- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Net 24 (was Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 06 Dec '99

06 Dec '99

> > Instead, we are looking at a routing system where some traffic will flow on > > some networks if it is a longer subnet of a class B address, and will not > > flow on some networks based on arbitrary filter decisions. Some kind of RFC > > based consistency would be great. ... > when this idea came up > a few years back, there was serious concern raised > about collusion and restraint of trade. And selective routability isn't? brandon

2 1

Re: multi-homing
by Sean Donelan 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

On Sun, 05 December 1999, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > I'd disagree whole-heartedly (partly because I am not a huge, national > tier-1). > > Wouldn't you rather connect your equipment to a smaller company, that is > potentially more flexible, has more clueful people, has better pricing, > and is multihomed to maybe 3 or 6 or 9 backbones? The top three Internet data centers I've seen are all inhouse designed and operated. Unfortunately, the worst three Internet data centers I've seen also were home-grown. Carrier operated co-location facilities have advantages and some disadvantages. The marketplace is driving them all to meet about the same level of quality, so there is less of a surprise factor associated with them. The Insurance Services Organization has already prepared underwriting reports on them, so its easy to get insurance. Other tenents have already done their own vetting of the operation. But, like every industry, there will always be some room for the specialty shops which offer a level of personal service large players can't justify. I find it interesting after the 1980's and the era of "personal computers" once again the computing industry is back to the timesharing model of large data centers. ASPs?

2 1

Mars lander (Re: How to achieve application reliability)
by Sean Donelan 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

On Sun, 05 December 1999, James Smith wrote: > First, Unix is the only way to go. :) Second, what do you > suggest instead of a /19? I was watching the mars polar lander web set up, in the hope the web would be able to handle the load. Unfortunately, they haven't gotten any data for downloading, so we can't tell how well the web sites would have held up. On Friday, at landing time, the marslander.jpl.nasa.gov redirector site seemed to work well. On the other hand, I did get a few error pages from the www.marspolarlander.com setup. I don't know if the loads on each site were equivalent.

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Martin Cooper 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

Sean Doran <smd(a)clock.org> wrote: > It doesn't need to be equitable and fair to all; the fact is that > I consider my routing table slots to be a scarce resource, and > I will conserve that resource. Filtering is one approach; a step > towards your approach is relaxing filters for people willing to > pay me money to do so. This is the reality. The Internet is no longer an academic/ research network, and the sooner people accept that money talks (and bullsh*t walks) in a commercial context, the sooner an equitable mechanism for guaranteeing reachability to specific networks will become established. > People with hardcore reasons for using a too-long prefix will > probably be willing to pay a fee to an agent able to broker > cheapest-possible access to the routing slots in the networks > that are smart enough to sell them. I like this idea very much, because it makes a clear distinction between transit and reachability services. For instance, I might not want to use Sprint for transit, even though I want to have reachability to its customers. M.

1 0

Re: How to achieve application reliability
by Sean Donelan 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

On Sat, 04 December 1999, James Smith wrote: > Our only alternative is to eliminate every single-point failure with stuff > like high availability clustering, redundant feeds, battery backups, > nuclear reactors, physical separate sites on different planets, etc. :-) > (Pardon me, it's 2:00am and I'm getting punching) If you are using Microsoft products in your nuclear reactor, its not going to be very reliable. They aren't designed for that purpose. The tools exist to make very reliable network applications, but we can't force people to use them. So long as applications neglect to use the other information provided by the network, they are going to be vulnerable to single points of failure. Multiple A records exist for a reason. Even if you have high availability clustering, redundant feeds, battery backups, multi-homing, multi-sites; if you are depending on a single global network announcement there is nothing to prevent another ISP from announcing the same prefix with a shorter AS path length, and effectively blackholing your network. For people with ultra-high reliablility requirements, a /19 isn't the solution.

