April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: NANOG
by jogden＠merit.edu 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

>From my point of view (from my customers' point of view) the Internet in the US is failing right now. It hasn't collapsed, but some parts are almost unusable due to congestion. I think lots of people are working hard to improve that situation and I do think it will get better over time (and then it will get worse again and better and ..., just as it has in the past). I do think communication about who is doing what, could be better. I say this as a customer of an NSP (MCI) as well as an NSP manager myself (MichNet a regional network in Michigan). So I agree with Bob a lot more than I agree with Jerry or -mo. -Jeff Ogden Merit/MichNet (the non-RA half of Merit) At 4:55 PM 4/2/96, Bob Metcalfe wrote: >Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG) > >Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually >really run. > >Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic >collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your >objections (below). > >Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 >engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that >they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which >is half our problem. > >Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet >Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? >Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is >IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. > >Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy >defensive to argue? > >So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to >whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops >ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how >store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? > >Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really >worried. > >Thank you for sharing, stay tuned, > >/Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld > >>Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>>From jerry(a)fc.net >>X-Envelope-From: jerry(a)fc.net >>Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp >> (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST >>Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by >>largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for >><bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800 >>Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79(a)fc.net> >>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800 >>From: jerry <jerry(a)fc.net> >>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>To: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com >>Subject: RE: NANOG >>X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >>You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of >>offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit >>kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum >>where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn >>about problems and fix them. >> >>Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report >>their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off. >> >>I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW >>the Internet is run. >>Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do >>much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters >>is just plan wrong of the face of it. >> >>Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet >>more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the >>net are busy working, so people like you can whine >>about outages, "increasing diameters", etc. >> >> >>>From todays NANOG List: >>------------------------------------------------- >>Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST) >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: Metcalfe's clue density... >>Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >>Precedence: bulk >> >> >>the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization >>is a good calibration on everything else. >> >>just remember: >> >> "Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion >> >>soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night. >> >> -mo > > >______________________________________________ >______________________________________________ > >Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe >Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and >VP Technology, International Data Group > >Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com >Voice Messages: 617-534-1215 > >Conference Chairman for >ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing >San Jose Convention Center >March 1-5, 1997 >______________________________________________ >______________________________________________

2 1

Re: stats for Ames ring at MAE West
by Sean Doran 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

NASA AMES has installed a DEC Gigaswitch for its tenants at MAE-WEST. Sean.

1 0

Re: IRR visualization
by Brett D. Watson 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

rusty, which versions of tkined, tk, and tcl will this work with? i grabbed your first incantation of this package after ietf in dallas but i have upgraded to the latest versions of tcl/tk at that time and it wouldn't work properly. -brett > Hello everyone, > > Sorry for duplicates of this message. The visualization front end > for the IRR is available from: > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/eddy/irrv-0.2.1.tar.gz > > There is also a README file: irrv-README available from the same > location. Please note this software runs as a module under the > scotty/tkined network management package, that are also freely > available. > > http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/ibr/projects/nm/tkined/welcome > > Bug reports are eagerly awaited 8-). Just as important, i'd like > to solicit the opinions and suggestions of the NANOG and RPS > communities as to the capabilities a visualization tool that you > would find useful. > > Thank you, > > > -- > > - rusty > > eddy(a)isi.edu

