- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: AGIS Signing up New Spammers
by Phil Lawlor 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

James has gone home. The answer is no. At 02:55 PM 11/14/97 -0800, you wrote: >Yo James! > >On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, James K. Hood wrote: > >> We have removed all filters except for >> one or two die-hard "forward all spam to AGIS with 10 copies to each >> employee and internal mailing list" sites. > >Does this include abuse.net? > >And before someone flames me, yes this affects my router! I have >blackholed all mail from agis net blocks. Using formulas posted >here on nanog. > >RGDS >GARY >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 > gem(a)rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176 > > Phil Lawlor President AGIS Voice - 313-730-1130 Fax - 313-563-6119

1 0

LifeSpan of the MAEs?
by Deepak Jain 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

Anyone care to guess how long WorldComm will be providing MAE service/people will be using MAE service for interconnection purposes? Deepak

1 0

RE: GTE to acquire Genuity
by Rodney Joffe 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

Gordon, I have to admit that you're right. You really do have all the answers, and you really do know it all. I guess the fact that there are only two shareholders in Genuity, me and Bechtel, both of whom know exactly what Jon could and couldn't do, and who accepted his conditions when he joined the board, is unimportant. And the fact that Jon knew this, and understood that his fiduciary responsibility in this area was subject *only* to the shareholders, both of whom assured him in terms that he was prepared to accept that they would *not* expect him to or ask him to _abuse_ his position of trust outside of Genuity to assist Genuity unfairly, is irrelevant. Gordon, I have never been able to quite fathom out why you chose this industry to attempt to make a living, and not the same industry as the National Enquirer. I think you've missed your calling. I only hope your clients realise the true value of your reporting. So that others are privy to the same information that I gave you, let me be specific ( and remember, I don't owe ANYONE an explanation, but I want to undo the damage that your buffoonery has caused); Bechtel never really had to make a choice about whether Jon joined the board or an advisory board. I nominated him to the board as one of *my* representatives. They didn't know Jon from a hitchiker before this. I wanted someone clueful to help me guide Genuity along a *good* path, and away from the dark side (obviously I passed on asking you). I think I can proudly say that Genuity has been an exemplary internet citizen (I, of course, may not have been). So when you attempt to to wind people up with your paranoia, you do someone who has done a lot of good for the Internet over *many* years a grave injustice. Fortunately I care more about what honest, good people like Jerry Scharf says, than I do about what you say. If I didn't, I'd probably spend some real energy telling you what I really think. Does anyone know if Paul's RBL works on a single netaxs address? Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook@netaxs.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 11:38 PM > To: Jerry Scharf > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: GTE to acquire Genuity > > > > > On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > you have the way of spinning the longest line of crappy conjectures > into a > > proposal of irresponsibility. > > false: you should read what i wrote more carefully before you fly > publicly off t he handle. > > > > I'm sure you could spin an equally long chain of > > things into a reason why no one from the IAB or IETF ADs should have > anything > > at stake with the industry they help direct. > > > So IANA has no special powers? > > > > For this particular case, there > > are facts to prove your conjecture flawed. > > > wrong because you misread my conjecture. > > > > I was consulting at Genuity when then needed to do their initial IP > address > > gathering for their new network. They sent in a proposal to Kim, and > Kim told > > them no. Rodney was very upset at the time, but there was never any > > interference by the IANA. When Genuity provided better documentation > and > > cleaned up some things, then they got address blocks like anyone > else. > > > > May I quote what you over looked: Now I am confident that he has not > used > his position to give special benefit to genuity. > > and later in the same post: Rodney Joffe explained to me in very > glowing > terms this summer why jon > was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. > > Further explanation - Rodney Joffe told me precisely the same story > which > i published verbatim.....and more besides..... jon came out pure as > the > driven snow > > > > At least judge Jon by his actions, not by your inferred doubt. The > evidence is > > that when put in the exact situation you feared, the IANA acted by > not acting. > > Genuity was not harmed financially by this (I think even Rodney will > now admit > > that) so there is no damage to be fretted about. Certainly there > will be a > > tidy profit to Bechtel and the other founders of Genuity. > > > > I never suggested genuity was harmed. I do state that one of the > senior members of the community who knows the laws of the fiduciary > legal > responsibility of members of boards of directors far better than I > pointed out that he believed it possible that a genuity stock holder > who was aware of jons proper from the internet point of view, could > have > taken legal action against jon for NOT making a decision that > benefitted > genuity and using his powers to act for the fiduciary benefit of the > company of which he was a director and for which he had such a legal > responsibility. > > now I am a r ussian history Phd....read trained as an academic....as > is > jon.....and most academics aren't terribly aware of these > nuances.....so I > can understand jon's accepting the directorship. > > guess my bitch is why would the presumably legally savvy business > staff > of genuity/bechtel have put jon however unwittingly into such a > position?. > > I have been told be those who are also my seniors, that Jon is and > "icon" > and when one critcizes him one can expect all hell to break > loose....looks > like my seniors were right.....but it also looks like I owe him no > apology. > > and before you continue your flame I hope you will look more carefully > at > what I am saying. > > > I believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this. > > > > jerry > > > > > ====================== > read my original post more carefully this time. > > Last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board. It is my > understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility to act in > the > best financial interests of genuity. Seems to me this creates a > conflict > of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit > genuity with IP allocations etc. Now I am confident that he has not > used > his position to give special benefit to genuity. but I am also told > that > he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when > it > could be argued he had the power to do so. This is a distinction that > I > was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a > business > background might also be slow to grasp. > > Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon > was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. Point is Jon could > have > had the same impact as a special advisor to the board. one wonders > why > genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these > issues went with the board choice anyway. > > does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired? i > would hope so.

