- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A bettertest!!!
by Jack Rickard 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

Yes. The cities and networks are listed in the article. Jack Rickard Jack Rickard 8500 West Bowles Ave, Ste 210 Editor/Publisher Littleton, CO 80123 Boardwatch Magazine (303)973-6038 voice http://www.boardwatch.com (303)973-3731 fax ---------- > From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com>; Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A bettertest!!! > Date: Saturday, June 28, 1997 2:01 PM > > At 04:43 PM 6/27/97 -0600, Jack Rickard wrote: > >Randy: > > > >I'm with you to a point. But NONE of the measurements were taken from > >Jack's house. None were taken from Boardwatch's office. And in fact, the > >measurements were taken from 27 different geographic locations. I think > >that is a somewhat critical element here. We failed to come up with a > >methodology that could be performed from "Jack's House" without primarily > >measuring "Jack's connectivity" more than anything else. Obviously, that > >is what I would have liked. Never could come up with an idea on how to do > >that effectively. > > I'm curious - to which ISPs were these 27 sites connected? Can we get a list? > > Thanks, > Hank

1 0

Justice Department starts Network Solns antitrust probe
by Declan McCullagh 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

Here's more info... --Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-Sender: declan(a)mail.pathfinder.com X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-FC-URL: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request(a)vorlon.mit.edu Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 19:57:32 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Sender: owner-fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Justice Department starts Network Solns antitrust probe Internet-Address Assigner in Va. Is Focus of Justice Department Antitrust Probe By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 6, 1997; Page A13 The Washington Post The Justice Department has begun investigating whether the process of assigning Internet addresses in the United States, a process almost entirely controlled by Herndon-based Network Solutions Inc., violates antitrust laws. Network Solutions said it received a request for documents and information relating to its Internet address registration business from the Justice Department's antitrust division on June 27, according to a document the company filed last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Justice Department also is seeking information from Science Applications International Corp., Network Solutions' parent company, the document said. Network Solutions is the only company in the world authorized to assign some of the Internet's most widely used "domains," or addresses, specifically those that end in ".com," ".edu," ".net" and ".org." Critics have complained that Network Solutions, which charges $100 to assign a domain, has an unfair monopoly that has led to a high registration price and poor service. The Justice Department's request is a standard preliminary step in antitrust investigations. But the government has rarely looked into the governing processes of the Internet, the global computer network that has become a vital communication medium for millions of businesses and individuals worldwide. Registering a domain is a necessary step for any person or business that wants a unique address, such as disney.com or cocacola.com. The registered domains serve as a sort of Zip code for the Internet, allowing users to send electronic mail and locate pages on the graphical World Wide Web. Gabriel A. Battista, Network Solutions' chief executive, said yesterday the company intends to fulfill the request. "We've received the notification and we will comply with whatever they ask for," Battista said. Battista declined to comment further, citing the "quiet period" the SEC requires of executives when their company's stock is being offered to the public for the first time. Network Solutions on Thursday notified the SEC, in the same document that disclosed the antitrust investigation, that it is planning a stock offering worth as much as $35 million. In the document, Network Solutions said it "cannot predict whether a civil action will ultimately be filed by the [Justice Department] or by private litigants as a result of the [Justice Department] investigation or, if filed, what such action would entail." The document also states that "neither SAIC nor [Network Solutions] is aware of the scope or nature of the investigation." [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Anti-trust Investigation of Network Solutions (fwd)
by jamie＠intuition.iagnet.net 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

This came across com-priv - I'm not supporting it in any way, this is the second thing I've seen come from the WP that gives no actual fact to back up its assertion, but nonetheless .. -- From com-priv -- "DOMAIN" ASSIGNMENT EXAMINED BY ANTITRUST INVESTIGATORS Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), the Herndon, Virginia company selected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1995 to control the assignment of all Internet domain names, is now under scrutiny by the Justice Department for possible violation of antitrust laws. NSF intends not to renew NSI's contract when it expires next year, but the company says it does not plan to give up its responsibility for the domains it registers (.com, .edu., .net., and .org). The company is also in the process of going public and is planning a stock offering worth as much as $35 million. source: Washington Post July 6, 1997 via edupage -- end forward -- -- jamie g.k. rishaw dal/efnet:gavroche Internet Access Group 'whois JGR2' for PGP keyID/Fingerprint __ Network Operations/TSD DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800.637.4IAGx5455 "The machine's fine. It just doesn't work." -dan(a)nic.net

1 0

Re: Sprint Collapsing ASes?
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

