- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Internet II is coming...
by Sean Doran 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

| The institution in the situation you describe, procure an ATM interface to the | provider. Have the provider two PVC's. Set both PVC's for EPD. Contract | the Researchers PVC as a VBR PVC, and contract the other as a ABR or UBR | PVC. In other words, somewhere close to the edge of a network fabric, some router is making a decision based on things like origin/destination or protocol number or what-have-you to send traffic across a point-to-point line instead of the Internet. Instead of building a real point-to-point line, you build a PVC using ATM, and then play games to make sure the ATM fabric does the right thing or some approximation thereof if there is contention in the ATM fabric. In the brave new world of an ATM-free future (assuming the ATM people don't get _cheap_ SVCs out the door before we get the "Peter-Tony Protocol" model deployed), you can do the same for less cost by pulling a tributary out of your SONET MUX at the appropriate bandwidth, and doing policy-based routing using your favourite vendor's NetFlow switching or some future tag-switching-like system or the equivalent. This is your PVC, no EPD or PPD needed. Cells? What are those? All each approach is doing is source-routing across different paths, making a decision somewhere close to one or both edges of a given fabric. This could as easily be accomplished by having a fabric made up of either multiprotocol routers which deal with IPv4 and something else which does source-routing, or of routers which have the time budgets to do Christmas-tree packets (all decorated with options). If you make decisions to do different queue/drop algorithms based on something decided at the edge of a fabric, or at a host, then you might not even necessarily need any sort of separate infrastructure to meet most reasonable QOS-like demands. This is your *BR game-playing with ATM, for dealing with contention. The separate circuit model has an attraction in that you can avoid having Special Traffic move normal traffic out of the way, and you avoid paying a huge penalty in routers in the core of the best-efforts Internet, both of which are serious problems in efforts like RSVP. A mix of separate circuit/parallel infrastructure vs. smart queuing in IP routers should really be done using the appropriate parts: real circuits and real routers. Playing games with ABR and friends introduces the problems of disconnected resource consumption feedback loops (TCP vs ABR, for example), which tend to compete with each other in nasty ways. Temporary circuits of whatever flavour have an attraction in that you can get a mix of parallel infrastructure and smarter infrastructure without necessarily incurring enormous cost, and without worrying about byzantine billing for normal Internet traffic. This is coming, both for ATM and for non-ATM models. Finally, I assert that we are already at the point where anything that can be deployed today that is based on ATM (which incidentally typically rides over SONET/SDH) can be kludged up (or even done right) with Cisco gear and SONET/SDH. ATM has a temporary edge in being multivendor and making it easy to do TDM-style and point-to-multipoint things, however the former is likely to be short-term and the latter is something that can be done better for Internet traffic anyway, with a bit of cleverness in the latest and in the next generation of IP routers. Since these routers will be needed with or without ATM, the time to ponder whether ATM really has that much added value in the long run is upon people already. Sean.

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Kent W. England 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 11:28 PM 10/8/96 -0400, you wrote: > >About the broader issue of the Internet II project, I have always >suspected that the "retail" market (100 M households) and the R&E >market (1000 largest R&E and industrial institutions) had incompatible >network requirements. The consequence is that no infrastructure could >be optimal for both. It would be a *good*thing* if the providers >could develop two parallel infrastructures The fiber infrastructure and the multiplexer infrastructure are good enough to support both Internet and Internet II. What the Internet lacks for Internet II today is IP tunnels with QoS. So I think that one IP infrastructure could be good enough for both and will be some day. This I believe. :-) >Internet II and the like are good things. No question! > >--MM-- > > If 100k university students, faculty and staff can demonstrate large scale personal videoconferencing, that would be a big win and a good market driver. BTW, is someone going to build traffic monitors and diagnostic tools into the Internet II infrastructure? Any new inter-domain routing protocols? Source demand routing? QoS? Or are the universities satisfied with just more bandwidth? --Kent

