- Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG LIST UPDATED
by Pam Ciesla 23 May '97

23 May '97

The NANOG attendee list has been updated. Please note registration cut-off date is May 28. Payment is due by the 28th. Payment received after the 28th will be $120. Cancelation after the 28th will be charged $20. NOTE: no charges have been applied to any credit cards yet. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Root Name Server Confederations
by Jim Fleming 22 May '97

22 May '97

Even though some people do not think they exist... ...Here are the various Root Name Server Confederations that ISPs can choose between. ISPs should only choose one Confederation. Mixing and matching servers from each Confederation is not recommended. Also, ISPs should become more familiar with where the following servers are located relative to your servers. There are many network tools which can help you make this assessment. Please note, the IP address of the K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET server has been changed. That server is now in London, England. ======================================= AlterNIC - http://www.alternic.net ....204.94.42.2......ARAGORN.ALTERNIC.NET. ....204.94.43.1......NS1.BELFAIR.NET. ....204.94.42.1......MX.ALTERNIC.NET. ....207.51.48.15.....NYC.ALTERNIC.NET. ....204.182.105.150..EEK.HTTPD.COM. eDNS - http://www.edns.net ....205.164.53.250...a-root.edns.net. ....207.32.128.64....b-root.edns.net. ....207.134.7.5......c-root.edns.net. ....208.1.127.5......d-root.edns.net. ....207.114.179.21...e-root.edns.net. InterNIC - http://www.internic.net ....198.41.0.4.......NS.INTERNIC.NET ....128.63.2.53......AOS.ARL.ARMY.MIL ....192.203.230.10...NS.NASA.GOV ....192.112.36.4.....NS.NIC.DDN.MIL ....128.9.0.107......NS1.ISI.EDU ....128.8.10.90......TERP.UMD.EDU ....192.33.4.12......C.PSI.NET ....192.5.5.241......NS.ISC.ORG ....192.36.148.17....NIC.NORDU.NET name.space - http://www.pgpmedia.com ....209.48.2.11.....root.autono.net ....205.160.45.177..root1.autono.net ....209.48.2.20.....root2.autono.net ....194.109.3.125...root3.autono.net ....194.136.192.40..root4.autono.net ....193.2.132.70....root5.autono.net ....193.97.251.80...root6.autono.net ....209.48.2.40.....root7.autono.net ....204.141.84.82...root8.autono.net ....194.109.21.20...root9.autono.net ....206.86.247.30...root10.autono.net ....209.48.2.5......root11.autono.net NSI/ISI/RIPE - http://www.netsol.com ....198.41.0.10....J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ....193.0.14.129...K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ....198.32.64.12...L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ....198.32.65.12...M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ======================================= -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

19 54

Re: QoS/CoS interest
by gsoprovi＠MTS.Net 22 May '97

22 May '97

I have to agree with a lot of the comments that P Kavi made. My greatest issue with any attempt at GOS is that one MUST be able to control ingress traffic. Unless one can do so in a fairly clean manner, I don't see how it will work in practice. > * No policing at ingress: You can't have QoS unless > you can limit how much traffic enters the network, > and discard, or at least mark the excess traffic. > * No effective Class of Service mechanism: The support issue between ASes is, I believe, the largest one. I think getting such a policy in place will dwarf the carrier agreement woes between major Telcos. Can you imagine trying to build a common framework for Qos/Cos across the majority of providers any time soon? The administrative headaches will, I think, far outweigh any technical issues... > 3. No support across ASes. First of all, BGP provides no QoS > metrics. So there is no way to determine if a particular AS > should even be considered in setting up a QoS path. Second, while > a single AS could be upgraded to QoS-capable equipment, a forklift > upgrade across the Internet to QoS-capable equipment won't happen > anytime soon. ************************************************************* Greg Soprovich * Manitoba Telephone System * Manitoba Telephone System System Analyst * 1700 Ellice Ave (204) 784-6549 * Winnipeg, MB * R3C 3V6 Greg.Soprovich(a)MTS.MB.CA * * *************************************************************

2 1

upcoming meeting
by wlee＠nko.com 22 May '97

22 May '97

It is my understanding that there is a NANOG meeting planned for the near future. If this is true can you provide information on this or a contact for said information. I thank you for your time and assistance. Warren Lee

