April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by salo＠msc.edu 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming(a)unety.net> > To: "'Christian Nielsen'" <cnielsen(a)vii.com>, "nanog(a)merit.edu" > Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. > Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:29:10 -0600 > [...] > Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the > net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the > "slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address > space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the > name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the > Internet from ISPs". > [...] 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. -tjs

3 2

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Jim Browning 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] > >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? Yes, as does much of what you say... :) -- Jim Browning

1 0

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

05 Apr '96

On Thursday, April 04, 1996 3:07 PM, Christian Nielsen[SMTP:cnielsen@vii.com] wrote: @ @ I think we all agree that CIDR is a good thing, I have no @problems with it and feel that we should use it as best we can. The @problems that I see, yes I know this has been said before, it is getting @harder and harder for the little guy to get IPs from the Nic. Now that @Sprint is saying that you now need a /16 to route over their network, I @don't see the nic just handing out /16s like they did with the /19 or @before that the /20s etc.. @ Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the "slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the Internet from ISPs". @ And Just because I have nothing else to do, except work, sleep, @work, internet, eat, work, sleep, I did some looking around. @ @[21]/export/home/c/cnielsen> whois 208.0.0.0 @Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINTLINK-BLKS) @ @ Netname: SPRINTLINK-BLKS @ Netblock: 208.0.0.0 - 208.3.255.0 @ @ Here now shows that Sprint is getting a /15 from the nic and that @they can now server more customers, move their ips around with little @problem, etc. But what about some other ISP? Can they get a /15? Nope. You have to face the fact that "THE Internet" as you know it has been turned over to big demand, big money and big business. This will result in big government stepping in to get the beast under control. If the government(s) do not step in, we are going to have Cyber Wars never before experienced on the planet. The people paying the admission (mostly consumers) will not tolerate these "wars" and will have to turn to their government(s) for intervention. Politicians will thrive on protecting the net from itself. Stay tuned for toll charges, taxes, certifications, licensing, tariffs, and auditing. @But I bet you that if Sprint wanted to or even MCI for that matter, they @could get a /14 or a /13 from the nic. @ They have to walk a fine line to look like good netizens while making sure that they get their plates filled with ample helpings of resources. This is sort of what happens when people stand in line at an "all you can eat buffet", no one puts their face directly into the food or eats directly out of the serving trays that would be "rude". Instead, some people stand in line, fill their plate to the brim, and rush back to stand in line again. The management requests that you "eat what you take". The food flows to those that can eat the fastest, get back in line, and show a big empty plate plus a healthy appetite. There is very little attention paid to how much food falls on the floor or is passed to other parties. As long as the line keeps moving the food will keep flowing. The management is just enforcing the policies which are clearly posted on the walls. @ How can we solve this problem? How can we make sure that everyone @has equal access to IP addresses to make IP addresses usable around the @Net, save on router memory etc? This is how I would do it. @ <snip> @ @Christian Nielsen Another possible solution is to "reinvent the net"...using the net...the Internet can be used as a large bit transporter and a "new" Internet can be constructed around the edges of the current net. Customers interested in gourmet foods and a more relaxed atmosphere can be attracted to the side-walk cafes that can be positioned around the busy buffet described above. The crumbs provided by THE net can easily fuel the new net. I believe that there are technical ways of doing this that do not require IPv6... the key will be to provide specific market reasons for customers to move to this new net...(i.e. better service, faster service, better food, etc.) Keep in mind that, not everyone eats at buffets... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

2 1

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

05 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 3:58 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote: @> From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> @> Subject: Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. <snip> @ @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?) @ @-tjs @ There is another very serious business reality when it comes to "upstream providers". The InterNIC and the other "network engineering" bodies may not have taken this into account. The story goes like this... ISP X is bidding on an important account with Company Y...there might be 16 other companies bidding for the same account...ISP X has a strong relationship with one or more large "upstream providers" that also happen to sell long distance telephone service... It might happen that Company Y "dislikes" the upstream provider because of a variety of reasons...maybe Company Y is owned by another similar company... maybe a competitor of the upstream provider employs several thousand people in the area and the upstream provider is not welcome in the area...maybe the upstream provider filed suit against a local university over an operating system and the people have never forgotten this... ...the point is that the InterNIC can not have a full understanding of the local and global politics that can determine which way these decisions are made... By "coaxing" ISPs to their upstream providers and not providing them with portable globally routable IP addresses, the InterNIC could be setting an ISP up for failure...the InterNIC and IANA are not taking into account the business realities of the world... ...furthermore, by providing "selected" ISPs with portable, and globally routable IP addresses, the InterNIC and IANA are making it easier for some companies to "win" bids like the one described above...ISP X may not have a chance because they can not offer the same "independence" from a particular upstream provider that might be desired by Company Y...because of historical reasons which are not discussed... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Sean Donelan 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

The NSF didn't use the term "backbone," but it did use the term NSP - Network Service Provider. The NSF definition for NSP was - connect to hubs called priority Network Access Points, - route and carry traffic to or from any research and education location, and - make the routes available to a routing arbiter The implementation wasn't as clean as the definition. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

RE: the Internet Backbone
by John Curran 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