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Paul J. Zawada 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 11:06 AM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote: > >"Dorian R. Kim" writes: >> This sort of proposal, i.e. building a Higher Ed private network for >> research, is in and of itself not such a bad thing. >> >> The grow of Internet since NSFNet shut down has put serious strains on the >> infrastructure that researchy folks used to use to do(and still do) their >> various work on. > >You know, maybe I'm crazy but I rarely see the troubles that people >mention so often. The problems are real. We (NCSA) have users that can ftp a 500MB-1GB file to a site relatively close (Internet-topology-wise) but the the damn thing times out when they try to ftp to it to us, two NSPs plus a NAP or private interconnect away. We're sure it's not our pipe to the Internet, since we have a DS3 that _peaks_ at 50% utilization and usually hovers somewhere around 10%-20%. The problem is probably less the way the Internet has been built but the dynamics of TCP. The current Internet architecture only magnifies the problem. As Matt Mathis points out, the needs that Internet serves today and the needs of high-end network users are orthogonal. > >When I'm going between my site and another site on the net, if both >ends are unloaded, I typically get bandwidth equal to the smaller of >the two pipes into the net. Its very rare that I don't get transfer >times near the maximum expected, even when one of the pipes is >attached to a mediocre provider. (Really bad providers are another >story, but I luckily can usually convince my clients not to use them). Have you tried this with two DS3 pipes at opposite ends of the Internet (i.e. from two different NSPs at different ends of the US)? >Seems to me that if the university researchers are sick of competing >with the undergrads, either the university could get a fatter pipe, or >they could priority queue the traffic from the researchers, and either >way they would probably win. But they can't priority queue traffic coming back to them. If the undergrads' incoming traffic keeps their ACKs and return traffic from getting back to them, they're still screwed. >Even with all the well-publicized growing >pains at the providers, I think the trouble is most likely at the end >points, and not in the providers. What they want is a fatter pipe with end-to-end priority queing. (Give me the list of ISPs providing this today or have announced it. I want to talk to them.) This way the researchers can take advantage of the extra bandwidth they're paying for and the undergrads can continue using what they're using today. --zawada Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

3 2

RE: Internet II is coming...
by Chris A. Icide 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

---------- From: Paul J. Zawada[SMTP:zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Internet II is coming... >What they want is a fatter pipe with end-to-end priority queing. (Give me >the list of ISPs providing this today or have announced it. I want to talk >to them.) This way the researchers can take advantage of the extra >bandwidth they're paying for and the undergrads can continue using what >they're using today. > I would suggest the following.... The institution in the situation you describe, procure an ATM interface to the provider. Have the provider two PVC's. Set both PVC's for EPD. Contract the Researchers PVC as a VBR PVC, and contract the other as a ABR or UBR PVC. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C. > >Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer >zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications >+1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

1 0

RE: Registry Operational Requirements
by Jim Fleming 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

On Wednesday, October 09, 1996 6:23 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @ On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > It now looks like Michael Dillon will take those matters up over @ > on the "newdom" mailing list. For people that are not allowed @ > to actively be part of the "newdom" list, the archive is at... @ > <http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom> @ @ That's right Jim, because discussions about new international Top Level @ Domain registries belong there. Please don't broadcast my writings on the @ subject to other forums that they do not belong in. @ I see that you have no problem taking what I wrote on inet-access and using it to post over in "newdom". I guess your rules do not apply to yourself. By the way, when you do that on the "newdom" list it might be good to place the proper attributions on the writings. Also, who are you to decide which "forums" things belong in? Are you in charge of that sort of decision making in Canada? @ > For the record, it is curious that Michael Dillon continues to ask @ > Bill Manning about what the "IANA" will do, despite the fact that @ > Fred Baker, the IETF chair, indicated that Bill Manning's name @ > was not on a recent list of IANA members. @ @ Hey, it never hurts to ask. IANA people aren't the only ones that know @ what is going on. They aren't a secret society you know. They do talk with @ a lot of other people and I'm guessing that Bill Manning, a well known @ IETF member, is one of those people. @ Is the IANA membership list published anywhere...? @ > In my opinion, ISPs have the right to know what sort of operational @ > requirements are being proposed to operate a "registry". @ @ Most ISP's could care less about this because it will have minimal effect @ on them. A few may wish to spend some money and take a chance on the @ new TLD registry business. Those ISP's can send a "subscribe" message to @ newdom-request(a)ar.com and read http://www.memra.com/ndbg.html for @ background info. @ ...as well as... General http://www.alternic.net Boardwatch Magazine Article - October 1996 http://www.boardwatch.com/mag/96/oct/bwm9.htm How to change your DNS to support EDNS http://www.alternic.net/howto.html NSF Article from recent conference at Harvard http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/bradner.html Sample Registries with Lame Delegation Checking .CORP top level domain registry http://www.mcs.net/nic/index.html .USA top level domain registry http://www.agn.net/USA-DOMAIN.html -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

3rd party ram for cisco 7000
by Eric Kozowski 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

Can anyone forward to me a list of "approved" ram for the cisco 7000 RP? I searched CCO, but couldn't find it there... -- Eric Kozowski Senior Network Engineer eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (503)656-3235 FAX Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (800)881-0962 Voice http://www.structured.net/ "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" -- 56k to DS1

3 2

Registry Operational Requirements
by Jim Fleming 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