6 5

Re: Well done Sprint!
by Ex-Support Wench 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ, CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"? Steve Blair wrote: > >well, one could get Van Jacobson's pathchar, and learn the >true capacity that way. I could care less what *theoretical >bandwidth* is available, when customers complain. I want to >know what bandwidth *is available*, and pathchar goes a very >long way towards that end. > >link labelling could be arguably silly, if you're basing your >determination on a competetitor's labels, you could >get some unusual surprises IMHO... > >-- >steve c blair tivoli systems inc sblair(a)dev.tivoli.com >"Why can't we blast them onto someone else's property?" > >'Vadim Antonov writes...' >**> >**> There's no use in promoting corporate paranoia at the expense of >**> engineering cooperation. It is like butcheing the hen which lays >**> the golden eggs. Knowing link capacity was useful (while it lasted) >**> to get the idea of what is more likely to be dropping packets >**> on the floor when customers complained.

5 4

Re: NAP Solutions
by Vadim Antonov 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

>why not to consider GigaEthernet as media of choice for NAP in >combination with Fast Ethernet >if needed? > Greg Because it is too little, too late? --vadim

1 0

Re: NAP Solutions
by Tim Salo 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:57:39 -0500 (EST) > From: Brian Horvitz <horvitz(a)shore.net> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: NAP Solutions > > Has anybody though about a packet over sonet solution for an exchange? > Seems like you could get a pretty effective answer out of a GSR with OC3 > and OC12 interfaces... I think your question provides an interesting opportunity for comparing SONET solutions with, for example, ATM solutions. First, some thoughts on a local-area interconnect. If you want a fully-meshed interconnect, you will need n-1 SONET interfaces on each router, when "n" is the number of routers at the interconnect, [assuming one router per ISP]. You might feel that this is an excessive number of router interfaces, (assuming n > 2), so you might consider creating a ring instead. In this case, each router would require only two interfaces. However, most packets will need to be forwarded through several routers before reaching their final destination [within the interconnect]. As a result, a certain amount of the capacity of your router and your interfaces will be used to forward packets between your competitors. Obviously, there is a spectrum of configurations between a full mesh and a ring. However, determining the best trade-off between the cost of additional interfaces, additional bandwidth used to forward packets between routers not directly connected, and additional routing capacity to forward packets within the interconnect is probably worthy of a Master's thesis. (Of course, you might have to write another thesis every time you add another router to the interconnect. Creating a general solution might be worthy of a Doctoral dissertation.) [Note that this assumes that no router vendor integrates a SONET mux into the router. As far as I know, no router vendor has an integrated SONET mux.] Using an ATM switch (or most any other switch, for that matter) has a number of advantages. First, each router needs only one interface to the interconnect. This interface should probably be as large as the router can support. (This is the problem facing many of the existing interconnects, namely that the router can support more than 100 Mbps, but the interconnect media runs at only 100 Mbps.) Second, adding additional routers is fairly straight-forward, (e.g., you don't have to add another SONET interface to every existing router, in the rather unlikely event that you have a full-mesh topology). Rather, you merely plug the new router into the switch. Finally, adding additional capacity is probably a lot easier. Each router [ATM] interface can be upgraded as that router requires additional capacity. For example, an interconnect could simultaneously support both OC-3c and OC-12c connections. In a similar fashion, the aggregate capacity of the interconnect can be increased by swapping in a new ATM switch, (rather than, for example, swapping out the FDDI interfaces on the routers for gigabit ethernet interfaces). Now, there is a certain price for using ATM rather than SONET, namely the overhead incurred by ATM. However, as I have said before, the best decision criteria is an analysis of cost/performance, not merely looking at overheads. In this case, you would need to compare the cost of the unnecessary SONET interfaces with the cost of the bandwidth used for ATM. So, it seems to me that SONET makes sense for a private interconnect between two parties, but that a switched technology, such as ATM or perhaps gigabit