December 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by salo＠msc.edu 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

> To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG > Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:48:15 -0800 > From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > > > > That's fixed by having multiple note-takers. > > > > Yes, that is certainly one approach. Then the issue becomes collecting > > information from presenters and note-takers to build the on-line meeting > > notes. > > I don't agree. The issue remains: if multiple note-takers are available, > why isn't someone stepping forward to help out with the *current* work? Sounds like a good proposal opportunity. [I wonder if there is a funding source other than the U.S. Federal Government that would be receptive to such a proposal.] -tjs

1 0

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by Paul Ferguson 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

For crying out loud, this should be the least of our worries. :-) - paul At 12:48 PM 12/4/96 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote: >> > That's fixed by having multiple note-takers. >> >> Yes, that is certainly one approach. Then the issue becomes collecting >> information from presenters and note-takers to build the on-line meeting >> notes. > >I don't agree. The issue remains: if multiple note-takers are available, >why isn't someone stepping forward to help out with the *current* work? > >

1 0

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Danny Stroud 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

Good point on the CO issue. I was not suggesting that the telco CO was a direct analog for Internet exchange points. I might not have made my point clearly. Let me try again. What I meant was that the demand for traffic seems to be growing faster than technologies ability to deliver it. Even with the planned *new* technologies, I am predicting that there will be a point where the traffic of the exchange points will need to bifurcate simply to be able to process the load, i.e. more *smaller* exchange points all running at top capacity of the available technology. It's not exactly the same analysis of costs for the final mile that drove the telco CO deployment, but the idea is the same: sometimes available technology defines the strategy. Any better? des ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Todd Graham Lewis Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 3:46 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Exchanges that matter... On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Danny Stroud wrote: > Actually, I think the issue is not about moving. It is more about developing > *new* facilities now to handle the forecasted demands. Certainly a valid pov. > As the Internet becomes > more pervasive and the expectations of the users (and investors) become > higher, we (the Internet access provider community) will need to have better, > cheaper, faster, more resilient, etc. etc. networks. Yep, uh huh. > I find it hard to fathom > a completely pervasive network routing through a few exchange points. Why not? More below. > As the > national telco infrastructure evolved over the last few decades (with CO's on > just about every corner) so will go the Internet. But with most of the major backbone providers we're rapidly approaching POPs in every city as it is, and any finer granularity really doesn't make much sense, except maybe in the mega-cities. Exchange points are not analogous to COs; major routing problems ensue as the number of exchange points increase. E.g., if there were three EPs per continent, and if each major network connected to these three EPs, and a requirement for connecting to the EPs was that you have a fully redundant backbone, what would be the problem? > I admire the foresight of > those attempting to develop new exchange points. I do not envy the uphill > battle they have before them. des I don't envy them either, but I'm beginning to question the "a chicken in every pot and a NAP on every corner" approach to network design. Of course, I don't strictly have to worry about these things; that's why I and AOL and most network operators have upstream network providers. __ Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering Mindspring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com (800) 719 4664, x2804

4 5

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by sob＠academ.com 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

> > > > The only disadvantage for me is that I can't do note for multiple groups > > meeting at the same time, at least not with the current temporal displacement > > technology :-). > > > > That's fixed by having multiple note-takers. Yes, that is certainly one approach. Then the issue becomes collecting information from presenters and note-takers to build the on-line meeting notes. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

2 1

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Vadim Antonov 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

Danny Stroud <dannystroud(a)msn.com> wrote: >What I meant was that the demand for traffic seems >to be growing faster than technologies ability to deliver it. Even with the >planned *new* technologies, I am predicting that there will be a point where >the traffic of the exchange points will need to bifurcate simply to be able to >process the load, i.e. more *smaller* exchange points all running at top >capacity of the available technology. There's at least one way to make IXPs to handle nearly arbitrary amount of traffic; so this is not a fundamental problem. It's only a matter of time and money. http://www.pluris.com explains how it can be done. In other words, traffic is not the problem. It is more economical to have fewer high-capacity facilities instead of a zillion of lower capacity ones. BTW, the number of switch sites LDCs have is a lot less than the number of their POPs, for exactly that reason. --vadim

