February 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Final agenda
by Susan R. Harris 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Greetings - here's the final schedule. --------------------------------------------- North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) Agenda Monday, February 10 Time Topic Presenter(s) 9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, Bill Norton, Merit Future Meetings 9:30 a.m. Common Metrics for Exchange K. Claffy, NLANR, Points moderator 10:30 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. InterNIC Update Mark Kosters and Kim Hubbard, InterNIC 11:30 a.m. Internet II: Pragmatic Steve Corbato, Views from Higher Education Univ. of Washington Dave Meyer, Univ. of Oregon 12:00-1:30 Lunch p.m. 1:30 p.m. Blocking in the GIGAswitch Stephen Polit, Digital 2:00 p.m. End-to-End TCP Packet Vern Paxson, Lawrence Dynamics Berkeley Lab 2:45 p.m. TCP Response Under Loss Curtis Villamizar, ANS Conditions 3:15 p.m. Report on Inter-Provider Randy Bush, WNA Cooperation 3:30 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m. Introducing Trawhoisd Xin Liu, Merit 4:00 p.m. AS Object Editor WeeSan Lee, ISI 4:15 p.m. Using the IRR to Assist Curtis Villamizar, ANS With Aggregation 4:30 p.m. Consideration of Policy: Laura Cunningham, MCI What's Needed and Can RSVP Help? Tuesday, February 11 9:00 a.m. RA Update Bill Norton, Merit Bill Manning, ISI 9:30 a.m. Internet Routing Rob Malan, Univ. of Mich. Instability 10:00 a.m. Squid Update Duane Wessels, NLANR 10:30 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. Non-BGP Multihoming for Web Paul Vixie, CIX Sites 11:15 a.m. What can be Done About Curtis Villamizar, ANS HTTP and Small TCP Flows? 11:30 a.m. How to be a Good MBone Bill Fenner, Xerox PARC Neighbor 12:00-1:30 Lunch p.m. BOFs: Track 1 1:30-2:30 Exchange Point Engineering Bill Manning, ISI p.m. Issues 2:30-3:30 Flow Switching Analysis John Hawkinson, BBN Planet p.m. Daniel McRobb, ANS, moderators BOFs: Track 2 1:30-2:30 Route Server Peering at the Jake Khuon and p.m. IXPs: Procedures, Policy, Abha Ahuja, Merit and Connectivity 2:30-3:30 MLPAs: All for One, One for Bill Woodcock, Packet p.m. All Clearing House, moderator 3:30 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m. Controlling Network Abuse Paul Vixie, CIX Using BGP-4 4:15 p.m. Closing Remarks Bill Norton, Merit 4:30 p.m. Adjourn

1 0

RE: FW: IAHC/IANA Verdict
by Jim Fleming 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

On Wednesday, February 05, 1997 1:57 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 12:49 2/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >In the "darwinian" world of the Internet, it is important for the @ >entire Internet community to select only the "best of the net", as @ >the net expands. @ > @ >In the interest of making progress and getting people to focus on @ >the large administrative and technical tasks facing everyone that @ >really operate the Internet, I suggest that we debate which of the @ >above names have merit and have registries standing behind them @ >ready to support them. @ > @ >In my opinion, only the .WEB Top Level Domain qualfies for @ >consideration at this time. If people know of other registries @ >that have stepped forward to support any of the other TLDs, @ >please speak up. @ @ Jim, @ @ I don't know if I qualify as one of the folks who @ "really operate the Internet", but I'd like to point @ out that we have customers who would like to have @ a readable, logical domain name and willing to be @ outside of ".com". Each of these domains seems to @ be well-thought out and I don't think they will be @ any shortage of users or candidate registries. @ @ If you need to know that there will be a registry @ for each new gTLD, then I'm willing to run any of @ them that cannot otherwise find a home. @ @ /John @ @ @ @ That is fine. I assume that you are saying that BBN Planet intends to participate in the IAHC "lottery" or to run CORE. That is your company's choice. If and when you do that, and if and when you develop a new TLD to the point of maturity as a .COM, .NET or a .WEB, then you might be able to "step up to the next" level. Until that time, you are at square one, like all of the other people that hope to host a TLD registry. In summary, I know BBN can talk the talk, now you just have to walk the walk...that should not be hard... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

