- Test - lists.nanog.org

FCC on UUNET ..
by Robert Mathews 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

"FCC Chief Cites Internet Weak Spot" Wall Street Journal (07/31/02) P. A2; Dreazen, Yochi J. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell told the Senate Commerce Committee yesterday that he might not be able to stop WorldCom from shutting down its Internet backbone service, UUNet. Although Powell was confident of his ability to prevent phone services from being abruptly dropped, he said telecommunications and bankruptcy laws were at odds, and made his authority over Internet services unclear. Powell also said the current consolidation going on in the telecommunications market was unavoidable and might necessitate a previously untenable merger, such as one between long distance carrier WorldCom and one of the Baby Bell companies. Committee Chairman Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) said he was set to introduce new legislation that would give the FCC more control in cases of bankruptcy. Hollings, however, said he would block one bill coming in from the House of Representatives that would give the FCC more powers because it would also make the Baby Bell local monopolies more dominant in the broadband arena. Powell noted that backbone companies may be legally able to ignore FCC directives and start cutting service to customers before they have a chance to switch providers. http://www.msnbc.com/news/788023.asp

1 0

MAE ATM
by nanog＠missnglnk.com 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

Out of curiousity, when were MAE East/West ATM established? -- Omachonu Ogali missnglnk(a)informationwave.net http://www.informationwave.net

11 11

Re: Re: MAE ATM
by Frank Coluccio 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

"Anyone remember the Magnum's ...?" Yep. How about the FiberCom FDDI box, the one that went manufacturer discontinued on the day that we commissioned CCNY's 12 building campus network in Harlem, New York? > > Anyone remember the Magnum's or MetroLans? > > :-) > > Jon Hardy wherrrrre arrrree youuu! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Diaz" <davediaz(a)smoton.net> > To: "Mark Kent" <mark(a)noc.mainstreet.net>; <scott(a)graphidelix.net> > Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: MAE ATM > > > > > > I almost forgot about those netedge boxes, seems the one we had in DC > > was about as reliable as a microwave with tin foil in it. I cant > > remember how many times it or a card had been replaced. > > > > Is anyone out there still using them? I do have fond memories of > > fddi, about the only truly stable card on a grf if there was such a > > thing. > > > > Dave > > > > At 22:04 -0700 7/30/02, Mark Kent wrote: > > >>> How did people interconnect before may 1998, fddi? > > > > > >fddi, some remote with netedge boxes at either end of an atm link. > > >There were some 10baseT connections too, there was at least one > > >low end Catalyst switch dedicated to plain ethernet. > > > > > >Here is a big hint: > > > > > >http://www.nanog.org/2.95.NANOG.notes/mae-west.html > > > > > >-mark > > > > > >

1 0

Re: redundancy [was: something about arrogance]
by Pedro R Marques 31 Jul '02

31 Jul '02

Pedro Roque Marques wrote: >------- Start of forwarded message ------- >From: pre(a)PRE.ORG (Patrick Evans) >To: Jim Shankland <nanog(a)shankland.org> >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Newsgroups: jnx.ext.nanog >Subject: Re: redundancy [was: something about arrogance] >Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207310130150.3798-100000(a)pimlico.PRE.ORG> >Date: 31 Jul 02 00:32:49 GMT >References: <200207310019.RAA05167(a)ndk.shankland.org> >Organization: Juniper Networks, San Francisco, California > > >On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Jim Shankland wrote: > > > >>Patrick Evans <pre(a)PRE.ORG> writes: >> >> >> >>>My first project, if network availability were a key issue, within any >>>organisation would be to a) obtain [an AS number] and b) make use of >>>it. >>> >>> >>Heh. How many bits in an AS number, again? >> >> >> >*grin* > >That's a problem with the underlying protocol. I get paid to run >operational networks, not bleat endlessly about "how much work would >it *really* take to implement 24bit AS numbers?" :) > > The plan is 32 bits... (see draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-05.txt for details). Essentially i think it just takes interest/demand from ISPs since the mechanism can be implemented and deployed without in a non disrruptive way. >Crying about protocol deficiencies is a distant second to keeping a >business up and running these days. > > imho, protocol efficiencies are not so much the problem. If it is clear the scale routing must operate on the right hardware/software can be engineered... that assuming that people are willing to upgrade their existing boxes and that it isn't a requirement that it must run on 5 year old small entreprise boxes. The later seems to be the biggest problem although. Effectivly the growth of routing table size is bound by the maximum memory size and CPU capacity present in the most common boxes used in the network and not by protocol efficiency. It is not so much of a question if one can build a database engine and respective distribution protocol than can scale upto n million paths but of the limits of the current day moral equivalent of the AGS+. Thus all the people that have these deployed in their networks tend to be concerned about the need to upgrade them as the size of the routing table increase. As one of the posters was king enought to point out these sometimes end up being more issues of economics/buisiness than of engineering. regards, Pedro.

