- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Hank Nussbacher 01 Sep '96

01 Sep '96

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:04:05 -0700 Paul A Vixie wrote: >Since I use programmable routers, I plan to reprogram them such that when >an interface output queue is full or getting full, and it's time to do >Van's trick of "pick a number from 1 to N+1 and destroy that packet", the >chance of a UDP getting blasted will be higher than for a TCP. > >This is predicated on (1) TCP is mostly well behaved, except when it comes >form a Netscape browser opening too many (more than one) simultaneous TCP >connection to the same destination; (2) UDP apps I care about, like DNS, >will do reasonable things like fallback and timeout and retry; and (3) it >is OK to violate the layering if it makes your network stop melting. > >If you think this would be a useful feature, ask Cisco to make it part of SPD. > We have a user who has been doing this for around 3 months now. They have a setup as follows: T1-cisco-Unix-cisco-LAN. The Unix box works as a programmable router for the T1 traffic. When someone started running 5 concurrent ping -f sessions, saturating the T1 line with ping packets, the Unix box was instructed to take the ping traffic and move it to a buffer and freeze it there for 4 seconds and then let it move onward. This caused the pings to slow down. He has it now set with different buffer sizes and different freeze periods for different protocols i.e. telnet gets 0 time in the freezer whereas http can go up to 540kb/sec and anything over that the pkts start getting put in the buffer-freezer. Since they pay per GB to IBM for their Internet capacity they have used this box as a method to limit traffic during peak hours. Hank

1 0

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
by Hank Nussbacher 01 Sep '96

01 Sep '96

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 01:47:38 -0700 Vadim Antonov wrote: >Generally speaking, at least 70% of users already have metered >access of that kind (in form of per-hour connect time charges), >so in this sense Internet is metered already, and was like that >for years. Obviously that's not "metering" Metcalfe et al >are calling for. > >(BTW, i know providers who do attempt to charge differently >for local and international traffic by counting packets, >but they have developed quite a lot of software and have the >financial and legal framework to support it. The fact that >they don't have anything faster than E-1 helps a lot, too.) I think you are confusing dialup and leased line capacity planning models. They are inherently different. If I have a POP in City A with a T1 to my backbone, I pretty much know how many dialups I can support. I do not say that 53 28.8kb dialup users will saturate my T1 since statistical models show that will not happen. Every ISP has their own stats which may range from 200-1000 simultaneous users depending on their pricing structure and how serious they are about being an ISP. But I do not have to worry that a lone user running CuSeeMe (or even SmellU/SmellMe (see realaroma.com/realaroma.cgi) :-)) since the worst they can do is max out at 28.8kb on the T1 line. On the other hand, if I have a number of leased line customers connected to that T1 POP, some are 64kb, some are 256kb and some are T1, then my model alters since the T1 users can indeed max at the full speed of the line and others can utilize 15% of the line as compared to 1% for a dialup user. Yes, the statistical model shows they will even out, some will use 1%, some 10% and others will use 80% but in the end it all evens out. But that lone wolf T1 client can indeed saturate my line, especially if it is a garage ISP with 1000 users from the neighborhood offering flat $9.95 and having a modem bank of 96 modems. Or a small startup with every user doing RealAudio during the day. Just look at the example of the NANOG poster who had to move ISPs since his thruput was high enough to double his costs so he moved to a flat rate ISP. Those flat rate ISPs will quickly load up with these thruput heavy users and in the end either lose money every year or go bankrupt. The trend is for flat rate dialup and usage based rates for leased line. Those ISPs that ignore that trend will not last. The kicker is Cable/VSAT. A consumer that is offered 2Mb-10mb to the home via cable or DirecPc (bidirectional) for say $50 flat rate will single-handedly be able to overrun the backbone line of the POP. Those ISPs that intend to charge flat rates for high speed home usage are "hoping" that the usage pattern will be like dialup users rather than leased line users. Not! It won't be long before that garage ISP with 96 28.8kb modems and a T1 line moves it to his bedroom and figures out how to connect that modem bank to his 2Mb/sec cable TV Internet system. And all you need is one like that in every neighborhood of a thousand. But when I specify usage based rates I am referring to a simple meter like the gas company, not a complex meter like the phone company. As someone else stated, telco's are approaching 50% costs for billing due to their overwhelming complexity between local, long distance, international, time of day, length of call, services used, etc. Gas and most electric companies charge a flat rate per usage, no matter what time of day you use it. Their billing costs are far less than telcos. ISPs, in order to survive, had best not follow the telco model of billing complexity, but instead follow the utility company model of simple billing. KISS. > >--vadim > Hank

