May 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Two Presentations after NANOG on May 31st
by skh＠merit.edu 20 May '96

20 May '96

After the NANOG proper, on Friday afternoon, there will be two additional presentations which may be of interest to NANOG attendees: - another tutorial by Merit, topic TBA, but probably akin to that at the last NANOG (San Diego)--how to set up peering with the RSs with improved Web-based tools which will be available in May; the contact person for this is Steve Richardson (sjr(a)merit.edu) - a GateD Consortium informational session about GateD test tools complete with a demo, and protocols being released in Gated in June & July; the contact person for this is Susan Hares (skh(a)merit.edu) Information about this can be obtain at www.gated.org under the May Informational Meeting. Both presentations will have some time allotted for questions. A tentative schedule for these is as follows: - 12:00 - 1:30 pm Tutorial - 1:30 - 2:30 pm Break for Lunch - 2:30 - 4:00 pm Gated Consortium Informational Meeting Steve Richardson Merit and Sue Hares Merit (313)936-2095

1 0

Alliance Meeting Announcement: Tuesday 5/28@**6:00**-Speakeasy Cafe (fwd)
by Christopher E. Stefan 18 May '96

18 May '96

I realize this announcement is probably only of interest only to ISP's and NSP's who operate in the Puget Sound region of Washington state, however I wanted to get the word out as widely as possible. Perhaps we could share information and advice with those engaged in similar efforts elsewhere. The topics that there has been interest in working together on are as follows: Regulatory and Tax issues with Cities, Counties, and the State (The city of Tacoma, WA has recently told ISP's they have to pay the city Utility tax). Dealing with local phone companies, competitive access providers, and the Washington Utilities and Trasportation Commission. Setting up regional traffic exchanges (The NIX, possibly a MAE like exchange). Exchanging feeds of the pnw.*, wash.*, seattle.*, and tacoma.* newsgroups. Possibly forming a State Trade Association. For more information about the "Alliance" please contact: Doug Tooley <dltooley(a)speakeasy.org> Or subscribe to the mailing list at: majordomo(a)scn.org There are minutes of the organizational meeting available. At the next meeting I will bring up setting up a web page for information about the group and it's efforts. Christopher E Stefan http://www.ironhorse.com/~flatline System Administrator Home: (206) 706-0945 Ironhorse Software, Inc. Work: (206) 783-6636 flatline(a)ironhorse.com finger for PGP key ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Tooley <dltooley(a)speakeasy.org> To: alliance(a)scn.org, coordinating(a)scn.org Cc: hardware(a)scn.org Subject: Alliance Meeting Announcement: Tuesday 5/28@**6:00**-Speakeasy Cafe Hi folks: We have an agenda for the next Alliance meeting, open to all local Internet Service Providers. (My apolgies if you received a double post on this - this announcement is also being sent to a broader announcement list.) ************************************************** May Alliance Meeting ************* When & Where: Tuesday, May 28th 6:00 (note new time) Speakeasy Cafe, 2304 2nd Avenue, Seattle In the Back Room ********** Who & What: Speakers/Discussion Leaders: Ed Morin, NWNEXUS The NIX What is it? What are the entry requirements/procedures Aki Namioka, Member of the Governor's Task Force on Public Information Access Policy and Northwest Regional Director of CPSR. The CDA & Implications for Washington State ************************************************************************ These presentations will be 5-15 minutes or so with plenty of time for discussion on these topics. We will close the meeting with a discussion regarding new business, including a potential meeting with Competitive Access Providers next month and hosting the 1997 NANOG Meeting here in Seattle. We also need to look, semi-strategically, at ongoing development of local connections, including technical and administrative concerns. There are quite a number of alternatives here and it's been a pleasure to explore some of these with a few of you individually. It should be a great meeting. I hope you can make it! -Douglas Tooley

1 0

topological closeness....
by mo＠uunet.uu.net 18 May '96

18 May '96

one other solution (being implemented, I believe), is a DNS server that listens to the BGP traffic, so it knows how far away things are, and when you ask it, it can chose from multiple responses to pick one "close". and now that I think about it, it's being implemented more than one place, from what I've heard. -mo

