we get the "Peter-Tony Protocol" model deployed), you can do the same for less cost by pulling a tributary out of your SONET MUX at the appropriate bandwidth, and doing policy-based routing using your favourite vendor's NetFlow switching or some future tag-switching-like system or the equivalent. This is your PVC, no EPD or PPD needed. Cells? What are those? All each approach is doing is source-routing across different paths, making a decision somewhere close to one or both edges of a given fabric. This could as easily be accomplished by having a fabric made up of either multiprotocol routers which deal with IPv4 and something else which does source-routing, or of routers which have the time budgets to do Christmas-tree packets (all decorated with options). If you make decisions to do different queue/drop algorithms based on something decided at the edge of a fabric, or at a host, then you might not even necessarily need any sort of separate infrastructure to meet most reasonable QOS-like demands. This is your *BR game-playing with ATM, for dealing with contention. The separate circuit model has an attraction in that you can avoid having Special Traffic move normal traffic out of the way, and you avoid paying a huge penalty in routers in the core of the best-efforts Internet, both of which are serious problems in efforts like RSVP. A mix of separate circuit/parallel infrastructure vs. smart queuing in IP routers should really be done using the appropriate parts: real circuits and real routers. Playing games with ABR and friends introduces the problems of disconnected resource consumption feedback loops (TCP vs ABR, for example), which tend to compete with each other in nasty ways. Temporary circuits of whatever flavour have an attraction in that you can get a mix of parallel infrastructure and smarter infrastructure without necessarily incurring enormous cost, and without worrying about byzantine billing for normal Internet traffic. This is coming, both for ATM and for non-ATM models. Finally, I assert that we are already at the point where anything that can be deployed today that is based on ATM (which incidentally typically rides over SONET/SDH) can be kludged up (or even done right) with Cisco gear and SONET/SDH. ATM has a temporary edge in being multivendor and making it easy to do TDM-style and point-to-multipoint things, however the former is likely to be short-term and the latter is something that can be done better for Internet traffic anyway, with a bit of cleverness in the latest and in the next generation of IP routers. Since these routers will be needed with or without ATM, the time to ponder whether ATM really has that much added value in the long run is upon people already. Sean.

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Kent W. England 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 11:28 PM 10/8/96 -0400, you wrote: > >About the broader issue of the Internet II project, I have always >suspected that the "retail" market (100 M households) and the R&E >market (1000 largest R&E and industrial institutions) had incompatible >network requirements. The consequence is that no infrastructure could >be optimal for both. It would be a *good*thing* if the providers >could develop two parallel infrastructures The fiber infrastructure and the multiplexer infrastructure are good enough to support both Internet and Internet II. What the Internet lacks for Internet II today is IP tunnels with QoS. So I think that one IP infrastructure could be good enough for both and will be some day. This I believe. :-) >Internet II and the like are good things. No question! > >--MM-- > > If 100k university students, faculty and staff can demonstrate large scale personal videoconferencing, that would be a big win and a good market driver. BTW, is someone going to build traffic monitors and diagnostic tools into the Internet II infrastructure? Any new inter-domain routing protocols? Source demand routing? QoS? Or are the universities satisfied with just more bandwidth? --Kent