1 0

Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
by Daniel W. McRobb 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

> Daniel W. McRobb <dwm(a)ans.net> wrote: > > > >1-2 million is not much. Even in the NSFNET days, I worked w/ > > >5-million-cell net matrices. All it takes is memory and some CPU. > > > > 1-2 _simultaneoulsy_, not over period of time. The 1-hr matrix > > would be two orders of magnitude bigger. > > >A typical 1 hour matrix is considerably smaller. Even a core router > >who carries 40,000 routes will not see anywhere near 40,000 * 40,000 > >cells in a one hour period, or even 2 million cells. Not in my > >experience. Even the NAP and MAE routers where I've collected this data > >have seen net matrices only on the order of (10^3) to (10^5) for a one > >hour period. > > That's _host address_ matrix, not network address matrix. It is at least > three orders of magnitude bigger. Who said host-to-host matrix? I have not needed that granularity for finding traffic that's coming into our backbone at an ingress that it should not traverse. I think for the provider crowd, net traffic matrices and AS traffic matrices are very useful and host matrices are too fine in terms of granularity to be useful. Of course I said that here a while ago. It's really up to the provider and it's just my opinion (because net and AS traffic matrices been very useful to us). It was fairly easy to get this kind of data from the NSS routers. The Ciscos have the instrumentation to let you get this data as well. Whether or not you can enable it on a particular box depends on whether or not the box in question can handle it (not running out of CPU cycles or memory). And of course you need a machine you can export to that won't roll over and die (or just drop packets). I think in many cases, it's really no problem to enable flow switching and export to a pretty whimpy workstation. And for the very busy routers, flow switching in and of itself is probably more likely to cause problems than the export will cause for a modern workstation. At some point that may change (of course that's the router vendor's issue). I know that in our case, there are several points on the ANS backbone where we can potentially enable flow switching and export the flow stats. We haven't done that yet (because I'm still working w/ Cisco to get the data), but it will probably happen at some point in the future. Daniel ~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Carl Oppedahl 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

At 02:22 PM 08/31/96 -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: >>Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: >>- the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, >>- the never-ending risk of loss of a domain name (with only 30 days' >>warning) that any domain name owner faces even if they aren't infringing >>anybody's trademarks, >>- the very few steps that a domain name owner can take to reduce the risk of >>loss of a domain name. > >Personally, I suspect the FNCAC is the more appropriate forum for public >complaints about NSI's activities under their cooperative aggreement. The >FNCAC usually meets sometime around October too. Policy and Politics are >their specialty. > >*BUT* since NSI has made presentations at NANOG about their domain dispute >policy in the past, I suppose its only fair to hear from the loyal opposition. I am unaware of whether NSI is on the agenda for the October NANOG meeting. But if it is, then I do urge those who would attend NSI's presentation to seek out the domain name owner's point of view as well. NSI's position is essentially adversarial to that of the domain name owners, a point that NSI doesn't disclose in its presentations. >I would ask any such presentation be time-limited, the audience agrees to >sit quietly in their seats, and scheduled as the last thing in the day, so >the rest of us can adjourn to the bar early. Ideally the NSI and domain-name-owner-side presentations would be back-to-back. End of the day is fine with me. Carl Oppedahl

3 2

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Sean Donelan 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

>Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: >- the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, >- the never-ending risk of loss of a domain name (with only 30 days' >warning) that any domain name owner faces even if they aren't infringing >anybody's trademarks, >- the very few steps that a domain name owner can take to reduce the risk of >loss of a domain name. Personally, I suspect the FNCAC is the more appropriate forum for public complaints about NSI's activities under their cooperative aggreement. The FNCAC usually meets sometime around October too. Policy and Politics are their specialty. *BUT* since NSI has made presentations at NANOG about their domain dispute policy in the past, I suppose its only fair to hear from the loyal opposition. I would ask any such presentation be time-limited, the audience agrees to sit quietly in their seats, and scheduled as the last thing in the day, so the rest of us can adjourn to the bar early. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG
by Paul Ferguson 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

