March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Metro area fiber market issues - May 2001 Cook Report contents
by Gordon Cook 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

******************************** The COOK Report on Internet May 2001 (Vol. 10, No. 2) ******************************** CONTENTS LayerOne Gear in Telco Hotels Provides Cost Effective Optical Interconnect for Carriers --- Ciena Core Director Provides Service that Grooms Circuit Interconnection Between Fiber of Many Carriers, pp. 1-14 Changing Bandwidth Provisioning Models in Metro Area Fiber Markets --- Net Access Chooses Acquisition of Dark Fiber and Self Provisioned Circuits Over Purchase of Shared Gig Ethernet Prices of Telseon and Yipes! Viewed as Too High and Cogent's Business Model Seen to Be Unsustainable, pp. 15 - 25 ICANN and Verisign in Alliance to Reinstate De-facto NSI Dot Com Monopoly in Return For Financial Support of ICANN --- ICANN's Pattern of Fraudulent and Deceitful Action Continues With Board's Capitulation to Staff and Vint Cerf in Melbourne, pp. 26-35 Optical Border Gateway Protocol Now Internet Draft, pp. 36 -37 Letter to the Editor: DANTE Objects to Description by Kees Neggers, pp. 37 -38 Executive Summary, pp. 39-40 ================== COOK Report Summary or cookrepsum(a)compucomis.net is a distribution list for the monthly free summary of the COOK Report on Internet. You should expect to receive the monthly summary that is usually between 7 and 15 thousand characters long. You may get one or two other messages a month. This list is intended for distribution and not discussion. Anything posted to the list will bounce to me. I regard this as an experiment and reserve the right at my discretion to change list policy. To subscribe by sending a message to majordomo(a)compucomis.net with 'subscribe cookrepsum' in the body. To unsubscribe send mail to majordomo(a)compucomis.net with 'unsubscribe cookrepsum" in the body Full text of executive summary is also available at http://cookreport.com/10.02.shtml -- **************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Index to 9 years of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com For info on new report go to http://cookreport.com/lightipgige.shtml . 'Light IP & Gig E" serves as tutorial on on going economic model of Internet infrastructure - $375.00 ****************************************************************

2 1

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Simon Higgs 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

At 10:03 AM 3/16/01 -0500, Charles Scott wrote: >Frankly, that kind of approach sets me >off pretty quick and my natural reaction is to get in their face and >become a roadblock. Still, if I was one of the few selected ones >benifitting from this rollout, I'd be working to see it succeed >also. Could that be why we see what appears to be competing opinions on >this topic? I'm going to answer that as I'm probably one of those competing opinions. Einar Stefferud (ORSC Chairman) and myself (I have no personal stake in either Verisign or New.net) had a good long conversation with New.net today. New.net have a business plan and are just doing what all the other .COMs are doing - trying to make a living as fast and quickly as the next. They are an incubator company within IdeaLab. They don't even have their own dedicated office space yet, they pool resources (conference rooms/copiers) with the other IdeaLab companies. They do know how register domain names and how to contact the media and government. They are not so good at juggling breakable objects. The Internet works on the principles of cooperation and this is the driving force behind ORSC. The basic premise of ORSC is an idea - of how trust and cooperation functions on the Internet regardless of any financial consideration or marketing budget. It helps to have money, but ORSC has existed without it since 1997. The ORSC root contains women-owned small businesses and giant multi-nationals side-by-side. As a result, it's an idea that can't be killed just by pulling the plug on the funding. New.net, on the other hand, will last as long as there is money in the bank. As far as the ORSC goes, there is no financial incentive or kickback to ORSC. It is possible that TLD managers recognized by the ORSC root may enter into relationships with New.net, just like they do with Verisign or Tucows or their local pizza delivery service or upstream provider (let's not go there!). I'm not aware of any such relationships but wouldn't be surprised if they happened as a result of ironing out the New.net TLD collisions. Unfortunately, the most interesting remark I found was one describing Bill Gross, the founder of IdeaLab. Somebody mentioned about him "having an idea and funding it without thought for the real world consequences". So yes, what New.net have done was not thought through as carefully as it might have been. Chalk it up to experience. Y'all can now say "we told you so". If New.net carry on without thought for the consequences, I'm sure they will become as popular as the other defunct IdeaLab ventures. If they choose to cooperate with the rest of the community, avoid the TLD naming conflicts somehow (we're trying to find some common ground to make this a reality), and stop making big waves into your routers and help desks then there has been some positive progress. Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by smd＠clock.org 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

| Yup, it's all about capitalism, and nothing about technical correctness.*sigh* The long-term maximization of ROI requires technical correctness. Unfortunately there is often alot of arbitrage by people with very short-term goals. Sadly, some of the worst technologies are the ones that get lots of short-term interest. Sean.

