April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Justin W. Newton 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

At 12:47 PM 4/6/96 -0500, you wrote: >Does the backbone only exist in the US then? Or have previous posters >been referring to NAP's and MAE's worldwide? > >I think our US -centrism is showing here guys:) Well, this iss NANOG, one would suppose a slight slant towards things going on in NA. Plus, note the discussion was concerning the US backbone. > Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services *

1 0

'Backbone' terminology
by pj＠place.org 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

Can't we just call an apple and apple and look at the internet as a CS-type graph? small single-home ISPs are leaves off of a bigger ISP that may be just a branch off an even bigger ISP, or may be a 'strut' connecting two bigger ISPs... There's little hierarchy to it, the essence of the net is, after all, peer-to-peer... --Paul

1 0

Re: Address "portability"
by Peter Lothberg 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

> > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range? > > > -- > Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc. > kozowski(a)structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. > (503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" > (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1 > Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale. Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number work in California. --Peter

2 1

Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Justin W. Newton 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

At 09:58 AM 4/5/96 -0600, you wrote: >We hear a lot about dual-homed ISPs and ISPs who want to change their >upstream providers. It would be very interesting to have some >quantitative information about the size of these classes. > >(Or, are issues related to dual-homed ISPs and changes in upstream >providers more theoretical than real?) I have worked for 3 ISP's in the past several years. Of the three 2 peer at the MAE (actually the connection for one of them is still sitting in MaBell's in box). This is a prohibitively small sample to be useful though. At most the number of ISP's dualhoming must be <= the number of assigned ASN#'s. As for leaving their NSP, I am not sure that many are doing that. Its hard as hell to do without killling your customers. Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services *

2 1

CSPAN at next NANOG?
by William B. Norton 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

Hi all - Since we are holding the next NANOG in Washington DC, I thought it might be interesting to see if CSPAN was interested in broadcasting it (a nice alternative/addition to the Mbone I think.) I contacted the CSPAN folks and they tell me that they usually don't decide what event to cover until the day before or so, but if we wanted to make this meeting open to the public (it is) and let them know the agenda, then they can consider it. Does this sound ok? Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

2 1

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Paul Ferguson 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when >> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the >> TWD would not be growing at its current rate. > >Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK >you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI >via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our >aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for >a fee. > And the global routing table grows. - paul

5 4

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Paul Ferguson 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

At 10:17 PM 4/3/96 -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >Provider X takes on some number of customers N that want prefixes and >think they may later dual home or want to leave the option of changing >providers without renumbering open. Substitute for X as you see fit. > >If provider X insists that small providers or small to medium business >customers must renumber to leave a CIDR aggregate the smaller >organization go off and get "portable" address allocations which put >them in the unaggregatable toxic waste dump (TWD). If so, they will >also try as hard as they can to get a /19. > >Some of the small prefixes go out of business. Some grow and become >dual homed. Some switch providers. Most just don't change. > >In either case, TWD allocation or out of a provider aggregate, a dual >homed customer requires an additional prefix (to get routing right). > >If a small prefix changes providers and is TWD allocated, they already >have a unique route. If they were allocated from a large provider >aggregate, one more prefix is needed. If they were allocated from a >large provider aggregate and are given a generous grace period, some >will renumber quickly, some not at all (continuous requests to extend >the grace period). Lets assume they are never forced (grace period >extensions are granted). > >If the number of small prefixes that resort to the TWD as a result of >strong renumbering policies exceeds the number of small prefixes that >move out of aggregates without eventually renumbering, then there the >strong renumbering policy actually promotes more growth in the routing >table size. > >In the short term, the difference may not be all that substantial. >Longer term, if the provider community can cooperate to aggregate >better then many of the extra routes caused by prefixes changing >providers can be aggregated back together over a multple AS >aggregation boundary. > >Since you made the comment "And the global routing table grows", do >you feel what I described above is invalid? If so, what assumptions >are you making differently? Do you feel people will never renumber if >given a grace period, even if renumbering becomes easier with time? > >Curtis > I think that its a fair description. And honestly, I don't think a substantial percentage of end-networks will renumber if there are not substantial incentives. If renumbering becomes less-painful, with time & better tools, perhaps more will renumber, but again I personally don't foresee a substantial number doing so without some incentive(s). The scenario that was previously described by Michael Dillon, I believe, was one in which a singularly-homed [to provider 'a'] end-network [x] moved to another provider [provider 'b'] and wanted to take their provider [a] allocated address(es) with them. This is a case where, if a larger aggregate is being announced by [a], then a specific component announced from the [a] CIDR block would be announced by [b]. Of course, this happens anyway if [x] is dual-homed. I think we can all agree that the peace-of-mind obtained by [x] in becoming dual-homed is less than optimal for the Routing Table Watchers (tm). :-) This just happens to be a Catch-22 with multihomed end-networks. - paul