1 0

Re: redundancy [was: something about arrogance]
by Patrick Evans 31 Jul '02

31 Jul '02

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > One more just for kicks. Client had a 100Mbps circuit from their sole > provider (100Mbps to colocated router, DS3 from this router to their > premises). The circuit had been in place for several years and the contract > had long since expired. One day, they got a call Er, what does due diligence mean to you? (We're waaaay into no-shit-sherlock territory here) (For the record, I'd consider any operation without an AS number a startup, and my first project, if network availability were a key issue, within any organisation would be to a) obtain one and b) make use of it. YMMV, but some V are more equal then others. Particularly in the current economic climate.) -- Patrick Evans, allegedly Email: pre(a)pre.org CV: www.pre.org/pre/cv Wheels: Kawasaki ZXR400L9

2 2

redundancy [was: something about arrogance]
by Pedro R Marques 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

Brad writes: > I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance here (and my stupidity in > stepping into a long-standing highly charged argument), but I'm > completely missing something. For reasons of redundancy & > reliability, even if you were to buy bandwidth in only one location, > wouldn't you want to buy it from at least two different providers? > If you buy bandwidth from two different providers at two > different locations, this would seem to me to be a good way to > provide backup in case on provider or one location goes > Tango-Uniform, and you could always backhaul the bandwidth for the > site/provider that is down. Several other posters have mentioned reasons why redundancy between 2 different connections to separate providers are not, in most situations, the preferable aproach but i would like to add another point/question... When considering redudancy/reliability/etc it is important to think about what kind of failures do you want to protect against vs cost of doing so. It is my impression, from reading this list and tidbits of gossip, that the most common causes of failure are: - link failure - equipment failure (routers mostly), both software and hardware - configuration errors All of those are much more frequent than the failure of an entire ISP (a transit provider). It is expected, i believe, of a competent ISP to provide redudancy both within a POP and intra-POP links/equipment and its connections to upstreams/peers. As such, probably the first level of redundancy that a origin AS (non-transit) would look at would be with the intent to protect from failures of its external connectivity link and termination equipment (routers on both ends). To do so, one can look at: - 2 external links to distinct providers - 2 external links to the same provider While i can't speak to the economics part of the equation (although i would expect it to be cheaper to buy an additional link than connect to a different provider) from a point of view of restoration, protecting a path with an alternate path from the same provider is certainly an aproach that gives you much better convengence times. This comes from the fact that in terms of network topology, the distance between 2 links to the same upstream is much shorter than 2 links to different upstreams. While, if you protect a path with an alternate path to the same ISP you can expect convergence to occur within the IGP convergence times of your provider, with 2 different providers you need global BGP convergence to occur. This gets to be longer dependent on how topologically distant your 2 upstreams are... for instance attempting to protect a path to an ISP with very wide connectivity with a protection path from one with very limited connectivity would be a particularly bad case as you would have to wait for the path announced by the larger ISP to be withdrawn n times from all its peering points and the protection path to make its way through in replacement. It is counter-intuitive to me what i perceive to be the standard practice of attempting to multi-home to 2 distinct providers by origin-only ASes... from several points of view: convergence times, load on the global routing system, complexity of management, etc, dual connectivity to different routers of the same provider (using distinct physical paths) would seem to me to make more sense. Unless the main concern is that the upstream ISP fails entirely... which given the fact that it tends to have frontpage honors on the NYTimes this days does not apear to be an all to common occurence (i mean operationally, not financially - clarification added to dispel potential humorous remarks). So, my question to the list is, why is multi-homing to 2 different providers such a desirable thing ? What is the motivation and why is it prefered over multiple connections to the same upstream ? Is the main motivation not so much reliability but having a shorter as-path to more destinations ? This would apear to me to be a clear advantage since that doesn't necessarily reflect in better qualitify of interconnection. My apologies in advance if these seem to be stupid questions... thanks, Pedro.

