- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: peering points
by Sean Donelan 01 Apr '97

01 Apr '97

nathan(a)netrail.NET (Nathan Stratton) writes: >Well I think NAP's is referring to more then just 1 NAP. There are under 20 >providers connected to say 4 or 5 major NAP's. You prodded me into updating my exchange point matrix. I don't claim its perfect, or more up to date than a few minutes ago. Things change quickly in this business. A few notes to head off a few comments. This is based on information from the RSes, in-addr, pings and traceroutes. I chose cix, the naps, mae-east and mae-west for historical reasons. I may have made a typo, and some providers change their names frequently so I may list the same provider under two different names. I tried to ping or otherwise independently verify that in fact something is attached (not just a IP address assigned). I dropped a few providers, e.g. Databank, that seem to no longer exist althought their IP addresses seem to live on. Also I know several providers are in the middle of building out new connections at several exchange points, but they aren't quite operational yet. Let me know when you are ready for me to ping your router, and I'll update my matrix. 6 CIX Sprint AADS PACBELL MAE-E MAE-W AGIS(4200) Y Y Y Y Y Y ENI(4565) Y Y Y Y Y Y Netcom(2551) Y Y Y Y Y Y SPRINT(1239) Y Y Y Y Y Y 5 CIX Sprint AADS PACBELL MAE-E MAE-W ANS(690) Y Y Y Y Y CompuServe(4183) Y Y Y Y Y CRL(2041) Y Y Y Y Y Exodus(3967) Y Y Y Y Y Genuity(3847) Y Y Y Y Y IBM.net(2685) Y Y Y Y Y MCI(3561) Y Y Y Y Y 4 CIX Sprint AADS PACBELL MAE-E MAE-W Alternet/UUnet(701) Y Y Y Y AT&T(6478) Y Y Y Y DIGEX(2548) Y Y Y Y DRAnet(1746) Y Y Y Y GEOnet(3356) Y Y Y Y Goodnet(4712) Y Y Y Y IconNet(3951) Y Y Y Y InterNex(2828) Y Y Y Y IOS/IDT(5000) Y Y Y Y vBNS(145) Y Y Y Y 3 CIX Sprint AADS PACBELL MAE-E MAE-W ACSI(6467) Y Y Y ATMnet(5632) Y Y Y BBNplanet(1) Y Y Y CableInet(5462) Y Y Y CERFnet(1740) Y Y Y ConXioN(4544) Y Y Y CWIX(5683) Y Y Y DXnet(3914) Y Y Y ESnet(293) Y Y Y EUnet(286) Y Y Y Fibernet(6259) Y Y Y GETNET(5784) Y Y Y Grid(6113) Y Y Y GSL(4000) Y Y Y @Home(6172) Y Y Y INAP(5646) Y Y Y Nacamar(3257) Y Y Y NetAxs(4960) Y Y Y Netrail(4006) Y Y Y Primenet(3549) Y Y Y PSI(174) Y Y Y ThePlanet(5388) Y Y Y Verio/WNA(2914) Y Y Y Websecure(6583) Y Y Y 2 CIX Sprint AADS PACBELL MAE-E MAE-W AIMnet(3763) Y Y CAIS(3491) Y Y DISA.mil(568) Y Y DREN(668) Y Y EDS(5714) Y Y GTE(6541) Y Y Hooked/WEnet(4447) Y Y ICI.net(6561) Y Y ISI.net Y Y ITLnet(5422) Y Y MAI(6082) Y Y Mainstreet(3720) Y Y MIBX(6218) Y Y NASA(297) Y Y On-net(6792) Y Y PacBell(5671) Y Y SAC(5792) Y Y VBC(3344) Y Y Visinet(6261) Y Y Voicenet(3932) Y Y 1 CIX Sprint AADS PACBELL MAE-E MAE-W A2I(3366) Y Abovenet(6461) Y AGAIN(6546) Y AI(6405) Y Airmail Y Alpha.net(4550) Y Argonne(683) Y ARL(668) Y BayNetworks Y Best(3915) Y Cableol(5098) Y Clark(3150) Y CRIS(4908) Y CWInet(4445) Y Dialnet(5552) Y DTAG.DE(3320) Y EEnet Y Erols(6079) Y EuroNet/NL(5390) Y Fermi Lab(3152) Y Fibrcom(3831) Y GEIS(4979) Y HE.net(6939) Y Highway1(7922) Y Holonet(5034) Y ICIX.net(????) Y IDC.ad.jp(4694) Y IIJ(2497) Y InfoNet Y INSnet(5378) Y Internetfci(6292) Y Interpath(3407) Y IXE.net(5418) Y Linkage(4058) Y NCIT(1740) Y NetAsset(6472) Y Netkonect(3328) Y NIS(8001) Y NSN(7070) Y Onecall(6402) Y PBIS(????) Y PCH Y Pilot(3563) Y PIPEX(1849) Y P&T Finland(544) Y Quza.net(6745) Y SCRUZnet(4436) Y SPTelecom(4048) Y Stratacom Y Stupi.se(1653) Y Supernet(5422) Y Telia.net(3301) Y TEN.net(6425) Y UofChicago Y UofIllinois Y Vaultline(6362) Y Viewcall(7379) Y WELL(4540) Y Wirehub(5496) Y XARA(5413) Y Ziplink(6345) Y Zoo.net.uk Y -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