2 1

LAST CALL for NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 17 May '96

17 May '96

If you are planning on attending the NANOG Meeting in Washington D.C. May 30 & 31 please register by 12:00PM EST Thursday, 5/23. If you need info regarding this meeting check the Merit Web Page http://nic.merit.edu/ or the CIX Web Page http://www.cix.org/Events/nanog8.html. If you do not have access to these send me e-mail. If you have already registered PLEASE do not register again :*). Thanks Pam

1 0

Re: topological closeness....
by Paul Ferguson 17 May '96

17 May '96

At 12:44 AM 5/18/96 +0800, Che-Hoo Cheng wrote: > >Yes, they are still a minor aspect but I think they contribute serveral more >percents to the return on investment. In AP, we have exchange points such >as NSPIXP of Japan and HKIX of Hong Kong. If ISPs in other AP countries >have links to JP or HK and automatically (or semi-automatically) they can >connect to all ISPs in that country/region instead of just one or several >ISPs in it, the connection is more valuable and justifiable. If the links >can also be used to connect to other ISPs in other AP countries via that >exchange, the connection is even more valuable and justifiable. Of course, >we still can't eliminate the links to US altogether. But we probably can >slow down the growth of bandwidth requirements to US a little bit. > Thanks for mentioning this -- it is exactly what is needed. :-) - paul

1 0

Re: topological closeness....
by Che-Hoo Cheng 17 May '96

17 May '96

At 06:57 AM 5/16/96 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: >Paul, > >You can be a vocal as you desire, but ultimately from this part of the >globe the dominant factor in any ISP business is the cost of the >International Private Lease. This lease cost is approximately 10 times >the cost of domestic infrastructure. > >Now when you construct an IPL in a competitive environment where do >you terminate it? Generally you are loking for an optimal mix of price >and functionality. The observation for the AP region today is that the >cheapest IPL half circuits for the AP region terminate in the >US. Hence Randy's observation. The internal infrastructure within the >AP region happens in a second pass, once the primary objective of >major connectivity is achieved internal infrastructure can be cost >effective if there is internal traffic flow to match. > >About the only thing that could hasten regional infrastructure is a >drastic revision of the trading practices and expectation of return on >investment by the undersea cable investors. Exchange points have >little impact per se as they are, in economic terms, a minor aspect of >the entire equation. Yes, they are still a minor aspect but I think they contribute serveral more percents to the return on investment. In AP, we have exchange points such as NSPIXP of Japan and HKIX of Hong Kong. If ISPs in other AP countries have links to JP or HK and automatically (or semi-automatically) they can connect to all ISPs in that country/region instead of just one or several ISPs in it, the connection is more valuable and justifiable. If the links can also be used to connect to other ISPs in other AP countries via that exchange, the connection is even more valuable and justifiable. Of course, we still can't eliminate the links to US altogether. But we probably can slow down the growth of bandwidth requirements to US a little bit. (NOTE: HKIX has mandatory MLPA for routes within Hong Kong.) Che-Hoo Cheng | Email: chcheng(a)cuhk.edu.hk Data Comms and Networking Section | URL: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ Information Technology Service Unit | Tel: +852 2609-8848 The Chinese University of Hong Kong | Fax: +852 2603-5001

1 0

Re: topological closeness....
by Paul Ferguson 17 May '96

17 May '96

At 07:37 PM 5/15/96 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: > >In the Asia Pacific Rim region, nearly all the bandwidth goes from AP >region countries to the US directly. This is true due to the >tariffing situation, although it is now beginning to change (some >intra-Asia networks have already been established). > I think many of us have been *very* vocal supporters of encouraging creationm of multiple AP NAPs to avoid this form of dementia. :-) When traffic transits back to the US West Coast to reach another AP location, this clearly contributes to the overall problem. >Putting mirrors in countries usually makes sense (particularly when a >country has an Internet exchange or two), but putting them on a >continental basis generally doesn't. > Agreed. Creating exchange points would also help immensely. - paul

