- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II
by William Allen Simpson 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:36:26 -0700 > From: Vadim Antonov <avg(a)quake.net> > I'm sorry that this is getting more and more off-topic... > Yes, so I'll keep my reply short. And hope that the flaming anti-government yahoos stop filling my mailbox.... > William Allen Simpson <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> wrote: > > >Delivery of all social services has clearly been shown to be cheaper > >when done by government, when costs of fund collection, advertisement, > >and administration are included. Private charity is always more > >expensive, even when partly done with volunteer labor. The best numbers > >I have at hand are 3% government (US Food Stamps) versus 17% private > >(United Way) for administrative costs to delivered services. And when > >advertising and fund collection are added, many non-profit "charities" > >spend upwards of 50% on overhead! > > Huh? Sure you forgot to figure in the cost of collection of taxes > and counted only disbursement (and did you count enforcement and > what groceries spend on processing food stamps?) > I explicitly (in my quoted comment) did _NOT_ forget the cost of fund raising, enforcement, or any other administrative cost. And neither did the United Way study, nor the several others that I remember reading.... This is _very_ well established, folks. The US IRS is a model of efficiency for fund raising, with far less distributed overhead than others, and a budget of 1/10,000 (off the top of my head) of collected revenue. Compare with sales or property tax, with their thousands of separate administrations, and own elected officials, etc. I have read that groceries actually _like_ to get food stamps. They put big signs on their windows "food stamps accepted here". They are much easier and cheaper to administer than manufacturers' coupons. (As an aside, related to my later recycling note, groceries _hate_ recycling, which would _not_ happen without government enforcement.) > Most of what charities spend is cost of fundraising. > That's correct, for many! > When you figure _that_ in, you'll get government efficiency well > below that of any private organization. > This comment makes no sense, as it is pretty obvious that government does not spend most of its budget on fund raising, and therefore your conclusion is at variance with your own assertions. You have obviously not looked at the numbers, nor been on the boards of any private non-profits, as I have. > And, of course, it is always much simplier to get funds for > "charity" by telling people they'd better pay or go to jail. > If it is much simpler, then it is likely cheaper, too. There is no way that private organizations can compete on an efficiency basis. > What you compare is charity and legalized racket. > > In fact, the social cost of welfare is enormous. It created > generations of people which cannot and don't want to earn living. > A culture of entitlement, if you like. No charity ever made > recipients "entitled" to anything. > This is a descent into diatribe, and demonstrably untrue.... Your biases are showing, and no rational discourse is likely. Sounds to me like you've been listening to political advertisements for your economics. Folks, I just gave a few of the well-documented examples of when it is more efficient for the people to form a collective organization (called government) than to privatize. Please keep your facts straight. > >We already had commercial telecommunications companies; they gave us > >X.25 ... and now, ATM. > > X.25 was fine for its time. It still processes all credit card and > ATM transactions. ATM (another one) is going to be dead pretty soon, > as new generation of IP routers will roll out. > The reason we chose X.25 for ATM transactions here in Michigan (X.25 was the 3rd protocol stack I ever wrote, circa '78-79) was because it was the only thing available! The alternative was direct leased lines, and we did a fair amount of that, too. But, it was _never_ "fine". I preferred IBM bisync and Burroughs poll-select, and even Honeywell VIP, and invented a few of my own. > And, ah, yes. ATM figured prominently in NAP-related papers, ok? > vBNS is ATM-based. _Who_ is promoting that insanity? > ATM figured prominently in _PRIVATE_ company responses to the NAP bid. ATM was proposed by a _PRIVATE_ company for the vBNS. I do not recall ATM being mentioned in the NSF RFP, and the private ATM-based NAPs had a _lot_ of problems coming up! Our Internet is a fine example of what government and academics _can_ do. And Internet II may very well be a boon to the world, if it can provide impetus for development of new technologies. If it just becomes another AUP vehicle, then that would be a loss. It is our job to make sure that it does not! WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: Creating exchanges [Was: Re: MAE-East - 30%]
by Dave Curado 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

