- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Matthew Silvey 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

So what happens when someone like Microsoft implements an 'extended information' feature in their SiteServer package that does whois queries on the domains that hit the webserver, and also implement this in SiteServer Express? Do they build their own whois server? Or do we all end up absorbing the cost? just blabbering really. Matthew Silvey Systems Consultant msilvey(a)thorn.net

1 0

Re: September Effect
by Paul Vixie 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM (Sean Donelan) writes: > So what is going on? > > Internet growth has slowed. > > Internet growth is being constrained by some factor. [...] The most recent doubling, and most of the one before it, was "the fad thing." CB radio had a similar pair of doublings, but ultimately it got back to the point where only people who had a use for it, used it. The Internet is more useful than CB radio, but on the other hand when you consider that pornography is more than half of the non-interactive traffic (according to the log files I gathered from a worldwide product rollout in the transparent caching space) it's not clear how many more times we'll need to double the bandwidth of the backbone as the fad effect drops off. So perhaps the factor constraining the Internet's growth is "good taste." -- Paul Vixie La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around <paul(a)vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)

2 1

Whois
by max＠inc.net 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Has anyone else noticed a problem with whois? Seems like any domain I do a whois on returns 2 sets of records. 95% of the time it is the correct information for the domain the last 5% though seems to be a totaly unrelated record. Other than my domains here I have checked netscape.com, aol.com,internic.net among others and all seem to return bad info sporadicly. Here is an example of what I get 1 good record followed by a bad one. [max@gecko ~]$ whois webteam.net [rs.internic.net] Registrant: The Cvikota Company, Inc. (WEBTEAM8-DOM) 2031 S 32nd Street La Crosse, WI 54601 Domain Name: WEBTEAM.NET Administrative Contact: Cvikota, Kris (KC4486) kris(a)WEBTEAM.NET 800 937 2845 (FAX) 608 788 6613 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Administrator, System (AS557-ORG) host(a)WEBTEAM.NET 715/830-7800 Fax- 715/830-7801 Billing Contact: Cvikota, Kris (KC4486) kris(a)WEBTEAM.NET 800 937 2845 (FAX) 608 788 6613 Record last updated on 24-Jul-98. Record created on 24-Jul-98. Database last updated on 2-Sep-98 04:42:00 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: TORGO.WEBTEAM.NET 207.67.50.7 NS1.INC.NET 204.95.160.2 The InterNIC Registration Services database contains ONLY non-military and non-US Government Domains and contacts. Other associated whois servers: American Registry for Internet Numbers - whois.arin.net European IP Address Allocations - whois.ripe.net Asia Pacific IP Address Allocations - whois.apnic.net US Military - whois.nic.mil US Government - whois.nic.gov [max@gecko ~]$ whois webteam.net [rs.internic.net] [No name] (SPG8 ) HOLD-PAY P-U-S-S-Y-C-A-M.COM The InterNIC Registration Services database contains ONLY non-military and non-US Government Domains and contacts. Other associated whois servers: American Registry for Internet Numbers - whois.arin.net European IP Address Allocations - whois.ripe.net Asia Pacific IP Address Allocations - whois.apnic.net US Military - whois.nic.mil US Government - whois.nic.gov [max@gecko ~]$ -Max -- Max Spaulding Internet Connect, INC. max(a)inc.net

4 3

peering analysis
by Jennifer DePalma 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