4 3

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:26 AM > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:08:53AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > Aha! I remember you now ... > > > > Say "multi-site distributed cluster". Other sites have to > talk to it. > > What other sites? Is Colonel Beauregard[1] your DBA? My point, you haven't the foggiest idea what my business is and yet you have the cajones to make judgements against it in public. > > > You decided to run a business on DSL, and now you're paying > > > the price for > > > that. You really have nothing to complain about except > your own bad > > > judgement. Why is this thread still going? > > > > Now, the last I looked, DSL was SUPPOSED to be sold to > businesses. The poor > > consumer is stuck the cable. BTW, the DSL worked fine, > right up until Covad > > cut it off. > > DSL has always been a cheap, semi-reliable solution for > people that didn't > want to pay the money for a dedicated circuit. If you > believe otherwise then > you were duped by a sales droid. DSL has been very reliable. Moreso than some client's T1's have been. The outage was caused by a business failure between my IAP and my ISP. All I know is that the lights went out on 7Feb01, without warning. DSL behaves like a dedicated circuit and 1.1Mbps SDSL is close enough to 1.54Mbps T1, at 1/4 the price, to make it worthwhile. Additionally, you don't have to tune the link and it doesn't need to be hand-rebooted when the CSU/DSU drops (all the things they don't tell you about T1's). You've been listening to too many telco sales-droids. > > Do you always blame your sister for getting raped? > > You're an ass. You started the name-calling son ... and this victim doesn't appreciate being made into a criminal. If I'm an ass then you're a judgemental ass... and an ignorant one. > By the way, tell your broken mailer to stop CC'ing me on every post. Not broken ... done on purpose. My poor DSL connection isn't that reliable so I want to make sure that you get the message. I wouldn't want you to think that I'm talking behind your back.

5 4

Re: Search Engine Accountability (was RE: Reality Check)
by Karyn Ulriksen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Perhaps the search engine manages the key. Perhaps the search engine charges to be listed. Perhaps you can choose not be on that search engine. Perhaps the users like to use that search engine because you can find something pertinent on it to your keywords. Perhaps I am on crack. Perhaps I don't want to share my crack. Perhaps I just wanted to know if anyone else ever fondled this particular idea fondly. Perhaps I thought this was a forum for fondling ideas fondly. Perhaps a few people have gotten a little too uptight fondle ideas fondly or otherwise. Fondly, Karyn :: -----Original Message----- :: From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] :: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:04 PM :: To: Karyn Ulriksen :: Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: Re: Search Engine Accountability (was RE: Reality Check) :: :: :: :: On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:36:31 PST, Karyn Ulriksen said: :: > Search Engine requires a key certificate style license :: embeded in :: > the html or website (whether it's internet centralized or :: just for the :: :: And the key came from *where*? And this would be different from the :: current hassles of getting a PKI certificate *how*? :: :: > search engine). A "rating" and "type" is associated with :: the license for :: > the type of site it is. As the search engine crawls the :: site, if the :: > license is gone... it doesn't get listed. If the type and :: rating doesn't :: :: Woo woo.. So I have to fork over $$$ to a company to publish :: stuff on the :: web? Or is this license "for free" - in which case it's :: probably worth :: what you paid for it? :: :: > match the information associated with the license data... :: it doesn't get :: :: OK.. A .JPG of a man and a giraffe would probably be :: acceptable for all :: ratings. A .JPG of a man and a giraffe having sex would :: probably NOT be :: acceptable. How did you tell the difference? :: :: > listed. If the license certificate doesn't match the :: IP(s) associated with :: > the certificate... it doesn't get listed. Has anybody :: tried something like :: :: Great. I relocate my server to a new co-lo and I drop off :: the search engines :: unless I fork out new money for a new license. And if you :: don't think this :: won't happen, I'll point you at all the companies that we :: currently license :: software from who are *always* ready at the drop of a hat to :: ship us a new :: license for a machine "because the CPU planar died and was :: replaced so the :: hostid is now different". Yeah. We *never* have a problem :: getting new :: licenses. ;) :: :: > this before? :: :: Umm.. there's PICS and other web rating systems already extant. :: :: They've worked wonders, haven't they? :: :: Valdis Kletnieks :: Operating Systems Analyst :: Virginia Tech :: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards, Karyn Ulriksen Network Operations Manager PublicHost, A VitalStream Company 1 Jenner, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 USA Phone: (949) 743-2000 email: kulriksen(a)publichost.com URL: http://www.publichost.com ===========================================

1 0

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Saturday, the 17th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for c.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.35.51.30 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.17.208.67 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.101 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.36.144.133 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 203.181.106.5 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 208.206.240.5 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the old and new IP's for c.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel for enough time to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems Verisign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:23 AM > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:34:35AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > DSL has always been a cheap, semi-reliable solution for people > > > that didn't want to pay the money for a dedicated circuit. > > This, I agree with. > > > DSL behaves like a dedicated circuit > > Dedicated in what sense? "Always up" nature? Aggregation hierarchy / > topology? Bandwidth, considering your provider might be _losing_ > money with transit/ops/etc costs factored in, if you're using it al > full line rate 24x7? Well, all of the above, except that there is no way to tell if your upstream is losing money or not. Not if their market-communications folks know what they're doing and they're privately-held. > > Additionally, you don't have to tune the link and it doesn't need to > > be hand-rebooted when the CSU/DSU drops (all the things they don't > > tell you about T1's). > > What circuit-level fine tuning and rebooting do you speak of? Is the > telco running Microsoft DACS Server(TM) in the CO? ;) I'm speaking from having spent many nights and week-ends waiting for the telco to bring the line back up, after my CSU lost power/went down/died/etc. That's why we went with DSL (besides straight cost). Granted, after initial build, this didn't happen. Mainly, because the CSU never went down again. > But yeah, putting all your eggs in one basket could make for a nice > single point of failure. Or calculated risk. Your call... That's my point, small shops don't have much choice. Typical Inet start-ups are cases where headcount is far less than server count. Granted, most of the H/W is in a co-lo. <sigh> You guys just don't want to allow a small business to run their own data center, do you? Can't y'all understand that there are serious business reasons for a company to do so?

