October 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

3rd party ram for cisco 7000
by Eric Kozowski 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

Can anyone forward to me a list of "approved" ram for the cisco 7000 RP? I searched CCO, but couldn't find it there... -- Eric Kozowski Senior Network Engineer eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (503)656-3235 FAX Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (800)881-0962 Voice http://www.structured.net/ "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" -- 56k to DS1

3 2

Registry Operational Requirements
by Jim Fleming 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

Most ISPs are very busy trying to keep everything running and trying to grow their businesses. As some of you may have read, I asked Bill Manning, about the status of one of the documents he was working on as shown below. Bill indicated, "that topic is not something that I will persue on inet-access". No reason was provided. As you will note, Mr. Manning casually mentioned the "ad-hoc" committee. One is probably left to guess that this is the ISOC Ad-Hoc committee mentioned in... <http://www.isoc.org/whatsnew/itlds.html> Even though it does not appear that the ISOC has announced the members of the committee, obviously some people feel that they are already doing work for that committee. Maybe the ISOC can shed some light on that? 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> @@@@@@@@@@ http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom/2031.html newdom Ad Hoc committee Michael Dillon (michael(a)memra.com) Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:08:34 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Bill Manning wrote: > > Several ISPs have asked me about the facilties they would need > > to be considered "industrial strength" for a registry. As far as I > > know, your document addresses those issues. > The document I am working on is for the ad-hoc > committee. But that topic is not something > that I will persue on inet-access. So, are draft versions of your document publicly available? Are any other ad-hoc committee documents publicly available? Would IANA publicly make available any data on the preliminary applications for registry status that they have received? If so, would they indicate the number of TLD's which have been mentioned in more than one preliminary application and the number of organizations which would potentially be in conflict assuming that all such applications were accepted. And how many preliminary applications are currently known from each country (not named countries, just country A, country B). A number of people on this list, some just lurking right now, intend to apply to the ad-hoc committee for TLD registry status. Is there any advice you could give those people as to what actions they might want to take right now. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 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. In my opinion, ISPs have the right to know what sort of operational requirements are being proposed to operate a "registry". If the requirements are such that only certain ISPs can participate, then that favors those people. ISPs and network operators have a large stake in operating registries. In my opinion, they should have some input into that planning process. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:23:47 -0400 (EDT) Dorian R. Kim wrote: >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. How will throwing OC48 pipes at the university network solve the problem? Today a common university has about 10,000 PCs each with sound cards and the kids all do CuseeMe and Vocaltec. 3 years down the road they will all have VR gear attached to their PC in the dorm and will be doing netgaming in the evening. So the OC48 pipes gets stuffed and the researchers complain. Universities will use whatever bandwidth you throw at them. The reason for this is that within the university, access and use is unlimited and uncontrolled. The student and the professor have equal access from their workstation. That is why the Israeli university consortium has come up with a different solution. It is called chokepoint. A unix system that acts as a firewall/gateway. If the total access speed to the Internet is T1 then at the chokepoint one can define that port80 can use a maximum of 700kb. And one can define that telnet is guaranteed 30kb. And that 10.2.1.1 is guaranteed 128kb no matter what. This way, faculty server and faculty workstations can be given priority over student access. In addition, no one faculty member can "hog" the system. Faculty can even pay to the chokepoint to improve their service over others. An entire set of rules based on protocol and IP address can be set up and implemented. They have been running this way for the past 6 months. Perhaps rather than throwing $10M at the Internet II to buy more uncontrolled bandwidth, perhaps they would be interested in funding further research and development of this "chokepoint" to control better their taxpayer paid for resources? I am sure the Israeli university consortium would be willing to help their American counterparts. :-) >-dorian, speaking strictly for himself. Hank Nussbacher Israel

2 1

NANOG Registration
by Pam Ciesla 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

The attendee list for the NANOG Meeting has been updated on the web. If you are not on the list and have registered please contact me. Update done 10/9 at 11:30AM EST. NOTE: Last day for registration is Wednesday, October 16. Pam Ciesla

1 0

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

09 Oct '96

At 3:41 PM 96-10-08, Scott Huddle wrote: >Isn't this the same mission as the vBNS? The I-II's GigaPOPs are likely to have other interconnects besides the vBNS, but the vBNS is a component of the I-II architecture. There was one slight mismatch in that I-II is intended for general academic use whilst the vBNS basically required case-by-case usage approval; this has however been rectified by a recent NSF ruling. -s Stephen Wolff Business Development ciscoSystems 202 337 1213