8 9

Draft NANOG agenda
by Susan R. Harris 16 May '96

16 May '96

Greetings - here's the draft NANOG agenda. ----------------------------------------- North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) Agenda Thursday, May 30 Time Topic Presenter(s) ---- ----- ----------- 9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, Bill Norton, Merit Future Meetings 9:15 a.m. STATE OF THE INTERNET: NAPs PacBell NAP Warren Williams, PacBell Sprint NAP Bilal Chinoy, SDSC Ameritech NAP Mark Cnota, Ameritech MAE-East Steve Feldman, MFS Datanet 10:45 a.m. Break 11:00 a.m. STATE OF THE INTERNET: NSPs Sprint Jim Steinhardt, Sprint ANS Curtis Villamizer, ANS MCI Jack Waters, MCI 12:00-1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. Call for Participation: Robert Laughlin, DataXnge Simplified Peering at the Exchange Points 1:15 p.m. STATE OF THE INTERNET: Trends and Research Standardized Format for Exchange Dave Siegel, RTD Systems Point Traffic Recording & & Networking Interchange Exchange Point Traffic Fragmentation & Reassembly Kim Claffy, SDSC InterNIC Update Mark Kosters,InterNIC Routing Stability Analysis Craig Labovitz, Merit 2:45 p.m. Internet Service Measurements: Call for Participation Steve Crocker, CyberCash 3:00 p.m. Break 3:15 p.m. Status of the Internet Routing Registry RAWhoisd Update Brian Renaud, Merit IRR Synchronization Brian Renaud Using the IRR to Generate Cisco Randy Bush, RGnet Configurations Optimizing the Route Server Jake Khuon, Merit Configuration Process 4:15 p.m. Economics of Route Filtering Jeremy Porter, Freeside & Other Limits Communications 4:45 p.m. MView: An Application for Dave Thaler, Merit Visualizing & Managing the MBone Friday, May 31 9:00 a.m. Routing Arbiter Update Project Status Elise Gerich, Merit New Tools Roe (Route Object Editor) Cengiz Alaettinoglu, ISI ASExplorer & other Tools Craig Labovitz, Merit 9:45 a.m. "Web Efficiency and Robustness:" Larry Blunk, Merit Meeting Summary 10:15 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. InterNIC Guardian Object Jasdip Singh, InterNIC 11:00 a.m. Inter-Provider Outage Notifications Jonathan Heiliger, MFS Communications Co. Alan Hannan, Global Internet 11:30 a.m. Update from the PIER (Procedures Will Leland, Bellcore for Internet and Enterprise Renumbering) Working Group 11:45 a.m. Closing Remarks Bill Norton, Merit

1 0

Re: topological closeness....
by Paul Ferguson 15 May '96

15 May '96

At 06:57 AM 5/16/96 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: >Paul, > >You can be a vocal as you desire, but ultimately from this part of the >globe the dominant factor in any ISP business is the cost of the >International Private Lease. This lease cost is approximately 10 times >the cost of domestic infrastructure. > Geoff, I'm stating what would be ideal, not necessarily practical. And pointing out what should already be obvious. :-) - paul

1 0

Re: topological closeness....
by Sanjay Dani 15 May '96

15 May '96

>The only problem that it does not work at all. > >Which WWW server is closer to me - one with BGP path > > 1239 3491 690 1333 (cnn.com) > >or one at > > 1239 1792 (www.cnc.ac.cn)? > >The second is in China, for God's sake! > >There ain't no such thing as global metrics. The only >useful kind of metrics is administrative, and therefore >they cannot reflect any real characteristics of paths. On a global level, how useful would it be to base the decision on whether the client address belongs to the the InterNIC block, APNIC or the european registry ? I can live with exceptions such as an MCI customer in India gets redirected to the north american mirror server instead of the one in Singapore because their address belongs to an InterNIC allocated MCI block. How often do these exceptions happen ? Where can I find the association of address blocks and registries ? We are currently working on mirroring a copule of sites on all major continents. I understand this approach does not optimize routing to the web servers within north america. Sanjay.

3 2