At 01:11 PM 8/30/96 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Analysis of Actual End to End Performance accross the NAPs/MAEs >> An excellent topic, to be sure, but how do you propose that this be >> measured? > >And there's a subject for a NANOG panel in itself. > >I can think of some interesting experiments that would involve cooperation >of multiple peers. But there are folk far better based in measurment than I >who might suggest some fun stuff. Guy, Steve, ..., this is your cue. > >randy > ... And it might even be nice for someone who is active in the IETF Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) to participate. [ref: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html] - paul

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by salo＠msc.edu 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:33:33 -0400 > To: "Susan R. Harris" <srh(a)merit.edu>, nanog(a)merit.edu > From: Carl Oppedahl <carl(a)oppedahl.com> > Subject: Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names? > [...] > Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: > > - the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, > [...] While I don't necessarily like the tone of the e-mail message, I think it would be interesting to hear an independent legal opinion of the issues. Perhaps, a little about the legal background, (e.g., trademark law), a summary of what issues are fairly clear from a legal perspective, a descriptions of the areas where the legal answers are not yet clear, and the level of risk to various parties. On the other hand, I don't know that NANOG is the right forum for this. Any suggestions for a better forum? -tjs

2 1

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Carl Oppedahl 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

At 02:08 PM 08/30/96 -0400, Susan R. Harris wrote: >Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the Oct. 24-25 NANOG >agenda: [deleted] >Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? Is there any interest in a presentation explaining: - the latest changes in NSI's flawed domain name trademark policy, - the never-ending risk of loss of a domain name (with only 30 days' warning) that any domain name owner faces even if they aren't infringing anybody's trademarks, - the very few steps that a domain name owner can take to reduce the risk of loss of a domain name. The owner of clue.com, a computer consultant in Colorado, is in *two* lawsuits with NSI in an effort to keep from losing the domain name. After he got a court order directing NSI not to cut off the domain name, NSI sued him back in federal court asking for permission to cut it off. All because Hasbro wants it for a board game. The owner of regis.com, a public relations firm in California, is in a lawsuit with NSI to try to keep from losing its domain name. All because a cosmetics company wants it. The owner of disc.com, a software company in Colorado whose four initials spells "disc", is in *two* lawsuits with NSI to keep from losing the domain name to some other company that has the same four initials. In that one, too, NSI sued them back in federal court asking for permission to cut it off. The owner of dci.com, a company in Tennessee whose three initials spell "dci", had to sue NSI to keep from losing its domain name. Some other company with the same three initials asked NSI to cut it off, and NSI was happy to do it for them. And don't forget the case where the owner of ty.com (named after his three-year-old child, named "Ty") had to sue NSI to keep from losing it to some company called "Ty". (For more about all of this, see <http:www.patents.com/nsi.sht>.) Probably almost every attendee at Nanog is responsible for some domain name or another. To each attendee, I would say, what would you do if you were minding your own business, not infringing anybody's trademarks, and a letter showed up from NSI stating that they had scheduled a cutoff of your domain name in 30 days because some trademark owner had asked them to do so? If this topic would be of interest, let me know and I could probably help with setting up a panel to discuss it. Carl Oppedahl

2 1

Re: Agenda for next NANOG - interest in domain names?
by Scott Bradner 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

this does not seem to be a topic that nanog would profit from getting in the middle of. Scott

1 0

Re: Agenda for next NANOG
by Vern Paxson 31 Aug '96

31 Aug '96

> > I think your best bet is to run NPD. > > Huh? That looks at routing [in]stability, not goodput. Is this an > intentional red herring? While the routing study I presented at the Feb NANOG was based on measurements made using NPD, the daemon can also be used for taking TCP data. I'm right now analyzing a bunch of such and hope to have some results to present at the early '97 NANOG. That said, NPD (1) does *not* provide any *analysis* itself, just measurement, and (2) is far from industrial strength. So it's not something that someone can use right now for doing any sort of standardized measurement. Matt Mathis, Jamshid Mahdavi (both of PSC) & I are hoping to get funded to build an industrial strength version of NPD, along with the key pieces of the infrastructure for using it on a widespread basis, and analysis tools for automating measurements. If this comes through, then with luck we'll have something to present about it at the '97 NANOG, too. Vern

2 1