3 2

Net 24 (was Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)
by Sean Donelan 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

On Sun, 05 December 1999, "Travis Pugh" wrote: > Absolutely. A standard would give ground rules, and would be something to > point to when you have to go to a client or customer and say "these are your > options." > > Instead, we are looking at a routing system where some traffic will flow on > some networks if it is a longer subnet of a class B address, and will not > flow on some networks based on arbitrary filter decisions. Some kind of RFC > based consistency would be great. I've always wondered, where is the RFC for network 24?

2 1

RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by smd＠clock.org 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

| I want to highlight the danger of such, non-coordinated extra | filtering done by one ISP. It's really dangerous for the Internet. ^^^^^^^^^ It has been in place since 1996, and the Internet has not yet died. Q.E.D. I do not believe for one moment that a coordinated approach would ever have happened. Sean.

1 0

Host modify broken/NIC?
by Greg Simpson 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

Has anyone else experienced unusual trouble with emailed host modifications wrt 'network solutions' ? [And is there a list dedicated to netsol problems?] Submitting a modify from the owner of the domain generates the following standard message.. Unfortunately, 'gws(a)sweet.com'!='gws(a)sweet.com' in their eyes, and no ACK rqsts are ever sent to the contacts. I fear something [else] may be broken.. [Their helpful customer service has indicated multiple times that an ACK rqst form will be sent to the contacts, and upon learning that this isn't the case, they get confused and scurry.] Suggestions eagerly awaited (off the list?). -g ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 03:19:40 -0500 (EST) From: Host Registration Account <hstreg(a)internic.net> To: gws(a)sweet.com Subject: Re: [NIC-991202.18749] NOFEAR.SWEET.COM We have received your request to register or modify a host record, but we are unable to process it at this time. All Host Forms must be submitted from the e-mail address of the current host contact, or from the administrative or technical contact for the second level domain name registration. It appears that the request we received was not submitted from an appropriate e-mail address. We have sent a notification message to the e-mail address on file for all of the above mentioned contacts. If any one of them acknowledges the update, we will process the request. Network Solutions email hostmaster(a)internic.net ========================================================================= (NOFEA-HST) Hostname: NOFEAR.SWEET.COM Address: 209.244.254.22 Contact: Simpson, Greg W (GWS2) gws(a)SWEET.COM 617-373-7396 Record last updated on 08-Oct-1998. Record created on 11-Feb-1998. =========================================================================

2 3

RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by smd＠clock.org 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

| The memory for the routing tables was a deal just about 2 years ago; this | became easier to maintain big tables today (when routers can be easily upgraded | to 256 MB RAM). So, Alex, this is a 4x improvement over the situation in 1995, when 64Mb was possible but rare... Sean.

2 1

IP cannot provide reliability on the public Internet
by mark＠vielle.datasys.net 05 Dec '99

05 Dec '99

The persistent furor over route filtering does make a depressing point: in general, IP cannot be used to provide reliability or load distribution over the public Internet. It seems that every significant ISP enforces filtering on routes that goes beyond the filtering necessary for correctness. The cumulative effect is that the reliability features inherent to IP and dynamic routing protocols cannot be enjoyed by the Routing Underpriviledged -- those organizations that are small enough (or frugal enough) to live with a small IP space. And there is not any real, fundamental reason for this. It's such a common practice that it doesn't seem to get its fair share of critical analysis. (Just when *will* routers be capable?) >From my perspective as a developer, the widespread long-prefix filtering undermines the value of much of the original work done to develop the Internet. Problems that have already been solved at the IP layer have to be solved again at a higher layer; we're likely to find ourselves working in a soup of protocols where a problem may be solved well at one layer, or kludged poorly at several other layers, and in which we're forced to kludge poorly because of antiquated ideas of propriety or efficiency. I welcome comments. --- Mark R. Lindsey, mark(a)datasys.net DSS Online Development Group Voice: 912.241.0607, Fax: 912.241.0190 (US)

2 1