- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
by woody＠zocalo.net 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

> if [the San Diego NAP] is really a local-only exchange point, > i.e. no one is using it for transit, and all are only exchanging > local routes, lots of folk out here would be very interested in > real measurements. like how much of an isp's traffic can they > actually shed locally? not conjecture, real data. Quoting from <http://www.caida.org/Caida/caidaix.html>: "The primary purpose of the SD-NAP is to facilitate efficient interconnection of Internet Protocol transit networks within and to the San Diego Local Access and Transport Area, California LATA 6. The secondary purpose of the SD-NAP is to provide a platform for traffic analysis by CAIDA researchers, with the goal of promoting a robust, scalable global Internet infrastructure.... It is anticipated that the primary use of the facility will be for BGP peering between organizations for the purpose of exchanging local traffic. Participants are permitting UCSD staff to analyze their Internet traffic data as part of the consideration for supporting SD-NAP. So gathering exactly the information you're looking for is an explicit intention of the folks supporting the peering point. Regarding transit, it's a facility with a bunch of ISPs and a bunch of carriers and a bunch of people who might be potential customers of each other. There's the peering point, across which people peer, and then there are private interconnections, across which people can do whatever the heck kind of transit or deals they feel like. I don't know that any real-world peering point is going to yield quite the controlled environment you're positing, but this should come relatively close. Or at least that's the intention. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)nowhere.loopback.edu user(a)host.domain.com

2 1

USAC and SPIN
by Jim Fleming 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

@@@ http://www.neca.org/usnewrel.htm Whippany, NJ -- May 21, 1998 - The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of former Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman Cheryl L. Parrino as USAC's first Chief Executive Officer (CEO), effective June 1, 1998." @@@@@@@@@@@@@ The U.S. Government provides ISPs with SPIN numbers, FREE of charge. Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) @@@@ http://www.neca.org/funds/usacspin.htm "For companies which have not filed a FCC Form 457, you may contact USAC at (888) 641-8722 to obtain a SPIN assignment. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network http://www.unir.net 0:196 .MALL

2 1

RE: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Jamie Scheinblum 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

The last CIDR report I have in my in-box states there are 3606 AS numbers in the routing table. So, my first question is at what point does ARIN reclaim AS numbers? (comparison: 2680 last September and 3075 at the beginning of the year) That's a lot of money Arin rakes in on un-used AS numbers. I understand that ARIN probably doesn't want to get in the middle of routing policies, but by limiting when you can receive an AS, I don't understand why they couldn't limit when you lose it. Second Q: How many AS numbers are available in total? Best regards, Jamie Scheinblum - FASTNET(tm) / You Tools Corporation jamie(a)fast.net (888)321-FAST(3278) http://www.fast.net FASTNET - Business and Personal Internet Solutions The views stated above are mine and do not reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Denninger [mailto:karl@mcs.net] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 2:35 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again? On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 12:30:46AM -0700, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > At 01:27 AM 5/30/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: > >This does make sense - a lot of sense. > > >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin > > >On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 12:26:31AM -0400, Jamie Scheinblum wrote: > >> Suggestion: > >> > >> The initial ASN should be bundled with a /19 to create a "multi-home" > >> package. Unbundled ASNs whould be unreasonably high to cover the > >> administration of the initial ASNs of the world, and the cost associated > >> with a /19. > > No, it does not make a lot of sense. In fact, IMHO, this is a very, *very* > bad idea. > > Remember what we are trying to conserve here - not just ASNs, but IP Space > too. Making unbundled ASNs "unreasonably high" would kill all the people > who are being good little businesses and conserving IP space. Uh, hold on a second.... I didn't say to make the first ASN "unreasonably" expensive (and I do believe $500 is unreasonable). However, with a REASONABLE first ASN fee (ie: $50 or thereabouts) bundling THAT with a /19 when you get your first PI allocation is even more reasonable. After all, the justification for the IP space encompasses that for the ASN, so the work has already been done, and the additional effort at that point should be literally a few keystrokes. My proposals to fix the issue with regards to getting a /19 if you're multihomed are also out there; has NANOG seen them? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

3 3

RE: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Jamie Scheinblum 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

