- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: too many routes
by Sanjay Dani 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

>>Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and >>competitive. > >Can you spell "economies of scale"? Or "using fiber at cost means >owning the fiber"? If you want to play the backbone game you've >got to own long-haul transmission facilities. > >A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than >neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler. There are backbone providers and there are providers of specialized ISP or hosting or security etc. services that need independent* IP address space and do not have to waste resources on building a private "backbone". I had thought predicting consolidation in the Internet services market was an exclusive realm of only the clueless "market research" firms. Even they seem to be wisening up. --- *So they can avoid the slowest "backbone" of the month on an on-going basis.

1 0

Re: gated.conf
by Neil J. McRae 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:44:07 +0100 "Neil J. McRae" <neil(a)domino.org> wrote: Sorry I didn't mean to CC this to nanog.... > On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:44:31 -0400 (EDT) > "John G. Scudder" <jgs(a)ieng.com> wrote: > > > > > They're matched sequentially, so the ".*" filter should be moved > > to the bottom, otherwise all the "restrict" filters will have no > > effect. > > OK cool. > > > Does the IENG sell gated? I desperately need a copy for a single PC that > i have [i run a largish backbone of GRF's] and communities and prepend > is something that I really really am desperate for. > > Thanks, > neil > > -- > Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. > neil(a)DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) > Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A> > -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil(a)DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>

1 0

Network Diagramming Software
by David Hares - ADP Autonet 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

I'm looking for pointers to a software package to produce network connectivity diagrams, hopefully generated from dns name, ip address pairs. Has anyone seen anything like this? I'm tired of generating it by hand. -- David L. Hares, Senior Staff Programmer AutoNet Phone: (313) 995-6539 175 Jackson Plaza FAX : (313) 995-6458 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (USA) Email: dhares(a)autonet.net

3 2

Re: too many routes
by shields＠crosslink.net 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

In article <199709092102.RAA18271(a)Iodine.Mlink.NET>, Phillip Vandry <vandry(a)Mlink.NET> wrote: > Maybe that should be even more the standard practice. There is nothing to > lose in allocating in the order .0, .128, .64, .192, .32, .96, .160, > .224 instead of .0, .32, .64, .96, .128, .160, .192, .224. Sounds similar to what was suggested in RFC 1219 over six years ago. -- Shields, CrossLink.

4 5

RE: too many routes
by jan.novak＠aliatel.cz 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

See www.liszt.com ---------- Od: Phil Howard[SMTP:phil@charon.milepost.com] Odesláno: 9. září 1997 15:15 Komu: Michael Dillon Kopie: nanog(a)merit.edu Předmět: Re: too many routes Michael Dillon writes... > >I would think the latter. If so, would anyone know why it is that the > >backbone providers are so resistant to giving out blocks to do this? > > If backbone operators do not efficiently allocate IP space to their > downstream customers then the next time they need additional IP space they > will not be able to get any. Everyone in the food chain has to operate > under the same policies of justifying IP space based on need and using the > space efficiently. There is more info on this at http://www.arin.net and in > particular you should have a look through the recommended reading section > especially any documents relating to CIDR. It seems that efficiency is measured only in terms of numbers of IP addresses and disregards numbers of routes. We are at a point that we can pretty much nearly fill a /19 and will be past that point by the end of the year. Beyond that, I would think that when we need to keep coming back for address space, we would do it in increments of /19. How much of the routing space is filled with networks smaller than /19 that are part of an ASN that has enough other smaller networks to renumber into a single /19. I'm wondering if the policies are not being counter productive due to the apparently opposing nature of IP space vs route space (e.g. the one where people have to take more IP space to be routed, because of route filters, because of too many routes, because IP space is so fragmented, because IP space needs to be conserved, because everyone needs to get more IP space, becayse of route filtering, because of so many routes, because ...). I was given some other mailing lists for dealing with those issues by someone. I'll be subscribing there. In the mean time, especially to help put topics on the correct mailing list (if on-topic posts are to be another goal) can someone post an informatory posting that lists ALL the mailing lists (preferrably with a brief summary of topic/purpose) that would be of interest to ALL the aspects of network provider business and operation? Or is this listed on a web page? If not, I'll offer to host just such a web page if I can get a pretty much complete list (I'll even write HTML to get it going). But I'm sure most everyone here has some access to some web space somewhere. -- Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+ Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, | Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. | phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+

5 6

RE: too many routes
by Vadim Antonov 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