1 0

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Vadim Antonov 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

Todd Graham Lewis <lists(a)reflections.mindspring.com> wrote: >Exchange points are not analogous to COs; major routing problems ensue as >the number of exchange points increase. Yep. There's no magic solution for that (Nimrod-style global link-state _may_ help, but i'm not sure). > I admire the foresight of > those attempting to develop new exchange points. I do not envy the uphill > battle they have before them. des >I don't envy them either, but I'm beginning to question the "a chicken in >every pot and a NAP on every corner" approach to network design. Well, the "small NAPs" are pretty much useless, as most traffic goes beyond the geographical area served by a "small NAP"; and the "large NAPs" can be in dozens, but _not_ hundreds or thousands. The "NAP in every corner" is simply a manifestation of the rampant cluelessness in regard to the global routing. >Of course, I don't strictly have to worry about these things; that's why I >and AOL and most network operators have upstream network providers. Well, AOL has its upstream provider in a different sense :) --vadim

1 0

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by sob＠academ.com 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

The only disadvantage for me is that I can't do note for multiple groups meeting at the same time, at least not with the current temporal displacement technology :-). -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

3 2

New MLPA/Route Reflectors Page
by Mike Leber 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

Bill Manning has added a new MLPA/route reflector page (http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/mlpa.html) to his NAP information site that currently lists three (CIX, PCH, and the SF Pac Bell NAP). Is anybody aware of others? Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Danny Stroud 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

Actually, I think the issue is not about moving. It is more about developing *new* facilities now to handle the forecasted demands. As the Internet becomes more pervasive and the expectations of the users (and investors) become higher, we (the Internet access provider community) will need to have better, cheaper, faster, more resilient, etc. etc. networks. I find it hard to fathom a completely pervasive network routing through a few exchange points. As the national telco infrastructure evolved over the last few decades (with CO's on just about every corner) so will go the Internet. I admire the foresight of those attempting to develop new exchange points. I do not envy the uphill battle they have before them. des ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Alec H. Peterson Sent: Monday, December 02, 1996 10:07 AM To: Nathan Stratton Cc: Paul A Vixie; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... On Nov 29, 1996, Nathan Stratton wrote: > > Yes, true, it would be great of MAE-West of PACBell just moved to PAIX, > but I don't think it is worth adding a view when you have established NAPs > in the area. I learned this when I when I was building Atlanta-NAP I > wanted to build a place better then PAIX (and they did the best job so > far), but I found out that people don't care. If I build a NAP that was > 100 times nicer then MAE-East (and that would not be hard at all) people > would not just move. Asking people to relocate their high-bandwidth peering point connections is not likely to be successful unless you give them a cheap, easy way to do it. Using the MAE-east/Atlanta-NAP example, why would people pay thousands more dollars per month to backhaul traffic to Atlanta when they can exchange it locally? It just doesn't make sense, and really defeats the purpose of having a local exchange point. Sure, the number of hops would be the same, but if a packet has to move between two DC-area providers, it makes little sense for it to travel down the east coast and back up again. But the biggest reason that people will not move their peering point connections from one place to another is that it will break things. Also, it will be a huge pain in the ass. If things are functioning reasonably well, there is little point in moving everything around. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - chuckie(a)panix.com | Panix Public Access Internet and UNIX| |Network Administrator/Architect | New York City, NY | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: The Cidr Report
by gih＠telstra.net 03 Dec '96

03 Dec '96

There is no "absolute" point at which to take these measurements. Any point will be coloured (colored) by its relative Internet location with respect to amounts of local detail and aggregated distant detail. Thanks, Geoff Tony said: >Well I did a bit of digging at the sudden difference we are seeing. A >lot of this points to different levels of aggregation at different >points in the Internet. I took a dump from Bill's box at ?LA? and from the >xara.net router I use at Mae-east and saw one immediate example of >this. Here's the prefixes announced out of the 206.16/16 (belongs to >CERFNET) block.

4 3