June 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Sprint's New ION products
by Peter Leppik 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

At 10:46 AM 6/3/98 , kbrown(a)primelink.com wrote: [...] >Has anyone heard any additional information or have any more insight into >this announcement? I am curious how this might affect the remainder of the >industry. > >Kevin Brown >Huber & Associates, Inc. >Networking Technologies >kbrown(a)primelink.com >http://www.primelink.com/haa/lanwan > I listened to Sprint's press conference yesterday. I came away with a few solid observations/facts: 1) The press conference was an hour-long commercial for ION. 2) The service will be based on an all-ATM network, doing voice over ATM, and IP over ATM. 3) It will be at least a year before ION is deployed to residential customers. 4) It isn't clear that Sprint knows how to solve the last mile problem in the face of RBOC stonewalling. Finally, in the interest of historical perspective, I would like to point out that, if dramatic carrier announcements are to be believed, by today most everyone in the country should be able to order AT&T local service deployed over a 128 Kbps wireless link, and most people in U.S. West territory should be able to buy DSL-based Internet access for $40/month. These things have a way of not going as planned. ----------- Peter U. Leppik, Senior Research Associate Dain Rauscher Wessels, Equity Capital Markets pleppik(a)dainrauscher.com http://www.dainrauscher.com/

2 1

Sprint's New ION products
by kbrown＠primelink.com 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to read about this in our local paper, but Sprint announced their new strategy for integrating voice, data, video over "standard phone lines." They are calling this the Integrated On-Demand Network or ION for short. It sounds an awful lot like ISDN services from perhaps an ESS switch (8 viable bonded channels max) versus the DMS100 (2 bonded channels max). Our local Sprint outlet, to whom I am contracted to administer several pieces of their local dial in access project has just about finished installed the DMS100 switch (yep...we don't have ISDN yet around here). According to the Sprint Internal press release "Sprint today" they intend to completely change their local technologies (scrap the old, in with the new) instead of upgrading their existing network like other carriers. Announced also was the fact that Cisco Systems has been designing/testing/developing the hardware to make this project work, with BellCore doing the software for the project. Rollout to major business is expected to happen in large markets sometime yet this year with residential offerings happening sometime in 1999. Has anyone heard any additional information or have any more insight into this announcement? I am curious how this might affect the remainder of the industry. Kevin Brown Huber & Associates, Inc. Networking Technologies kbrown(a)primelink.com http://www.primelink.com/haa/lanwan

10 9

Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
by Tim Salo 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

> From: "Sean M. Doran" <smd(a)clock.org> > Subject: Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic > Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:38:12 -0700 > [...] > Meanwhile, you might find the Sprint response to the NSFNET > NAP solicitation ("National Virtual NAP") hanging around somewhere > online. You should read it and imagine why it didn't fly. I believe that all four of the winning NSFNET NAP submissions proposed nationwide "NAPs". I believe that the reason they didn't happen is that the NSF asked for and assumed it would get four geographically-focused solutions. I suspect that the notion of awarding four NAPs, all of which covered all of the country, provided the NSF a certain amount of heartburn. I believe that the nationwide NAP concept died, (or was killed), at the time for administrative, not technical, reasons. But, this is all speculation on my part... I have two conflicting notions about the the interesting possibilities offered by nationwide layer-two services: o Layer-two services with distance-insensitive pricing, such as ATM, create some interesting opportunities. If it doesn't cost any more to get across the country than to get across town, why should I build a local NAP rather than a nationwide NAP? (Unless, of course, I am a RBOC and am administratively constrained from offering inter-LATA service.) (I am also ignoring a comparison of a NAP-in-a-closet/POP/parking ramp versus a NAP-in-a-metropolitan-area; this is e-mail to nanog, not a paper for Sigcomm.) Perhaps more relevant today, why should I build a regional Gigapop, _if_ my ATM pricing is truly distance-insensitive? (There might be an answer to the last question, I really don't know. But, I keep asking.) In other words, if pricing is distance-insensitive, why do I need local exchanges? o Distance matters. It is easy to configure an IP network over a large layer-two service that bounces packets around the country, (because IP routing protocols generally think in terms of hop count, not [physical] distance). It would be nice if routing protocols thought about [physical] distance, rather than require the network designer to be responsible for designing the network such that considerations of physical distance were implicit in the network design. Of course, in the good old days before distance-insensitive-priced services, this wasn't such an issue. (I don't know whether there are very many copies of Sprint's "National Virtual NAP" proposals hanging around. I had to nearly sign my life away to get a copy at the time...) -tjs

8 13

RE: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Jamie Scheinblum 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