I have recently put together a brief history of peering arrangements, and am now starting on an economic/political analysis of peering. I'm trying to get in touch with people in the industry and sift through answers to the following questions. If you have time to answer them via email or the phone that would be great. Can you think of other questions I should be asking? I suppose my ultimate question is "Is the market fair, open and free"? I say yes, and economically it's probably fairly easy to prove. Politically is another story... How easy is it to enter the market at different levels? What are the largest start-up costs? How political is it? How do you stay competitive? What are the technical dangers involved in peering? What are the excuses used for not peering? Are they valid? What reasons are smaller ISPs giving for wanting free settlements? Are they valid? Is the claim true that the telco-owned networks use their Internet shares to "force" smaller ISPs to lease their lines? If so, is this unfair? How does it affect pricing and the market in general? Does is produce waste? What percentage of traffic both originates and terminates on Sprint's network, Cable & Wireless, UUNet, etc.? What, if anything, is wrong with nondisclosure agreements? How do they affect the market? How should disputes in the industry be resolved? What are the Pros and Cons of peering? How does the global market figure in? (With so much of the international traffic going through California, is this good, bad, or neutral for US companies?) I'd greatly appreciate any useful input. Thanks, Jennifer ***************************** Jennifer A. DePalma 202.789.5226 202.842.3490 (fax) Research Analyst Telecommunications and Technology Studies Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010
by Bruce Hahne 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Michael Barrow writes: > Who said anything about usage charges? It looks like the proposed work > mentioned by David Holtzman is to control _abuse_ of the whois service. and Derek Balling writes: > What we had then asked InterNIC for was a means of getting > that data WITHOUT using whois. (We knew it was readily available, and > publicly accessible, but wanted to avoid beating on the whois server to get > it when it came time to generate reports). The people we talked to at > InterNIC essentially told us to pound salt. Given that NSI is sitting on what Gordon Cook has suggested is "the motherload of all databases", including full contact information for a large percentage of all Internet engineers on the planet, NSI has every incentive to limit access to that database and bide its time hoping that it will eventually be able to commercially exploit that database. And this pending legislation... > H.R.2652. Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Creates > property right in databases of information, even if public domain > information. Introduced by Rep. Coble (R-NC). Approved by House on > voice vote on May 19. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. [ from http://www.epic.org/privacy/bill_track.html ] will only help that cause. Recent NSI moves to limit "abuse" of whois, where "abuse" will be defined however NSI finds it convenient to define the term, could be interpreted as "being Internet-friendly", or as trying to constrain their operating costs and make more money for their shareholders, or as a means of maintaining their control over the collection of information by preventing others from assembling reasonably accurate replications. Application of Occam's razor to determine which of these three interpretations is more likely, given NSI's historical behavior in the exercise of its monopoly power, is left as an exercise to the reader. As an aside, we've had similar problems with ARIN, which doesn't make its database available for ftp (even though APNIC and RIPE do, though I believe at least one of them doesn't provide the email addresses in the contact records) and refuses to provide copies. We needed a copy of portions of the information for a (non-spamming) in-house application and couldn't get it. But at least ARIN is run as a public trust with voting members who can choose to adjust policy. Perhaps they'll start providing copies in the future. Bruce Hahne hahne(a)netcom.com [I don't work for Netcom]

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Dean Anderson 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Actually, I think this issue dates back to when Network Solutions thought they "owned" the database, and had some plans to sell it. There was a lot of pushback to that idea, which they eventually dropped. But they have still resisted letting anyone else have the full database. I don't think they are actually concerned so much with abuse as they are with trying to maintain or establish a proprietary control over the database. Of course, "abuse prevention" is a good cover for proprietary control. --Dean At 11:20 AM 9/2/98 -0500, Derek Balling wrote: >>Who said anything about usage charges? It looks like the proposed work >>mentioned by David Holtzman is to control _abuse_ of the whois service. >>Otherwise, the load on whois will grow without bounds and we'd >>eventually have to pay more in registration fees. Of course, that's just >>my figurin' and nothing official... > >True, that's what his statement appears to say, however, who is to define >"abuse" of the whois service? > >As an example, a company I worked for a while back wanted to generate, on >their statistics reports for their customers' web sites, who each domain >was who was hitting their page, and who it belonged to (e.g. someone >looking just at "ora.com" might not correlate that to "O'Reilly and >Associates"). What we had then asked InterNIC for was a means of getting >that data WITHOUT using whois. (We knew it was readily available, and >publicly accessible, but wanted to avoid beating on the whois server to get >it when it came time to generate reports). The people we talked to at >InterNIC essentially told us to pound salt. My superior at the time had >mentioned that we had two ways of going about this, the "net-friendly" way, >and the "brute-force" way, and that InterNIC was forcing us to use the >brute force way which could cause their servers undue load. > >Was this company "an abuser" because they wanted to do lookups of a useful >nature? (And yes, they put in caching and such so they wouldn't be querying >every domain every time.) Granted, I would define someone harvesting the >whois database for email addresses an abuser, but since I feel the abuse >use had "valid purpose", that it shouldn't be categorized as abuse. I bet >InterNIC would claim it was though. > >It's a customer service issue... We are all (I assume) customers of >InterNIC. We pay them money for domain name registrations, and they are in >turn supposed to provide reliable whois service (among other things, of >course). If they're finding that load on the whois server is higher than >they expect, they might consider (a) finding WHY it is that high? are there >people like my old employer out there doing whois requests to get a single >field from a number of sites, (b) allow others to volunteer to host the >data and serve up requests. > >Just my $0.02 worth, everyone else's mileage is sure to vary. > >Derek > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by David H. Holtzman 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Network Solutions has been seeing increased traffic on whois in the last few months. The number of queries has approximately doubled each month since June. At this time, 40% of our inbound http traffic is whois related. In an attempt to alleviate some of the load on the servers, we have taken the following steps: - Some of the worst offenders (single site, large number of accesses) will be blocked from access starting this week - Replication of the whois data will be started earlier in the evening to allow for more timely updates - Existing whois hosts have had processor and memory upgrades - Local file storage is now being used vice NFS - Medium-term and long-term development efforts are underway to redesign whois for optimal performance. This includes in-memory searches, better parsing and dynamic updates obviating the need for large daily data movements. _____________________________________ David H. Holtzman (dholtz(a)internic.net) Sr Vice President of Engineering Network Solutions, Inc.