4 3

RE: peering points
by Brian Smith 01 Apr '97

01 Apr '97

Nathan, I should note that I found this list extremely helpful (it is a first attempt), it is a shame that there isn't a web page out there for all the NAP's that any user can go discover who peers there, and at what connection speed. LINX in London provides this basic service, and it's a not for profit. Bjs > >> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Sean Donelan wrote: >> >> > nathan(a)netrail.NET (Nathan Stratton) writes: >> > >Well I think NAP's is referring to more then just 1 NAP. There are under >>20 >> > >providers connected to say 4 or 5 major NAP's. >> > >> > You prodded me into updating my exchange point matrix. I don't claim its >> > perfect, or more up to date than a few minutes ago. Things change >>quickly >> > in this business. >> >> Well, since you posted this in public I will respond in public. >> >> > Netrail(4006) Y Y >> Y >> >> You need to update your list BAD. We are connected to all but one of your >> NAPs listed. We wanted to be at Sprint-NAP 4 months ago, but they did not >> have the gigaswitch port, or the physical space for our hardware. Please do >> not put information about other provider up without checking it out first. >

1 0

Re: peering points
by salo＠msc.edu 01 Apr '97

01 Apr '97

> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:58:56 -0500 (EST) > From: Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> > Subject: Re: peering points > > On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Sean Donelan wrote: > [...] > > You prodded me into updating my exchange point matrix. I don't claim its > > perfect, or more up to date than a few minutes ago. Things change quickly > > in this business. > [...] > You need to update your list BAD. ... Please do > not put information about other provider up without checking it out first. > [...] Sean, I liked your compilation of exchange point connections. A single reference summarizing all of the major exchange points appears fairly interesting and useful. You might consider putting this information on a Web page where it would be readily accessible and where NSPs could, should they desire, review and update the information. -tjs

1 0

Re: Peering points
by Sean Donelan 01 Apr '97

01 Apr '97

X-News: sdg.dra.com dra.mail.nanog:8398 >From: nathan(a)netrail.NET (Nathan Stratton) >Subject:Re: PC Magazine on Internet logjams >Date: 30 Mar 1997 21:55:57 -0600 >Message-ID:<dra.mail.nanog.Pine.LNX.3.95.970330223631.954C-100000(a)netrail.net> >On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > >> At 01:49 PM 3/30/97 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> >http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1607/pcmg0165.htm >> > >> >Breaking Up the Internet Logjam (04/08/97) >> >> Wow, this article is so phenominally inaccurate hat it is almost silly. I >> wonder who all of the rest of my peering sessions are with if there are >> only 20 or so providers connected to NAP's. > >Well I think NAP's is referring to more then just 1 NAP. There are under 20 >providers connected to say 4 or 5 major NAP's. > >Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. >Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 >WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about >itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34 > -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: ARINANOG
by Michael Gersten 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Jim raises an extremely good point. Why not start ARIN off by giving it a /8 to work with and see how well it will actually work? Lets face it, there is only ONE /0, and giving that to ARIN might not be a good idea if it doesn't work right. By giving them a /8, they will have to compete with other ways of assigning IP addresses, and demonstrate that they actually can work. Just like a would-be ISP has to start with a /24 and work up... Michael

