June 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

Scott -- i would agree if the proposed solutions were sane. The offered "vision" is pretty much the negation of what made Internet so successful. Sure, bring in suits and lawyers, institute centralized control, replace engineers who _do_ things with engineers whose only qualification is willingness to use the strangulation device. *That* sure will make Internet users happy as clams. Let's get real. --vadim

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by William B. Norton 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

It is interesting how people perceive things differently. I didn't think Bob was harsh. Bob's opening sentence "The NANOG is our best bet for managing through the Internet's coming collapses" struck me as very positive. Some of his points were inadequately stated however. For example, the title "Techies, doers must join forces to help weave the Internet's new clothes" implies that the non-techies are the real "doers". If one reads between the lines, perhaps he is saying that there are still some Internet business model issues (MLPAs, settlement agreements, etc.) to address in the new Internet model. And clearly there are still some non-technical issues here. But he didn't come out and say that. As for his point about unpolished speakers, and the booting laptops comments etc. I think these are simply reflective of the working nature of the NANOG meeting. We are not formal here. We are not marketing here. We are judged on the technical content of the presentations. We are all in the same boat, working to identify and solve the most pressing technical problems. And we all have a stake in the stability and reliability of the Internet. Flashy presentations may impress the suits, but make the technical folks suspicious. Bryan Beecher once told me that the fancier the graphics, the grander the lies. (I guess that makes InterOp the site of the grandest lies then.) The point is, I think Bob was harping on something that is *not* a bad thing. BTW - I was assuming he was trying to be humorous with his 'bring on the executives and T-shirt' comment. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

How about a tie party? :) --vadim >From: Per Gregers Bilse <bilse(a)EU.net> >Bob is actually quite funny at times, I liked the thing about wearing >a tie. Can we get somebody to send a reminder on the IETF announcement >list, for people to bring ties and testboot their laptops before >turning up in Montreal?

1 0

tilting at windmills discussion 2
by scharf＠vix.com 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

In an attempt to reduce the signal to noise ratio of NANOG, I felt like ATM should get equal time with registry policy for unending discussion of week award. In Bob Melcalfe's concept that all we care about is working code, I have included a PERL program for your benefit. The programs reads a histogram file like the ones kc generates from mae-west (http://www.nlanr.net/NA/Learn/packetsizes.html) and computes the overhead for various framing methods. Hopefully taking empirical data from the internet and giving people code will reduce the discussions of what the "cell tax" for real traffic is. Don't like my traffic, collect your own. Fighting over conclusions will be left to others. Jerry Here's the output from the 15 minute collection run on Feb 10th, '96: % packettax.pl < packetsizes.data total packets seen = 11708789, total payload bytes seen = 3010380871 HDLC framing bytes = 3080633605 HDLC efficiency = 97.72 ATM framing bytes = 3644304857 ATM efficiency = 82.61 ATM w/snap framing bytes = 3862101043 ATM w/snap efficiency = 77.95 and here's the crude but working code (copyright courtesy of the ISC) #! /usr/bin/perl # Copyright (c) 1996 by Internet Software Consortium. # # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any # purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above # copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. # # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND INTERNET SOFTWARE CONSORTIUM DISCLAIMS # ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES # OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL INTERNET SOFTWARE # CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL # DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR # PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS # ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS # SOFTWARE. # # Jerry Scharf, 5/96 # perl script to take a packet histogram and compute framing efficiency # the expected format is: # packetsize count rest # for each packetsize, the program computes the frame size for HDLC # and, ATM/AAL5 with and without SNAP, and multiplies them by count and # adds them to running totals. At the end, it prints the 3 totals, and the # efficiency of each framing method (payload/framedsize). # (I had done PPP, but there are too many possible header sizes.) # # this was specifically designed to take data from the NLANR project to # generate traffic studies, courtesy of k claffy. Kent England checked the # ATM cell calcualtions. # $payload = 0.0; $hdlcload = 0.0; # $pppload = 0.0; $atmload = 0.0; $atmsnapload = 0.0; $numpackets = 0.0; while (<>) { chop; ($packetsize,$packetcount,@rest) = split; $hdlcframe = $packetsize + 6; # $pppframe = $packetsize + 8; $atmframe = int(($packetsize+8+47)/48) * 53; $atmsnapframe = int(($packetsize+16+47)/48) * 53; $payload += $packetsize*$packetcount; $hdlcload += $hdlcframe*$packetcount; # $pppload += $pppframe*$packetcount; $atmload += $atmframe*$packetcount; $atmsnapload += $atmsnapframe*$packetcount; $numpackets += $packetcount; } printf("total packets seen = %12.0f, total payload bytes seen = %12.0f\n", $numpackets, $payload); printf("HDLC framing bytes = %12.0f HDLC efficiency = %2.2f\%\n", $hdlcload, 100*$payload/$hdlcload); # printf("PPP framing bytes = %12.0f PPP efficiency = %2.2f\%\n", # $pppload, 100*$payload/$pppload); printf("ATM framing bytes = %12.0f ATM efficiency = %2.2f\%\n", $atmload, 100*$payload/$atmload); printf("ATM w/snap framing bytes = %12.0f ATM w/snap efficiency = %2.2f\%\n", $atmsnapload, 100*$payload/$atmsnapload);

2 1

Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

Thanks for the hard figures, Jerry! --vadim

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by Vincent J. Bono 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