ethernet, makes sense when the number of parties is greater than two, (like three, for example). Now, this same analysis can be applied in the wide area. The next question is, if you have decide to use ATM, whether to create a local interconnect, (i.e., put the switch and all the routers in one room) or to create a distributed interconnect, (e.g., leave the routers distributed throughout a LATA or even throughout the country). I think there are a number of good arguments both ways. Both local interconnects and intra-LATA interconnects have been tried. I don't know of anyone who has created a nationwide interconnect, (although I think all of the original NAP proposals suggested nationwide NAPs). On the other hand, the question of SONET versus ATM in a wide-area environment is still being explored in, for example, the Internet2 efforts. I don't understand how wide-area SONET solutions are supposed to scale, but perhaps someone will figure it out. Of course, another interesting question is why, with services like ATM with distance-insensitive pricing, one would build a regional wide-area interconnect (e.g., a regional, wide-area gigapop), rather than a nationwide interconnect. (Note that some claim that propagation delays are an issue in a nationwide interconnect, but I believe that, e.g., routing through the opposite coast to get to the adjacent city, would result from poor design or configuration, rather from any inherent defect in the concept of nationwide interconnects/gigapops). Wide-area SONET certainly has its place, depending on the relative price of SONET versus ATM services, the number of locations which need to be interconnected and the amount of bandwidth required. For example, in a campus environment where private fiber is available, point-to-point SONET solutions are easier to justify than when you need to lease SONET links from a carrier. Hopefully, projects like Internet2 and NGI will explore both SONET and ATM wide-area interconnects so we can gain a better understanding of their advantages and capabilities. And finally, I don't know if I answered you question. But, if you do decide to build a SONET interconnect, please let us know how it works. -tjs

3 3

Re: NAP Solutions
by Tony Li 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

> Has anybody though about a packet over sonet solution for an exchange? As a matter of fact, yes. A SONET MPLS switch makes for a very interesting exchange. The use of MPLS avoids having the box act as a router and thereby avoids the headaches of figuring out just which routes the exchange should select. If the label switched paths in the switch are manually configured, there's no easy way for a non-neighbor to "accidentally" send you traffic. The switch fabric scales up nicely in that there is an interesting selection of link speeds that promise to scale up for the forseeable future. You can scale the fabric up either by growing individual switches, or by creating a switch fabric, or both. Sites connecting to the switch can do so remotely by bringing in a SONET link, so no on-site equipment is necessary. In short, technologically, a SONET MPLS exchange is a fine alternative because it provides the architectural advantages of a switched fabric without the bandwidth limitations of LAN technologies and without the cell loss problems of ATM. Note that this probably does not fix the economics and politics of the exchange point. Those are almost orthogonal issues. Tony

1 0

Announcing new route (What besides BGP?)
by Forrest W. Christian 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

Ok, I've got my BGP4 announcement configured for my new /19 which I feel much better about after the response I got from this list (thanks for all that replied). I'm now waiting for inbound filter changes on my upstream BGP sessions. Once upon a time, I used to also have to enter a new route into the raddb. Unfortunately, it's been some time since I have done that and am uncertain of the state of the raddb and whether or not it is still in use. Or, if it has been replaced/supplemented with something else. Is there a FAQ I should have bookmarked which contains this information? Or, if there isn't could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks again, -forrestc(a)imach.com

9 10

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

1 0

Re: GTE to acquire Genuity
by ccook＠netasset.com 14 Nov '97

14 Nov '97

> And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft > will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's > connectivity or get no connectivity at all. Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas.... Chris Cook Network Engineer __________________________________________________________________________ Net Asset Network Operations Center 1315 Van Ness Ave., Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721 209/225-0222

8 9