April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Address "portability"
by matthew＠scruz.net 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

> 1. If everyone in area code 213 (for instance) decided to exercise number > portability and move their existing number to a new provider, that'd be > about 3.7 million "host routes" with NO possibility of aggregation. ^^^ Excuse my miscalculation here... I believe that's closer to 8 million,... finger slipped while calculating. -matthew

1 0

Re: Address "portability"
by matthew＠scruz.net 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

Original message <199604052143.NAA28351(a)gw.home.vix.com> From: scharf(a)vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Apr 5, 13:43 Subject: Re: Address "portability" > > > > > > > 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 > > >-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg > > > > > > The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California, > > with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be > > fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the > > same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly > > the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs > > are regulated, and they get the same mandate. > > > > -matthew kaufman > > matthew(a)scruz.net > > > > Not quite. If I move today from San Francisco to San Jose, I have to renumber > because of area codes. This provides first level hierarchy, which the Internet > doesn't have (actually second, country codes are the first). The phone > companies also have settlements worked out, such that a cutout costs the > group getting the cutout, not the group who has the base or the IXC. Phone > routing are vastly more restrictive than IP routing. > > Jerry >-- End of excerpt from Jerry Scharf 1. If everyone in area code 213 (for instance) decided to exercise number portability and move their existing number to a new provider, that'd be about 3.7 million "host routes" with NO possibility of aggregation. That's far more routes than are in my border routers (by about 100X) (Presumably CAPs in LATAs with lots of area codes are going to want to hold internal routes for ALL of the local area codes, so they can do complete bypass... in the Los Angeles area that'd at least quadruple this routing table requirement) 2. The costs of portability in the latest proposals I've read are to be shared between the existing and the new providers, with the visible end-user cost of "keeping your number" relatively low 3. It may be technically stupid, but it is what consumers want, and the PUC and FCC are on their side. I still won't be surprised when the "number portability" precedent gets picked up by a regulatory agency and forced on the Internet, at least within the United States. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Paul Ferguson 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

Better yet, call it the 'default-free core', which is ironically what it is already called. :-) - paul At 12:02 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Gordon Cook wrote: > >> Bill sez: A US Internet "backbone" is one which connects to ALL the >> NAP/MAEs in the US. Not just two. All of them. > >Why not just start calling it the Internet "core". The core of the US >Internet no longer follows a backbone topology. The core is composed of >the major NSP's who operate national backbones providing national transit >and who interconnect at all or most of the public exchange points. > >Make sense? > >Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 >Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com > >

3 2

Re: Address "portability"
by scharf＠vix.com 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

> > > > 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 > >-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg > > > The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California, > with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be > fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the > same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly > the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs > are regulated, and they get the same mandate. > > -matthew kaufman > matthew(a)scruz.net > Not quite. If I move today from San Francisco to San Jose, I have to renumber because of area codes. This provides first level hierarchy, which the Internet doesn't have (actually second, country codes are the first). The phone companies also have settlements worked out, such that a cutout costs the group getting the cutout, not the group who has the base or the IXC. Phone routing are vastly more restrictive than IP routing. Jerry

1 0

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Jim Fleming 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 5:33 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Tim Salo wrote: @ @> It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the @> tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor @> to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables. @> @> Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant @> event in the efforts to control routing table size. @ @There are other analysts (myself among them) who anticipate the number of @North Amercan ISP's to grow by a third this year from around 2,000 to @around 3,000. Yes, there is some consolidation, but this is very little @in relation to the entry of new ISP's into the market. As long as the @Internet is growing exponentially, there will be room for new entrants @and we will not be seeing an absolute decline in the number of ISP's. @ Has anyone analyzed what these ISPs will be doing? Will most be dial-up providers? Will ISPs gravitate to leased line sales as dial-up becomes a commodity? Will some specialize only in co-located server farms? How about the growing need for "gateway" services? Will many of these new ISPs only serve other ISPs? Have you included organizations that may not currently appear to be ISPs but in reality will be ISPs? (Churches, schools, private networks, etc.) Have we seen the first round of "cash out Kids" or "selling up and out"? (It took several years for that to occur in PCs and Software) @Think exponentially, plan accordingly ;-) @ Yes, think exponentially, plan accordingly, and act globally...;-) @In other words, CIDR, PIER, and RFC1918.... @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 No matter what happens Michael, keep in mind that the entire Internet as you know it can fit in (Galaxy Zero, StarGate Zero) or (G:0,S:0)....:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Paul Ferguson 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

At 01:59 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >The core of the US Internet, also known as the default-free core, no longer >follows a backbone topology. The core is composed of the major NSP's who >operate national backbones providing national transit and who interconnect >at all or most of the public exchange points. > Also, it would preferable to omit 'US' from the above; the Internet core doesn't reside solely in the United States. :-) - paul

1 0

Re: MIX
by Joe Provo 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

bill> How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro? [clip] bill>A business model that shafts everyone else on the net so that you can bill>make more money? How do the extant MIXes fare, economically? No, not post-NSF subsidized NAPs, but the 'purely' independant ventures. I can grok most of the numbers involved in these but the ones beginning with $'s. Cheers, Joe Provo Network Operations Center UltraNet Communications, Inc.

1 0

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Jim Fleming 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 5:06 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> I believe that there are technical ways of doing this that do not require IPv6... @ @Where's your Internet Draft or RFC ? @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 As I said...some people have to "think outside of the box".... ...working code and systems will be more critical... ...besides...Internet Drafts and Internet RFCs apply to the Internet...if a new network is created outside of the Internet, then the documentation on that network would not necessarily fit the old model of the Internet... As an example, HTML will be used for all documents on the new Internet as well as for the programming language documentation...people will have to have a minimal web browser to make the transition to reading engineering documents that have pictures, drawings, etc. and not ASCII stick figures. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by rboivie＠vnet.IBM.COM 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

Gordon, I don't have any thoughts to share re: the posting or non-posting of traffic stats. I just wanted to correct the point regarding the termination of the NSFnet backbone service. Thanks, Rick Boivie >OOOPS! <blush> you are right. > >But, isn't the point two fold? While NSFnet stats were available for >another year is anyone going to seriously blame ISOC for not having them on >display a year after the fact? They are surely available some where. >Many reading this list would likely know where in an instant. I'd turn >to an Altavista search and to the NSF web stite to find them. > >second point. For a year now nothing has been available and given the >nature of the new market place, how could one reasonably expect them to >be available except by looking a through put figures at the MAEs. MAE >East in particular. > > >On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 rboivie(a)VNET.IBM.COM wrote: > >> Gordon, >> Small point. The NSFnet backbone service ended on April 30, 1995 >> (not '94). >> Rick Boivie >> rboivie(a)vnet.ibm.com >> >> > commercial internet matured and the federal gov't withdrew. Last traffic >> > reports march 1994!? Of course! This was the month before the last >> > gov't funded backbone (NSFnet) was turned off. Since then the traffic >> > statistics have been the **proprietary** possessions of Sprint, MCI, >> > UUNET, ANS, etc. >>

1 0

Re: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys.
by Wolfgang Henke 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

salo(a)msc.edu (Tim Salo) wrote: It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables. Tim, this smells like an opportunity to me. To my regret I've been observing the decline of the supercomputer industry for years due to a lack of demand (KSR, CM5). Can't the supercomputer gurus apply some of their extensive knowledge gained in a super-router? Wolfgang

1 0