- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Netrail woes (was Re: Atlanta-NAP down (fwd))
by Sean M. Doran 28 Aug '97

28 Aug '97

NANOG rating: useful content nil (flame, style tip, no latin, likely will provoke angry response and private email alleging hypocrisy and a gentle note from Uncle Bill the AUP enforcer) Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> writes: > Ok, how much larger is BBN compared to NetRail??? The point, I believe, is that despite BBN being much bigger than NetRail, I do not see its executives or staff going on and on and on about how wonderful it is and how awful everyone else is in comparison. Moreover, despite the fact that there are some enormously talented people at BBN -- some of them are as startlingly young as you, Nathan -- I have never seen any of them try so hard as you to impress others, or to be seen as the only competent engineer anywhere. There is no doubt that you run a network of some size and are obviously pretty bright, but I think that if you managed to tone down a bit -- and I say this as one of the bigger loud-mouthed assholes on this list -- people might respect your accomplishments a bit more for what they are, rather than what you often merely seem to claim them to be. In particular, I would suggest that you recognize that the people you've mocked in the past are neither stupid nor inhuman. Maybe you can learn what it feels like to be berated in public for things beyond your control when you really are doing your best, and as a result do that a little less frequently. > Well Sean, you can sit back and soon eat your words. My words are often very tasty, and never in need of additional salt or spice, so if, indeed, you change and become someone pleasant to deal with in technical arenas and someone I'd consider useful, I would sooner eat my comments than Metcalfe's. (His writing style is very bland, punctuated by things like his "gigaoutage" neologisms, which distract from the blandness much in the manner as finding a large piece of kielbasa in one's bowl of lentil soup). > and so far we lost only 1 customer due to this outage. Why, because we > provide a services that is better then most providers out there. Oh, well, on the other hand, if you're determined to stick to your guns, I get a chuckle out of thinking how cool it would be to be so incredibly good at what I do that even major fuckups wouldn't matter to customers. > P.S. We have also learned not be be dependent on Worldcom. We will soon > buy our DS3s from 3 fibers carriers, and not just 1. Precisely! Exactly why nobody has only one credit card. Sean.

1 0

bind-8
by Vincent Poy 28 Aug '97

28 Aug '97

Greetings everyone, Do any of you still have a copy of Paul Vixie's message on bind-4.9.6 being safe along with bind-8.1.1? Cheers, Vince - vince(a)MCESTATE.COM - vince(a)GAIANET.NET ________ __ ____ Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ] GaiaNet Corporation - M & C Estate / / / / | / | __] ] Beverly Hills, California USA 90210 / / / / / |/ / | __] ] HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]

2 1

Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
by Tony Li 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

paulp(a)winterlan.com (Paul Peterson) writes: > Bay claims to hold the entire Internet routing table in just 4-6MB RAM > per BGP peer (I assume this is after convergence). They say that the > method in which they do this is proprietary. I am just wondering if it > is possible..... That's certainly possible. However, it would be interesting to see how it scales with the number of peers. You could quickly find yourself needing >64MB if it's even just linear. Tony

3 3

Is this just a rumor?
by Lincoln Silver 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

I heard a rumor that the InterNic is no longer going to make contact information public. Is this true? If I do a "whois," will I no longer get contact info? Can someone shed light on this rumor? Thanks, Lincoln Silver

9 12

operational infrastructure question
by Peter Giza 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

Netizens, Do any of you have a *technical* contact within SkyTel or MobileComm that could help us set up a dedicated modem connection with either company? At best our dialup pages work fair, and the network page is a moot point if the network is down. TIA -pete ADSmart Corporation http://www.adsmart.net

1 0

RE: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
by Marten Terpstra 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

[sorry - should have replied to Paul directly but hit the 'd' key too soon] >> Bay claims to hold the entire Internet routing table in just 4-6MB RAM >> per BGP peer (I assume this is after convergence). They say that the >> method in which they do this is proprietary. I am just wondering if it >> is possible..... Let's see. Here is a router I used a couple of months ago: ... 38 peers configured. Using 52565 Routes out of a total of 266710. 24135 unique paths maintained. ... And memory usage: Process Memory Use Statistics ----------------------------- Name Slot Used %Used ---------------- ---- -------- ----- ... bgp 9 23251104 48 ... So, 23251104 bytes / 266710 routes would be around 87 bytes per route, multiple that by say 48000 or so for a full table now and that would make it 4.1M per copy. Note though that the 23M used above is not just route memory, it is also for the BGP code itself (most software modules on a Bay are loaded dynamically when needed) and other BGP things like filters and such (although the above router did not have too many). -Marten PS different sets of BGP routes may of course alter these numbers, I just wanted to provide a live sample to answer the question.

