- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Matt Mathis 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

> Sounds great. It all sounded great until it got to the part about > "federal funding". I, for one, have a problem with my tax dollars > going towards some professor being able to gawk at another > professor in a videoconference. Part of the reason that this was ok was that the NSF was likely to be picking up the tab for the alternative: a conventional dialed voice call, at about 3 orders of magnitude higher price than the T3 NSFnet's actual costs. People using the NSFnet for AUP compliant voice only saved the taxpayers money. 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: one default free, 100k routes, typical peak user data rates near ISDN, to optimally support the retail market. A second parallel infrastructure only needs to support 1000 (rock solid stable) routes, with (local) default routes over to the retail network and sufficient traffic head room to keep the researchers happy. The parallel network would be a premium service, with charges per route as well as per connection. It could be trivially built today (Is being?....) with todays technology, and it could interconnect many of the existing R&E networks (vBNS, NSI, ESnet, etc). Since the R&E networks can scale back the routing problem, they can afford more detailed routing policies and a branchier layer 2, supporting better global path optimization. The hard part is getting all of the peering arrangements in place such that traffic between the premium services of the different providers does not pass through the congested retail infrastructure. Internet II and the like are good things. No question! --MM--

1 0

all [0s|1]'s subnets
by Zachary DeAquila 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

I keep running into people (Ascend tech support, joeblow ISP tech support off the street) that say that it's improper to use the all 0s or all 1's subnets (ie .0 and whatever has .255 in it). Since CIDR, I thought the philosophy was 'use everything', but I can't seem to find the explicit recommendation to start using the .0 subnet... can anyone help with a pointer to the pertinent RFC ? --Zachary

6 6

Internet, Too
by mo＠uu.net 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

gee - it's nice to know there is someone out there who isn't hampered by all those nasty physical limitations that beset us mere mortals building networks. I guess that's what it means to be a Full Professor with Tenure: You speak, and the speed of light promptly adjusts.... Damn! What a deal! -mo

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Ken Lam 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 04:01 PM 10/8/96 -0500, Paul J. Zawada wrote: > >At 04:13 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Richard Stiennon wrote: >>At 03:41 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Scott Huddle wrote: >>>Isn't this the same mission as the vBNS? >>> >> >> University Internet Proposed >> >>No, it sounds like a way for the Universities to upgrade from their T1 >>connections without making room in their budgets! > >Sort of... > >It's a way for Universities to talk to _each_other_ at higher speeds without >having to pay for the *ahem* value "added" by the Internet. Higher-Ed >institutions want to talk to each other at higher speeds but don't >necessarily want pay for their undergrads' (or professors' for that matter) >ability to download nudie-GIFs 20x faster. Persons have already hashed the vBNS issue around a bit. What is going to keep that INET2 from becoming the nudie network? Since most business customers via ISPs are dialed in (even on ISDN), I can't imagine the network capacity used for illicit transfers being high. However, in ethernet connected dorms and labs on campuses with DS3 connectivity, there is significant possible network usage for illicit transfers, network games, etc. I can see it for the next version of DOOM. "DOOM the Final Frontier requires a IBMPC compat with P7-3000 or equivalent, Superdooper VGA, THX compatible soundcard, VR suit, and FDDI connection to INET 2 for optimal play". I see benefits for a EDU consortium like CIX's network with all the edus peered to each other. But there are far too many networks with overlapping purposes. Research/Education: NSF funds vBNS. NASA funds NSI. Both of these are used for "worthy" educational/research. And now Internet II. Defense: DoD has its own Internet'd networks. Business/Commercial: Then you have CIX. And the major NSPs/NAPs. While, there is nothing to be done about businesses (CIX,NSPs,NAPs) each building the same infrastructure over and over as long as they see $ in doing so. I think that someone has to draw the line on taxpayer funded networks. The effort needs to be made to consolidate these networks, cutting wasted resources. >So while there's no more money >in the budget for faster Internet connectivity, many university provosts >would be willing to spend more money for bandwidth if it were used for >"nobler" pursuits. Basically, they want the Internet they had 6 years ago >only faster. > >Internet II, if it happens, would be Higher-Ed's intranet. Agreed. I used to share that same Internet 6 years ago. I don't think another network is going to make that happen though. It will be just another thing to manage. Another BGP peer for the campus routers. Its resources will be used for other purposes than the original intent. -Ken --- Ken Lam lam(a)awod.com Integrated Technical Systems Systems, Networks, and Internet Solutions -- Defining Technology Today "'Plug and Play' was only applicable to the original ATARI(tm)"

1 0

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Justin W. Newton 09 Oct '96

09 Oct '96

At 06:01 PM 10/8/96 -0700, Eric Ziegast wrote: >If anything, it shows that there's a need for a higher level of >service than what's being provided to everyone jumping onto the >Internet bandwagon. Who pays for it is arbitrary - whether it's >the government or a Fortune 100 company, someone who sees value in >it will pay for it. hmm, ANX? It seems to me as if these two projects are similar. This could be an interesting experiment. If we have 2 parallel projects going on, one privately funded and one (possibly) funded by the government, which one ends up workin better in the end? We all have our opinions I am sure, but we may get to actually watch it happen. Justin Newton Internet Architect Erol's Internet Services

