October 1999 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Real Media and M-Bone feeds
by Vadim Antonov 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> >> Multicast is broken as an idea, period. Now, why won't we >> just forget about it and spend our life doing something >> useful instead? > because, although it is getting less expensive quickly, transport costs > money. multicast promises to reduce that cost near sources. I strongly suspect that the combined time of engineering staff spent on deployment and development of mulitcasting won't be paid off by the supposed transport cost savings any time soon. Worse yet, it distracts from deployment of the real solution - cacheing. > this is a better fantasy than the qos smokers who think it will effectively > get more bits into the pipe. ...or at least more buds :) --vadim

3 3

missing laptop
by Susan R. Harris 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

As of this afternoon, a Dell laptop is missing from the Montreal meeting site. Please contact nanog-support(a)merit.edu if you have any info about it.

1 0

MCI WorldCom fiber cut - Syracuse, NY
by Scott Drassinower 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

MCI WorldCom claims that they have located a fiber cut in or near Syracuse, NY (300+ miles northwest of NYC and White Plains) that is the cause of the outage. They say crews have been dispatched. We had several MCI WorldCom circuits go out of service at about 12:40 EDT. Some of the circuits are totally within WorldCom's fiber network, some have endpoints on Bell Atlantic's network. All are in the NYC area. Unconfirmed by WorldCom, but apparently this cut has taken out two OC-48s. It's very interesting (and seemingly absurd) that to go 25 miles south, we first must go 300 miles in the totally opposite direction. -- Scott M. Drassinower scottd(a)cloud9.net Cloud 9 Consulting, Inc. White Plains, NY +1 914 696-4000 http://www.cloud9.net

1 0

Re: Real Media and M-Bone feeds
by ddivinia＠broadcast.com 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

Caching doesn't work for live content. D. At 08:39 AM 10/5/99 -0700, Andy McConnell wrote: > >On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Alex P. Rudnev wrote: > >} >}> > just forget about it and spend our life doing something >}> > useful instead? >}> >}> because, although it is getting less expensive quickly, transport costs >}> money. multicast promises to reduce that cost near sources. >}Wrong... >} >}Multicast is just not more than one case of data caching on the fly. It >}can be used for the local networks, just with the net of the media >}replicators. In principle there is not big difference between multicast >}and www caching except first is an example of the _real-time caching_ and >}second is usially _store-and-forward_ caching. > >It it really comparable to caching? I see multicasting as more of a >traffic reduction, rather than a cache. > >}This days we can see the weakness of the global-multicasting - and I think >}it should be replaced by the media-caching servers (with the ability to >}replicate data on the fly - in case of live media stream, and short or >}long tome _store-and-forward_ in case of Video-on-demand stream) - and >}with just this multicasting on the very end of the data tree. But an >}attempts to build over-the-world multicast network - brr... it's possible >}(if you should dig some mountain every day, you'll build a tunnel at last; >}but may be it's easy to run this mountain over?). > >Your model would work, but it requires a LOT more coordination and >cooperation than even multicast requires. Are you sugesting that networks >implement machines that sniff into the data, identify those streams, >intercept them, and then coordinate with the streams' sources to stop >sending the unicasts behind the cache, and send the stream to the cache >only? Or will your new machine simply "spoof" the source? If the latter, >then you haven't told the sender to reduce the traffic. > >You mentioned your doubt of building an over-the-world multicast >network... but what you are sugesting seems to be an over-the-world >caching mechanism. If we are going to build an over-the-world anything, >why not build on the IP model, which is already over-the-world? > >The whole reason for multicast is to reduce the traffic at the source, not >necessarily just then receivers. And the concept behind ip multicast is >to replicate as closely as possible the IP model - send trafic to an IP >address, and let the layer 3 devices forward the packet to the right >shared-media networks as required. > >}And - your NANOG forum is the excellent example. RealVideo streaming work >}fine; Multicast don't work at all; why do you try to use weak schema >}instead of the strong one? No enougph bandwidth - install stream >}replicators inb the key points; build _replication on the fly_ schemas >}(such as CCP for the www caching on the fly), etc. No, even with all >}attempts Cisco and some other are trying this days - multicast is more >}dead than alive. I can get 10,000 multimedia sources by RealVideo or >}StreamVideo - and I can't get nothing usefull by multicast. If I could >}install RV-cache engine (cache on the fly) - I should choose this >}solution. > >You can get a lot more software for Windows, too, but that doesn't make it >the right solution all the time. How much software was available for >Linux just two years ago? Market share is a poor measurement of the >quality and capability of a solution. > >-andy > >-- >Andy McConnell IP Operations Manager andym(a)ntt.net >NTT America Network and IP Service Division +1 408 873 3757 >$B??8~N}(B $B0BEHN6(B NTT$B%"%a%j%+(BIP$B%*%Z%l!<%7%g%sC4Ev2]D9(B > >"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they >deem it necessary?" > - M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC > > >

2 1

NetSol whois/root-servers fubar again?
by Russell Van Tassell 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

Ok, are the "Not-work Solutions" (sic) whois and/or root servers fubar'd again? This came up as a result of a couple of my mail servers denying a relay that passed through our upstream's relays without issue... (a funny sidebar to it, of course, is that the messages were spam though apparently should not have failed sendmail's domain check) (This from activities happening earlier today (10/04/1999) and yesterday) Regards, Russell -- begin % whois antigua.com [...] COL.COM CORPORATION (ANTIGUA6-DOM) P.O. BOX F-40132 Suite C, Regent Centre East Freeport, Grand Bahama Bahamas Domain Name: ANTIGUA.NET Administrative Contact: Black, John (JB8429) black(a)AXIONET.COM 604-737-1722 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: DNS Administration (DA256-ORG) support(a)WEBDIRECT.COM +1 (604) 222.4646 Billing Contact: Black, John (JB8429) black(a)AXIONET.COM 604-737-1722 Record last updated on 14-Sep-99. Record created on 31-Dec-97. Database last updated on 4-Oct-99 09:09:01 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.WEBDIRECT.NET 209.17.169.2 NS2.WEBDIRECT.NET 209.17.169.8 % /usr/sbin/nslookup Default Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 > set type=SOA > antigua.com. Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 antigua.com origin = cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net mail addr = hostmaster.mail.att.net serial = 2 refresh = 83000 (23h3m20s) retry = 10000 (2h46m40s) expire = 600000 (6d22h40m) minimum ttl = 83000 (23h3m20s) antigua.com nameserver = cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net antigua.com nameserver = dbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net internet address = 199.191.128.105 dbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net internet address = 199.191.128.106 > server a.root-servers.net Default Server: a.root-servers.net Address: 198.41.0.4 > set type=NS > antigua.com. Server: a.root-servers.net Address: 198.41.0.4 Non-authoritative answer: antigua.com nameserver = CBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET antigua.com nameserver = DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET Authoritative answers can be found from: CBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET internet address = 199.191.128.105 DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET internet address = 199.191.128.106 > -- end -- Russell M. Van Tassell russell(a)cscorp.com

2 2

RE: MBone redux
by Susan R. Harris 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

> The Real Audio feed died a few minutes after this message went out. Looks > like not enough bandwidth for both? Actually they're separate issues - the multicast traffic is taking up a fixed amount of bandwidth, but above that, we don't have adequate capacity to let everyone view the Real Audio sessions simultaneously.