Most ISPs are very busy trying to keep everything running and trying to grow their businesses. As some of you may have read, I asked Bill Manning, about the status of one of the documents he was working on as shown below. Bill indicated, "that topic is not something that I will persue on inet-access". No reason was provided. As you will note, Mr. Manning casually mentioned the "ad-hoc" committee. One is probably left to guess that this is the ISOC Ad-Hoc committee mentioned in... <http://www.isoc.org/whatsnew/itlds.html> Even though it does not appear that the ISOC has announced the members of the committee, obviously some people feel that they are already doing work for that committee. Maybe the ISOC can shed some light on that? It now looks like Michael Dillon will take those matters up over on the "newdom" mailing list. For people that are not allowed to actively be part of the "newdom" list, the archive is at... <http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom> @@@@@@@@@@ http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom/2031.html newdom Ad Hoc committee Michael Dillon (michael(a)memra.com) Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:08:34 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Bill Manning wrote: > > Several ISPs have asked me about the facilties they would need > > to be considered "industrial strength" for a registry. As far as I > > know, your document addresses those issues. > The document I am working on is for the ad-hoc > committee. But that topic is not something > that I will persue on inet-access. So, are draft versions of your document publicly available? Are any other ad-hoc committee documents publicly available? Would IANA publicly make available any data on the preliminary applications for registry status that they have received? If so, would they indicate the number of TLD's which have been mentioned in more than one preliminary application and the number of organizations which would potentially be in conflict assuming that all such applications were accepted. And how many preliminary applications are currently known from each country (not named countries, just country A, country B). A number of people on this list, some just lurking right now, intend to apply to the ad-hoc committee for TLD registry status. Is there any advice you could give those people as to what actions they might want to take right now. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ For the record, it is curious that Michael Dillon continues to ask Bill Manning about what the "IANA" will do, despite the fact that Fred Baker, the IETF chair, indicated that Bill Manning's name was not on a recent list of IANA members. In my opinion, ISPs have the right to know what sort of operational requirements are being proposed to operate a "registry". If the requirements are such that only certain ISPs can participate, then that favors those people. ISPs and network operators have a large stake in operating registries. In my opinion, they should have some input into that planning process. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:23:47 -0400 (EDT) Dorian R. Kim wrote: >This sort of proposal, i.e. building a Higher Ed private network for >research, is in and of itself not such a bad thing. > >The grow of Internet since NSFNet shut down has put serious strains on the >infrastructure that researchy folks used to use to do(and still do) their >various work on. How will throwing OC48 pipes at the university network solve the problem? Today a common university has about 10,000 PCs each with sound cards and the kids all do CuseeMe and Vocaltec. 3 years down the road they will all have VR gear attached to their PC in the dorm and will be doing netgaming in the evening. So the OC48 pipes gets stuffed and the researchers complain. Universities will use whatever bandwidth you throw at them. The reason for this is that within the university, access and use is unlimited and uncontrolled. The student and the professor have equal access from their workstation. That is why the Israeli university consortium has come up with a different solution. It is called chokepoint. A unix system that acts as a firewall/gateway. If the total access speed to the Internet is T1 then at the chokepoint one can define that port80 can use a maximum of 700kb. And one can define that telnet is guaranteed 30kb. And that 10.2.1.1 is guaranteed 128kb no matter what. This way, faculty server and faculty workstations can be given priority over student access. In addition, no one faculty member can "hog" the system. Faculty can even pay to the chokepoint to improve their service over others. An entire set of rules based on protocol and IP address can be set up and implemented. They have been running this way for the past 6 months. Perhaps rather than throwing $10M at the Internet II to buy more uncontrolled bandwidth, perhaps they would be interested in funding further research and development of this "chokepoint" to control better their taxpayer paid for resources? I am sure the Israeli university consortium would be willing to help their American counterparts. :-) >-dorian, speaking strictly for himself. Hank Nussbacher Israel

2 1

NANOG Registration
by Pam Ciesla 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

The attendee list for the NANOG Meeting has been updated on the web. If you are not on the list and have registered please contact me. Update done 10/9 at 11:30AM EST. NOTE: Last day for registration is Wednesday, October 16. Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by swolff＠cisco.com 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 3:41 PM 96-10-08, Scott Huddle wrote: >Isn't this the same mission as the vBNS? The I-II's GigaPOPs are likely to have other interconnects besides the vBNS, but the vBNS is a component of the I-II architecture. There was one slight mismatch in that I-II is intended for general academic use whilst the vBNS basically required case-by-case usage approval; this has however been rectified by a recent NSF ruling. -s Stephen Wolff Business Development ciscoSystems 202 337 1213

1 0