7 9

Re: NANOG
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:31:30 +0800 Vadim Antonov wrote: >Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> >>Craig came down very hard on Bob Metcalfe and I was hoping that over >>the past few days someone would step in and explain that Bob is far >>from being a clueless journalist. I believe Craig is just showing >>how young he is. > >On my part, when i was flaming B.M. i was perfectly aware of who he >is. However, being an authority is not a guarantee of being right >or being clueful about that particular subject. My criticism was not directed to you but rather to Craig. Your response to Bob was detailed and contained numbers. Craig's contained nothing and did not add to the discussion but rather to the Noise Ratio. > >I happened to learn that hard way. > >>Bob Metcalfe along with David Boggs published in >>ACM (July 1976) an article entitled "Ethernet - Distributed Packet >>Switching for Local Computer Networks". This paper was the groundwork >>for Ethernet - without which we would still be using X.25 and possibly >>no LANs. > >That is an exaggregation. BTW, Ethernet has little to do with X.25's >obsolescense. > >>Having Bob (as well as a few other heavyweights) on this list, >>we can only come to a better understanding of the routing, addressing >>and portability problems of the Internet that we are all hitting. > >Hm. > >>Craig, Bob has probably forgotten more than you and I will ever know. > >I find the attitude of reverence to authorities a bit out of place >in any scientific or engineering society trying to be something more >than a country club. I am not saying to have blind reverence. Just listen and argue validity - and if you can knock him down - fine by me as well as everyone else on the list. But back up your comments with facts and numbers (as you did) rather than comments of buzzwords and hog prices as Craig did. > >--vadim > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: join the Internet Backbone
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:25:47 -0500 (EST) Avi Freedman wrote: >We have a local, new, competitor who generally lies out his ass and also says >'We are the Internet backbone. Only we can offer you 100% Full Bandwidth'. >They have a T1 to a provider with a T1 to MCI and a T1 to AGIS. > >Of course, they claim to have 3 T3s and they claim that MAE-East an >unimportant private exchange point between AT&T and Sprint. > >And they solicit our customers, sigh. > >And someone with 2 T1s to Sprint has been saying "We are *the* Internet >Backbone in South Jersey". I think every area and country has their liars and charletons. What you say is nothing new. You just have to keep plowing ahead and maintain a high level of service and connectivity and users will stay with you. Those that switch will come back after the FBNs (Fly By Nights), turn bellyup. >Avi > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE-invent the Net
by Jim Fleming 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 7:31 AM, Vadim Antonov[SMTP:avg@postman.ncube.com] wrote: @Hank Nussbacher wrote: <snip> @>Craig, Bob has probably forgotten more than you and I will ever know. @ @I find the attitude of reverence to authorities a bit out of place @in any scientific or engineering society trying to be something more @than a country club. @ @--vadim @ I have found that the demographics of the Internet are such that the "epoch" keeps moving closer to us. I used to think that we were lucky if we preserved about 20 years of history. That would now take us back to 1976. As the average age on the net gets lower, that may be more like 10 years. Soon it will be 4 years. If a person involved in the Internet is not "reinventing the net" every 4 years then they might as well retire. Internet careers will probably become like NFL careers. You get about 4 years out of college to make it to a Super Bowl. You may get a 4 year extension if you are not injured. A 12 year career is not in the cards... unless you can reincarnate yourself and "revinvent the net"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0