Suggestion: The initial ASN should be bundled with a /19 to create a "multi-home" package. Unbundled ASNs whould be unreasonably high to cover the administration of the initial ASNs of the world, and the cost associated with a /19. In reality it seems you need both, a /19 to make it past the route filters, and an ASN. This also save on the ARIN support side, since the ARIN employee tasked with making the call to verify the customer does in fact have 2 T-1s (or has 2 ISPs vouch he will have at least a T1 with each), can also verify they will accept the routes for the ASN. Seems like this would cut the administraion on ARIN's behalf a bit, and make it "more fair" to the smaller networks looking to multi-home (See Karl's proposal on IP allocation). -jamie(a)networked.org -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dillon [mailto:michael@memra.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 1998 12:02 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: arin-council(a)arin.net Subject: Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again? On Fri, 29 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > Now, let's look at the parallels: > > 1. Both are required to "do business" in a given sector (ie: announce > routes, sell to the Erate customer base) > > 2. Both are simple *technical* providers (assignment of a number, with > the important being that it is unique in both cases). > > 3. One is free to the ISP. > > 4. The other costs $500.00 5. One is financed by the government out of your taxes and is merely an accounting formality much like a customer ID number. The other is funded by a corporation that has no government funding and must support itself not unlike most businesses and the number is a critical infrastructure identifier something like an NPA-NXX. > What is going on here? ASNs didn't used to cost money until ARIN got its > claws into them. ASNs have always cost money to issue. It's just that in the past it was funded out of taxes funnelled through the NSF to a subcontractor and hidden somewhere in NSI's budget. Those days are gone, thank God. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

7 13

Re: Who runs the net
by Sean Donelan 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

>The folks on this list don't run the net. They just operate the equipment >that runs one of the private networks that forms a portion of the >Internet. They don't necessarily even make all of the policy decisions for >that one network that they do operate. This is a plumbers list, not the >municipal water board list. I had settled more or less in to a state of blissfull funk, but last week I added some equipment to a new exchange point and had to start of the whole process trying to interconnect with other networks again. I have a stack of interconnection agreements about half-a-foot high, supposedly reviewed, approved and signed by lawyers and officers of various companies that represent the policy for exchanging traffic between the various interconnected networks. The only problem, I don't think anyone actually reads the darn things. They certainly don't actually reflect what we (the collective we) do. So we are left passing around the same bad agreements written long before the people who wrote the original agreements had any experience with what they were trying to do. Its not my intent to cause problems, just for the sake of causing problems. I certainly don't want to go through all the blood-letting that happened the last time around. But if no one has any intent of "providing for the notification of the other party of all scheduled maintenance that could cause significant connectivity degradation or loss of connectivity at the Interconnection Point of more than five (5) minutes" why bother with such a paragraph in the agreement signed by the people supposedly setting the policy? When was the last time you actually sent, or received such a notification from a network you interconnect with? And there are other issues have arisin over the years. For example, network address hijacking wasn't an issue in 1991, but does seem to be an issue now. I don't agree with AGIS that what the Net needs is a bunch of lawyers to solve the problems. If a handshake and an e-mail is good enough for you, its likely good enough for me. But I do think if we are going to have policies, we should follow them. And if we are going to document things, they should try to reflect what we actually intend to do. Right now we seem to have the worst of all possible states. Yes, this is a plumber's list. But even plumbers have been known to write to the the plumbing standards boards and say "Things have changed." >They're probably wondering why those plumbers don't solve the problem with >a piece of lead pipe. Of course they fail to realize that most of the >plumbers are wearing earplugs and are wondering what all the fuss is >about. Then the building inspector shows up. But you don't want to go there. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Jim Fleming and procmail
by Jay R. Ashworth 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

I wrote: > >To whom do I go to file a formal request to filter Jim Fleming's > >postings from this mailing list? And half a dozen people who apparently think I just fell off the turnip truck wrote back to me to suggest... On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 05:11:30PM -0700, Mark Milhollan wrote: > Procmail? Some were more creative than others, actually giving suggestions that, since I could feed them into my router (well, if my router were a Cisco, instead of an Ascend), were at least on topic: On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 09:18:36PM -0400, Eric Germann wrote: > Best one I've seen is > ip route 207.32.128.0 255.255.224.0 Null0 > If the net did it, his mail would go away. Or maybe we should classify him > as spam and get him in the RBL. Does Merit participate in that? > Hmmmmmmmm.... Some were smarmy: On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 11:35:43AM +0900, just me. wrote: > `man procmailex` > Note the flag jamie set in the Subject: line. > HTH. HAND. Some just suggestive: On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 11:05:31PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > Your own .procmailrc? And some a bit more loquacious than others: On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 08:05:38PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > Well, I filed the request with my Eudora Filtering sub-system ... instant > gratification! Jim Flemming and Jeff Williams both now occupy the /Misc > Politicks/Bulkmeister folder and status get auto reverted to "Read". Since > 5May98 Flemming has posted 262 messages, very few of them less than 5KB. > I'm also tired of hearing about IPv8. Now I can read them when I have > nothing better to do, or they actually say something pertinent. > > Personally, I don't agree with removing them from the list. But none of them got the point I was trying to make. Folks, this list is for network operations and related topics. I don't think there's anyone left out there (except Jim) who thinks that any of the content of the message I was responding to is remotely on-topic for this list... which is read by quite a few members of the press. I know; several of them have written to me on different occasions for comment or clarification of things I've written. Now, even at this late date, it seems to me that many people, some in positions of power over the stuff we do here, still think that the folks who run the net are a bunch of asocial geeks and nerds who can't play nice together. While this is, in some cases, correct (:-), for the most part, I've found that almost everyone on this list, at least, is pretty easy to get along with... except Randy, of course. <grin> Anyway, my point is: if we, as the keepers of the bits, give the appearance that we can't keep our own sandbox clean, when someone is so clearly violating the rules which pertain to that portion of it, what appearance does that give of us to "outsiders", who may be listening in, about our ability to do the job we actually get paid for. Sticking _my_ head in the sand isn't going to do a thing about that, and, having been here since about 1983, I'm sorta protective of this here net. No, I don't think Jim can singlehandedly kill the Internet... but standards do have to start somewhere. I've changed the subject line so people who aren't interested in this thread can can it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com