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Paul J. Zawada 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 11:06 AM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote: > >"Dorian R. Kim" writes: >> This sort of proposal, i.e. building a Higher Ed private network for >> research, is in and of itself not such a bad thing. >> >> The grow of Internet since NSFNet shut down has put serious strains on the >> infrastructure that researchy folks used to use to do(and still do) their >> various work on. > >You know, maybe I'm crazy but I rarely see the troubles that people >mention so often. The problems are real. We (NCSA) have users that can ftp a 500MB-1GB file to a site relatively close (Internet-topology-wise) but the the damn thing times out when they try to ftp to it to us, two NSPs plus a NAP or private interconnect away. We're sure it's not our pipe to the Internet, since we have a DS3 that _peaks_ at 50% utilization and usually hovers somewhere around 10%-20%. The problem is probably less the way the Internet has been built but the dynamics of TCP. The current Internet architecture only magnifies the problem. As Matt Mathis points out, the needs that Internet serves today and the needs of high-end network users are orthogonal. > >When I'm going between my site and another site on the net, if both >ends are unloaded, I typically get bandwidth equal to the smaller of >the two pipes into the net. Its very rare that I don't get transfer >times near the maximum expected, even when one of the pipes is >attached to a mediocre provider. (Really bad providers are another >story, but I luckily can usually convince my clients not to use them). Have you tried this with two DS3 pipes at opposite ends of the Internet (i.e. from two different NSPs at different ends of the US)? >Seems to me that if the university researchers are sick of competing >with the undergrads, either the university could get a fatter pipe, or >they could priority queue the traffic from the researchers, and either >way they would probably win. But they can't priority queue traffic coming back to them. If the undergrads' incoming traffic keeps their ACKs and return traffic from getting back to them, they're still screwed. >Even with all the well-publicized growing >pains at the providers, I think the trouble is most likely at the end >points, and not in the providers. What they want is a fatter pipe with end-to-end priority queing. (Give me the list of ISPs providing this today or have announced it. I want to talk to them.) This way the researchers can take advantage of the extra bandwidth they're paying for and the undergrads can continue using what they're using today. --zawada Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

3 2

RE: Internet II is coming...
by Chris A. Icide 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

---------- From: Paul J. Zawada[SMTP:zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Internet II is coming... >What they want is a fatter pipe with end-to-end priority queing. (Give me >the list of ISPs providing this today or have announced it. I want to talk >to them.) This way the researchers can take advantage of the extra >bandwidth they're paying for and the undergrads can continue using what >they're using today. > I would suggest the following.... The institution in the situation you describe, procure an ATM interface to the provider. Have the provider two PVC's. Set both PVC's for EPD. Contract the Researchers PVC as a VBR PVC, and contract the other as a ABR or UBR PVC. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C. > >Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer >zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications >+1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

1 0

RE: Registry Operational Requirements
by Jim Fleming 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

On Wednesday, October 09, 1996 6:23 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @ On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > It now looks like Michael Dillon will take those matters up over @ > on the "newdom" mailing list. For people that are not allowed @ > to actively be part of the "newdom" list, the archive is at... @ > <http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom> @ @ That's right Jim, because discussions about new international Top Level @ Domain registries belong there. Please don't broadcast my writings on the @ subject to other forums that they do not belong in. @ I see that you have no problem taking what I wrote on inet-access and using it to post over in "newdom". I guess your rules do not apply to yourself. By the way, when you do that on the "newdom" list it might be good to place the proper attributions on the writings. Also, who are you to decide which "forums" things belong in? Are you in charge of that sort of decision making in Canada? @ > For the record, it is curious that Michael Dillon continues to ask @ > Bill Manning about what the "IANA" will do, despite the fact that @ > Fred Baker, the IETF chair, indicated that Bill Manning's name @ > was not on a recent list of IANA members. @ @ Hey, it never hurts to ask. IANA people aren't the only ones that know @ what is going on. They aren't a secret society you know. They do talk with @ a lot of other people and I'm guessing that Bill Manning, a well known @ IETF member, is one of those people. @ Is the IANA membership list published anywhere...? @ > In my opinion, ISPs have the right to know what sort of operational @ > requirements are being proposed to operate a "registry". @ @ Most ISP's could care less about this because it will have minimal effect @ on them. A few may wish to spend some money and take a chance on the @ new TLD registry business. Those ISP's can send a "subscribe" message to @ newdom-request(a)ar.com and read http://www.memra.com/ndbg.html for @ background info. @ ...as well as... General http://www.alternic.net Boardwatch Magazine Article - October 1996 http://www.boardwatch.com/mag/96/oct/bwm9.htm How to change your DNS to support EDNS http://www.alternic.net/howto.html NSF Article from recent conference at Harvard http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/bradner.html Sample Registries with Lame Delegation Checking .CORP top level domain registry http://www.mcs.net/nic/index.html .USA top level domain registry http://www.agn.net/USA-DOMAIN.html -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0