1 0

Filters and reality
by Sean Donelan 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

I'm wondering just how far someone can get ignoring the prefix-length filtering rules used by Sprint/ANS/etc as long as you use Spring/ANS/etc as your provider. The National Archives of Canada has a traditional class B network 142.42. However, instead of advertising the network as 142.42/16, they've elected to advertise only 142.42.242/24. The /24 prefix-length announcement in traditional class B network space wouldn't pass the access-lists some providers use on their inbound BGP sessions. The same providers don't seem to use the same filters on their outbound announcements, leading to customer (and often network engineer) confusion why things don't work to some places but work ok inside the providers own network. Should we continue to poke holes in our filters to let Sprint's customer's customer routes through, or should we keep trying to explain to the Sprint NOC why their customer's customers could use shorter prefix length announcements? Be liberal in what you send, and conservative in what you accept? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

4 3

RE: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
by Paul Peterson 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

Has anyone compared the figures or have any feelings regarding the Bay Networks BCN ?? We are considering one over a Cisco 7513/RSP4 or a GRF. Bay claims to hold the entire Internet routing table in just 4-6MB RAM per BGP peer (I assume this is after convergence). They say that the method in which they do this is proprietary. I am just wondering if it is possible..... TIA Paul... > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig A. Huegen [SMTP:c-huegen@quadrunner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 9:00 PM > To: joseph j. kim > Cc: Joe Shaw; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's > GRF IP Switch? > > On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, joseph j. kim wrote: > > ==>So, who's numbers should we believe or feel are more appropriate to > real > ==>world situations? > ==> > ==>> Comparing GateD to IOS becomes more of a religious preference > than > ==>> anything else. I'm content knowing both, truth be told. > ==>> > ==>> > maybe someone can post some performance numbers. > > Tolly's report didn't use CEF/FIB switching, and used classical > (centralized) switching. Ascend paid Tolly for the test anyway--the > only > *true* test would be one from Data Communications or similar. > > /cah

2 1

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by joseph j. kim 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > At 08:35 PM 8/25/97 +0000, Nathan Stratton wrote: > > > >On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote: > > > >> Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail. He's our collective test case :-) > >> > >> Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too? > > > >We have been trying to get a BFR (now GSR) in, but I think Cisco does not > >want a GSR next to a GRF or something. :-) > > i don't understand all of the mail comparing the two, there is really no comparison. the GSR blows the GRF away. there is an order of magnitude difference in the aggregate b/w supported between the two correct? 4Mb/s vs 40Mb/s. Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400. maybe someone can post some performance numbers. -jjk

5 5

Re: Filters and reality
by Paul G. Donner 27 Aug '97

27 Aug '97

At 08:32 AM 8/27/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >[Apologies for an (almost technical) post from outside NA to NANOG] > >Hi, > >>Should we continue to poke holes in our filters to let Sprint's customer's >>customer routes through, or should we keep trying to explain to the Sprint >>NOC why their customer's customers could use shorter prefix length >>announcements? > >I suppose it depends on what slope you want the graph at >http://www.iepg.org/ops/bgptable.html to have. Regardless of whether >the filters are a "good idea" or not, they do tend to limit routing >table growth and its implications, if for no other reason than smaller >sites are "encouraged" to go to their providers for address space due >to fear of being filtered. No argument there, but what about more consistency in filtering which *might* lead to more predictability in routing behavior? Given, diversity in address assignment (as well as policy) serves as a cause the variation in filtering policy. - donner > >Regards, >-drc > >

2 1