April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

vocalizing majors, etc, etc.....
by mo＠uunet.uu.net 02 Apr '96

02 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?" "I said I went to a NANOG meeting a few times." "But since you weren't utterly REPELLED by what you heard and saw at your first meeting of the Global Routing Conspiracy you must at least be a SYMPATHIZER with this insideous Global Routing Conspiracy!" "What are you talking about, Senator? What do you mean by Global Routing Conspiracy?" "Now you try to play stupid, eh? It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the Global Internet is controlled by the Global Routing Conspiracy and they regularly plot to maintain their control, thereby squeezing our Precious Bodily Fluids out onto the ground!!! ADMIT YOUR COMPLICITY and then if you name your co-conspirators, maybe the Inquisitors will deal with you swiftly!" "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? All I did was go to a meeting to discuss registry issues and now I'm testifying before a Senate Subcommittee!" "So now you admit that you went to learn how to register OTHERS in the Global Routing Conspiracy! That's enough for me! I believe the other members of this Committee will agree that we should just send this one over straight away for any other information to be EXTRACTED from him!" "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Bradley J. Passwaters 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

> It has been clear over the past (years?..... time sure flies....) > there has been a strong and very vocal pro-filtering Keep > the Routing Table Small at *any* cost, group of advocates and > protagonists in the NANOG mailing list. Its just as clear that there is a group opposed to this policy/practice. (And I thinks fair to say they are vocal as well) > It is easy to reach the conjecture that the _perception_ of *others* > is; having many strong and vocal pro-filtering protagonists in NANOG; > and given the fact that the few who warned that selective > route filtering was very problematic were flamed-broiled and > none came to their defense No one who spoke out against the various proposed filtering solutions was prohibited from speaking. Not one individual was told "We have voted and NANOG believes X so you should do X and just shut up." Those who did not believe the pro-filtering vocal group continued and still do continue to speak up. Any one who examines the archives can see those open discusssions .... pointless and slanted metaphor deleted > > It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG, > the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control > routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the > those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will. It may not be a strong leap of imagination but its certainly sloppy thinking. It is also not true that just because a fraction of a group supports a thing - the GROUP supports it. The sum of the parts does not always equal the whole. The NANOG group has made numerous efforts to let people know what things that the GROUP does and does not endorse. > Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by > virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the > group, does bear responsibility for the perception others > view the group. Who is preventing you or any other person from expressing your views? The cold hard truth is that any fraction that wants to can speak and attempt to sway people to their view. If you come up with a real solution to the problem, this is an extremely competative market. Some one would love to have a way to keep their router up and running at the point a Cisco or Bay box is puking its guts out. I have listened to your proposals and points of view because frequently when a paradigm shift occurs it is indeed an outsider who brings it to the world. However that does not mean that just because one is an outsider one has the new truth. The pro-filtering group has presented alot of hard data and solutions. Yes there is pain in those solutions but I prefer it to hand waving. bjp(a)eng.umd.edu | Disclaimer: Can you be sure I even uunet!eng.umd.edu!istari | exist: Let alone represent anyone Brad Passwaters (Network Ronin) | or anything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here we are. Born to be kings. We're the princes of the universe. Here we belong, fighting to survive in a war with the darkest power. Network Manager's Theme Song (QUEEN)

1 0

Re: New Internet Routing Statistics
by Sean Doran 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

No, Gordon, Sprint did not refuse to cooperate. It is quite likely that if we were asked, it was asked of me personally and promptly buried four hundred items deep on my todo list. Sean.

2 1

InterNIC unreachable
by Eric Kozowski 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

rs.internic.net has been unreachable most of today (4/2). Anyone know what's going on? This is starting to get really annoying. Eric -- 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

2 1

New Internet Routing Statistics
by Craig Labovitz 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

Using many of the suggestions and comments from the last IEPG and NANOG meetings, we have put together some new Internet routing statistics web pages. See http://www.ra.net/statistics/ These pages include real-time graphs of network instability, bar charts of the sources of routing instability, snapshots of the Route Servers' routing tables, graphs of long-term trends, bogus routing reports, and IRR discrepancies. In improving the quality and accuracy of these reports, we need your help. The reports are only as good as the raw data the route servers receive in peering sessions. If you are not peering with the route servers, we encourage you to do so. Your routes will ONLY be used for statistics collection purposes (unless you have explicitly registered policy in the IRR and indicated that the RA should propagate the routes.) To peer with the route servers, send mail to rs-peer(a)ra.net. The RA thanks the following organizations for providing routes for statistics collection/analysis: ANS, Advantis, Aimnet, Alpha.Net, Alternet, Argonne, CAIS, CERFnet, CWInet, DIGEX, DRAnet, DREN, DXnet, Delphi, ESnet, INAP.net, INSnet, IOSnet, IconNet, Interpath, MCI, Nacamar, NetAxs, Netcom, Netrail, PIPEX, Suranet, Supernet, ThePlanet, TheWell, WIS.COM - Craig ------------- Craig Labovitz labovit(a)merit.edu Merit Network, Inc. (313) 764-0252 (office) 4251 Plymouth Road, Suite C. (313) 747-3745 (fax) Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785

2 1

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by John Curran 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

At 11:47 AM 4/2/96, Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) wrote: > Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by > virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the > group, does bear responsibility for the perception others > view the group. Tim, Folks who confuse mailing list or newsgroup discussion with "representation" deserve any conclusions they might reach. /John

1 0

RE: NANOG
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

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

1 0

Metcalfe's clue density...
by mo＠uunet.uu.net 01 Apr '96

01 Apr '96

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

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by rboivie＠vnet.IBM.COM 01 Apr '96

01 Apr '96

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

NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Michael Dillon 01 Apr '96

01 Apr '96

Have a look at Bob Metcalfe's Infoworld column this week at http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm in which he discusses the shortcomings of NANOG, IEPG and ISOC in not taking a more aggressive role in managing the operations of the Internet. 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

2 1