6 7

RE: OC-768 availability?
by Rowland, Alan D 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

Compton, CA, US and Sealand would be the giveaways. Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland Who lives just south of Compton -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer@mauislanwanman.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:31 PM To: Williams, Ken Cc: 'dalph(a)hushmail.com'; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: OC-768 availability? No, he's not for real. It's a satire in the likes of Bandy Rush and such. Children need to have their fun... scott On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Williams, Ken wrote: : : hah 2621 rockin oc-192 are you for real? : : -----Original Message----- : From: dalph(a)hushmail.com [mailto:dalph@hushmail.com] : Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:10 PM : To: nanog(a)nanog.org : Subject: OC-768 availability? : : : : : Hello, : : I am currently running a network of cisco 2621s with the OC-192 NM for my : upstream connections. The internal network links are a mixture of K56Flex : modems and GRE tunnels. : : I am looking to upgrade to OC-768 real soon now and am wondering what the : prospects are for OC-768 availability on the 2621 platform. I've found the : 2621 to be rock-solid, except when I ping it, so I'd like to keep my network : on that platform if possible. : : In addition, if anyone knows the availability of OC-768 circuits between the : following cities I'd appreciate any fiber maps and an approximate price : range: : Ottawa, ON, CA : Midland, ON, CA : Goderich, ON, CA : Toronto, ON, CA : Compton, CA, US : Sealand : : At each site I plan to announce a /24 from a /20 I was allocated so if : everyone could please update their prefix filters now that would be great. : : Thank you. : : -- Dalph Roncaster : : Communicate in total privacy. : Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 : : Looking for a good deal on a domain name? : http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople :

4 3

Re: routing table size
by Stephen J. Wilcox 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a /24 is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still thousands of /24 announcements) If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion! I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements.. Steve On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > > > >I've never suggested accepting /25's thru /32's. I'm wondering if the > >people saying I should not de-aggregage my /20 actually practice what they > >preach and filter /24's and don't globally announce /24's from their > >customers. > > > >-Ralph > > What's wrong with announcing routes from your customers? Even /32s if you > want. Only those people who choose to accept them will be affected by them > and anyone who you have a BGP session with can insist you filter them out. > Treating different situations as if they were the same is not practicing what > you preach. > > DS > > > > > >

9 8

OC-768 availability?
by dalph＠hushmail.com 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

Hello, I am currently running a network of cisco 2621s with the OC-192 NM for my upstream connections. The internal network links are a mixture of K56Flex modems and GRE tunnels. I am looking to upgrade to OC-768 real soon now and am wondering what the prospects are for OC-768 availability on the 2621 platform. I've found the 2621 to be rock-solid, except when I ping it, so I'd like to keep my network on that platform if possible. In addition, if anyone knows the availability of OC-768 circuits between the following cities I'd appreciate any fiber maps and an approximate price range: Ottawa, ON, CA Midland, ON, CA Goderich, ON, CA Toronto, ON, CA Compton, CA, US Sealand At each site I plan to announce a /24 from a /20 I was allocated so if everyone could please update their prefix filters now that would be great. Thank you. -- Dalph Roncaster Communicate in total privacy. Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Looking for a good deal on a domain name? http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople

8 10

custom dialup kits
by Miguel Mata-Cardona 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

who make these kits nowaday? Had some contacts, but most of them are gone. URL or contact email will be very appreciated. -- Miguel Mata-Cardona Intercom El Salvador mmata(a)sv.intercomnet.net

2 1