- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Postmasters Anonymous
by Rizzo Frank 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

Sean Donelan wrote: > Sorry for interrupting our quarterly peering debate, but I'd like to > ask if there are any groups for people who are Postmasters (abuse, spam, > dmca, etc) Alcoholics Anonymous. Frank Rizzo

1 0

Name Server Change-over completed
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

ATTENTION ALL INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE ROOT SERVER ZONE MANAGERS: The gTLD name server cutovers listed below have been completed. Please update your root zones asap. For info, questions, please contact ADNS NOC at info(a)adns.net John Palmer ---- Begin announcement ---- IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE TLDS: BIZ COM2 ETC ONLINE NGO NOT NPO Effective 00:01 UTC on July 1, 2002, The AtlanticRoot Network Inc, The manager of the above listed TLDs will be moving to a new registry provider, ADNS. Because of this, the gTLD servers for all of the listed TLDs must be changed in all Inclusive Namespace root server networks. The list of NS records for the new gTLD servers are listed below. Please make these changes in your root zone files. NOTE: DO NOT DO SO UNTIL 00:01 UTC on JULY 1, 2002. If you have any questions, please contact John Palmer at info(a)adns.net Thank You. Leah Gallegos President The AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. --- BEGIN NS RECORDS --- $ORIGIN . BIZ IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. BIZ IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN . COM2 IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. COM2 IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN . ETC. IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. ETC. IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN . ONLINE. IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. ONLINE. IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN . NGO. IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. NGO. IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN . NOT. IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. NOT. IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN . NPO. IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET. NPO. IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET. $ORIGIN ADNS.NET. NS1 IN A 199.5.157.2 NS2 IN A 199.5.157.3 --- END OF NS RECORDS --- For those of you who add the ORSC style TLDTAGS to your root zone, add these for EACH of the TLDs listed above IN TXT "<tldtag field='tel' value='+1 (312) 560-3934'>" IN TXT "<tldtag field='url' value='http://www.biztld.net'>" IN TXT "<tldtag field='whois' value='inrs.adns.net/whois.php'>" IN TXT "<tldtag field='org' value='AtlanticRoot Network Inc.'>" IN TXT "<tldtag field='poc' value='Leah Gallegos'>" IN TXT "<tldtag field='email' value='info(a)adns.net>" ----- AGN Domain Name Services, Inc http://www.adns.net Since 1995. The Registry for .AMERICA, .EARTH, .LION, .USA and .Z Define yourself or Be Defined. Censorship-free GA list at : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

4 4

Re: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprintpeering policy
by kookreport＠hushmail.com 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

Gordon what did I tell you about posting to NANOG? Shouldn't you be busy uncovering ICANN conspiracies and interviewing Bill St. Arnaud for the 50th time? Can we look forward to a summary of this thread in your next report? Gordon Cook wrote: > Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are > lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or You friendly carrier sales rep? > even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know Who cares. Rest assured Gordon, when it is profitable to light them they'll be lit. > there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting > requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very > likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to > one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not It's being used to 3.14159% of its capacity, but the photon acceleration effects of GMPLS have yet to be fully realised. You can quote me on it. > know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing > this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or > investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in Pop the stack Gordon. How can anyone make intelligent investment decisions when earnings reports are outright lies? Until that's straightened out counting the number of lit fibres is like counting the number of empty cages in an Exodus data centre. > use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC > essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue? What does this have to do with layer 3 peering? - Gordon "I wish I was George Gilder" Kook 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

2 1

Postmasters Anonymous
by Sean Donelan 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

Sorry for interrupting our quarterly peering debate, but I'd like to ask if there are any groups for people who are Postmasters (abuse, spam, dmca, etc)? I know there are many groups for people who want to complain about those subjects, but I was wondering if there are groups for people who have to handle the complaints.

2 1

Paix-NY and NYIIX -- link stil going to happen?
by Phil Rosenthal 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

Anyone know if the link-up is still going to happen? I've heard from a few people that given the financial issues at MFN, this is highly unlikely to still happen. Anyone know any different? Paul? --Phil

3 2

Re: Postmasters Anonymous
by Martin Hannigan 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

At 09:16 PM 6/29/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >Sorry for interrupting our quarterly peering debate, but I'd like to >ask if there are any groups for people who are Postmasters (abuse, spam, >dmca, etc)? I know there are many groups for people who want to complain >about those subjects, but I was wondering if there are groups for people >who have to handle the complaints. There's a lot of them. A bunch are "under cover". Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

2 1

Bellsouth DSL in Chattanooga - Whose Lines?
by CARL.P.HIRSCH＠sargentlundy.com 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