2 1

Search Engine Accountability (was RE: Reality Check)
by Karyn Ulriksen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

How about something like this (not suggesting as an DNS replacement!): Search Engine requires a key certificate style license embeded in the html or website (whether it's internet centralized or just for the search engine). A "rating" and "type" is associated with the license for the type of site it is. As the search engine crawls the site, if the license is gone... it doesn't get listed. If the type and rating doesn't match the information associated with the license data... it doesn't get listed. If the license certificate doesn't match the IP(s) associated with the certificate... it doesn't get listed. Has anybody tried something like this before? Karyn :: -----Original Message----- :: From: owen(a)dixon.delong.sj.ca.us [mailto:owen@dixon.delong.sj.ca.us] :: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:18 AM :: To: nanog(a)merit.edu; smcmahon(a)eiv.com :: Subject: Re: Reality Check :: :: :: :: :: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 03:07:30PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: :: > > :: > > The same way people have learned to make sure that a :: search for "Anna :: > > Kournikova" (for instance) returns, say, 200 records :: that are sites/pages :: > > that have nothing whatever to do with Anna Kournikova, :: and a whole LOT to do :: > > with bringing in cash to the sites in question. :: > :: > This is self-defeating in the end; if your search site :: doesn't work, people :: > will stop using it. :: > :: Yes, but it's not the search engines that do it. It's the :: web sites that :: have learned how to put stuff in the view of the crawlers :: the search engines :: use that will show up when someone is looking for unrelated content. :: :: Since they do this in such a way that virtually EVERY search :: engine finds :: their bogus content, they don't care how many search engines :: go out of :: business, they'll just afflict the next one to come up. :: :: > If they stop using it, the advertising dollars will stop :: rolling in. :: > :: > Thus, it's in the best interest of the owner of the search :: site to fix :: > the problem. Hence why people are flocking to the latest :: best technology :: > they can find, such as Google. :: > :: Google is not immune to this, althoug it is better than some. :: :: :: Owen ::

3 2

Sad state of affairs
by Timothy R. McKee 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It is indeed a sad state of affairs when I see so many operations people caught up in DNS and IP portability religious wars that our very reason for existence is forgotten. Lest anyone not know what I am referring to, our primary purpose in life is to operate our autonomous networks in such a way that our subscribers can *easily* and *transparently* participate in the global cooperative collectively know as the Internet. The evolution of this entity has progressed so rapidly that it is sometimes difficult to remember the sheer numbers of ordinary citizen/corporate subscribers that ultimately pay our salaries. Our duty/task is to provide them with *easy* and *transparent* access to the Internet and to prevent instabilities that threaten that access. If we fail to do that we will intimately find ourselves without a paycheck. We may disagree with the way certain things are implemented, but we must always remember that our subscribers provide an enormous amount of inertia against major change. Change must be CAREFULLY thought out, meticulously planned and scheduled. It cannot be allowed to disrupt subscriber service... Not if we want to keep subscribers paying us... I was there in the old days... When we could test a new idea online in production mode and announce it in a week or two... Unfortunately those days are long gone. Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOrIs/xRIXzEQLahvEQLf0gCgq00fiTfX7yOssU9bzZTyQHJo4jwAoJsV Gm+d64TduOnCGkiHCeiTrXFA =+TPY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Chris Davis 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

I removed the plug-in already, but pinging www.pie.shop went like this: ping www.pie.shop std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.pie.shop fails netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3 std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.pie.shop fails netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3 std query for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net against my name server newdotnet's NS replied with the IP for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net & the echos came back. I did mean to say in my last posting, everything *non-resolvable* outside the ICANN TLD's is resolved to 64.208.49.135 Existing new.net TLD domains resolve to whatever their IPs are. The plug-in, however, sends ANY query outside the ICANN TLDs to 64.208.49.135. This usurps any and every other imaginable future TLD, ie www.bull.shit They're not advertising a 'shit' domain (um, literally), and yet requests for 'shit' go to their NS. Their scheme, if successful, takes over service for EVERY TLD domain not already in operation by ICANN. Who's the monopoly? -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:57 PM To: Chris Davis; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. Chris Davis wrote: > > I downloaded their plug-in and then: What happens when you ping www.pie.shop which is in a new.net "private" TLD? (snip) > Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to > 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135 > That was probably meant to be somewhat meaningfull with names and not IP numbers. BTW, do you mean "everything not ending with an ICANN TLD or "everything not resolvable"? (see above) KL

10 14