- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Info on MAE-EAST
by Paul A Vixie 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

Brett writes: > MAE-Houston, a small NAP in the scheme of things, but it makes for a good > example so we'll use it. $2000/month to get your foot in the door, then > another large chunk of cash to connect to the Gigaswitch which all things > considered, isn't really needed. Rather than waste their money on equipment > that all in all just doesn't need to be there, why not make it more economic > for local players to get involved and cross connect to eachother. In the end > you not only save money by not bringing in useless hardware but you garner > more customers by lessening the price of the private interconnect. Hmmm. According to what I learnt in school, the cost of a connected network like a GIGAswitch or Catalyst or DELNI with N participants is: (N x interface_cost) + (N x port_cost) ...while the cost of a connected network made up of wire peers is: (2 x sum(N - 1) x interface_cost) "sum(N-1)" is an interesting function. Here are some examples: % calc > define sum(n) = n > 0 ? n + sum(n-1) : 0; "sum" defined > for (n = 2; n < 20; n++) print n,2*sum(n-1); 2 2 3 6 4 12 5 20 6 30 7 42 8 56 9 72 10 90 11 110 12 132 13 156 14 182 15 210 16 240 17 272 18 306 19 342 That means with 19 ISP's in a GIGAswitch-free room, there are 342 FIP's at a cost of, what, US$12000 each after discount? I'll betcha I can buy quite a few GIGAswitches for US$4.1M. Oops, that's not a fair comparison, since with a GIGAswitch I also need 19 FIP's. Figure that a fully configured GIGAswitch retails without discount for US$80K and that 19 FIPs are going to run another US$228K. That's still a *lot* less than 2*sum(n-1). This also assumes that we all have VIP2 cards and want to burn 9 7513 slots just on local peering, and it further assumes that a 7513 won't just simply melt if all the interfaces ever get hot at the same time. The breakeven is between N=3 and N=4. On the Internet, N never stays small. (And that breakeven assumes that the 4 people have to buy the whole GIGAswitch with noone like MFS to underwrite the costs of the unused ports; that means four people in a room together could SAVE MONEY buying the GIGA- switch.) Gah.

10 12

RE: Info on MAE-EAST
by Rodney Joffe 18 Jan '97

18 Jan '97

>-----Original Message----- >From: dave o'leary [SMTP:doleary@cisco.com] >Sent: Friday, January 17, 1997 3:18 PM >To: Howard C. Berkowitz >Cc: Dorian R. Kim; Brett L. Hawn; Michael Dillon; nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Info on MAE-EAST > >At 7:00 -0800 1/16/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >>Web cacheing would seem to encourage traffic to stay local. > >ahhh....yup. > > dave > > >Web Cacheing would seem to be good, except that with most commercial >interactive web sites, you have to deal with state. And until you can >guarantee that the entire state will always be carried by the client (no Ziff >Davis cookie deleter), cacheing is only a partial panacea. > rodney > Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net >

2 1

Filtering on RFC1918 cruft
by Paul Ferguson 17 Jan '97

17 Jan '97

Why aren't people actively filter on RFC1918 announcements?? - paul >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:00:03 GMT >Subject: 01/16/97 Internet Routing Problems > >Reserved Network and Host Announcements >--------------------------------------- >10/8 at Mae-East from DIALnet (5552) ASPATH=5552 3549 Incomplete >10/8 at Mae-East from INAP.net (5646) ASPATH=5646 3549 Incomplete >10/8 at Mae-East from PRIMENET (3549) ASPATH=3549 Incomplete >10/8 at Mae-East from CAIS (3491) ASPATH=3491 3549 Incomplete >10/8 at Mae-West from PRIMENET (3549) ASPATH=3549 Incomplete >10/8 at Mae-West from INAP.net (5646) ASPATH=5646 3549 Incomplete >10/8 at AADS from INAP.net (5646) ASPATH=5646 3549 Incomplete >10/8 at AADS from 198.32.130.55 ASPATH=3549 Incomplete