Sorry, should have clarified. The first ASN should always be the least expensive. When acquired at the same time as a netblock, the fees for research and paper handing should be handled as one request. So if ARIN breaks down the cost of a $500 ASN request to say it costs them in man power to call the upstreams and verify the data is correct, then you should save the $250 on processing the request for the netblock. Best regards, Jamie Scheinblum - FASTNET(tm) / You Tools Corporation jamie(a)fast.net (888)321-FAST(3278) http://www.fast.net FASTNET - Business and Personal Internet Solutions The views stated above are mine and do not reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick@priori.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 3:41 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again? At 01:34 PM 5/31/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: >Uh, hold on a second.... > >I didn't say to make the first ASN "unreasonably" expensive (and I do >believe $500 is unreasonable). No, you just said "This does make sense - a lot of sense." when Jamie Scheinblum suggested that "unbundled" ASNs be made unreasonably high. >However, with a REASONABLE first ASN fee (ie: $50 or thereabouts) bundling >THAT with a /19 when you get your first PI allocation is even more >reasonable. While I agree that $500 *might* be too high, I honestly do not think something on the order of $200 or $250 would be too high, especially as a "one time" fee with the $30 recurring charge. >After all, the justification for the IP space encompasses that for the ASN, >so the work has already been done, and the additional effort at that point >should be literally a few keystrokes. Good point. >My proposals to fix the issue with regards to getting a /19 if you're >multihomed are also out there; has NANOG seen them? I have not. But I haven't been following this as closely as I probably should have. >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin TTFN, patrick ************************************************************** Patrick W. Gilmore voice: +1-650-482-2840 Director of Operations, CCIE #2983 fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today" **************************************************************

1 0

Re: The Great Exchange
by Vadim Antonov 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

Deepak Jain <deepak(a)ai.net> wrote: > Since most of this distance stuff is being calculated by IP address or ASN, > why wouldn't the edge routers have SRC IP, DST IP, and "MY IP." And why > couldn't a collector make any other adjustments necessary? Neither ASNs nor network prefixes (particularly aggregated prefixes) correspond to geographical locales. To evaluate cost of end-to-end transmission one has to collect information about state of the things along the path. That information is typically totally unavailable to end-nodes and only partially available to backbones. >> Distance-insensitive per-bit charging is certainly feasible and >> is being practiced by some ISPs (typically as "burstable" T-1 >> or T-3 service). >> >> In fact, even those charges aren't likely to stand against close legal >> scrunity. Example of a scenario of a rationale for action against >> ISP X - they count received and transmitted packets on a user link. >> Unfortunalely, they also count packets they didn't deliver due >> to some packet loss in their backbone. Bingo - they charge >> customers for service not provided. This is fraud, pure and simple. >> Sorry if i gave the idea to lawyers... > A lot of people like the word fraud. I am not sure many ISP contracts > guarantee delivery of packets to their final destination, but most seem > to say that the burstable rate is based on how many packets enter your > connection port, or "enter the ISP's backbone." Even service level > agreements are generally based on link loss to the customer and not > end-to-end backbone loss. There's such thing as implied contract. Delivery of packets to destination is a primary venue of business for ISPs, and they are reasonably expected to carry it on. When you provide flat-rate pricing it is understood that some of them won't be delivered, and customers won't be charged more for retransmission. On the other hand, when you explicitly bill for all packets, and then fail to carry on your service and then proceed to bill for a service not provided you've got a problem. I didn't see a contract language yet which would explicitly and clearly state that customers will be charged for arbitrarily high percentage of non-delivered packets. It's like a food store which sells boxes of some stuff, and some of those are empty - but you have to pay for each one and cannot return the bad ones, and have no way of knowing what your odds are. It may be legal, but not in US. --vadim

3 2

Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Sean Donelan 31 May '98

31 May '98

>5. One is financed by the government out of your taxes and is merely an >accounting formality much like a customer ID number. The other is funded >by a corporation that has no government funding and must support itself >not unlike most businesses and the number is a critical infrastructure >identifier something like an NPA-NXX. Technically, the USF is an industry-funded fund (sic? redundant). The SLC is an independent not-for-profit entity (gosh sounds like ARIN). The Universal Service Administrative Company, a subsidary of NECA collects the USF fees and distributes them to the various funds. The money does not come from the US Treasury, nor even 'taxpayers.' The USF money comes from subscribers of interstate telecommunications services, much like the money for ARIN comes from the subscribers of IP addresses and AS numbers. I couldn't find a budget on the ARIN website; but I wouldn't be pointing to the SLC as an example of a well-run organization. Even ARIN at its worst doesn't match the SLC for insanity. (Yes, Kim that was a compliment). Maybe if the president of ARIN was paid $300,000/year like the president of the SLC, things would be different. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