> Hong Kong looks slightly promising except for the slight problem of > next summer. Singapore is probably a no-go because of how anal the > government is there; all we need is an AP CIX with a host government > enforced AUP that says "no dirty gifs, no politicallly unacceptable > speech, etc". Of course it remains to be seen what will happen in HK next July, but note that HK has a reasonable sized nap already. The HKIX. My understanding is that they are about to upgrade the exchange to an ATM switch. (whatever) However, I had huge problems running an ISP in HK. The telco pricing has always been such that it is scads less expensive to connect back to the US than to another country, even another country just a few miles away. I keep watching the pricing and goings-on to see if/when there will be a reasonable pricing decrease on bandwidth to Asia, but haven't seen anything yet. I'd love to see someone get an oc3/12/48 pipe from HK to the west coast, and resell to the 60+ HK ISPs at reasonable prices. While in HK a week ago, I was trying to set up a 128K line for a small organization there. The cost is in the US$4k range -- I was afraid to tell those guys what I pay for a 128K bri line here in the US. For the time being, it seems that the most affordable solution would be for each country to build it's own exchange, and have everything link back via the US. (although its silly to have traffic from HK to Bangkok routing via San Jose...) If someone has more recent or more optimistic info, please let me know! davec

3 3

Re: generators, etc....
by Sean Donelan 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

>I suggest that neither gleefull hand-rubbing nor "obvious" pronouncements >based on partial knowledge about the real situation will seem quite so >appropriate when it's *your* turn to be downfield from the launcher. Don't forget 500 year floods that happen twice in a couple of years, e.g. the midwest. Or the occasional bombing, e.g. our New York City POP is in Hackensack, NJ now, the MIDNET router in Oklahoma City is in a landfill now. An Internet connection is pretty far down on the list of important things in a real disaster. Stuff happens. No one can predict or plan for everything. But you can have procedures in place to combat the biggest problem in diasasters, poor communication. Partial knowledge about the real situation happens when the real information isn't made available. Techies sometimes get too wrapped up in the hardware, redudant fiber, generators, bomb-resistant shelters; and forget about keeping people informed. It also works to your advantage to keep people informed. They tend to be more understanding, and willing to give you time when they know the situation, and that you are dealing with it. But you only get one free pass. Non-statement statements tend to fan the flames. I think I've said all this before. BBNplanet is better than many ISPs, once you find out the ticket number. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: BBN outage
by Sanjay Dani 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

>From: Per Gregers Bilse <bilse(a)EU.net> > > Because loss of connectivity for a day costs 10's of thousands > > of dollars and, evidently, even the "big" companies are not > > immune from "acts of god" like what happened today. > > Please distinguish between singly-connected and singly-homed, they > really are two different things. If Sun has just a plain, regular > connection, a garden variety leased line outage will take them out. > If OTOH they had had a connection to one of BBN's other CA POPs, they > would have been just fine. It is intuitively obvious that the > advantage of multihoming does not outweigh the additional complexity, > cost and failure modes, whereas multiconnecting can be done at > reasonable cost while actually providing more reliable service > overall. All information clearly indicates that the PA outage was > one of these near-enough disasters that can and do happen, just like > hurricanes and floods and whatever. You can't blame BBN for that, > but you could conceivably blame Sun, InfoWorld and/or whoever for > having just a single connection, if they're supposed to take their > Internet business seriously -- do these people really want to be > taken out by a blown CSU/DSU? I did not say multi-homing by itself would be a cure-all. I picked Sun as an example among the affected customers because they do have several interconnected physical locations in the bay area, US-wide and abroad and also in-house expertise on routing. It is just that a whole bunch of smart people running Sun's NOC must have felt helpless.. If only they had a pipe going out to somewhere else, another provider in the bay area in this case, they could have reconfigured routers and minimized the hit. In hindsight, solutions to tolerate a given failure are very easy to come by but shouldn't be talked down. I did not blame BBN--shit happens--but I wouldn't assume that their NOC is necessarily designed to be more fault tolerant than what a smaller ISP can or what the people at Sun could if they didn't somehow assume IP transit out of BBN was fault tolerant enough. For all you know, Sun might have multiple pipes connecting to BBN, multipe routers and CSU/DSU spares. I know for sure a client of BBN's cupertino POP was affected because all BBN traffic in the bay area, as far as I can tell, went/goes through the stanford location. Sanjay.

