January 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: PacBell
by Thomas Novak 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Brian / Ted I called 415.542.9000. All I can say is give it a try and asked to be transferred to new lines section _Thomas >----- Begin Included Message -----< Brian Horvitz was caught stating: > > Does anybody have a good phone number for PacBell where I can get SMDS = > info? I'm in Boston and haven't had the pleasure of dealing with them = > yet so I figure I'll call the number on the web page...no good, all the = > 800 numbers I've found thus far are disconnected. Hey Brian, fancy meeting you here :) You can try PacBell's Frame Relay/SMDS Noc # - 800-870-9007 -- Ted Beatie ted(a)uu.net Systems Engineer ..uunet!ted UUNET Technologies, Inc., 3060 Williams Drive, Fairfax, VA 22031 "the number of people in the United States who would not recognize the phrase 'Beam me up, Scotty' is roughly comparable to the number of people who have never heard of ketchup." - Lawrence Krauss >----- End Included Message -----<

1 0

RE: Info on MAE-EAST
by Danny Stroud 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

why don't you ask the people that run it--MFS? des ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Todd R. Stroup Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 3:13 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Info on MAE-EAST Does anyone have any info on if MAE-EAST allows collocation of a 7507 now or is it still stated that the size has to be about the size of a 7010. Please return email direct to tstroup(a)fibernet.net Thanks. Todd R. Stroup Fiber Network Solutions, Inc.

3 2

PacBell
by Brian Horvitz 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Does anybody have a good phone number for PacBell where I can get SMDS info? I'm in Boston and haven't had the pleasure of dealing with them yet so I figure I'll call the number on the web page...no good, all the 800 numbers I've found thus far are disconnected. Brian Horvitz WebSecure, Inc.

2 1

Re: Need help w/internet draft.
by Paul Ferguson 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Tim's proposal is called "Classless Route Aggregation in Network Systems (CRANES)". His paper is located at: http://www.silkroad.com/papers/ - paul At 09:07 AM 1/15/97 -0700, Forrest W. Christian wrote: > >On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > >> This sounds amazingly like Tim Bass' proposal from last year. :-) > >Could youu point me towards the relevant proposal and any discussion >which took place on it? I've dug through nanog and cidrd for last year >with no avail. Do you know what timeframe we're talking about? > >-forrestc(a)imach.com > > >> >> - paul >> >> At 11:18 PM 1/14/97 -0700, Forrest W. Christian wrote: >> >> > >> >I've been working on an internet draft on using NAT techniques for >> >agreggating the core routing tables. >> > >> >I'm to the point that I need some assistance with general internet-draft >> >writing practices. I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right >> >direction or otherwise offer general assistance. The RFC's and other >> >docs on the registrar's web site are of little real use. >> > >> >Technical suggestions are also welcome. >> > >> >What I've got so far is up on the web at: >> > >> >http://www.mt.net/~forrestc/route.txt >> > >> >Another question I have is related to the appropriate forum(s) to discuss >> >this particular draft in. I have no desire to add greatly to the noise >> >level in non-relevant lists. >> > >> >-forrestc(a)imach.com >> > >> > >> > >> >

1 0

Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
by Paul Ferguson 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

At 03:01 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Tony Li wrote: > > Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see > that we have it installed? > >I think that the engineering special build number would probably be more >relevant. ;-) As Ravi is out of cyberspace for a while (everyone >congratulate him when he gets back!), Paul, could you please do the honors? > CSCdi75464, integrated in 11.1(7)CA and 11.1(7.3) mainline. This is an optimization, not a bug fix, although I'm sure skeptics would subjectively argue otherwise. - paul

9 11

Re: Need help w/internet draft.
by Paul Ferguson 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

This sounds amazingly like Tim Bass' proposal from last year. :-) - paul At 11:18 PM 1/14/97 -0700, Forrest W. Christian wrote: > >I've been working on an internet draft on using NAT techniques for >agreggating the core routing tables. > >I'm to the point that I need some assistance with general internet-draft >writing practices. I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right >direction or otherwise offer general assistance. The RFC's and other >docs on the registrar's web site are of little real use. > >Technical suggestions are also welcome. > >What I've got so far is up on the web at: > >http://www.mt.net/~forrestc/route.txt > >Another question I have is related to the appropriate forum(s) to discuss >this particular draft in. I have no desire to add greatly to the noise >level in non-relevant lists. > >-forrestc(a)imach.com > > >

2 1

Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Sean Donelan 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

>I do not think any of them would kill the hen laying golden eggs. >The reality is that backbone ISPs are starting to turn out new >customers. There's always a lot of noise from those who just don't >get TANSTAAFL, though. Sigh, there are customers who would love to buy better service. But when we ask various providers what we, as customers, can do to get better service out of those networks, we're told by those providers their networks don't have any problems. If the problem doesn't involve the service provider, why would giving them more money make things better? If we believe what the providers have been saying, our money would be better spent elsewhere to improve service. Whatever the problems with MERIT's methods, they showed there were quantitive differences between different providers. What those differences really mean, and why they exist is open to debate or for academic types, a subject of further research. There are always a lot of noise from those who just don't believe those who say 'trust us' our network has zero loss. I'm from Missouri, Show Me. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
by Justin W. Newton 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

At 12:46 PM 1/14/97 -0500, Jon Zeeff wrote: > >> 0) Is this a bug, does it cause any problem whatsoever? > >If I'm not mistaken, lots of routers have had performance problems >caused by excessive rates of routing updates. > >Or did I misread various previous messages to this list? A BGP withdrawl for a route which is not in the routing table does not cause the router to update any routes and is hence not a routing update. I.e. removing a route that isn't there is not very processor intensive. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services

2 1

Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
by Tony Li 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see that we have it installed? I think that the engineering special build number would probably be more relevant. ;-) As Ravi is out of cyberspace for a while (everyone congratulate him when he gets back!), Paul, could you please do the honors? Thanks, Tony

1 0

Re: Netscape MAE colocation?
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

> hopefully they and other high-volume providers would set up mirrors > *outside* the US so that folks wouldn't spend their bandwidth pulling their > (uncacheable) pages in. Or mirrors *inside* if you are already outside :) > ... do HTTP traffic analysis and the business > case show that selecting different locations for web servers is > "worth it"? Yes, b/w from the UK is expensive enough that we're working on a proposal to site a BBC server in the USA (and our volume isn't very high yet). Brandon -- Brandon Butterworth phone: 01737 836592 BBC Research & Development fax: 01737 832336 Kingswood Warren, Tadworth email: brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk Surrey, KT20 6NP URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/

1 0