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Dave Morton 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

>Sean, > >>I can't wait until other countries jump on the bandwagon. > >http:://apan.net Also check out http://www.dante.net/ten-34/ten-34broch.html for the EU contribution to the noise. Well EBONE has at least one commercial clear channel E3 pipe - Nordunet has another one and I am not counting the recently announced production STM-1 Stockholm-US not to mention the numerous DS3s that are either on order or in the process of being delivered on TA routes for commercial ISP provision so God only knows whats new and innovative about the above. Some folks just never learn (or perhaps never *want* to learn would be a better way of stating it). Cheers, Dave > >Cheers, >-drc >

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by randy＠psg.com 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

can we get back to operating the net, not excoriating it? i am sure there are other more appropriate fora for discussing the worth of the return of csnet. this forum is for helping operating it if and when it is built. maybe in revenge for us nerds making legal recommendations on appropriate punishments for net attacks, the lawyers should discuss the technical aspects of faster than light networks (thanks mo). but in one of their fora, one hopes. randy

2 1

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

09 Oct '96

At 04:13 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Richard Stiennon wrote: >At 03:41 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Scott Huddle wrote: >>Isn't this the same mission as the vBNS? >> > >> University Internet Proposed > >No, it sounds like a way for the Universities to upgrade from their T1 >connections without making room in their budgets! > Sort of... It's a way for Universities to talk to _each_other_ at higher speeds without having to pay for the *ahem* value "added" by the Internet. Higher-Ed institutions want to talk to each other at higher speeds but don't necessarily want pay for their undergrads' (or professors' for that matter) ability to download nudie-GIFs 20x faster. So while there's no more money in the budget for faster Internet connectivity, many university provosts would be willing to spend more money for bandwidth if it were used for "nobler" pursuits. Basically, they want the Internet they had 6 years ago only faster. Internet II, if it happens, would be Higher-Ed's intranet. --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

9 15

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

09 Oct '96

>Commercialization of the 'net has made the vBNS, Internet II, etc., >possible at OC-(whatever). Commercialization has pushed development of >router, modem, Unix, IP software, etc., technology far faster than the >universities ever could have pushed it. This elitish bullshit makes me >want to puke. Talk about elitish bullshit... Commercialization of the 'net may have pushed the development of the router, Unix, IP software, etc., but where did all of these things come from in the first place? The NON-commercial R&E community, that's where. (Modems are probably the exception) Did you ever stop to think that these folks may want to come up with the next generation network so they can make even more money for your happy commercial ass? (At the same time they might get some benefit out of it...) It's a two way street buddy... The Internet definitely wouldn't be where it is today without commercialization, but it would be nowhere if the folks at these universities didn't come up with many of the ideas in the first place. We'd all have our PCs hooked up to the 9600 baud circuit-switched data port on our ISDN telephones, having this discussion on your favorite BBS... What would have happened if Berkeley didn't put TCP/IP in BSD? What if there was no BSD? R&E instituions, by design, go places where the commercial sector only waits for a money-making opportunity. In fact, time and time again, the R&E community creates the money-making opportunity. I'm glad someone isn't happy with status-quo... --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

2 1

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Matt Mathis 08 Oct '96

08 Oct '96

> Sounds great. It all sounded great until it got to the part about > "federal funding". I, for one, have a problem with my tax dollars > going towards some professor being able to gawk at another > professor in a videoconference. Part of the reason that this was ok was that the NSF was likely to be picking up the tab for the alternative: a conventional dialed voice call, at about 3 orders of magnitude higher price than the T3 NSFnet's actual costs. People using the NSFnet for AUP compliant voice only saved the taxpayers money. 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: one default free, 100k routes, typical peak user data rates near ISDN, to optimally support the retail market. A second parallel infrastructure only needs to support 1000 (rock solid stable) routes, with (local) default routes over to the retail network and sufficient traffic head room to keep the researchers happy. The parallel network would be a premium service, with charges per route as well as per connection. It could be trivially built today (Is being?....) with todays technology, and it could interconnect many of the existing R&E networks (vBNS, NSI, ESnet, etc). Since the R&E networks can scale back the routing problem, they can afford more detailed routing policies and a branchier layer 2, supporting better global path optimization. The hard part is getting all of the peering arrangements in place such that traffic between the premium services of the different providers does not pass through the congested retail infrastructure. Internet II and the like are good things. No question! --MM--

1 0