1 0

Re: NANOG
by Wolfgang Henke 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com (Bob Metcalfe) wrote: Perhaps I am confusing terms here. How can it be a fact that "store-and-forward delays are a mere fraction of wire propagation delays?" I don't think so. Check me on this: Packets travel over wires at large fractions of the speed of light, but then sadly at each hop they must be received, checked, routed, and then queued for forwarding. Do I have that right? Forget checking, routing, and queueing (ha!), and you get, I think, that store and forward delay is roughly proportional to the number of hops times packet length divided by circuit speed (N*P/C). For 10 hops of a thousand bit packet at Ethernet speed, that would be 1 ms, or a couple hundred miles of prop delay. Check me on this, one of us might be off by several orders of magnitude. Hmm... Using a real in use backbone of one of the mayor service providers, I find that a DS3 between silicon valley to Chicago has a 44 msec latency going through 4 hops. That's about the speed of light in fiber for the 5000 mile roundtrip ICMP ping packets. Using ATM will reduce the router latency. I estimate that with TCP/IP over ATM over SONET OC-3c the latency will be reduced from 44 msec to 40 msec, only a rather small improvement. The bandwidth used on the fiber wont matter much. With OC-12c I would still expect 40 msec or so since the speed of light in fiber is the limiting factor. Wolfgang

3 2

RE: NANOG
by bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

Dear Mr. Antonov, Thanks for taking time to enter this little spat about Internet collapses, the growing importance of NANOG, and my cluelessness. You wrote: >I was in a backbone engineer's skin for quite a few years, and "hops" >per se never were a problem. In fact, store-and-forward delays are >a mere fraction of wire propagation delays -- do a traceroute coast-to-coast, >look at delays and calculate how it relates to distance divided by speed of >light. Indeed, you're the first person concerned with the growth of diameter >(which is, BTW, logarithmic to size of the network). Perhaps I am confusing terms here. How can it be a fact that "store-and-forward delays are a mere fraction of wire propagation delays?" I don't think so. Check me on this: Packets travel over wires at large fractions of the speed of light, but then sadly at each hop they must be received, checked, routed, and then queued for forwarding. Do I have that right? Forget checking, routing, and queueing (ha!), and you get, I think, that store and forward delay is roughly proportional to the number of hops times packet length divided by circuit speed (N*P/C). For 10 hops of a thousand bit packet at Ethernet speed, that would be 1 ms, or a couple hundred miles of prop delay. Check me on this, one of us might be off by several orders of magnitude. But at 30 hops of thousand byte packets at T1 speeds, that's, what? 4,000 miles of prop delay. A mere fraction? OK, maybe soon the entire Internet backbone(s) will be ATM at 622Mbps, which would certainly knock some of the wind out of N, P, and C. Soon? But of course, getting back to 1996, N*P/C doesn't count checking, routing, and queueing -- queueing gets to be a major multiple with loading. Oh, I forgot retransmission delays too, at each hop. And I forgot the increasing complications of route propagation as hops increase... If I am, as you say, the first person to be concerned with the growth of Internet diameter, which I doubt, then I deserve a medal. Or is my arithmetic wrong? Ease my cluelessness. /Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld At 6:44 PM 4/2/96, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>From avg(a)postman.ncube.com >X-Envelope-From: avg(a)postman.ncube.com >Received: from postman.ncube.com by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4IvH-000wq4C; Tue, 2 Apr 96 19:07 PST >Received: from butler.ncube.com by postman.ncube.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA19923; Tue, 2 Apr 96 18:42:20 PST >Received: from skynet.ncube.com by butler.ncube.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) > id AA02534; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:40:46 +0800 >Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:40:46 +0800 >From: avg(a)postman.ncube.com (Vadim Antonov) >Message-Id: <9604030240.AA02534(a)butler.ncube.com> >To: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com, jerry(a)fc.net >Subject: RE: NANOG >Cc: letters(a)infoworld.com, nanog(a)merit.edu >Content-Length: 2913 > >Bob Metcalfe wrote: > >>Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic >>collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your >>objections (below). > >One does not need to be Nostradamus to predict that s*t happens. >It happened in the past, many times, too. Like when me and Sean >installed a just-baked SSE into a DC box and it looked fine but >screwed nearly all connectivity to Europe for few hours when we were >trying to figure out what was going on. Or when FIX-E<->ICM-DC >Bell Atlantic's DS-3 was flapping like mad when moon was >in the wrong phase and BA did nothing to fix it for months. Or when >some sequence of 1s and 0s was triggering some bulls*t alarms in >Sprint fiber network so causing shutdowns on the entire OC-24 trunk. >Or when a bogus static route in a Sprint's box was causing ANS's >version of gated to go banana and drop BGP sessions. Or many many >more occasions when "Bysantine-mode failure" becomes ugly reality in >the middle of the night so causing more than few people to be dragged >out of beds. > >As long as Internet technology is freaking bleeding edge and operators >are in the "code of the day" club catastrophes are bound to happen. > >>Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 >>engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that >>they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which >>is half our problem. > >That is simply not true. The backbone engineering society is tightly >knit and quite often backbone engineers are simply personal friends. >I certainly never had a problem with people refusing to fix problems >within their domains (well, PSI's TWD is not an operational problem). >The organization-level corrdination is often broken at operators level, >but that is merely a function of severe shortage of qualified personnel >and inadequate compensation for the high-stress job. > >>Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy >>defensive to argue? > >Before you talk of settlements answer the simple question -- >a packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Who should pay >to whom? Then, please, stop perpetuating nonsense. > >>So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to >>whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops >>ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how >>store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? > >I was in a backbone engineer's skin for quite a few years, and "hops" >per se never were a problem. In fact, store-and-forward delays are >a mere fraction of wire propagation delays -- do a traceroute coast-to-coast, >look at delays and calculate how it relates to distance divided by speed of >light. >Indeed, you're the first person concerned with the growth of diameter >(which is, BTW, logarithmic to size of the network). > >--vadim ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and VP Technology, International Data Group Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com Voice Messages: 617-534-1215 Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center March 1-5, 1997 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

