- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Traffic engineering tools
by Andrew Bender 22 Oct '99

22 Oct '99

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:49:07 -0700 > From: Bora Akyol <akyol(a)pluris.com> > Subject: RE: Traffic engineering tools > > If you don't want a GUI and the fancy what if scenarios, it is not difficult > to write > a Perl/Script that does constraint-based routing or Multi-commodity flow > problems. > > I would guess 2-3 weeks if one is familiar with basic linear programming. > > Bora Release note: NPcomplete.pl may also require 2-3 weeks to converge when sub{optimum_backup_paths} is used. This may be due to a suspected "suboptimality" in PDL::Opt::Simplex... Application note: "basic" as the term is used in the context of the phrase "basic linear programming" seen in the marketing literature should be taken to mean "graph or subgraph of degree 1" Regards, Andrew Bender Total Network Solutions, Inc. P.S. Advance apologies for the (ostensibly excusable?) off topic cynicism...

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 22 Oct '99

22 Oct '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Oct 22 12:00:01 PDT 1999 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 22Oct99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 151099 65450 161099 65076 171099 65195 181099 65279 191099 65291 201099 65598 211099 65550 221099 65598 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 110.30.236.0/24 from AS577 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 5854 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 3086 (1688 cidr, 1398 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 583 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 945 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 22Oct99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 383 144 239 62.4% BCnet Backbone AS719 733 567 166 22.6% LANLINK autonomous system AS7046 397 260 137 34.5% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS9269 139 15 124 89.2% Hong Kong CTI AS2609 128 8 120 93.8% EUnet-TN AS1221 623 513 110 17.7% TELSTRA-AS AS6944 124 20 104 83.9% RapidSite, Inc. AS174 573 483 90 15.7% Performance Systems International AS7657 249 161 88 35.3% The Internet Group Limited AS4293 228 142 86 37.7% Internal ASN for C&W AS577 265 180 85 32.1% Bell Canada Backbone AS7496 113 36 77 68.1% Power Up AS7545 140 64 76 54.3% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS3749 140 64 76 54.3% TECNET AS4200 184 110 74 40.2% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS4740 340 288 52 15.3% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS209 314 265 49 15.6% Qwest Communications AS684 92 46 46 50.0% Manitoba Regional Network Backbon AS701 945 900 45 4.8% Alternet AS816 224 181 43 19.2% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4) AS549 221 178 43 19.5% ONet Backbone AS2493 134 93 41 30.6% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS9304 54 15 39 72.2% Hutchcity AS6528 45 7 38 84.4% WORLD-LYNX AS4755 97 63 34 35.1% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS1 497 463 34 6.8% GTE Internetworking AS6172 146 113 33 22.6% HOME-NET-1 AS3737 99 66 33 33.3% PenTeleData Inc. (ASN-PTD) AS1785 236 204 32 13.6% NYSERNet Backbone AS9453 33 2 31 93.9% Soongsil University For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Re: Targeted LDP and Hierarchical LSPs in MPLS networks
by Vadim Antonov 22 Oct '99

22 Oct '99

Just for the record - i was against doing MPLS in Pluris boxes. There's a much better way to do traffic engineering using Pluris' load-distribution trick. I guess marketing won. --vadim > I would like to get a poll on how targeted LDP sessions (and hierarchical > tunnels) and MPLS data path tie together. > Bora Akyol, Pluris > http://www.pluris.com

2 1

NANOG 17
by Pam Ciesla 22 Oct '99

22 Oct '99

If you paid for NANOG 17 but did not attend please contact me for a refund by Monday, November 1, 1999. There will be a $35 cancellation fee. If you need copies of receipts include fax number or mailing address. Sorry for the delay in this message. Pam Pam Ciesla Events Coordinator Merit Network,Inc. 734-936-0172 - phone 4251 Plymouth Road 734-647-3185 - fax Bldg.I, Suite C pam(a)merit.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48105