2 1

MBone redux
by Susan R. Harris 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

If you're interested in listening to the NANOG meeting, try the MBone again - we've beefed up our links and expect further improvements as the day goes on. --Susan Harris

1 0

Re: Global BGP community values?
by Vadim Antonov 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

Yes, i agree (actually, the BGP with metrics per that document is compatible with currently deployed BGP) - but isn't it better to provide a real fix and get rid of several kludges at once? --vadim To: Vadim Antonov <avg(a)kotovnik.com>, nanog(a)merit.edu From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> Subject: Re: Global BGP community values? At 23:39 04/10/99 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: The difference is your proposal requires changes to the BGP protocol (new optional transitive attribute), whereas mine piggybacks on the existing community attribute - thereby being able to be implemented tomorrow as opposed to some months/years from now. -Hank > >I proposed real metrics for BGP long time ago. Back then >the idea didn't find any support -- apparently few people >felt it was needed. > >The mechanism described in the draft is stragightforward and significantly >more powerful than the community attribute usage proposed by Hank - and >also can do everything MED and LOCAL_PREF can do, so these can >be retired. > >Here's the URL: http://www.civd.com/~avg > >--vadim > >-------------------------------------------------- >Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> wrote: > >I think everyone at one point or another has tried to influence incoming >data flows via BGP. About the only tool available to influence the BGP >decisions in far away places is via AS-PATH length. This turns out to be >a fairly never-ending iterative process - that at best achieves 80% of its >intention. It also doesn't allow for accurate decision making. As an >alternative, neighboring ISPs and their customers usually design some BGP >community system which is then used to influence the BGP decision process. > >Why can't this be extended globally [if this has already been done and >written up in some BCP RFC - just point it out to me]? What if we all >agreed that if some community value of say 1000000-2000000 [example] is >seen, then those community values are to take precedence above all other >metrics. 1000001 could mean - "this is the best path for me - always send >pkts this way no matter what the other metrics might say". We could build >up a table of these global community strings. ISPs that don't use it - no >harm done. But the more ISPs (tier 1 & 2) that do use it - the better the >end customer and ISPs have on influencing data flow. > >Comments welcome. > >Hank Nussbacher > >

7 9

Re: Global BGP community values?
by Vadim Antonov 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

I proposed real metrics for BGP long time ago. Back then the idea didn't find any support -- apparently few people felt it was needed. The mechanism described in the draft is stragightforward and significantly more powerful than the community attribute usage proposed by Hank - and also can do everything MED and LOCAL_PREF can do, so these can be retired. Here's the URL: http://www.civd.com/~avg --vadim -------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> wrote: I think everyone at one point or another has tried to influence incoming data flows via BGP. About the only tool available to influence the BGP decisions in far away places is via AS-PATH length. This turns out to be a fairly never-ending iterative process - that at best achieves 80% of its intention. It also doesn't allow for accurate decision making. As an alternative, neighboring ISPs and their customers usually design some BGP community system which is then used to influence the BGP decision process. Why can't this be extended globally [if this has already been done and written up in some BCP RFC - just point it out to me]? What if we all agreed that if some community value of say 1000000-2000000 [example] is seen, then those community values are to take precedence above all other metrics. 1000001 could mean - "this is the best path for me - always send pkts this way no matter what the other metrics might say". We could build up a table of these global community strings. ISPs that don't use it - no harm done. But the more ISPs (tier 1 & 2) that do use it - the better the end customer and ISPs have on influencing data flow. Comments welcome. Hank Nussbacher

3 2

Global BGP community values?
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

I think everyone at one point or another has tried to influence incoming data flows via BGP. About the only tool available to influence the BGP decisions in far away places is via AS-PATH length. This turns out to be a fairly never-ending iterative process - that at best achieves 80% of its intention. It also doesn't allow for accurate decision making. As an alternative, neighboring ISPs and their customers usually design some BGP community system which is then used to influence the BGP decision process. Why can't this be extended globally [if this has already been done and written up in some BCP RFC - just point it out to me]? What if we all agreed that if some community value of say 1000000-2000000 [example] is seen, then those community values are to take precedence above all other metrics. 1000001 could mean - "this is the best path for me - always send pkts this way no matter what the other metrics might say". We could build up a table of these global community strings. ISPs that don't use it - no harm done. But the more ISPs (tier 1 & 2) that do use it - the better the end customer and ISPs have on influencing data flow. Comments welcome. Hank Nussbacher

2 1