11 15

Check this out
by James B. Slayden Jr. 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Something of interest! And may set some precedence?! ----- Begin Included Message ----- http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/tech/docs/076951.htm ----- End Included Message ----- James S.

4 3

RE: Check this out
by jeyers＠ialn.com 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Any reason why it should be regulated the PUC's at all? Is the usefulness of that beurocratic arm of the industry fading? If so, why would you need them at all in the future world of IP-only communications through a global network (like the internet)? I bet you will see more and more of this type of push by the industry as they lose their death-grip hold on the PSTN, and I predict we will be paying by-the-packet for access into a globally "free" network eventually. Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean@av8.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:36 PM To: Paul Ferguson Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Check this out Well, the article also said that charging by the packet is "outrageous", which if I followed some of the BBN/GTE thread, was exactly what some were proposing. I think its only a matter of time before the PSTN and the Internet are one and the same, and regulated by PUC's. So I'd have to think also that either the concept of "long distance" will change, or perhaps something as crazy as per packet, long distance internet charges will come into existance. --Dean

1 0

RE: 56k modems/frame/ptp revisited (LONG)
by Scott, Dan 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

A couple of points not brought up (or didn't see in my quick scan). Use of the telephone network for data is on a permissive basis, it is designed for analog voice traffic, no guarantee by the telco that you can obtain any specific rate out of a given phone line. Frame Relay services is a shared system. You can purchase a 56kbps access line and port, but the important parameter is the committed information rate you purchase from the carrier. Most of Sprint's frame relay business may have a 56kbps access line with ZERO committed information rate. Welcome to use it and can peak to 56kbps, but your actual performance may vary anywhere from 0-56kbps. Can purchase 56kbps CIR, but it costs extra, would need to then look at the economics of using a dedicated line instead. Unles your app is to mesh several locations together, then frame relay could be used to set up virtual connections to multiple locations usning one access line, an important economic point. Daniel T. Scott Chief Engineer NASA Integrated Services Network (http://www.nisn.nasa.gov) MSFC Information Systems Services Office ******NOTE NEW AREA CODE FOR MSFC ****** 256.544.0131 voice 256.544.2554 fax dan.scott(a)msfc.nasa.gov > ---------- > From: Tim Wolfe[SMTP:tim@clipper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:17 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Cc: ClipperNet Technical Staff > Subject: 56k modems/frame/ptp revisited (LONG) > > 13 people so far have asked me to post a summary to the list on this > subject, so here it is. I have included all responses I received, > with the name of the respondent at the top of their answer. Both > questions are included at the top for continuity purposes. > > Question #1: > > Anyone have a nice layman's terms explanation of the throughput/latency > differences between a 56k modem, a 56k leased line, and a 56k frame relay > circuit? This is assuming a "perfect" lab enviroment, ie. the modem > connects and sustains at maximum capability, the frame cloud is not > overloaded etc.. Please reply off list. > > Question #2: > > I've gotten lot's of responses on my original question, but I'm finding > perhaps I didn't ask the correct one. What I really need to know is what > is > the real world effect of latency on throughput? I know that frame relay > has > a higher latency than a point to point line, and that a point to point is > generally regarded as faster. Would someone mind explaining the specifics > of that relationship a little bit? Again, off list please, unless someone > thinks it's an appropriate topic for this list.. > > **************************************** > Here are the responses I received for both questions in no particular > order. > **************************************** > > David Newman wrote: > > "56K" modems really top out at 53.3 kbit/s because of an FCC regulation (I > believe Canada has a similar rule). They theoretically can hit 56 kbit/s > outside North America, though tests have showed 51-52 kbit/s to be the > upper end for products shipping today. > > Absent congestion both a frame PVC and a leased line really do run at 56 > kbit/s. > > David R. Dick wrote: > > "56K" modems take advantage of the digital nature of much of the > present phone system. Unfortunately, they can only do this in > one direction, so you get 56K down from the Internet to the user > (actually only 53K, or so, because of electrical power limitations > in the signalling method) and 33K from the user to the Internet. > > 56K leased lines are point-to-point connections. The data travels > more or less directly (in electrical terms, anyway) between the > user and the Internet -- 56K in each direction. > > 56K frame relay is a switched service and two