2 1

Re: vocalizing majors, etc, etc.....
by hcb＠clark.net 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

>"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" > >:-) > >- paul > Come now, Paul. The Spannish Tree Inquisition is for large-scale bridged networks, not the routed Internet.

1 0

Re: New Internet Routing Statistics
by Sean Doran 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

| So sprint will coperate at least to the extent that MCI, ANS, and UUNET | are already doing so? If Craig had previously pointed out that he would like to have gotten routes from us that would not be propagated unless specifically requested by us, then I don't think it would have been too difficult to have done the two line adjustment to our already-existing peerings with the two RSes at MAE-EAST in order for us to have shown up on the hallowed list in his message today. Of course, that would have also deprived you of a front-page Cook Report scandal, and several messages here on the NANOG list. So, think of this as job creation at work, maybe. | I'd think that is good news. Do you have any kind of time line, Sean? | June 1? July 1? Well, I went digging, and couldn't find any relevant email on the first pass. Perhaps such a message will find its way to the appropriate people (maybe for the second time, if we lost things on this end), so we know what routing information is wanted and where and when, and what exactly it will be used for. I see no difficulty with announcing routes to the RA specifically for gathering the sorts of statistics they have been thinking about. Indeed, I believe that I have made this clear in public places a number of times in the past. We now return you to the regularly scheduled making of mountains out of mole-hills. Sean. P.S.: SL-MAE-E uptime is 1 week, 4 days, 12 hours, 37 minutes System restarted by power-on at 10:28:06 EST Fri Mar 22 1996 BGP neighbor is 192.41.177.166, remote AS 2885, external link NEXT_HOP is always this router BGP version 4, remote router ID 192.41.177.166 BGP state = Established, table version = 2186252, up for 1w0d Last read 0:00:57, hold time is 180, keepalive interval is 60 seconds Minimum time between advertisement runs is 30 seconds Received 16570 messages, 0 notifications, 0 in queue Sent 16605 messages, 0 notifications, 0 in queue Incoming update network filter list is 112 Outgoing update network filter list is 95 Outgoing update AS path filter list is 35 Route map for incoming advertisements is RA Connections established 4; dropped 3 [moreover, we set the peering up more than a year ago]

2 1

Re: Sprint's agenda
by Sean Doran 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

