August 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Agenda for next NANOG
by Susan R. Harris 04 Sep '96

04 Sep '96

Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the Oct. 24-25 NANOG agenda: - vBNS Update - Future router requirements - Multihoming pros and cons - Economics of Internet resource allocation Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 10

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by Geoff Huston 03 Sep '96

03 Sep '96

Vadim writes, >On itself, LSRR is a godsend to hackers (i can think of about >a dozen of very nasty attacks using general LSRR). The only >useful application for it is traceroute. > >Why don't router vendors provide an option to turn it >off for everything but ICMP ECHO? Personally I find this an excellent suggestion. g

3 2

Re: Agenda for next NANOG
by salo＠msc.edu 03 Sep '96

03 Sep '96

> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Agenda for next NANOG > [...] > What would it take to set up a couple of Alphas, routers and zero-mile > T1's in a portable testing kit to go around from NAP to NAP and run tests? > [...] > Such > machines could run a full suite of tests including FTP'ing large files, > downloading complex web pages (i.e. multiple images) as well as the lower > level things like ping tests. > > This kind of test would provide useful numbers that customers can > understand as well as point out problem areas that a NAP operator might > need to investigate. And with co-operative NAP peers, the same test kit > could be used with T1's out to various locations that feed into the NAP so > as to run the same tests across the peer's routers and lines. > > Would this kind of testing reveal any useful information that could not be > gotten from examining router stats? Actually, it would be nice if this "portable test kit" were actually an optional board for a router. You could, for example, stick the "portable test kit" board in a router and then test at will. We also tried to explain to our ATM tester vendors that we wanted ttcp implemented in the ATM tester. Some understood, some didn't... -tjs

4 4

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by Daniel W. McRobb 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

> Daniel W. McRobb <dwm(a)ans.net> wrote: > > > >1-2 million is not much. Even in the NSFNET days, I worked w/ > > >5-million-cell net matrices. All it takes is memory and some CPU. > > > > 1-2 _simultaneoulsy_, not over period of time. The 1-hr matrix > > would be two orders of magnitude bigger. > > >A typical 1 hour matrix is considerably smaller. Even a core router > >who carries 40,000 routes will not see anywhere near 40,000 * 40,000 > >cells in a one hour period, or even 2 million cells. Not in my > >experience. Even the NAP and MAE routers where I've collected this data > >have seen net matrices only on the order of (10^3) to (10^5) for a one > >hour period. > > That's _host address_ matrix, not network address matrix. It is at least > three orders of magnitude bigger. Who said host-to-host matrix? I have not needed that granularity for finding traffic that's coming into our backbone at an ingress that it should not traverse. I think for the provider crowd, net traffic matrices and AS traffic matrices are very useful and host matrices are too fine in terms of granularity to be useful. Of course I said that here a while ago. It's really up to the provider and it's just my opinion (because net and AS traffic matrices been very useful to us). It was fairly easy to get this kind of data from the NSS routers. The Ciscos have the instrumentation to let you get this data as well. Whether or not you can enable it on a particular box depends on whether or not the box in question can handle it (not running out of CPU cycles or memory). And of course you need a machine you can export to that won't roll over and die (or just drop packets). I think in many cases, it's really no problem to enable flow switching and export to a pretty whimpy workstation. And for the very busy routers, flow switching in and of itself is probably more likely to cause problems than the export will cause for a modern workstation. At some point that may change (of course that's the router vendor's issue). I know that in our case, there are several points on the ANS backbone where we can potentially enable flow switching and export the flow stats. We haven't done that yet (because I'm still working w/ Cisco to get the data), but it will probably happen at some point in the future. Daniel ~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Carl Oppedahl 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

At 02:22 PM 08/31/96 -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: >>Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: >>- the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, >>- the never-ending risk of loss of a domain name (with only 30 days' >>warning) that any domain name owner faces even if they aren't infringing >>anybody's trademarks, >>- the very few steps that a domain name owner can take to reduce the risk of >>loss of a domain name. > >Personally, I suspect the FNCAC is the more appropriate forum for public >complaints about NSI's activities under their cooperative aggreement. The >FNCAC usually meets sometime around October too. Policy and Politics are >their specialty. > >*BUT* since NSI has made presentations at NANOG about their domain dispute >policy in the past, I suppose its only fair to hear from the loyal opposition. I am unaware of whether NSI is on the agenda for the October NANOG meeting. But if it is, then I do urge those who would attend NSI's presentation to seek out the domain name owner's point of view as well. NSI's position is essentially adversarial to that of the domain name owners, a point that NSI doesn't disclose in its presentations. >I would ask any such presentation be time-limited, the audience agrees to >sit quietly in their seats, and scheduled as the last thing in the day, so >the rest of us can adjourn to the bar early. Ideally the NSI and domain-name-owner-side presentations would be back-to-back. End of the day is fine with me. Carl Oppedahl