point-to-point > connections are involved: one from the user to the switch > and one from the switch to the Internet. You get 56K in each > direction, but there is some delay (latency) because of the > diversion through the switch. In some places there may even > be more than one switch involved, with extra latency, as you > might expect. > > Paul G. Donner wrote: > > Basically, you'd need to look at the framing in each case as well > as any Layer 2 acknowledgement mechanism that might be implemented. > You can get this from a number of textbooks and put together an > explanation yourself if you are so inclined. > > This would only consider up to the L2 overhead on the links (if > applicable -> e.g. Frame Relay) which is probably what you are > asking for. These link types are effectively in different > categories and it would be sort of like comparing apples to > oranges. > > Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > 56K is the low end of the leased line spectrum, with 56K leased line and > 56K frame relay performing almost identically if you are using similar > framing protocols. You will the top 56K performance from these... Lowest > latency (20-40ms) > > 56K modem is at most 53K because of modem-enforced FCC limits, and because > of the analog-digital conversion, you will get high latency (100-200ms) > and lower throughput then a leased line. > > David R. Dick wrote: > > The simplest explanation involves the fact that most networking > is TCP (not UDP) so packets travel in both directions, with > acknowledgements, etc. When an ACK is delayed because of > latency, the movement of the real data packets is also delayed. > So it will just plain take longer to deliver the same data > payload. > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > As for so-called 56K modems -- they aren't. > > They are only 56K if the FCC allows, which they don't, so top speed is > about > 53K. > > And then it's only 56K in the direction from an ISP who has a digital > ISDN based modem towards your "analog" 56K modem. The return path is > 33Kbits (or worse.) > > If you take a couple of off the shelf "56K" modems and hook 'em up > over a normal POTS line you'll end up with about 33Kbits (or worse) > full duplex. > > I learned all this stuff a few weeks ago when I hooked a couple of > routers together and found that my investment in 56K modems was wasted > -- the best one can get is 33Kbits full duplex unless I invested in an > ISDN link at one end and got the 56K ISP-end gear. > > As far as I know only 3COM makes a single BRI ISP-end 56K modem. It > runs about $250. Usually they come in larger packs to hook to an ISDN > PRI. > > Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > Latency and throughput are NOT related in this case! > > The speed of light itself puts a limit on how fast we can transfer data > globally with fiber optics. Bigger pipes will simply ensure that you can > get more data through at the same time. Once you have maxed out speed > with the most efficient protocol, you are limited by the speed of light ;0 > > Anyways, the latency introduced with a modem connection is much larger > then that of a dedicated line because of the two analog<->digital > conversions. All-digital connections like ISDN, FR, and PTP connections > are very low latency. > > Paul G. Donner wrote: > > FR is effectively frame/packet switched. PT-PT circuits do not have > frame/packet structures (the transport may use T1 type framing but > this is different). The major latency affect in FR is due to buffering > of the packet/frames and and switching them. PT-PT don't go through > this process. So effectively both types FR and PT-PT have propagation > delay (e.g. speed of light limitations) but FR exhibits also processing > delays which are neglible or non-existant with PT-PT circuits. > > Robert Gourley wrote: > > Given that there in no congestion in the frame relay network and > that both the 56Kbps DDS line and the 56Kbpx frame relay PVC follow > exactly the same route and have the same number of route miles, > then the only difference in the latency of the two circuits is > the effect of two serialization delays (one at the ingress and > one at the egress) in the frame relay example. Serialization delay > is = (packet size in bits)/(56,000 bits/sec). > > Blaine Christian wrote: > > Since you want to assume ideal conditions you will remove a significant > difference between the 56k Modem and leased line. You will find that > under ideal conditions both of these should perform equally well. Since > a leased line/modem relies on less telco equipment it should peform > better than the frame circuit. A 56k frame circuit will increase your > latency by virtue of being processed by several frame switches. If the > frame switches have to tag frames they may introduce more latency into > your circuit (even if they do not tag your frames). > > The difference between all of these should be negligible (depending on > switches and the amount of equipment traversed) and throughput should be > equal depending on the equipment you are using (of course). > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Tim Wolfe, Network Administrator > ClipperNet Internet Access Services > tim(a)clipper.net 541.431.3360 voice 541.431.1176 fax > ...Across the Desktop and around the World... > --------------------------------------------------- >

3 2