1 0

Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II
by Paul Ferguson 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

At 07:38 PM 10/12/96 -0700, Bill Manning wrote: > >This almost sounds like an EGP apologist... :) >I know that several folks have identified the problems in these two >protocols and are working on fixes which range from patches to new >protocols. > >Simplifing the mesh is no longer a tenable position, IMHO. Its time >onceee again, to upgrade the in-flight 747, but this time >its not changing the wings, now we rebuild it to a 777 :) > This almost sounds like an Internet II apologist. ;-) - paul

1 0

Speakers: 7th Maryland Workshop on High Speed Networks
by Account of Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

*************************************************************************** Presentations at the 7TH MARYLAND WORKSHOP ON VERY HIGH SPEED NETWORKS Nov. 5-6, 1996 *************************************************************************** Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering University of Maryland Baltimore County *************************************************************************** For agenda and other information, visit URL: http://www.mctr.umbc.edu *************************************************************************** 1. Bob Kahn: (CNRI) (Keynote Address) <TBD> 2. Scott Bradner (Harvard University) Current Status, Problems and Future Ditections of ATM Technology 3. Richard desJardins and Andy Germain (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) Networks for NASA Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) 4. Allison Mankin (USC/ISI-Washington Center) and Javad Boroumand (NASA) Collaborative Advanced Interagency Research Network (CAIRN) -- IPv6 Prototyping 5. Patrick Dowd (United States Department of Defense) ATDnet - A Large Wide Area Multi-gigabit ATM Testbed 6. John Baras (University of Maryland. College Park) Integrated Management of Hybrid Broadband Networks 7. Dinkar Sitaram (IBM Watson Research Center) Video Servers: Applications and Architectures 8. Ender Ayanoglu, Kai Eng and Mark Karol (Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies) Wireless ATM: Limits, Challenges, and Proposals 9. C.A. Johnston D. Raychaudhuri (NEC USA, C&C Research Laboratories) Overview of the WATMnet System 10. Jack Holtzman and Fang-Chen Cheng (Rutgers University) A Wireless ATM Architecture 11. Mahmoud Naghshineh (IBM Watson Research Center) QoS in Wireless/Mobile ATM Networks 12. <Speaker from Motorola> <TBD> <Wireless ATM> 13. Rob Coltun (Fore Systems) <ATM/Routing><TBD> 14. Dan Daly and Nim Cheung (Bellcore) Bandwidth Management Schemes in Broadband Networks 15. Michael Levender (Cisco-Stratacom) <ATM Networks><TBD> 16. Maryann Perez Maher and Suresh Bhogavilli (USC/ISI-Washington Center) Implementation and Analysis of Multicast Address Resolution Server (MARS) 17. Brad Karp (Harvard University & USC/ISI-Washington Center) Implementation and Analysis of Available Bit Rate (ABR) 18. Allison Mankin (USC/ISI-Washington Center) Rational ATM in the Collaborative Advanced Interagency Research Network (CAIRN) 19. Alex Birman (IBM Watson Research Center) RSVP-Based Flows over ATM Networks 20. Ellen W. Zegura (Georgia Tech) Mapping Complex Applications to Network Services 21. Krishna Bala (Bellcore) Architectures for Multiwavelength Optical Networks 22. C. J. Chen and Peter K. Runge (AT&T Laboratories) The Africa ONE WDM Network 23. Ender Ayanoglu (Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies) Is Wavelength Conversion in WDM Networks Viable? 24. Imrich Chlamtac (Boston University), Viktoria Elek (Technical University of Budapesti), Andrea Fumagalli (Politecnico di Torino) Improving Bandwidth Efficiency in Scalable WDM Networks with SDL Bridging 25. Vern Paxson (LBL) Measurements of End-to-End Internet Dynamics 26. Avi Silberschatz, et al., (Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies) On Networking Applications of High Performance Main-Memory Databases *************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------- 7th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks ---------------------------------------------------- November 5-6, 1996 Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering University of Maryland Baltimore County Keynote Speaker: Dr. Robert E. Kahn, President CNRI The Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research (MCTR) and the Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) will hold the 7th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks on November 5-6, 1996 at the UMBC campus. The Workshop will be held in the Ballroom of the University Center on the UMBC campus. The goal of the Workshop is to bring together experts in related areas to discuss progress and research issues in the design and implementation of very high speed communication networks. Each of the previous workshops attracted approximately 150 researchers representing academia, industry and government. The two day meeting will include invited speakers and contributed presentations. Papers on selected presentations will appear in a special issue of the Journal of High Speed Networks. For more information on the workshop and directions to UMBC, check our home page on WWW.(http://www.mctr.umbc.edu) A registration fee of $325 will include two lunches and conference proceeding. For questions regarding the technical content of the workshop or giving a presentation, please contact the workshop organizer, Dr. Deepinder Sidhu, at Tel: (410) 455-3028 or 3063, Fax: (410) 455-3969, Email: mctr(a)cs.umbc.edu. Mail checks (payable to University of Maryland Foundation) and registration form to Dr. Deepinder Sidhu, Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250. All funds for this event will be managed by the UM Foundation. Please DO NOT include hotel accommodation expenses in your payment for the Workshop Registration. Room payment should be made directly to the hotel you selected for stay. The following hotels are closest to the UMBC campus. BWI Airport is approximately five miles from the UMBC Campus. 1. Sheraton International Hotel - BWI Airport. Closest to the airport and the UMBC campus. Tel: (410) 859-3300 or (800) 638-5858 2. Holiday Inn - BWI Airport. Close to the airport and the UMBC campus. Tel: (410) 859-8400 or (800) HOLIDAY 3. Omni Inner Harbor Hotel. Close to Downtown Baltimore / Inner Harbor and about 20 minutes drive to the UMBC campus. Tel: (410) 752-1100 or (800) 843-6664 For more information on the workshop and directions to UMBC, check our home page on WWW: http://www.mctr.umbc.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks (November 5-6, 1996) Registration Form Name: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Affiliation: ------------------------------------------------------------- Address: ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: Fax: Email: ---------------- ------------- ------------ Dietary Restriction : Vegetarian Kosher ---------- ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