"Robert A. Pickering Jr." <pickerin(a)fuse.net> wrote: >Well, I was on vacation last week, and came back to this note from >the SprintLink NOC. I'm surprised no one else posted this. Perhaps we were all waiting to how well it went; the doom-n-gloomers will undoubtably flame away no matter how smoothly this large change gets executed. >Is there any other information? Are they collapsing all of their >networks to a single ASN? Yes, they're going to reflectors. All the 'visible confederacy' stuff is folding into 1239. Cheers, Joe Afilliation for identification only, etc etc... -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 800.763.8111 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc. <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: Flawed logic?
by Larry Vaden 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

At 09:58 AM 7/6/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: > >The 'free lunch' syndrome is one in which, historically, the service >providers in the default-free zone willingly propagated all routing >announcements announced to them without hesitation. Now they have >drawn policy lines where this is not the case, and in some instances, >will no longer entertain peering relationships without economic >incentive. The syndrome is one in which those who are directly or >indirectly affected complain bitterly that they feel they are being >unfairly discriminated against and that such activities are restraining >their ability to run a business. > Paul seems to be saying there is the possibility of a market solution to "the routers will fall over" problem. If you are in a position or know some one who is in a position to discuss this issue further, please email me privately at vaden(a)texoma.net. Thank you, Larry Vaden, founder and CEO Internet Texoma, Inc.

2 1

Re: Sprint AS1800 weirdness?
by Skutch 07 Jul '97

07 Jul '97

I am going to respond to this with four small sentences. #1) There was a fiber cut in Fort Worth. #2) "that dork" isn't a very nice thing to say. #3) At least "that dork" knew the truth. #4) All spam >> /dev/null or null 0, whatever your preference. Kissies, Alex > Sprint has had a bunch of internal routes flapping (and they have > been dampened). The dork on the phone at their noc said that > there was a large fiber cut in ft. worth and that there were 185 > ds3s down. Whatever. > > Bradley Reynolds > breynolds(a)harborcom.net > ber(a)cwru.edu > PGP Fingerprint: 73 17 77 08 8A 72 DB 45 76 28 C5 5A 97 52 26 > PGP Public Key: http://www.harborcom.net/~breynolds/pgp.html > > >

1 0

Re: ? re: Tony Bates' CIDR Report
by Sean M. Doran 06 Jul '97

06 Jul '97

Not that this is really all that NANOG relevant, but if one checks into the archives on the NANOG and RIPE mailing lists, you will find that after lots of discussion, I agreed with Daniel Karrenberg and many others that /19s were eminently reasonable MAXIMUM prefix lengths for globally-visible NLRI. A minimum aggregation boundary leading to no prefixes larger than 18 bits is desirable, and any aggregation that leads to even shorter global prefixes is a big plus for scalability. Consequently, just to repeat myself, /19s for everyone meeting registry requirements is probably just fine. Now let's eliminate globally visible /24s. All of them. ESPECIALLY the historical stuff in the swamp and toxic waste dump. BTW, this probably can serve as notice to people that the step from proxy aggregation of long prefixes to outright lNAT for offenders is not that far in the future... Of course, the plus then is that people at the edges can be as sloppy as they want wrt routing announcements; from the perspective of large chunks of the topology (peers' and suppliers' networks, for example), even rather heavily meshed networks could and will appear to be neatly aggregated into PA address space. Sean. P.S.: Those vendors who are crowing about flow-directed shortcuts for IPv4 would be wise in investing in other flow-directed technologies, such as lNAT, intrusive web caching and redirection, and the like. I am fairly confident that the near future will bring a popular recognition among large transit providers (that is, your initial market) of the Internet as a services-based network with congestion avoidance principally performed at the edges, with unknown spaghetti (odd IP topologies, address and protocol translations and gatewaying, etc.) in the middle. All this nonsense about addressing MUST go away, and an ability to stage migrations to post-IP transport protocol(s) is also very handy. Developing a mindset wherein IP itself is not necessarily end to end, IP addresses may change relative to topology, and may change over time is a really keen way of accomplishing that.