4 3

Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Sean Donelan 31 May '98

31 May '98

For some unknown reason, although IHETS has been allocated the entire traditional class B 165.138.0.0, they are announcing it as a partial 165.138.0.0/20. They could announce the entire /16. But they've chosen not too. If IHETS wants to ensure they can reach as much as the Internet as possible, they could follow Sprint's filtering policy, and announce their network as a 165.138.0.0/16. IHET could check http://www.sprint.net/filter.htm for a description of the policy. Since IHETS seems to be a SPRINT customer, I sure would appreciate it if the SPRINT NOC could explain to IHETS why such address filters exist, and if Sprint thinks its a good idea to apply them to other ISPs, why the reciprocal argument would also be true. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

16 40

2q98 in-addr walk starting soon
by Bill Manning 31 May '98

31 May '98

Hi, I appologize for duplicates. Its almost time for the next quarterly walk of the inverse tree of the DNS. For the last few quarters, I've been walking the in-addr tree looking for numbers of delegations, accurate delegations, and types and styles of error conditions. So... this is a heads up that you will be seeing zone transfers being generated by a couple of the collecter machines here. For those of you who utilize BINDs access controls, I'd appreciate your inclusion of the collector machines in allowed transfers. The expectation is that they will be the following IP addresses: 128.9.160.57 and 198.32.4.13 If there are any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to talk about them. Past data has been presented at IEPG, Apricot and RIPE meetings. The expectation is that future data will be presented in the same and similar forums. --bill

1 0

RE: ingress filtering
by John Fraizer 31 May '98

31 May '98

>>Might I recommend that you actually drag out a packet sniffer and look at a >>REAL network to see it for yourself? We all know that MS of ALL companies >>believes that RFC means Request For Compliance and since it's only a >>request and not a mandate, they often opt NOT to conform to standard. >> > >Packet sniffer shows no NetBIOS over IP traffic at all. Sorry. Try again. You must have a lame sniffer. I show encapsulated packets with ours just fine. I guess it could be the silly operator and not the silly sniffer that has the problem though. >The packet sniffer shows nothing wrt port 137. I admit when I'm wrong, but >since I'm not, I won't > >Have a nice day. Will do. Please give me directions to Utopia though. Since you live there and don't see any netbios traffic with your sniffer, I would like to vacation there. ------- John Fraizer (root) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:root@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

1 0

The Great Exchange
by Pickett, David 30 May '98

30 May '98

It's evident, from reading through all of the responses to my questions on exchange of Internet traffic, that there are a lot of problems in this space, but not a lot of agreement on how to address them. Here are some summary observations based on group-wide communication, and notes sent to me directly. 1) More needs to be done to leverage locality of traffic Some great examples were given wherein simple cross-state connections were accomplished via an exchange point some one thousand miles away, a clearly sub-optimal arrangement. Fixing this problem was a point of some contention. Some said to forget about national exchange points, and just make private peering arrangements. Others noted that local exchange points are springing up in the areas that need them. Often these exchange points are the product of local ISPs working cooperatively, sometimes with the assistance of a corporate sponsor. Still others noted some commercial enterprises that are building an infrastructure and business model around the need for decent peering arrangements. To add complexity to this issue, differences arose over implementation details of a national peering system that preserved locality of traffic. Some advocated a hierarchical model, tiered if you will, that frankly sounded a lot like 5-level PSTN switching model. Others advocated a flatter model, although how that model relieves traffic at the core, and leverages locality remains to be seen. 2) Who dropped the packet? You can't fit 20 gallons of water in a ten gallon hat, at least not all at once. Oversubscription generated some heated comments from various factions. It is clear that one person's oversubscription is another person's unethical business practice. So, just how do we handle the delicate topic of oversubscription? Where is it okay to oversubscribe? Where can it absolutely not be tolerated? Oversubscription is fundamental to the design of many network switches, and is an essential aspect of many network technologies, and business plans. It's here. It's reality. How does one use it responsibly? A lot of finger pointing was done in the area of highly asymmetric and grossly underprovisioned connections to the Internet. What policies might mitigate such problems? Thoughts? 3) Internet SLAs and customer verification There was a modest amount of chest beating around verifiable levels of service. Nobody came right out and proposed Internet SLAs, but some did suggest that it would be nice to give the customer the tools for verifying the level of performance delivered by their access provider. This is an interesting angle, and we've seen evidence in the industry of some providers giving the customer limited ability to access this kind of information. NDAs seems to be at the heart of this problem. What tools do the ISPs need to provide this kind of information to the customer? Do the ISPs even want to provide this information? Is it pointless to provide this information since so much of the customer's total performance picture is dependent on factors that can't be controlled by the ISP? dp David R. Pickett Northchurch Communications Inc 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA 01810 978-691-4649

13 14