your comments
by mo＠UU.NET 13 Oct '96

13 Oct '96

please read my note again. I was NOT saying how I could have done better. that was PRECISELY my point.

1 0

RE Re: BBN outage
by Jon Bosanac 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

To: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > So BBN says they are now going to install a generator, my question is why > was a generator not installed? They saved 20 - 100K on a generator, but I > bet they will lose more then that when users leave. So, were you saying something? -jon

2 1

Re: Creating exchanges [Was: Re: MAE-East - 30%]
by rja＠cisco.com 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

Robert, It is my understanding that one can access the fiber transiting Guam without any special obstacles. Ran PS: Go look at UUNET's map online... --

2 1

Creating exchanges [Was: Re: MAE-East - 30%]
by Paul Ferguson 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

This is also the reason why we [collectively] are encouraging the creation of local exchange points outside of North America. The situation where two providers in The Phillipines (for example) have to back-haul traffic to the US to exchange bits is contributing to the overall problem. This needs to be fixed, but it certainly won't happen overnight, primarily due to the economic situation in the general locale. The possibility to correct this problem increases as deregulation happens. - paul At 02:08 PM 10/9/96 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: >Isn't this the reason that MAE-East is at 30%, i.e. there are now many >private interconnects between tier 1 NSP's to offload traffic from major >exchanges like MAE-East? > >Not to mention that MAE-East is no longer the only major interconnect, a >fact that seems to be taking some time to work it's way into >net.mythology. >

8 10