May 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Stargates (In Defense of J.F.)
by Tim Bass 27 May '96

27 May '96

Excuse me just a little, but I would like to follow-up on the Bush-o-Gram with regard to Jim Fleming and others whom Randy would love to silence in this world. I have read some of Jim's posts on his ideas of StarGates, Galaxies and his idea of IPv8; and I'll be the first to admit that I haven't taken the time to visit Jim's WWW site and read his proposals and ideas. They do seem to be a radical departure from the current way the IP world is moving; but I can't say, because I have not actually read Jim's concepts in any detail, so it is impossible to express any technical or engineering opinion accuractly. But..... on the other hand ... Jim Fleming certainly has the right to dream and envision his ideas in hopes of discovering 'A Better Paradigm' for scalable global IP internetworking and to present those ideas in IETF WGs and in NANOG, because his proposals relate directly to IP internetworking and IP operations. \begin{soapbox} When we become a group of scientists and engineers who remain closed to new ideas, no matter how radical they seem today, we become of the same mindset of those we choose change when our ideas were 'new'. I applaud Jim for having the courage and conviction to express his ideas, however much we may disagree with them. I also give him credit for not resorting to personal attacks when he is flamed for advocating a somewhat 'revolutionary' approach. IMO, it does not matter if we are talking the US Bill of Rights, Internet Services, scientific theories, theological views, or ideas of ethics and family, people deserve our respect; and that includes those who present ideas and concepts that depart from what is considered socially acceptable. It took me 40 years of mistakes to realize that little gem of wisdom above and my life is much, much happier not carrying the baggage of others anger and frustration. Those whom wish to "|/dev/null" all ideas and opinions that differ from there own personal perspective only damage themselves in the long run. Those whom disagree with my ideas, either technical or otherwise, are free to disagree. Those whom do not wish to read my opinions or theories are welcome to discard them, and make yourself happy at the same time. But please, please do not associate your anger and frustration toward me with others and pull them into the low-road discussions. Jim's ideas are worthy of consideration, and I am the first to apologize for not taking the time to review them, no matter how radical the terms 'StarGate and Galaxy' seem. \en{soapbox} Better ideas on building the next frontier welcome! Or, as suggested, have we reached the end off all secular knowledge in 1996 ;-) Rhetorically Speaking... Now back to blasting the failure of the MAE-WEST RS, and all the *very interesting*, "I told you so"s and "at-a-boys". Best Regards, Tim PS: Note to Jim Fleming.... what was that URL of your ideas? I am inclined to read them now that we share the *heat* of the "Burning Bush" together :-)

3 2

Re: MAE-West is up again (Sun's & Alphas)
by sgoldste＠nsf.gov 26 May '96

26 May '96

Tim, NSF never paid any of Gordon's expenses for anything, to my knowledge at least. He made an important contribution to the NATO meeting in Moscow in 1994 by delivering a well-thought-out and constructive charge to the audience about how a bit more cooperation on everybody's part could improve Internet service for large numbers of Russians. I, as co-chair of the event, was quite satisfied that I had spent NATO's money wisely by inviting him to participate. We even fed him (along with the other participants) on NATO's tab. Even with all that, it was still a good deal for NATO (he drank much less vodka than most, BTW...). At 2:18 AM 5/26/96, Gordon Cook wrote: >tim asks who is paying for my trip to Russia. How about me for >incidentals and a total of $13.50 for tax on a delta frequent flyer >ticket? NSF has >paid for NONE of my trips. In Sept october 1994 NATO paid for a $620 >airplane ticket and I paid $120 to extend it and for all other expenses. ... > >On Sat, 25 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote: ... >> >> Side note to Gordon Cook based on his contribution earlier: >> >> Gordon, just a little barb to you, please do not take it personally, >> but.. "is your current trip to Russia also funded by the NSF similar to >> your previous trip"? ( inquiring minds want to know ;-) >> >> Whoops! There I go again, standing in the corner, just losing my >> religion.... Oh well, I said too much, I haven't said enought.... >> Go stand in the corner, Tim! --Steve G. ____________________________________________ Steve Goldstein, National Science Foundation +1(703)306-1949 Ext. 1119 "Let's not procrastinate until next week!"