1 0

RE: Traffic engineering tools
by Bora Akyol 22 Oct '99

22 Oct '99

If you don't want a GUI and the fancy what if scenarios, it is not difficult to write a Perl/Script that does constraint-based routing or Multi-commodity flow problems. I would guess 2-3 weeks if one is familiar with basic linear programming. Bora -----Original Message----- From: Robert Tsay [mailto:cctsay@globalcenter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:28 PM To: Bora Akyol; 'Sean Donelan'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Traffic engineering tools After the investigation, currently only WANDL in the market can do/support the MPLS+ATM or IP simulation. So the bad thing is the software is very expensive. It's the only software that can simulate Constraint-Based routing now. R. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bora Akyol <akyol(a)pluris.com> To: 'Sean Donelan' <sean(a)donelan.com>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 2:25 PM Subject: RE: Traffic engineering tools > > I believe that WANDL has a tool that can be used for > static TE purposes, but you are on your own for traffic > models. > > Bora Akyol > Pluris, http://www.pluris.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 11:21 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Traffic engineering tools > > > > At NANOG the lack of traffic engineering tools came up. Has anyone > heard of any packages coming to market. Or looked if tools from > other industries could be used as a starting point. Anything from > the electric power transmission or road traffic world we could use? > Or do IP packets have such different properties (e.g. re-transmission, > independent next-hop behavior, etc), its not a good idea to even try. > >

3 2

Re: Traffic engineering tools
by Sean Donelan 22 Oct '99

22 Oct '99

The votes are in, and the commercial winner for IP traffic engineering, planning, modeling, etc package is WAN DL <http://www.wandl.com/> The most frequent comment was "its expensive." Although WAN DL was the (only) commercial package mentioned, several people reported they are working with some homegrown tools, or SWAG. However no one was real happy with either the available commercial or homegrown tools they were using. Several vendor-types sent messages they are working on new tools for release "any day now." I was surprised I didn't hear about any projects from the academic world. The number of CS graduates continues to decline, have we dropped below critical mass?

1 0

DNS for 16.172.in-addr.arpa
by grisha＠verio.net 21 Oct '99

21 Oct '99

We were having a small problem here and I traced it down to a reverse DNS lookup on a 172.16 address hanging. I noticed that a.root-servers.net reports that BLACKHOLE.ISI.EDU is authoritative for 16.172.in-addr.arpa. Is this the way it should be, or is the yet another network solutions mistake? Who should really handle DNS for rfc1918 addresses? Grisha

3 3

RE: Traffic engineering tools
by Bora Akyol 21 Oct '99

21 Oct '99

I believe that WANDL has a tool that can be used for static TE purposes, but you are on your own for traffic models. Bora Akyol Pluris, http://www.pluris.com -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 11:21 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Traffic engineering tools At NANOG the lack of traffic engineering tools came up. Has anyone heard of any packages coming to market. Or looked if tools from other industries could be used as a starting point. Anything from the electric power transmission or road traffic world we could use? Or do IP packets have such different properties (e.g. re-transmission, independent next-hop behavior, etc), its not a good idea to even try.

1 0

Targeted LDP and Hierarchical LSPs in MPLS networks
by Bora Akyol 21 Oct '99

21 Oct '99

I apologize if this is off-topic. But I thought some of you may be interested in this question that I posed to the MPLS WG in IETF. Reply privately, I will post a summary to the list if I get any interesting replies: ---INCLUDED MESSAGE------- Hi all, I would like to get a poll on how targeted LDP sessions (and hierarchical tunnels) and MPLS data path tie together. Consider the following scenario: * denotes an MPLS tunnel between R_B and R_E R_A --> R_B *************>R_E-->R_F \ / \ / R_C --> R_D Here R_B and R_E have a targeted LDP session and an MPLS LSP between them. There is a label request traveling from R_A for an FEC_1. At R_A, MPLS does a routing table lookup and finds that next hop for this route is R_B, message is then passed on to R_B. Now at R_B, how does R_B know to associate the FEC_1 with R_E through the directed LDP session vs associating with R_C?? One way of doing this is to introduce a virtual interface between R_B and R_E with the lowest metric possible, so the routing lookup result is the virtual interface. The other way of doing this is to exchange all prefixes that the tunnel between is authorized to carry so that the LDP instance at R_B knows that FEC_1 belongs to this set. **What do you think is the best solution and are there any other solutions out there? **Why doesn't the LDP spec address this issue even though it is part of the framework document. ** Is targeted LDP important to ISPs, when you can do this much more cleanly with ER-LSPs in both CR-LDP and RSVP? Bora Akyol, Pluris http://www.pluris.com

1 0

Rochelle Park flood report filed with FCC
by Sean Donelan 21 Oct '99

21 Oct '99

I had hoped to put off doing this for a while, but since the Associated Press has already picked it up, here goes nothing. Bell Atlantic filed their FCC outage report last week. The Bergen County Record newspaper obtained a copy and printed this story. http://www.bergen.com/biz/bell20199910202.htm I speak only for myself.

1 0