2 1

? re: Tony Bates' CIDR Report
by Larry Vaden 05 Jul '97

05 Jul '97

On another list, we're discussing whether small ISPs should be able to obtain globally routable /19s. A well respected member of the NANOG community has suggested that "routers would fall over" if the /19s were granted. As you know, Tony Bates publishes the weekly CIDR report; therein he makes the following comment: "This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible." Today's data indicates 2,791 router slots are involved in the "Top 30". Could these router slots really be made available as Tony suggests? If not, why not? Thank you for your time and for your responses. If you will, respond to pagans(a)texoma.net also. If you prefer to remain off the record, reply privately with *OFF THE RECORD* in your subject line. Here's today's data as published at <http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html#General_Status>: --- 04Jul97 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS174 1148 819 329 28.7% Performance Systems International AS2493 766 460 306 39.9% i*internet AS3602 556 309 247 44.4% Sprint Canada Inc. AS2048 251 120 131 52.2% LANET-1 AS1691 301 172 129 42.9% BCTEL AS6541 186 59 127 68.3% GTE Intelligent Network Services AS3804 248 135 113 45.6% Bell Solutions AS1 1032 922 110 10.7% BBNPLANET AS1967 186 82 104 55.9% Middle East Technical University AS839 125 26 99 79.2% North West Territories Regional N AS701 972 875 97 10.0% Alternet AS7195 121 43 78 64.5% INTERRED AS816 318 248 70 22.0% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4) AS2704 256 186 70 27.3% HOOKUP-NET-A AS4293 108 44 64 59.3% IMCI AS549 250 189 61 24.4% ONet Backbone AS5668 72 13 59 81.9% Century Telephone Inc. AS4648 190 134 56 29.5% NZIX 2 AS3561 942 890 52 5.5% MCI AS6181 53 4 49 92.5% FUSE-NET AS3799 74 26 48 64.9% IDS AS97 175 128 47 26.9% JvNCnet AS813 208 161 47 22.6% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS1) AS719 565 518 47 8.3% LANLINK autonomous system AS4454 74 27 47 63.5% TNET-AS AS4763 100 56 44 44.0% Telstra New Zealand AS2711 98 57 41 41.8% SUNBELT-AS AS271 98 57 41 41.8% BCnet Backbone AS3749 75 35 40 53.3% TECNET AS225 63 25 38 60.3% VIRGINIA-AS ---- 2791

1 0

Re: Root Servers not updated
by Carl Oppedahl 05 Jul '97

05 Jul '97

At 02:22 PM 07/03/97 -0400, David H. Holtzman wrote: >There's a lot of smoke going around this list and others about the root >servers. The internic generated a corrupt zone file on Tuesday which Bind >did not load and prevented XFERs to the secondaries. We became aware of it >last night and it is currently fixed. New zones will be ready for XFER >within the next hour. > >The issue with requiring a login for retrieving the zone files was designed >to help reduce spamming. We are currently experiencing a huge system load >due to several individuals who are trying to register recently deleted >domain names. The requests are being repeated and fired off every few >milliseconds. One individual has over 50,000 templates in the system as we >speak. We believe that by requiring an identity to download the zone >files we will better protect the community. > >Note that this ftp policy has not yet gone into effect. > >Lastly, it appears irresponsible to fan the flames of "the internic is >trying to get over" via lists like these. How about giving us the benefit >of the doubt? We generally stay silent on these issues, but feel that it >is important to explain what we are doing and why. No, we are not trying >to take over the net. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't see any irresponsible fanning of flames. I saw NSI (rather characteristically, I might add) making what now turns out to be a secret (you call it "silent") plan to change something about how information passes from the A root server to the other root servers, and not sharing it with the Internet community until someone (in this case, Paul Vixie as I recall) noticed that NSI had screwed up and done it wrong. And only after someone outside of NSI noticed the screwup, did someone within NSI bother to acknowledge it. And only then did NSI fix it, as far as I can tell, by the way. If people had "given NSI the benefit of the doubt" as you request, presumably by not posting anything about this screwup, it is anyone's guess how long it would have taken for the screwup to get fixed. I also didn't see any "smoke". What I saw was factual discussions of how the root level servers were out of synch with each other, indeed almost a week out of synch before it got fixed. If it is "important to explain what NSI is doing and why", then why did this explanation not happen *before* NSI made this ill-fated change? Why did this explanation only happen after people outside of NSI discovered the problem and commented upon it?

1 0

Re: ANS?
by Chris Ballard 04 Jul '97

04 Jul '97

We don't appear to be annoucing this net to any of our EBGP peers, as far as I can tell. Can you send me the information that you have, indicating that ANS is announcing this route. cballard > > ... > > > > AS 517 is University of Karlsruhe, Germany. > > > > it is now XLINK (a spin-off from the Univercity of Karlsruhe, Germany), now > belonging to BULL. > > The net 145.225.0.0 is LINDE from Mainz, Germany. I dont know what this > has to do with ANS. The Announcement at MAE-EAST seems to be ok.. > I dont think that this NET should be announced by ANS :-) > > > > Winfried Haug | SEICOM.DE & SCHWABEN.DE | Tel. 07121 9770- 0 > Laiblinsplatz 12 | Internet+ISDN access & consulting | Fax. 07121 9770-19 > 72793 Pfullingen | Access in STGT + RT + TUE + BB + LB | Rack 07127 989-X > haug(a)schwaben.net| 90*ISDN (64kb/X.75) / 90 * 33.300 | Rack 0711 9675-X > haug(a)seicom.net |SAP-OSS * FTP * TELNET * NETNEWS * IRC | Rack 07121 709-X > * 2 MBit DE-CIX Connectivity * 2 MBit WIN Connnectivity * 2 MBit UU.NET * > >

1 0