2 1

Re: Info on MAE-EAST
by sob＠academ.com 17 Jan '97

17 Jan '97

Brett writes: > MAE-Houston, a small NAP in the scheme of things, but it makes for a good > example so we'll use it. $2000/month to get your foot in the door, then > another large chunk of cash to connect to the Gigaswitch which all things > considered, isn't really needed. Rather than waste their money on equipment > that all in all just doesn't need to be there, why not make it more economic > for local players to get involved and cross connect to eachother. In the end > you not only save money by not bringing in useless hardware but you garner > more customers by lessening the price of the private interconnect. Perhaps the costs have changed and noone has told me, but the $2000/month for MAE-HOUSTON includes a 10Mb/sec local loop if you are on the MFS network in Houston (more than 140 buildings, I believe). As far as I know, most of the participants (and I note that NOL is not one of them) are not hooked to anything faster than a 10Mb/sec connection and none of them are co-locating at the MAE just for the purpose of connecting to it. So, I am not sure it makes a good example unless you consider the amount of traffic exchanged at MAE-HOUSTON. I believe that some of the participants would like either to get more traffic through the MAE or to have slower connections more in keeping with the amount of traffic they are actually exchanging. The peak usage is not much above 5Mb/sec during the last week. MFS had offered lower speed connections initially and then widthdrew that offering around the time the MAE came on-line. I thought that was a mistake, but it was and is MFS's business to lose. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

7 8

PacBell web page for NANOG
by Pam Ciesla 17 Jan '97

17 Jan '97

Can be found at http://www.pacbell.com/products/business/fastrak/networking/nap/event.html. Please note the the hotel block ends today. Pam

1 0

Re: Info on MAE-EAST
by Vadim Antonov 17 Jan '97

17 Jan '97

Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> wrote: > I would like to know if anyone has measured this one way or the other, since > if there is a demonstrated tendancy toward local traffic, it may open some > currently-closed minds on the value of joining *hundreds* of regional IXPs > and regionalizing our routes so that we can inject a subset into each such > IXP without giving anyone unintended transit or subsidizing their long haul > costs. What do you propose to do with route flap? While creative "regional" filtering is theoretically possible i'm convinced the complexity involved will quickly overshadow whatever benefits the local peering provides. Long-distance telcos generally find it cheaper to backhaul traffic hundreds of miles to large switch sites instead of installing zillions of small switches. And, no, public exchange points are not dead. They have benefits of higher flexibility (one 155M pipe going to an exchange point is _more_ than three 45M pipes going to three other ISPs -- the traffic is not spread equally, and there are fluctuations). There is at least one way to make public exchanges to handle a lot (10000 times) more traffic. But you know it already. --vadim

1 0

Re: remove from ListServe
by John R. Sosebee 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

At 01:08 PM 1/16/97 -0600, lance ray wrote: >Would you please remove my name from the ListServe. > Please send these unsubscribes to nanog-request(a)merit.edu with unsubscribe in the body of the mail I think you'll be processed more efficiently .. and they'll be a little less noise .. >Thank you in advance, > >-- >Carl Lance Ray >Critical Technologies INC >Bridgeton,Mo >lray(a)cris.com > John sosebee(a)bellsouth.net (770) 392-4300

1 0

remove from ListServe
by lance ray 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Would you please remove my name from the ListServe. Thank you in advance, -- Carl Lance Ray Critical Technologies INC Bridgeton,Mo lray(a)cris.com