There is nothing new here; it is Common Knowledge that Sprint is the source of all evil on the Internet, and is out to crush small providers, and make sure that everyone in the world burns his or her toast, and so on and so forth. Everyone has been welcome to draw their own conclusions from day one. Sean. - -- | From nanog-owner(a)merit.edu Wed Apr 3 15:52:13 1996 | From: jon(a)branch.com (Jon Zeeff) | Subject: Sprint's agenda | To: pferguso(a)cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) | Cc: michael(a)memra.com, nanog(a)merit.edu | MIME-Version: 1.0 | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit | Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu | | | > And the global routing table grows. | | We asked Sprint for an exception to their routing policy in a case that | would clearly reduce routing table size. They said no. Everyone is | free to draw their own conclusions regarding Sprint's policies and the | real motivations behind them. | |

1 0

RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Jim Fleming 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

On Monday, April 01, 1996 4:10 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Sean Donelan wrote: @ @> Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A @> bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else? @ @It's most definitely something else. Most people are trained from birth @that organizations with acronyms rule the world, thus NANOG and IEPG @and ISOC must be the rulers of the Internet world. @ Yes, as more people from various walks of life get involved in the Internet, there is going to be confusion because these "new" people are going to assume that there is something behind these fancy acronyms... when they find out that the Internet is like a large "movie set" they may get very upset...or at least disoriented...they will find that the net is not an Information Superhighway but rather a parking lot with carnival rides... ...this will probably send many people BACK to their families, churches, schools, governments, corner barber shops and neighbors to try to find something "real" in their life...in this respect, the Internet may cause people in local areas to become "better connected" because much of the net is very socially disconnected... ...virtual is fun but when the rubber hits the road...people buy ($$$) real... @Since most NANOG/IEPG/ISOC people are clueless when it comes to things @like public relations, press releases, spin control, etc... is it any @wonder that the press marches merrily off in their own direction. @ I am not sure they are clueless, they may have just chosen to live in a different world where the traditional press has little meaning....keep in mind that Dolphins do not get involved much in the world of Cats and Dogs... @There is actually opportunity here for groups like NANOG to have some @influence and communicate with the public in a positive fashion. I @suggest that a good first step would be to release a communique to the @press after every NANOG meeting and a good second step would be to urge @ISOC to spend more money on general educational issues to make people in @general more aware of operational and architectural issues. @ @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Maybe people that live largely in the Internet (and other places) are going to discover what the other 99% of the people on planet earth already know.... In order to get people working in a common direction you have to have some common purpose, some common goals and a reason and benefit for an individual to be associatted with an entity. Having a short, catchy acronym is not enough. Most humans do not join clubs or help promote a cause simply because it exists. One or more of the basic human motivators need to be in place. (education, money, power, entertainment, self-fullfillment, social status, peer acceptance, pleasure, etc.) The Internet is currently going through a transition...many of the traditional groups that have been formed in the "real world" (whatever that is) are moving some or part of their member communication to the Internet. Most of it shows up in the World Wide Web...little by little, traditional groups will discover some of the other "services" available on the net. When this occurs these groups will likely overshadow the tiny groups that helped to build the net. I suggest that "net people" give up on the idea of building more and more "movie sets" and instead, join with the real people and help facilitate their increased involvement with the net. This involvement is inevitable and as they say..."If you can't beat them... join them"...By joining with existing groups, netizens can have a significant impact on how those groups merge into the increasing traffic on the Information Parking Lot... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: vocalizing majors, etc, etc.....
by bill＠sf.net 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

>"Do you now, or have you ever attended meetings of the Global > Routing Conspiracy?" > >"Huh?? I went to a NANOG meeting a few times to see what went on there." > >"So you ADMIT that you have attended SEVERAL meetings of the > Global Routing Conspiracy?" [deletia] Mike, Is this based on personal experience? Or is this merely a nightmare you anticipate? ;) Bill

1 0