February 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

NLRI Origin verification
by Yakov Rekhter 06 Feb '98

06 Feb '98

Folks, ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/yakov/draft-bates-bgp4-nlri-orig-verif-00.txt may be of interest to you. Yakov.

1 0

FDDI or 100Mb Ethernet
by Charles Sprickman 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Hi, We colocate with our upstream, so we (thankfully) don't have to deal with Bell Atlantic for our main Internet connection. We are currently running a 10Mb ethernet link to our provider, but our contract allows for more than that should we ever need it. Since the Bay ASN we now use will soon be history and will be replaced by a shiny new(?) Cisco, I'm thinking of upgrading the link now rather than later. We have a choice of FDDI or 100Mb ethernet. I'm thinking FDDI is better, and not too much more expensive for our side. Are there any negatives with FDDI? How does the 4000(?) Byte MTU affect things? All of our outgoing links, T1 and ether are all 1500. Does the work of fragmenting the packets down to 1500 amount to anything? All this talk about MTUs has got me wondering. Thanks, Charles ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Charles Sprickman Internet Channel INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 spork(a)inch.com access(a)inch.com

2 1

Gated on Solaris on Intel
by Eric Germann 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Looking for privately shared war stories of using Gated on Solaris X86. The good, the bad and the ugly. Thanx, Eric ekgermann(a)cctec.com

1 0

MTU of the Internet?
by Peter Ford 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Several people have noted to the Microsoft Support and Product groups that they want the Windows 95 PPP MTU to be set to 576 (down from 1500). this change is in Windows 98. The reason for this change cited by many customers is that many ISPs have 576 MTUs set "inside" their networks and packets get fragmented. How prevelant is this fragmentation and how prevelant is this MTU in ISPs? Are there statistics that can be shared on how much traffic they see on their networks that are IP fragments? Why do ISPs set their MTUs to 576 instead of ~1500 or even ~4K? thanks in advance for your responses, peter

25 32

Re: High capacity wireless WAN equipment.
by Pat Darisme 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Would LMDS meet your needs ? http://www.wireless-one.com/ http://www.insight-corp.com/lmds.html Or a web search on LMDS ... Once upon a time, Louis A. Destree arranged the electrons in @Home's private scaleable, ATM, OC3 BackBone to write: > Subject: High capacity wireless WAN equipment. > (Feb 5, 4:14pm) > Greetings, > > I'm trying to round up information on wireless WAN equipment. I need T1 > and above speeds. If anyone has some information on products or > experience I'd be interested in hearing it. > > Thanks, > Louis > -- > Louis A. Destree > Senior Network Engineer > FlashNet Communications > destree(a)flash.net > End of included message written by Louis A. Destree on Feb 5, 4:14pm, >

1 0

High capacity wireless WAN equipment.
by Louis A. Destree 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Greetings, I'm trying to round up information on wireless WAN equipment. I need T1 and above speeds. If anyone has some information on products or experience I'd be interested in hearing it. Thanks, Louis -- Louis A. Destree Senior Network Engineer FlashNet Communications destree(a)flash.net

5 5

Specifying a layer 3 MLPA in the IRR
by Jake Khuon 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Here are two pointers to two drafts for specifying and maintaining MLPAs in the IRR. I will be holding a presentation and discussion at the next Interprovider Ops BOF at NANOG 12. The first document is RIPE181 specific and the second is RPSL sepcific. http://espresso.merit.net/~khuon/khuon-003.txt http://espresso.merit.net/~khuon/khuon-004.txt -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon(a)Merit.Net> ]=====================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | Vox: (734) 763-4907 Fax: (734) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/

1 0

Re: MTU of the Internet?
by Dennis Simpson 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:51:44 -0700 (MST) > From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc(a)iMach.com> > To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > cc: Peter Ford <peterf(a)microsoft.com>, "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Subject: Re: MTU of the Internet? > > Now it's been a while since I looked at latency vs transfer rates, so > maybe someone who works on this on an everyday basis would like to comment > on what ~200 more ms of latency on a 28.8 link would do to throughput > end-to-end across the net (totals of something like 350 and 512 ms > end-to-end). We recommend that clients who care about interactive response use small MTUs, and clients who care about download speed use higher MTUs. It seems most of them agree that smaller MTUs improve their interactive response for things like telnet, IRC, MUD, etc., particularly if they are downloading/surfing at the same time. Thx, dennis

7 9

Agenda for the Interprovider Ops BOF at NANOG12
by Jake Khuon 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

Here's the final agenda for the Interprovider Operations BOF at NANOG 12. It will be held in the main room at 9PM on Monday night. Hope to see you all there. Interprovider Operations BOF - NANOG 12 AGENDA I. Introduction (Jake Khuon) A. Participant's List and Survey Form B. Notetaking Volunteer C. Agenda Bashing D. Unfinished Business NANOG OPS WG discussion (Jake Khuon) Do we need one? Publications series? Charter? II. Network-Based Denial Of Service Attacks Trends, Descriptions, and How to Protect Your Network (Craig Huegen) III. Specifying and Supporting a Layer-3 MLPA In the Internet Routing Registry (Jake Khuon) IV. PAIR Update and Other Fun Stuff (Abha Ahuja) V. Operational Issues for NAP Customers (Mark Cnota) VI. Other Discussions (open) -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon(a)Merit.Net> ]=====================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | Vox: (734) 763-4907 Fax: (734) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/

1 0

Troubleshooting Internet connections
by wthall＠vie.com 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

We have servers co-located at NAP sites across the country and have several thousand users connect to us daily. When the users have packetloss or latency problems I have been using traceroute and ping to troubleshoot their connections. From some recent threads here, I am concerned that these tools are giving me a false image of which routers are having problems because of the differences between the way some routers process the packets sent to them and packets sent through them (different priorities and input queues). Is there anyway other then traceroute and ping to pinpoint problems on an Internet connection? Thanks for any ideas you may have. Wayne Hall Network Manager VIE

1 0