At 12:35 PM 4/5/96, Jim Browning wrote: >There is no clear consensus concerning which of the facilities are "NAPs", >let alone which ones an ISP should participate in to be considered a >credible National/Backbone provider. For instance, while MAE-West was not >one of the original NAPs established by NSF, it clearly qualifies in all >other respects. On the other hand, I don't think it would be considered >necessary to be at LA, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas, etc right now to be >considered a National/Backbone provider. Oh, I fully agree. >The criteria I've heard most frequently is "connected to three of the >NAPs, peering with at least 2 national providers at each of those NAPs". >I believe this is what MCI requires in order to establish peering with a >new entity... Mumble. Presumably, not every national provider will require peering with at least two others before agreeing to peer... the possibilities for deadlock seem a tad high. /John

1 0

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Jim Browning 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

>From: John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] > >At 10:32 AM 4/5/96, William Allen Simpson wrote: >>> From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> >>>... >>> Everyone (of importance) agrees that in order to claim you're a backbone >>> you have to (now, not a year ago) be connected to at least 2 public NAPs/MAEs >>> and have at least one circuit that runs at DS3 or higher speed. >>> >>No, that is not correct. >> >>A US Internet "backbone" is one which connects to ALL the NAP/MAEs in >>the US. Not just two. All of them. > >Bill, > > I'm not sure that's a viable definition. First, the number of MAE's > seems to be increasing withou bound, and secondly, there are points > that you don't want to connect due to their performance. Finally, is > "connecting" considered the same as "peering"? > >/John There is no clear consensus concerning which of the facilities are "NAPs", let alone which ones an ISP should participate in to be considered a credible National/Backbone provider. For instance, while MAE-West was not one of the original NAPs established by NSF, it clearly qualifies in all other respects. On the other hand, I don't think it would be considered necessary to be at LA, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas, etc right now to be considered a National/Backbone provider. The criteria I've heard most frequently is "connected to three of the NAPs, peering with at least 2 national providers at each of those NAPs". I believe this is what MCI requires in order to establish peering with a new entity... -- Jim Browning

1 0

Re: MIX
by Bill Woodcock 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

bsimpson(a)morningstar.com (William Allen Simpson) wrote: > I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement > with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional > interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement. Oh, come on, Bill... don't pretend to be be clueless just for the sake of antagonizing folks. The MIXes have route servers just like any other peering points. Or am I missing the point of your objection? -Bill ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)applelink.apple.com user(a)host.domain.com

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by John Curran 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

At 10:32 AM 4/5/96, William Allen Simpson wrote: >> From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> >>... >> Everyone (of importance) agrees that in order to claim you're a backbone >> you have to (now, not a year ago) be connected to at least 2 public NAPs/MAEs >> and have at least one circuit that runs at DS3 or higher speed. >> >No, that is not correct. > >A US Internet "backbone" is one which connects to ALL the NAP/MAEs in >the US. Not just two. All of them. Bill, I'm not sure that's a viable definition. First, the number of MAE's seems to be increasing withou bound, and secondly, there are points that you don't want to connect due to their performance. Finally, is "connecting" considered the same as "peering"? /John

1 0

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

05 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 2:25 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote: @> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming(a)unety.net> @> To: "'Christian Nielsen'" <cnielsen(a)vii.com>, "nanog(a)merit.edu" @> Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. @> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:29:10 -0600 @> [...] @> Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the @> net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the @> "slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address @> space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the @> name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the @> Internet from ISPs". @> [...] @ @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. @ Yes...and assuming some will die for whatever reason...the policies result in small fragments being created with no active way to recover the fragments... by forcing (err coaxing) ISPs to work with "upstream providers" there is a garbage collection mechanism put in place...the upstream provider can watch over part(s) of the address space which is clearly too large for a few people to handle... @Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant @event in the efforts to control routing table size. @ @-tjs @ This is very true...this is the way cities have grown...the way railroads evolved... the way many industries have matured...as the big get bigger, small ISPs will realize that they have to partner to survive...these partnerships may help to improve aggregation, routing, etc...unfortunately, some ISPs will never partner with anyone because they "think" they are going to be the next RBOC...(as we now see, even the RBOCs are partnering to survive and AT&T is de-partnering...) The combined efforts of IANA, the InterNIC and the large "upstream providers" work to perform social (err network) engineering. This works as long as the current philosophy of "creating" and "controlling" scarce resources exists. People focused on getting rich have to "play ball" or die. This same sort of situation exists in the diamond business. All of these "network engineering" efforts take us right back to the centralized telecommunications authoriity that the Internet was designed to dismantle. It is humorous to see the bleeding heart liberal Internauts becoming the new conservative protectors of the net as maturity sets in...this is similar to the hippies and gang members that now are elected officials...people are people, even on the Internet I predict that the Internet will fall into the trap of having the same problems of the system it is displacing...there is a growing centralized "elite" that call the shots in a decentralized way...the shots that are called now are not much different than the shots called by the previous elite and not much different than the shots called by the pre-divestiture elite (called the Bell System). The only way to break this cycle is to apply the same philosophies that built the Internet to dismantling (err bounding ) the Internet...in order to do that, a ruling elite has to be installed, everyone has to sing praises of the great successes, the current system has to be bounded by its own limitations, and a few people have to "think outside of the box"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0