4 4

Re: mae-west corrigenda
by Paul Ferguson 25 May '96

25 May '96

Gordon: http://www.ra.net/.rs.overview.html - paul At 09:23 AM 5/25/96 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >Sean is usually very careful with his choice of words but in this instance >I am afraid I don't understand the use of "compromised". > >Also I have a question. Leaving aside the question of commercial use... I >am in St Petersburg Russia now....which is why, unfortunately I will miss >a Nanog meeting that is otherwise physically near me, and I will not tackle >*this* issue from here, Sean in an earlier comment implied that if sprint >were running a RS like the one at Mae West, it could be profitable because >it would be a good easy and cheap source of peering for other ISPs. >Would Sean or someone else elaborate on this? For example I didn't think >it was the case that if Sprint is now using the services of the RA >that being connected to the route server at MAE west would have been the >same thing as having full peering with Sprint? Exactly what kind of >connectivity DO you get from the use of the RS there or anywhere eles >assuming that the RS is working. > >********************************************************************** >The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 >431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 >(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 >Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 >http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" >*********************************************************************** >

1 0

Re: mae-west corrigenda
by Gordon Cook 25 May '96

25 May '96

Sean is usually very careful with his choice of words but in this instance I am afraid I don't understand the use of "compromised". Also I have a question. Leaving aside the question of commercial use... I am in St Petersburg Russia now....which is why, unfortunately I will miss a Nanog meeting that is otherwise physically near me, and I will not tackle *this* issue from here, Sean in an earlier comment implied that if sprint were running a RS like the one at Mae West, it could be profitable because it would be a good easy and cheap source of peering for other ISPs. Would Sean or someone else elaborate on this? For example I didn't think it was the case that if Sprint is now using the services of the RA that being connected to the route server at MAE west would have been the same thing as having full peering with Sprint? Exactly what kind of connectivity DO you get from the use of the RS there or anywhere eles assuming that the RS is working. ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" *********************************************************************** On Sat, 25 May 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote: > At 02:32 AM 5/25/96 +0100, Sean Doran wrote: > > > > > Sean. (account compromised by cook(a)cookreport.com?) > > > > Cute. ;-) > > - paul >

1 0

Re: mae-west route servers are both down hard
by Paul Ferguson 25 May '96

25 May '96

Does this mean that we can expect a new agenda topic at the NANOG meeting next week? ;-) - paul

1 0

safety of route servers
by Paul A Vixie 25 May '96

25 May '96

on the flip side, sean, i don't know of an instance yet where route servers that merit had declared "in production" have screwed anybody's pooch. you're passing from tacky toward catty, clearly the route servers and N**2 peering at exchange points is an idea whose time has not yet passed.

1 0

Re: mae-west route servers are both down hard
by Paul Ferguson 25 May '96

25 May '96

At 09:50 PM 5/24/96 -0400, Jake Khuon wrote: > >The RA services at MAE-West were never declared production because we did >not have two operational RSes deployed there. The RSes at the other NAPs >that have been declared for production were able to sustain a single-machine >failure without loss of service. > Let me see if I correctly understand this. The RA services at MAE-West were never declared operational, yet there are service & transit providers using them for production services? If so, this will still be interpreted as a black eye for the RSs. - paul

2 1

Re: mae-west route servers are both down hard
by Paul Ferguson 25 May '96

25 May '96

At 09:50 PM 5/24/96 -0400, Jake Khuon wrote: > >The RA services at MAE-West were never declared production because we did >not have two operational RSes deployed there. The RSes at the other NAPs >that have been declared for production were able to sustain a single-machine >failure without loss of service. > Let me see if I correctly understand this. The RA services at MAE-West were never declared operational, yet there are service & transit providers using them for production services? If so, this will still be interpreted as a black eye for the RSs. - paul

1 0

Re: mae-west route servers are both down hard
by Sean Doran 24 May '96

24 May '96

I suppose this would be an incredibly tacky time to say I told you so? Sean.

3 2

Re: safety of route servers
by Sean Doran 24 May '96

24 May '96

| on the flip side, sean, i don't know of an instance yet where route | servers that merit had declared "in production" have screwed anybody's | pooch. you're passing from tacky toward catty, clearly the route servers | and N**2 peering at exchange points is an idea whose time has not yet | passed. So? I said already that I'd love to be proven wrong in my belief that (based on much history, some before the RA) route servers simply won't work in the current Internet. Just think of it this way: the ability to peer reliably and with a minimum of negative side-effects with _many_ NAP-or-MAE-attached networks and using fairly complicated policy under the control of my colleagues and me would be a potentially very profitable situation for Sprint Corp. Sean.

1 0