2 1

Re: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing
by NetSurfer 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Proposed charging up to $20,000 for IP addresses - more unsubstantiated rumor? ---------- From: David Stoddard <dgs(a)us.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: jfbb(a)atmnet.net Subject: Re: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 8:29 PM 8< snip 8< snip 8< snip For the sake of discussion, this is the following fee structure that has been proposed by ARIN (see the ARIN proposal page at http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html) Small $2500/year /24 - /19 Medium $5000/year >/19 - /16 Large $10K/year >/16 - /14 X-Large $20K/year >/14 Fees are based on your total allocation for the previous year, plus another $1,000 per year to maintain membership in ARIN. It is safe to say that any ISP able to receive address blocks falls somewhere between Medium and X-Large on this chart. --------- As for an IANA Statement on the subject: http://www.arin.net/iana.html ========================================= IANA Statement on ARIN (1/14/97) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Internet Assigned Nunbers Authority (IANA) views the move by Network Solutions to promote the creation of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) as a non-profit, self-supporting, independent operation as a very positive step and fully supports the general concept. --jon. Jon Postel Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ----------

3 2

Re: Ascend/Netstar GRF 400
by garyz＠savvis.com 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Yes, we are having very good luck with are GRF1600s also, We are now Cisco free, and the GRFs are performing very well. There are some issues, but Ascend is stepping to plate on all issues. We are building a ATM nation wide network using the GRF to get to the internet. These things will melt down a Cisco 75xx router and keep on ticking, and for allot less money. Also, did everyone see the WallStreet this morning. Ascend buys Cascade..... Look out, IP switching is really around the corner for all of us ATMer.... Gary Zimmerman V.P. Network Engineering Savvis Communication Corp. www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 ---------- > From: Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> > To: Chris A. Icide <chris(a)nap.net> > Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Re: Ascend/Netstar GRF 400 > Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 5:33 PM > > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Chris A. Icide wrote: > > > Is anyone successfuly using one of these? I've got one in the labs > > here, and have found some interesting problems. Ascend engineers > > are hot on the problems, but I was wondering if anyone else has any > > experience. > > Yes, our network is now cisco free! We have been using the GRF1600s for > several months in our network. We have found a few problems, but Ascend > has been VERY fast to fix them. So far they blow away the Cisco solution > we were using. > > > Our current problems seem to be related to buffer overruns on the > > ATM/Q card. > > We have not used the ATM/Q card a lot, but I am sure Ascend can fix any > problem you may have. We are using cascade 900s as backbone switches into > the GRF 1600s via HSSI. We plan to move this to OC3 as soon as we finish > testing. > > > Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. > Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 > WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about > itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

2 1

Re: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing
by NetSurfer 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Earlier I was chastised for stating unfounded rumor about fees of up to $20,000/year yet a similar fee structure for new registrations/services from ARIN is being proposed. Just wanted to point out that I wasn't referencing unfounded rumor but rather a reference that needed qualified i.e. allocation services for organizations requesting address space directly from ARIN. ---------- From: David R. Conrad <davidc(a)apnic.net> >Proposed charging up to $20,000 for IP addresses - more unsubstantiated >rumor? Sigh. Would you *please* read the proposal (http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html, http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html might also be helpful). If you had you would see that the fee is for allocation _services_ and only applicable to organizations requesting address space _directly_ from ARIN.

1 0

Re: BGP4 COMMUNITY attribute
by George Matey 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

At 01:08 PM 3/28/97 -0700, Dave Siegel wrote: >> John W. Stewart II writes: >> > rfc1997. i think there's a GateD with communities >> >> Yup. > >Bay Networks supports them as well, though I'm not sure if it's in the >mainstream code...it might only be in 11.01 (ANS code). > >Dave BGP communities have been in mainline Bay code since 11.00. 11.01 is also mainline code that has recently been released. -- George Matey Network Engineer Internet Service Provider Group Bay Networks

1 0

Re: PC Magazine on Internet logjams
by Justin W. Newton 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

At 01:49 PM 3/30/97 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1607/pcmg0165.htm > >Breaking Up the Internet Logjam (04/08/97) Wow, this article is so phenominally inaccurate hat it is almost silly. I wonder who all of the rest of my peering sessions are with if there are only 20 or so providers connected to NAP's. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large

2 1