1 0

RE: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Matthew Gering 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Seems to me the whole effort of setting up the organization and adding the extra header is simply for the sake of making spamming -- or rather not complying with a method for allowing spam to be filtered -- a prosecutable offense. I agree with the motive, but it seems a very round-about way. Also, it is a cludge solution for SMTP spamming, and does not setup any sort of structure for dealing with similar problems as the Internet evolves. I do highly agree with making this a civil, or contractual offense, and not a criminal act. I'd rather not see any government entity attempt any jurisdiction over the 'net, however justified the particular law seems. The problem with making it a civil offense around trademark and misrepresentation issues is that enforceability will vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction, especially trademark, and therefore does not scale well the the global Internet. Secondly I disagree with is making this enforcing body a private, membership-based organization -- it may be subject to abuse. What I think would work best, along the same lines and motivation, would be council of sorts, perhaps with the EFF and IETF as the principle members, that would draft a policy. That policy would be adopted by the public exchange points as part of the legal contract for NSP's to connect there, which would apply to the NSP, and everyone downstream of them. It would therefore be incorporated into any connection contract down the line. By incorporating it into the connection contract, it falls under contract law and is much more universal, and the abuser may be charged with breach of contract, which is tied to their connectivity. As for the particular fix for SMTP spamming, I would then suggest a priority header. [0 -- reserved] (emergency priority) [1-3 -- private email] [4 -- solicited distribution] (mailing lists, etc) [5 -- unsolicited distribution] (spam) SMTP server may do whatever it wishes with the header (ignore it, implement a priority based queue, filtering ,etc), and the header is not even required (but likely will be universally adopted to insure delivery after a grace period), the only contractual obligation is that it cannot be misrepresented. I don't quite get the whole dual port deal. Matt >

3 2

Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Barry Shein 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

(I've Bcc'd you but otherwise left your name off as this was private mail, but I figured if I typed this all in maybe it should be shared.) >So what, technically, do you think we should do that we aren't already >doing? Or are you suggesting that us technical people start becoming >more active in the policy side of things? At Usenix last week I ran a Spam BOF, the room was packed tho it wasn't a huge room. There was an interesting technical proposal which arose and went something like this: 1. We all (it doesn't have to be all) agree to start using an additional port for SMTP, say port 52. (25 backwards, the number doesn't really matter just so long as it's available and agreed upon and a so-called privileged port.) 2. We form a not-for-profit shell corporation whose name is something catchy, The Spam Protestors Alliance Matrix (SPAM). It exists for two reasons: To have a name (SPAM) which can be trademarked, and to have a charter which basically forbids spam (in more formal words.) This costs maybe $1,000 to set up and some volunteer work. (yes it can't really be "SPAM" because Hormel might rightfully protest, but something, The People's Unsolicited Commercial Email Action Committee and Koalition, PUCE, ACK!.) 3. In order for an email message to pass over port 52 it must have a header which reads: X-SPAM-CHARTER: This message conforms to the SPAM Charter or similar (X-PUCE-CHARTER:). Otherwise, it's just dropped on the floor. Remember that this is the new port. 4. Abuse of that header is a litigable trademark violation (we get this set up with lawyers, but akin to DC comics or the Good Housekeeping Seal.) Perhaps some membership dues are raised to help pursue violators, that would be a good idea, if most every ISP kicked in $100/year that'd be on the order of a coupla hundred thousand dollars/year. 5. Over time, perhaps a year or two, the community is warned that port 25 will also become subject to these rules. After, say, 6 months or so a warning is returned if the header is not present, after a year or so the mail to port 25 will just be dropped if it doesn't contain the header. Maybe two years or three, whatever. Obviously every site can continue to do what they like, they can ignore all this entirely if they prefer and accept everything, no one is being forced to do anything other than if you want your email to be seen at sites which conform to this you'll have to conform to the rules. They can simply filter into folders based on whether a msg conforms or not, etc. 6. Mail should be marked by the MTA (another header) as to whether it came in via port 25 or 52 for the interim so MUAs (mail reader programs) can, if they prefer, just drop those messages or sort them separately or whatever. 7. Other rules could be introduced, such as allowing commercial email if and only if it conforms to certain rules, such as some header present for sorting and filtering, and a license number which identifies the sender positively, whatever seems reasonable. (Again, fraud is a crime, and now there's an organization with some bucks to help pursue such crimes, I'd charge at least some nominal fee for a license number to help pay for enforcement, maybe another $100/year.) The basic trademark idea was Brad Templeton's (Clarinet founder and principal), the dual port idea came up more spontaneously, others added details though I don't know if they'd want to be credited here or not. I threw in some details and fleshed it out here. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989

2 2