3 2

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Sean Donelan 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

>Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: >- the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, >- the never-ending risk of loss of a domain name (with only 30 days' >warning) that any domain name owner faces even if they aren't infringing >anybody's trademarks, >- the very few steps that a domain name owner can take to reduce the risk of >loss of a domain name. Personally, I suspect the FNCAC is the more appropriate forum for public complaints about NSI's activities under their cooperative aggreement. The FNCAC usually meets sometime around October too. Policy and Politics are their specialty. *BUT* since NSI has made presentations at NANOG about their domain dispute policy in the past, I suppose its only fair to hear from the loyal opposition. I would ask any such presentation be time-limited, the audience agrees to sit quietly in their seats, and scheduled as the last thing in the day, so the rest of us can adjourn to the bar early. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG
by Paul Ferguson 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

At 01:11 PM 8/30/96 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Analysis of Actual End to End Performance accross the NAPs/MAEs >> An excellent topic, to be sure, but how do you propose that this be >> measured? > >And there's a subject for a NANOG panel in itself. > >I can think of some interesting experiments that would involve cooperation >of multiple peers. But there are folk far better based in measurment than I >who might suggest some fun stuff. Guy, Steve, ..., this is your cue. > >randy > ... And it might even be nice for someone who is active in the IETF Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) to participate. [ref: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html] - paul

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by salo＠msc.edu 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:33:33 -0400 > To: "Susan R. Harris" <srh(a)merit.edu>, nanog(a)merit.edu > From: Carl Oppedahl <carl(a)oppedahl.com> > Subject: Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names? > [...] > Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: > > - the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, > [...] While I don't necessarily like the tone of the e-mail message, I think it would be interesting to hear an independent legal opinion of the issues. Perhaps, a little about the legal background, (e.g., trademark law), a summary of what issues are fairly clear from a legal perspective, a descriptions of the areas where the legal answers are not yet clear, and the level of risk to various parties. On the other hand, I don't know that NANOG is the right forum for this. Any suggestions for a better forum? -tjs

2 1

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Carl Oppedahl 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

At 02:08 PM 08/30/96 -0400, Susan R. Harris wrote: >Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the Oct. 24-25 NANOG >agenda: [deleted] >Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: - the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, - the never-ending risk of loss of a domain name (with only 30 days' warning) that any domain name owner faces even if they aren't infringing anybody's trademarks, - the very few steps that a domain name owner can take to reduce the risk of loss of a domain name. The owner of clue.com, a computer consultant in Colorado, is in *two* lawsuits with NSI in an effort to keep from losing the domain name. After he got a court order directing NSI not to cut off the domain name, NSI sued him back in federal court asking for permission to cut it off. All because Hasbro wants it for a board game. The owner of regis.com, a public relations firm in California, is in a lawsuit with NSI to try to keep from losing its domain name. All because a cosmetics company wants it. The owner of disc.com, a software company in Colorado whose four initials spells "disc", is in *two* lawsuits with NSI to keep from losing the domain name to some other company that has the same four initials. In that one, too, NSI sued them back in federal court asking for permission to cut it off. The owner of dci.com, a company in Tennessee whose three initials spell "dci", had to sue NSI to keep from losing its domain name. Some other company with the same three initials asked NSI to cut it off, and NSI was happy to do it for them. And don't forget the case where the owner of ty.com (named after his three-year-old child, named "Ty") had to sue NSI to keep from losing it to some company called "Ty". (For more about all of this, see <http:www.patents.com/nsi.sht>.) Probably almost every attendee at Nanog is responsible for some domain name or another. To each attendee, I would say, what would you do if you were minding your own business, not infringing anybody's trademarks, and a letter showed up from NSI stating that they had scheduled a cutoff of your domain name in 30 days because some trademark owner had asked them to do so? If this topic would be of interest, let me know and I could probably help with setting up a panel to discuss it. Carl Oppedahl

2 1

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Scott Bradner 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

this does not seem to be a topic that nanog would profit from getting in the middle of. Scott

1 0