September 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

can you fwd this to arin-discuss for me? my mail's not getting there.
by Paul A Vixie 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

To: arin-discuss(a)arin.net Subject: Re: guideline for name-based web hosting justification In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:41:24 EDT." <Pine.BSI.4.20.0009131139140.2436-100000(a)staff.dca.net> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:39:55 -0700 From: Paul A Vixie <vixie(a)redpaul.mibh.net> > I have to agree with Mike Horwath. We are looking at what's required to > move from IP- to name-based virtual hosts, and we find that name-based > virtual hosts are really a different product than IP based virtual hosts > -- and along with name-based vhosts comes a whole host of headaches for us > (log processing/IP accounting) and our customers (incompatability with > older browsers). > > I hope that ARIN reconsiders this policy. we (as a community -- the internet) knew that there was an address shortage some years ago. all of the allocation policies, and much technical innovation, over the period of years from "then" to "now" has been influenced by this. some of the people now complaining about the allocation policies have started their web hosting businesses in only the last five years, during which time the need to deploy address-scarcity technology like name-based virtual web hosts was common knowledge. absolutely common knowledge. there's no excuse, either for companies who were doing web hosting before 1995 (who have had time to change their strategies) or for companies who have only done it since 1995 (and who should never have deployed an ignorant strategy), to complain about the current allocation policies. this discussion is starting to remind me of the "freeway sound wall" argument. US101 has existed much longer than some of the residential neighborhoods which have sprouted up alongside it. why the residents of those neighborhoods are complaining about freeway noise and demanding sound walls, just eludes me.

1 0

Re: HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation
by David Lesher 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

Unnamed Administration sources reported that Brett Frankenberger said: > > Real CLECs -- those that try to serve a broad based market, rather than > hack togethor a contrived market that will result in a high ration o > finbound to outbound calls, will do fine in the absence of reciprocal > compensation. Suffice to say, senior communications attorneys disagree with you. If you wish to debate that (non-NANOG) issue, come join the CYBERTELECOM-L list where it's 100% on-topic. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation
by Chip Sharp 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

If anyone is interested in the testimony at the last hearing on this (June 22), here is the (long) link. http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/HearingExpand?OpenView&St… ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp Consulting Engineering Cisco Systems Reality - Love it or Change it. http://www.netaid.org -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

128 bit Encryption
by Mufti Ahmed 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

Does Anyone know if 128Bit Encryption is allowed outside the US? Are there any issues that ISPs have to face whether it is or not? And does anyone know where i can get info on this if it is allow? - (Rules & Regulations if any)? Thanks in advance Mufti Nayeem Ahmed Network Systems Engineer Market Data Networks Reuters America Inc. (212)-603-3595 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.

4 3

Re: GiGE performance question(s)
by Scott Michel 14 Sep '00

14 Sep '00

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote: > >Anyone out there have any Cisco GigE operational experience? I've got a > >customer who's evaluating GigE to 100 switched Ethernet, and they want > >a homogeneous vendor network (I don't know why, I just help them write > >the trade study...) So far, there's a huge question about Cisco GigE > >to 100 switched performance and I was wondering if anyone's willing to > >cough up numbers. > > What sort of numbers are you after ? Well, given the customer, often the numbers their looking for are pretty nebulous and often not as well defined as anyone'd like, but getting a customer's requirements are usually that way to begin with. Basically, they want to be all Cisco, contemplating GiGE fiber for their backbone, with switched 100 to the desktop. The numbers they're interested in are number of sustainable 100 ports to GigE port. With a 45Gbs backbone quoted for the Cisco box, that would appear to be pretty limited. > >Although, if there are numbers for other non-Cisco vendors, they'd be > >helpful ammo as well. Published and "what I'm really operating and seeing" would be really useful. This particular customer has a number of applications where they could easily have multiple ports running pretty close to 40-80 Mbs in distributed applications. Thanks for the question. Hope this narrows things down a little. -scooter

2 1

Fires in high Sierras affect California power
by Sean Donelan 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

The California Independent System Operator for the electrical grid has declared a stage 2 emergency through at least 6pm PDT. Tomorrow is also expected to have problems. Two fires burning near major transmission lines in the Castaic area and the high Sierras east of Fresno have cut access to power supplies that the California ISO is depending on to help maintain reliability on this unusually hot September day.

1 0

UUnet in SJC/SNV/SFO?
by Ted Mektrakarn 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

Anyone have any experience with UUnet datacenters in SJC/SNV/SFO? I'm in the market for a providor up in northern cali. Comments and suggestions are welcome. -ted -- Ted Mektrakarn ted(a)MP3.COM Network Ninja MP3.com, Inc. - The Premier Music Service Provider (MSP) http://www.mp3.com

1 0

Re: GiGE performance question(s)
by Richard A. Steenbergen 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Scott Michel wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > >Anyone out there have any Cisco GigE operational experience? I've got a > > >customer who's evaluating GigE to 100 switched Ethernet, and they want > > >a homogeneous vendor network (I don't know why, I just help them write > > >the trade study...) So far, there's a huge question about Cisco GigE > > >to 100 switched performance and I was wondering if anyone's willing to > > >cough up numbers. > > > > What sort of numbers are you after ? > > Well, given the customer, often the numbers their looking for are pretty > nebulous and often not as well defined as anyone'd like, but getting a > customer's requirements are usually that way to begin with. > > Basically, they want to be all Cisco, contemplating GiGE fiber for their > backbone, with switched 100 to the desktop. The numbers they're > interested in are number of sustainable 100 ports to GigE port. With a > 45Gbs backbone quoted for the Cisco box, that would appear to be > pretty limited. > > > >Although, if there are numbers for other non-Cisco vendors, they'd be > > >helpful ammo as well. > > Published and "what I'm really operating and seeing" would be really > useful. This particular customer has a number of applications where > they could easily have multiple ports running pretty close to 40-80 > Mbs in distributed applications. > > Thanks for the question. Hope this narrows things down a little. It doesn't. I think you are highly confused. Layer 2 (switching) GigE is (relatively speaking) easy, Layer 3 (routing) is much harder. Within the basic limitations of understanding your port density and backplane capacity (because 9999 time out of 10000 you don't need real line rate on all ports to all ports, but you do need port density), if you can't do line rate layer 2 you need to take that switch and throw it in the garbage. I don't know where you got the number of 45Gbps, but if you really want that kind of line rate performance check out the Foundry products, which can do 32, 64, and 120 gige ports on the 4000, 8000, and 15000 respectively. I highly doubt this is what you need at all, and if this customer was really doing this kind of traffic they would know what they needed to begin with. I don't know where you got 45Gbps from, but if they're just interested in being "All Cisco", call Cisco and I'm sure they'll sell you what you need. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

napster & ISPs
by Scott Bradner 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

I was just told that someone got a court order requiring an ISP to block napster - does anyone have any information on this alleged order? Scott

1 0

RE: 128 bit Encryption
by Richard Welty 13 Sep '00

13 Sep '00

From: Mufti Ahmed [mailto:Mufti.Ahmed@reuters.com] > Does Anyone know if 128Bit Encryption is allowed outside the > US? the issue is not where it's allowed, but whether US companies are allowed to sell it overseas. the law was recently eased, but there are still some issues with respect to export licenses. getting a suitable license is feasible. i know that we (VPNet) can sell it overseas (subject to a couple of restrictions, such as the State Department's list of Very Bad Countries), but some of our competitors are not yet so fortunate. richard

1 0