2 2

Spammers
by Anthony Sticha 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

I may be on the wrong list here but here it goes. Can someone direct me to the right place for complaining about a US ISP who continues to host a know spammer. We can block his domain but this might not be fair to others. I have spoken to the LA providor (who I will not name as yet) after he refused to answer e-mail. However calling the US from Australia can get expensive. Any ideas where to turn?

5 5

RE: The Great Exchange
by Pete Farmer 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] wrote on June 02, 1998 at 7:12 AM: >Even when [decent bandwidth at the end-user site] does happen, >they won't want to use it for video. A classic is the MCI >commercial where that gal was telecommuting (bath-robing at noon), >the last thing such would want is a video-based conference. Been >there, doing that. Real-time, two-way videoconferencing is just *one* form of video over IP. In some people's eyes, video over IP might involve someone Web-surfing to a site from which they can view Episode 89 of Gilligan's Island (streamed video), possibly with commercials embedded. There are all sorts of possible pricing models here, ranging from flat-rate subscription fees to pay-per-use to commercial-paid, and everything in-between. Lots of possible cache schemes, too. Pete ______________________________________________________________________ Peter J. Farmer E-mail: pfarmer(a)strategies-u.com Strategies Unlimited Voice: +1 650 941 3438 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205 Fax: +1 650 941 5120 Mountain View, CA 94040 WWW: http://www.strategies-u.com

1 0

Re: PC Bozo's World bites again (CNN, too)
by Matt Sommer 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

>"Matt Sommer" writes: >> Does RFC-879 still have any validity? > . . >No, that rule is no longer valid qua valid, in so far as negotiation >and Path MTU discovery make it obsolete. > >Perry ahhh, and 95 has a path mtu discovery problem: (from Rich Graves (mailto:win95netbugs-owner@lists.stanford.edu) http://burks.bton.ac.uk/burks/pcinfo/osdocs/hansie/nwtcpip.htm#c10 ) "If you can't send mail or news longer than 10 lines or so, or if you can't upload files with FTP or Microsoft networking, this is likely your problem. Downloads (from the net to your PC) are not affected. This assumes that you can upload files and send one-line messages fine; if not, you have a more fundamental problem. If the technical and political details don't interest you, skip them. In late November, Microsoft finally documented this known problem in Knowledge Base Article Q138025. However, they got it wrong, because the Usenet article that Microsoft evidently copied, <199509242223.PAA04539(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU>, was unclear (my fault). In late December or early January, after reading this FAQ repeatedly through the tide and jericho proxy servers, Microsoft removed this article and every other mention of the PathMTU problem from the Knowledge Base. Apparently it's just to embarrassing to leave documented. I would appreciate it if Microsoft would please mail me when they have restored and corrected the KB article, so that I can remove this paragraph from the FAQ. Anyway, the problem, as originally diagnosed in article <443n5c$ff9(a)aix1.segi.ulg.ac.be> by Andri Pirard pirard(a)vm1.ulg.ac.be, is that Microsoft does MTU path discovery according to RFC 1191 (written in 1990 by folks from DEC and Stanford University), but many routers don't. Since Microsoft jumped on the TCP/IP bandwagon so late, they apparently don't understand that a standard only drafted in 1990 is an infant not likely to be adopted Internet-wide. To fix this problem, run RegEdit.EXE and open it to the following key: Hkey_Local_Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP Create the following binary variable with a value of 1: PMTUBlackHoleDetect = 0 or 1 This should always fix the problem, unless there's a bug in their code, and we know that couldn't happen. If this doesn't solve the problem, create this variable in the same place: PMTUDiscovery = 0 or 1 Now, this is where I believe Microsoft gets it wrong. Knowledge Base Article Q138025 says to create this with a binary value of 1. This does nothing. You really want to create it with a value of 0. Setting MTU to some ridiculously low value is another effective way to fix the problem, but it hurts performance -- except over dialup, where an MTU of 576 or so might be a good idea anyway, especially if you have a cheap modem whose buffering doesn't work well. All other TCP/IP stacks available for DOS and Windows fragment properly according to existing Internet standards. You'll only see this problem with the stack that Microsoft includes "free." "

1 0

Re: PC Bozo's World bites again (CNN, too)
by sysadmin 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

>"Matt Sommer" writes: >> Does RFC-879 still have any validity? >

1 0