1 0

RE: Root Name Server Confederations
by Jim Fleming 22 May '97

22 May '97

On Thursday, May 22, 1997 7:03 AM, Bill Becker[SMTP:bbecker@iconn.net] wrote: @ @ @ On Tue, 20 May 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ > Even though some people do not think they exist... @ > @ > ...Here are the various Root Name Server Confederations @ > that ISPs can choose between. ISPs should only choose @ > one Confederation. Mixing and matching servers from each @ > Confederation is not recommended. @ @ Of course. @ @ I am willing to side with you and against vixie on the root-servers thing, @ if you will cut me in on a share of the attendant power and profits @ when you finally ram edns down everyone's throat. @ @ I'm basically not smart enough or competent enough to earn big money and @ grab power on my own merits, so i'm always looking for a scheme or a @ marketing ploy that could beam me up the Ladder of Success. @ If you are looking for fame and fortune, I do not think that eDNS will deliver that. eDNS is largely a volunteer effort and I bet that any eDNS person would trade places with some of the people that you might think are not in this for the "profits" even though they run "non-profit companies". Ask those people to review their annual earnings with you sometime. I bet you do not get very far. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

4 4

Re: Changing the Rules...
by Marc Hurst 22 May '97

22 May '97

On Thu, 22 May 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > Duane Little writes: > > Gee, this sort of thing looks a lot like the routine abuse of position > > and authority which is the usual result of a monopoly. > > > > The monopoly in this case? --- IANA. > > The government of Hati sent Jon Postel a request that the .HT domain > be reassigned. The wishes of the government were followed. Is it your > contention that the wishes of the Hatian government should NOT have > been followed? Can you give us a basis in international law that makes > you think Jon is in a position to deny the request of a sovereign > state? Do you think the U.S. State Department would be pleased with > Jon if he were to decide arbitrarily to assign any ISO-3166 TLD > against the wishes of the government of that country? SKYSCAPE had offered IANA/Jon Postel to fund the ".ca" domain at no cost and no prejudice based on the premise and understanding that the Canadian government had stopped funding the project. SKYSCAPE was willing to fund the existing infrastructure as is (our cost). > > What would you have Jon do instead? Can you formulate a better policy? > > You really just plain do not know what you are talking about or > understand it. > > Perry > Speaking personally, and not in any official capacity >

6 8

Re: Changing the Rules...
by Marc Hurst 22 May '97

22 May '97

I think at this time we should move all Domain discussions back to the newdom and eDNS lists. I apologize to all who have suffered. Marc Hurst SKYSCAPE Communications

1 0

QoS/CoS interest
by Paul Ferguson 22 May '97

22 May '97

I'd like to get a feel for what the temperature level is in the ISP community for this issue -- I have a vested [personal] interest in understanding what your understanding & implementation plans are in this arena. Please send your thoughts, requirements, bitches, etc., to me personally, or preferably, to the NANOG list; it is a greater audience than myself that wishes to understand these issues. Thanks! - paul

6 7

Re: QoS/CoS interest
by garyz＠savvis.com 22 May '97

22 May '97

Would be nice to start using these hooks, if everyone would get on board. We would support any movement in this direction, it would help us with some of our QoS/CoS issues. We have talked to a few of the larger providers without much luck. I like the sanity of using the precedence bits. Gary Zimmerman V.P. of Network Engineering Savvis Communications Corp. email: garyz(a)savvis.com http://www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 Address: 7777 Bonhomme Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63105 ---------- > From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> > To: peter(a)injersey.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: QoS/CoS interest > Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 8:16 PM > > At 06:06 PM 05/21/97 -0400, Peter wrote: > > >Seems this would be easy to do in netflow switching. Also sounds a lot > >like FECN/BECN in frame relay. > > > > Sounds alot to me like sanity -- using the existing hooks > in IPv4 to deliver differentiated classes of service by using > the IP precedence bits in the TOS portion of the IP header. > > - paul

1 0

Re: QoS/CoS interest
by Scott Bradner 22 May '97

22 May '97

Bill, -- However, I always alike to be a bit contrarian and point out that QoS or Multicast may never be needed because of the explosive growth of fiber bandwidth. I believe, in the future, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to deploy bandwidth rather than manage complex router/switch technology to support QoS/CoS. -- I think this is a myth, at least for now - the production of fiber in the world was 1.25 million fiber miles short of demand last year and is expeced to be about the same this year. IN addition rights of way are getting rather hard to obtain. WDM will be a great help but it does not cause fiber to be run into Seattle. The cost of putting down fiber is still very high (particularally across the ponds) and even with WDM the cost of bandwidth will continue to be high. Yes the cost should drop (assuming that it is not kept high by other things like telco or government policies) but we ain't going to see "bandwidth too cheap to measure" (as someone put it on comm-priv 2 years ago) in any timeframe that will let the Internet community avoid looking at QoS as a very real issue. Scott .

2 1