FW: IAHC/IANA Verdict
by Jim Fleming 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net.] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 1997 10:58 AM To: 'New Newdom' Cc: 'Donald Heath'; 'postel(a)iana.org' Subject: IAHC/IANA Verdict After several months and much deliberation, the IAHC/IANA has finally handed down its verdict. The seven names that have been selected for their elaborate registry system are shown below. The rest of the IAHC/IANA proposal has very little to do with the Root Name Server owners and operators and appears to be mostly of interest to the members of the ISOC and the IAHC/IANA. @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html 3.1 Recommendations New gTLDs will consist of strings of three to five letters each. gTLD names should have general, contextual meaning, i.e. the gTLD should suggest a connection with the Internet, with business or with personal uses. Seven, new gTLDs are specified here. It is expected that no further allocations will be made until April, 1998. .firm .store .web .arts .rec .info .nom @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ In the "darwinian" world of the Internet, it is important for the entire Internet community to select only the "best of the net", as the net expands. In the interest of making progress and getting people to focus on the large administrative and technical tasks facing everyone that really operate the Internet, I suggest that we debate which of the above names have merit and have registries standing behind them ready to support them. In my opinion, only the .WEB Top Level Domain qualfies for consideration at this time. If people know of other registries that have stepped forward to support any of the other TLDs, please speak up. These are the open forums where history should be written. If the owners and operators of the Root Name Servers agree that .WEB is a candidate for recognition, then I will assign it the IPv8 Mapping of S10.G0 as shown below: IPv8 Mappings S0.G0 - .NET (or .ARPA which is deprecated) S1.G0 - .GOV S2.G0 - .MIL S3.G0 - .EDU S4.G0 - .ORG S5.G0 - .COM S6.G0 - .INT S7.G0 - .NIC S8.G0 - .USA S9.G0 - .CORP S10.G0 - .WEB If anyone has any comments, additions, corrections, etc. Please post them to the "newdom" list <http://www.newdom.com/lists>. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Request for mail Group
by george estes 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Please enter my mail address in the list to receive mail gestes(a)concentric.net Thanks

1 0

RE: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability
by Robert Wilson 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

I din't see an answer on this one.... >---------- >From: Andrew Partan[SMTP:asp@partan.com] >Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 10:55 PM >To: feldman(a)mfst.com >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability > >> In response to requests from several customers for a filtering solution >> at MAE EAST and MAE WEST, MFS WorldCom is developing an automated >> system to enable ISPs to control traffic destined for their own routers >> and networks. > >Are you going to post the list of permitted/denied addresses? > >Operationally it would be *very* useful to know what addresses are >blocked. > --asp(a)partan.com (Andrew Partan) >

7 7

FIX-West.
by Esteban-CEAP Network Operations 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Hello- Does anyone know a URL for FIX-WEST information? Thanks. -Esteban Gutierrez

5 6

prefix aggregation
by Bernard.Tuy＠urec.fr 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Hi, In many places yet we're discussing prefix aggregation for at least 193/8, 194/8 and 195/8 IP blocks. I was told since a while that some US carriers -such as SprintLink- have decided to filter (id. no more route) prefixes longer than /19. My questions is : - is this impleted yet ? - if yes, who does it, for which class(es) of prefixes of which length ? - if no, when do you intend to have this filtering operational ? As I'm acting as a "consultant" for the french academic network (Renater) I'm interesting in knowing what policy every ISP -specially in the US of A- intend to implement in the near future. Thanks for your help and time, Regards, +Bernard Tuy.

2 1

Re: NAP filters and multicast
by salo＠msc.edu 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:56:52 -0600 (CST) > From: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> > Subject: NAP filters and multicast > [...] > I haven't looked to closely at > multicast on the ATM NAPs. Are they using ATM's native multicast > capability, or are they using multiple tunnels? ATM's approximation of multicast is still pretty primitive. I would be very surprised if any of the ATM-based NAPs are trying to use ATM multicast to support the MBONE. -tjs

1 0

NAP filters and multicast
by Sean Donelan 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

>If full filtering (i.e. everything disallowed) we in place as the default, and each >member had to provide a list of allowed points, and the members of the allowed >points had to agree before the filters were installed, the model would be very >similar to the ATM based NAPs. So far, the ATM based NAP's seem to work >fairly well. *JMO* This varies a lot depending on who is operating the interconnection point. In practice, it often depends on the dedicated work of one or two individuals. If they do a good job, it will work well. If they leave or change jobs, things can get really, really bad. I think Paul Vixie's reaction has a lot to do with the problems dealing with PacBell's SMDS group getting address screening tables configured correctly. It usually takes two or twenty attempts, and you have to check every month, because they have a nasty habit of changing things behind your back. And even then, you may not get the full story, because often the address screen listed on the paperwork in the Pacbell business often doesn't match the address screen configured in the Pacbell SMDS switch. But PacBell won't send you a copy of the actual switch configuration for your port. I do have a question though. How will this effect the efforts to use the native multicast features to carry MBONE traffic. Are we going to end up with multiple tunnels traversing the exchange points carrying identical MBONE packets. Are we going to end up with odd MBONE black holes because multicast packet routing doesn't like NBMA networks. I haven't looked to closely at multicast on the ATM NAPs. Are they using ATM's native multicast capability, or are they using multiple tunnels? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: Exchange updates
by Paul Ferguson 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

It would *great* if an English version of this page existed. :-/ - paul At 03:43 PM 2/4/97 -0800, bmanning(a)isi.edu wrote: > > Embratel - PIR > GT-ER - PIR [to include the LNCC page]

3 2