Regarding our wonderful Mr. Metcalfe and his article at : http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe/metcalfe.htm On again he has succeeded in generating a structured, well written article, that conjures up the image of a concerned parent shaking his head in dismay over a child that he had great expectations for. Of course, if had even the vaguest idea of what had been going on at NANOG he might feel a bit differently. It was funny, I'll admit, when we found that the projector didn't put out enough lumens to drive the LCD panel, and I know that I chuckled when I learned that there was no packet loss anywhere ;) But hey, if you spend 14 hours a day *every* day dealing with building even a minor backbone like mine, I feel that you kind of earn the right to chuckle. What Andrew, Curtis, Sean and the rest have earned, well, I don't want to inflate egos any more than they already are <grin>. Metcalfe feels that he was wrongly flamed for getting his facts wrong about who moderates NANOG. That isn't the case at all. He was flamed for being an ass and *printing* facts that were wrong. Oh he cited a URL that maybe contained bad info. And if we are not *real* engineers, well, how many *real* journalists don't verify their information with a couple of sources before they print it? Now don't get me wrong. Bob is a *real* engineer in my book. In fact, his article proves it. His petty attention to the bad points of NANOG and his omission of all of the good things that came out of it, well isn't that just what he accused *us* of? Oh sure Peter went off on a tangent during the DX.NET peering piece, but Peter *always* does this and we all would be worried if he didn't. What Mr. Metcalfe missed was the upwards of 50 (my estimate only) direct BGP peering sessions that were arranged at the CAIS party that evening and opened on various NAPs the next Monday. He also missed the fact the the RADB got updated and cleaned by an unprecedented number of ISPs (even if it is too much work for Sprint <grin>). In his years of "wearing a suit", I think Bob has forgotten that it is ultimately the results that count. We argue, whine, and moan, and it's amazing that the GW hall could hold all of the egos that were at NANOG, but after each event, how many bogus routes stop getting injected into the NAPs? How many fragmented announcements get aggregated more efficiently? Even the NIC listens and learns, Guardian is here (sort of). And Bob *has* an Internet to write on and about. Oh well. I spent quite a while designing interfaces that used a technology that Bob basically invented from scratch, and I actually *learned* about Ethernet before uttering my first complaint (well maybe not entirely true). Too bad he didn't pay NANOG (and the respective Internet backbones and NAPs) the same courtesy (I don't see him on the IAB). -vjb

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by jbehrle＠noc.bbn.com 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

In the spirit of the article someone should have T-shirts made up... A ties could be silk-screened on the front, and the back could have something catchy, like... "Save the Internet, wear a tie..." or "Bob said I could save the Internet, and as it turns out all I got was this stupid tie^H^H^H T-shirt" -Jeremy On Jun 18, 9:01pm, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Subject: Re: critique of NANOG meeting > All-in-all, an entertaining article. :-) > > - paul > > At 04:35 PM 6/18/96 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > > >I don't know if you folks are following Metcalfe's columns but this week > >the topic is NANOG and he mentions some names. > > > >http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe/metcalfe.htm > > > > > >Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting > >Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 > >http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com > > > > > > > >-- End of excerpt from Paul Ferguson

1 0

critique of NANOG meeting
by Michael Dillon 19 Jun '96

19 Jun '96

I don't know if you folks are following Metcalfe's columns but this week the topic is NANOG and he mentions some names. http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe/metcalfe.htm Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com

2 2

Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
by jones＠nsipo.arc.nasa.gov 18 Jun '96

18 Jun '96

Cool. Off-shore oil leases bring a tidy sum. Government is trying to emulate private enterprise these days. But careful when you open this box. It could ... argh#$%. Kent is right on. /bill jones, and chargeback afficianado nasa ames research center In referenace to: --- Forwarded mail from "Kent W. England" <kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com> >From nanog-owner(a)merit.edu Tue Jun 18 14:53:21 1996 Return-Path: <nanog-owner(a)merit.edu> Received: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT) from merit.edu (RFC1413 sender merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (8.7.1/1.5) id OAA09938 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id NAA18345 for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.cts.com (mailhub.cts.com [192.188.72.25]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id NAA18340 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netguru.cts.com(really [204.94.77.43]) by mailhub.cts.com via smail with smtp id <m0uW4sw-000V85C(a)mailhub.cts.com> for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 96 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT) (Smail-3.1.92 1996-Mar-19 #3 built 1996-Apr-21) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618175326.00725468(a)mail.cts.com> X-Sender: kwe(a)mail.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:53:26 -0700 To: gih(a)aarnet.edu.au (Geoff Huston) From: "Kent W. England" <kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com> Subject: Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 08:40 PM 6/18/96 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: >Of course this is not always the case, and typically a public resource distribution >space couples regulation with a tariff to achieve the ultimate outcome of fair >and equitable distribution. The radio spectrum is perhaps the best covered >territory here when looking at this space in relation to the policy debate over >IP address management. > In this debate we have to take care when we talk about charging for registration, whether we are intending to: a) cover the cost of administering a resource (such as .com) b) trying to let a market set prices c) trying to cover the national debt (as with spectrum auctions) Let's just be very sure that if and when fees or prices for addresses are agreed, that someone doesn't step up and claim the right to auction addresses to cover the US budget deficit. There might be a few people in DC that would think to do that. --Kent --- End of forwarded message from "Kent W. England" <kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com>

1 0

Re: critique of NANOG meeting
by Paul Ferguson 18 Jun '96

18 Jun '96

All-in-all, an entertaining article. :-) - paul At 04:35 PM 6/18/96 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > >I don't know if you folks are following Metcalfe's columns but this week >the topic is NANOG and he mentions some names. > >http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe/metcalfe.htm > > >Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting >Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com > > >

1 0