Joseph T. Klein <jtk(a)titania.net> wrote: >The routes issue historically comes down to the fact that Sprint did not >want to convert from Cisco 4000 to Ciscos that had larger memory capacity. Sprint never used cisco 4000s in the backbone. Just FYI. Historically, memory limitation was because CSC/4 board in AGS/+ routers had memory soldered in. The box was absolute top of the line when it started to fall over. >Memory is cheap these days ... the big boys just don't wish to have a >free market. This statement shows that the level of comprehension of the issues remains absymally low. It is NOT memory; it is CPU which is a limiting factor. Even the mainframes would keel over on routing computations if the drastic measures weren't taken to aggregate and dampen. Now, can we stop spreading the "no memory" 5 year-old news? >>Deny /19s and or a transition to IPNG then deny Peering to keep the market >>from being open. >Hey folks, it is not closed. Keep the faith and let the big boy bleed market >share. I would hope that ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC would have the guts to keep >giving routable blocks to new contenders. Oh, yeah. How clueful. Nowadays only a telco or an oil company can afford to get into the backbone market. IP allocation is an insignificant detail given the $100mil-to-get-leg-in-the-door of the backbone market. >Please people, we must stop abstructions to keep the market open and >competitive. Can you spell "economies of scale"? Or "using fiber at cost means owning the fiber"? If you want to play the backbone game you've got to own long-haul transmission facilities. A small backbone provider simply cannot be competitive; no more than neighbour garage can compete with Chrysler. --vadim

2 1

Flamed for off topic...
by Marcos Della 10 Sep '97

10 Sep '97

Ok folks, I posted a few days ago a request for information on the gated system and got quite a few helpful suggestions. Unfortunately more than half of those helpful suggestions suggested that I go elsewhere since I was "off-topic". I was under the impression (I've been on this list for several years) that anything related to network operations (such as finding gated) might be somewhat topical compared to a bunch of other drivel here. My question then is this... What is topical for this list anymore? Since everyone agrees that no one is talking about any sort of content, what content can we agree should be talked about here? I don't recall any postings of FAQs that describe what is and is not a normal operational conversation at all... --- To keep "on topic" a bit, does anyone know who is putting in decient sized pipes from North America (is that on topic?) over to the dGix in Stockholm? Or are most providers skipping over to Telehouse then over to either the dGix and/or Seednet in Amsterdam? Also, anyone know of someone who is willing to co-locate equipment in any of these locations? On another question, has anyone used the Cisco remote director? If so, does anyone have remote protocol servers that they are willing to feed out local route information from? Marcos ''' (o o) Senior Network Design Consultant -oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------------mdella(a)cstone.com------- Marcos R. Della http://www.cstone.com/~mdella

5 6

too many routes
by Phil Howard 09 Sep '97

09 Sep '97

In general, is it better to have you IP space scattered amongst a lot of different /24's /25's and /26's or would it be better to collect everything into a large /19 or /18, when going to BGP4? I would think the latter. If so, would anyone know why it is that the backbone providers are so resistant to giving out blocks to do this? Could it be because they won't be able to do anything with the small pieces that get returned and those will end up going to waste because they are so fragmented? Or perhaps they don't even have procedures in place to do anything with returned address space, yet? -- Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+ Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, | Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. | phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+

5 8

NANOG Off-Topic posts? Send 'em HERE!
by hoff＠nodewarrior.net 09 Sep '97

09 Sep '97

As a reminder... Given the recent rash of postings which do not appear congruent with the charter of the NANOG List (and I am guilty for initiating some of them,) I have created an additional resource for those of us who are concerned with the technical issues pertaining to the design, operation, and management of Enterprise Networks. This list primarily caters to Internet Service, Backbone, and Carrier Providers. Enter, the NODlist -- The Network Operators Discussion List. If you are interested in discussions such as the "Ascend GRF vs. Cisco" and "Key Escrow" threads, subscribe to the list and knock yourself out in exchanging relevant and useful information! There is a definite need for a forum whose participants are (without sounding haughty) at the level of the food chain where relevant experience prevails. I want to be able to discuss CEF and Fair-Weighted-Queuing without being told that I have to shuffle off to a USENET group and wade through 650 posts of people trying to determine how to perform reverse Telnet rather than RTFM. Route Aggregation. Tag Switching. Impact of Network Doom on NAP performance ;) -- It's all good! If you're the type that needs a 'charter,' here it is: Be Good Humans. Post Relevant Stuff. To subscribe, you can use a Web Browser and point it here: http://icarus.nodewarrior.net:1918/guest/RemoteListSummary/Nodlist OR, you could always use the old stand-by...send mail to: NODlist-request(a)nodewarrior.net with the word 'subscribe' (no quotes) as the only text in the body of the message. I hope this helps off-load NANOG and provide a good forum for people to exchange information. Christofer Hoff ,,, (o-o) ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.--------------------------------- Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is Chief Nerd, \ possible without a NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent \ madness! hoff(a)nodewarrior.net \ http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth "Nuthin' but Net!" \ ------------------------------------------------------ 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax

1 0

Re: too many routes
by Eric Germann 09 Sep '97

09 Sep '97

At 10:05 AM 9/9/97 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > [snip] >Everyone in the food chain has to operate >under the same policies of justifying IP space based on need and using the >space efficiently. [/snip] Except PSI, UUnet, MCI, Sprint, et.al.... > > > > >******************************************************** >Michael Dillon voice: +1-650-482-2840 >Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-650-482-2844 >PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > >"The People You Know. The People You Trust." >******************************************************** > > > > ============================================================================ ==== Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider

3 2