Does Bellsouth use its own infrastructure for consumer/business ADSL (specifically in Chattanooga, TN), or does it rely on someone else's lines to get from the local central office to the nearest peering exchange? I've seen outfits like Covad use Exodus/C&W, but I'm imagining a RBOC like BellSouth prefers to use its own infrastructure. What is the closest peering point that would be used in Chattanooga, anyhow? thanks, -carl hirsch

2 1

Re: Sprint peering policy
by Paul Vixie 30 Jun '02

30 Jun '02

> : when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention > : has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not > : been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not > : stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers. > > Let's hope they don't decide to do that. i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability". wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer ("citizen"). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted: 1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here. none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.

11 12

Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
by David Meyer 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

Stephen, >> I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering >> with the downstreams will improve user quality of service by >> both reducing latency and taking unnecessary points of failure >> out of the network. Is it really common sense? If so, is the common sense correct? In fact, there is a lot of recent work that suggests that there can be a very poor (and as it turns out poorly understood) interaction between richness of interconnection and BGP dynamics; this is due, at least in part, to amplification and coupling effects that appear in some large systems. So many argue that that given the current set of protocols (i.e. BGP and its implementations), increased topological richness beyond some threshold can actually hurt robustness and reliability. And just to be clear about this, this is not a statement about peering policies themselves (I'm explicitly not commenting on that), but rather about our current understanding of some of the dynamics that exist in today's Internet. I've been trying to capture some of this in the following document (with the able help of Randy, Tim, and many others): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-03.txt On the topic of interconnection richness and its (possibly unanticipated) effects, Craig and Abha's early work on this is maybe the canonical reference. For something a little more recent, see "What is the Sound of One Route Flapping", Timothy G. Griffin, IPAM Workshop on Large-Scale Communication Networks: Topology, Routing, Traffic, and Control, March, 2002. In any event, I guess the bottom line here is that sometimes what looks like common sense (or even what we have a tendency to call "conventional wisdom") may just be wrong. Dave

5 5

Re: Sprint peering policy
by Patrick W. Gilmore 29 Jun '02

29 Jun '02

At 10:28 AM 6/29/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >> OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not >> survive. While some networks who peered with no one have also died. (And >> some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of >> many countries. :-) So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that >> peering or not is good for long term economic viability. > >I doubt peering for a large "tier 1" is directly affecting their economic >state, >they will see all networks via peers with their fellow "tier 1" networks and >peering further downstream isnt going to alter cost.. Of course they alter costs. NAP fees, OC lines, router interfaces, management of BGP sessions, etc., etc. all cost money. Furthermore, peering at 15 places probably requires less of a national backbone than peering at 4 places because you have fewer and closer exit points, which may reduce internal costs. Then again, the fees for 15 NAPs, plus 15 OC lines, plus 15 router cards, plus whatever else may well be more than the cost of increasing your national backbone. And as for being able "see all networks" just because you are a "Tier 1", do you mean like Above.Net and PSI? Or PSI and C&W when they recently had a bit of an argument? Or Exodus and BBN a while ago? Or any of a gazillion other examples? As shown on this list, just because you think you are a "Tier 1" these days does not guarantee you a view to all other networks. And it *certainly* does not guarantee you anywhere near an optimal path to all prefixes in the global Peering does affect both stability and economics. I just think it affects them differently than most "tier 1" players - the more you peer, the better your economics. They think that the less you peer, the better your economics because then people will pay you to get to your backbone. >> I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy >> can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other >> reasons to close your peering policy. > >I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering with the >downstreams will improve user quality of service by both reducing latency and >taking unnecessary points of failure out of the network. This is why I think peering more will help you economically. Peering less might get you a few more downstreams, but we how many people are really ready to peer at the big peering points? 200? 500? And how many downstreams does someone like UU or Sprint have? 20,000? 50,000? Probably more. KPNQwest claimed they had over 100,000 business customers before they went belly up, and I bet US carriers have more. So they are trading reduced performance and reliability, plus pissing off the rest of the Internet community, for the *potential* to sign less than 1% of their current base. (Remember, just because SmallISP.com cannot peer with UU, C&W, Sprint, AT&T, Qwest, L3, etc. does not mean he will buy from all of them.) All that said, there are other reasons for big networks not to peer with anyone who asks. Both economic and technical reasons. I just personally feel the bar is too high for most big players. Then again, I repeat, the Internet is still (mostly) regulation free, so if you own a network, you get to peer - or not - with whomever you please. And I would not have it any other way. >Steve -- TTFN, patrick

1 0