- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Paul G. Donner 03 Apr '01

03 Apr '01

it also works the other way around. letting clueless networks manage multihoming with BGP can be a bad thing for the internet in general, especially if the upstreams do not enforce some *discipline* on their customers in these cases. this can be as detrimental to the customer as having lousy upstream service. At 03:37 PM 4/2/2001 -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > So, please explain to me how not being multi-homed is anything > other than a > > bad-thing and high-risk? No, I am not including colo, because it is > assumed > > that you know what their arrangements are before you "buy". > Reputable colos > > are multi-homed, in spades. > >You say "responsible cab drivers must have not one, but two taxicabs, in >order to provide service in the event of a failure. Therefore, I bought >one from Fisher-Price, and one from Hot Wheels, and I'm astounded to find >that neither provides me with the luxury which I expected." I think >Patrik may have been suggesting that if you had a Checker, you might not >need to worry quite so much about redundancy. > > -Bill

1 0

Re: www. ep.net down (again)?
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

>> Any idea what is going on with www.ep.net web server? Is there any other way to request IP addresses for exchange points other than >> via the web site? >> >> Thomas > > Their was a hardware failure. It is being worked on. > Email to hostmaster(a)ep.net should work just fine. > > --bill Service moved. DNS cache aging will give inconsistant results for a few hours. --bill

1 0

RE: InterNAP
by Hank Nussbacher 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

At 09:00 02/04/01 -0500, Deitrich Dave-CDD039 wrote: Easy. For 2000 net loss totaled $185.5M, up from $50M in 1999. Even at $70M of revenue for 2000, a market cap of $261M with that kind of mounting loss is being generous, IMHO. -Hank > > They've been down around $1.50 a share for a while now... but apparently > > as of today their stock is up 34%. Something I should know about InterNAP? > >Does anyone know why InterNAP stock is so low in the first place? I've >been looking around online and I haven't found any noticeably bad press >about them. We've talked with several of InterNAP's customers as part of >our own evaluation and according to them InterNAP practically walks on >water. I don't get it... :-( > >-- >DAVE DEITRICH >dave.deitrich(a)motorola.com

2 1

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Roeland Meyer 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

>From the article: <quote> "Half of the companies that are multihomed should have gotten better service from their providers," says Patrik Faltstrom, a Cisco engineer and co-chair of the IETF's Applications Area. "ISPs haven't done a good enough job explaining to their customers that they don't need to multihome." </quote> >From what I just went through (DSLnetworks v Covad), this is straight bulldust. Had I been properly multi-homed, MHSC would NOT have been down for 5 weeks. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 4:16 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers > > > > I have a feeling this one may start another very large NANOG thread: > > http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402routing.html > > -Hank > >

2 1

www. ep.net down (again)?
by Thomas Kernen 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Any idea what is going on with www.ep.net web server? Is there any other way to request IP addresses for exchange points other than via the web site? Thomas

4 5

Transport level multihoming
by Greg Maxwell 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Has anyone here had any discussion about the potential for transport level multihoming (like SCTP) to replace the current use of globally advertised multihoming on the Internet? If the transport pushes multihoming to the end node and IP layer multihoming not being propagated beyond direct peers. It would seem that such a system could significantly further the scalability of the Internet, while increasing the level of flexibility of multihoming (i.e. if the transport allows adding address to a connection in progress, this would facilitate mobility).

1 1

RE: Routing System Scaling - Disaster Looming, but Medium-Term Fi xes Known
by Roeland Meyer 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

> From: smd(a)clock.org [mailto:smd@clock.org] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:59 AM > So, there are several Deaths of the Internet which are possible: > > -- it's too expensive to keep up with growth, so utilization > -- we blow up on one of the scaling axes > -- too much dynamism: poof, our memory isn't > -- we blow up because while we can handle some of the > -- inefficient/broken routing: we don't have the power One observation here, PC133 RAM is getting ever cheaper, as are CPUs. If routers were designed around commoditized components their COGm would be lower. Of course, the router vendors would no longer be able to get the premium prices for their boxen, either. > What I wish I had finished @ Sprint: a web-based form that lets > one arrange an exception to access-list 112 for some small fee, > like $50/month/change. For your 50 bucks, you see no filtering > on one of your long prefixes for a whole month (or year or whatever). > > These days it may be that your $50/month will make your > long prefix less likely to be damped out of the routing table > for a long time, however there is scope for further innovation, > such as charging only $5 to clear your prefix out of the flap-damping > penalty box of one router. I, for one, would gladly pay for such a service. Provided that I don't have to pay it to 32 ISPs per month.

2 1

Re: Lame reverse delegation at Sprint (fwd)
by John R Levine 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

> I walked the tree manually <see attached>. Two problems. > > 1. SDN.IECC.COM does not answer authoritatively. Odd, it's supposed to be authoritative and it's authoritative now. Something was very strange over the weekend. In case it's not obvious, light.lightlink.com is my DNS mirror, who's also supposed to be authoritative, ivan.iecc.com is my old server I'm trying to turn off, sdn.iecc.com is the new one. > 2. In our database, you have IVAN.IECC.COM as the primary NS that we > delegate to, for 42.31.208.in-addr.arpa. In turn, IVAN delegates to > SDN.IECC.COM. For the sake of efficiency, you may want to ask your ISP to > send an e-mail to dns(a)sprint.net and ask our NOC to change this in our > database to SDN.IECC.COM. Of course, once SDN.IECC.COM is answering > authoritatively again. Thanks, will do. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47

1 0

RE: InterNAP
by Deitrich Dave-CDD039 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

> They've been down around $1.50 a share for a while now... but apparently > as of today their stock is up 34%. Something I should know about InterNAP? Does anyone know why InterNAP stock is so low in the first place? I've been looking around online and I haven't found any noticeably bad press about them. We've talked with several of InterNAP's customers as part of our own evaluation and according to them InterNAP practically walks on water. I don't get it... :-( -- DAVE DEITRICH dave.deitrich(a)motorola.com

1 0

RE: Routing System Scaling - Disaster Looming, but Medium-Term Fixes Known
by smd＠clock.org 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Bill - If your magical mystical OBGP stuff puts pressure on the global routing system, you can expect at some point that people stop subsidizing your use of their resources, and start filtering or damping you, or charging you real money. If your magical mystical OBGP stuff does not, then it is irrelevant to the scaling of the global routing system by virtue of having no impact on it. There is NO reason why significant site-to-site multihoming need be made visible to the global routing system, if sites are not providing global transit for one another via entities that cannot aggregate the sites behind a single prefix. That UfT and YorkU have some sort of fast direct interconnection just for exchanging traffic between themselves does not need to be known in New York or Amsterdam, or even by ONET. There is probably some opportunity for you to exploit the fact that few networks impose any kind of barrier on resource consumption at the present time. Surely, though, you would be better off looking at the reality that operators face before arguing that your "empower the edge!" ideas are truly cost-saving. Sean.

1 0