1 0

RE: My First Denial of Service Attack..... (fwd)
by salo＠msc.edu 08 Oct '96

08 Oct '96

> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 11:40:25 -0400 > From: Dave Van Allen <dave(a)fast.net> > To: "'inet-access(a)earth.com'" <inet-access(a)earth.com> > Subject: RE: My First Denial of Service Attack..... > [...] > and we had the name of the user, > their ISP, and other info in less than 15 minutes. Just out of curiosity, what is the penalty for this sort of activity? Note that people didn't seem to take software piracy very seriously until the Software Publishers Association was able to extract some fairly heavy fines from some large corporations. Up until that time, there was, in effect, no penalty for software piracy. (This sounds like a good NANOG topic for some adventuresome soul...) -tjs

6 7

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Scott Huddle 08 Oct '96

08 Oct '96

Isn't this the same mission as the vBNS? -scott > From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Tue Oct 8 13:20 EDT 1996 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Internet II is coming... > Date: Tue, 08 Oct 96 10:10:52 PDT > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov(a)cisco.com> > Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > Content-Type> : > text> > Content-Length: 2488 > > fyi > - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >From www.nytimes.com: > > October 7, 1996 > > University Internet Proposed > > By LAWRENCE M. FISHER > > A group of 34 research universities agreed last week > to create a new national network for higher > education, to be called Internet II, which will offer > higher speeds and more reliable service than the current > Internet. > > As described in the Oct. 11 issue of The Chronicle of > Higher Education, the new network is intended to deliver > the vastly higher speeds needed to allow the > simultaneous transmission of voice, video and data. > Internet II would give researchers the bandwidth they > need to enable distance learning, digital libraries and > on-line collaborative research. > > The organizers of Internet II say its advanced > capabilities will ultimately become available on the > existing Internet as commercial service providers find > ways to offer more bandwidth -- a bigger pipeline to > transmit a high volume of information -- at attractive > prices. The research universities have agreed to > establish and finance a new organization, with > membership fees to help create the network. They also > hope to get financing from telecommunications and > computer companies, as well as from the federal > government. > > "What we're trying to do is solve a whole bunch of > technical problems having to do with making the Internet > operate at a higher level of functionality," said > Michael Roberts, who has been working on the Internet II > proposal and is vice president of Educom, a consortium > of nearly 600 colleges and 100 companies that promote > computing in higher education. "What everybody needs is > something on the order of 10 times more bandwidth." > > According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, the > decision to move forward with the plan was made during a > meeting of campus technology officers in Chicago last > week. Computer science specialists from Pennsylvania > State and Stanford universities and the Universities of > California, Chicago, Michigan and North Carolina will > play leading roles in the network's development. >

2 1

Re: Internet II is coming...
by Richard Stiennon 08 Oct '96

08 Oct '96

At 03:41 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Scott Huddle wrote: >Isn't this the same mission as the vBNS? > >> University Internet Proposed No, it sounds like a way for the Universities to upgrade from their T1 connections without making room in their budgets! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Stiennon richards(a)netrex.com Director, Business Development http://www.netrex.com Netrex, Inc. Voice: 810-352-9643 Southfield, Michigan Fax: 810-352-2375 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Providing businesses and organizations with secure Internet solutions.

1 0

re: Process of opening trouble tickets.
by Rob Gutierrez 08 Oct '96

08 Oct '96

>From Mark Boolootian: > So, my meta-question is: Shouldn't there be an informal arrangement that > allows one provider to open a trouble ticket with another provider if the > providers peer with one another? We have always honored trouble tickets from any ISP, and we have opened TT's with MCI. We're a customer of Sprint, so I can't speak of any problems we've had in regards to trouble tickets with Sprint. rob

1 0

Internet II is coming...
by Yakov Rekhter 08 Oct '96

08 Oct '96

fyi - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From www.nytimes.com: October 7, 1996 University Internet Proposed By LAWRENCE M. FISHER A group of 34 research universities agreed last week to create a new national network for higher education, to be called Internet II, which will offer higher speeds and more reliable service than the current Internet. As described in the Oct. 11 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, the new network is intended to deliver the vastly higher speeds needed to allow the simultaneous transmission of voice, video and data. Internet II would give researchers the bandwidth they need to enable distance learning, digital libraries and on-line collaborative research. The organizers of Internet II say its advanced capabilities will ultimately become available on the existing Internet as commercial service providers find ways to offer more bandwidth -- a bigger pipeline to transmit a high volume of information -- at attractive prices. The research universities have agreed to establish and finance a new organization, with membership fees to help create the network. They also hope to get financing from telecommunications and computer companies, as well as from the federal government. "What we're trying to do is solve a whole bunch of technical problems having to do with making the Internet operate at a higher level of functionality," said Michael Roberts, who has been working on the Internet II proposal and is vice president of Educom, a consortium of nearly 600 colleges and 100 companies that promote computing in higher education. "What everybody needs is something on the order of 10 times more bandwidth." According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, the decision to move forward with the plan was made during a meeting of campus technology officers in Chicago last week. Computer science specialists from Pennsylvania State and Stanford universities and the Universities of California, Chicago, Michigan and North Carolina will play leading roles in the network's development.

1 0