- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Why aren't ISPs providing stratum 1 NTP service?
by dgaudet＠hotwired.com 23 Jul '96

23 Jul '96

In article <hot.mailing-lists.nanog-199607222012.AA05135(a)jotun.EU.net>, Per Gregers Bilse <bilse(a)EU.net> wrote: >Yep, works. Management isn't a problem if each box is fitted with >two interfaces and addresses, one for public consumption of contents, >one for internal use. Not that we have done any of this for real (yet). I've actually been doing that here for months (different service and mgmt addresses). If you dig www.hotwired.com both those addresses exist on two machines, and are on loopbacks. There's a bunch of nice tricks you can pull. But I feel like I'm going to get flamed for straying away from network operations. Oops. Dean

1 0

Canadian routes with BGP no-export communities
by Sean Donelan 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

Does anyone know what's going on in Canada? In the last couple of weeks fONOROLA/iStar.net changed how they announce aggregated networks. Now fONOROLA is sending some more specific network announcements for multi-homed networks in 198.53.0.0 with a "no-export" BGP community to MCI, and ANS. As long as you only connect with MCI or ANS, and use their IGP, things look pretty typical because the more specifics are carried internally. But if you use BGP, the no-export means any peers with MCI won't see the more specific network announcement from MCI. The problem shows up when you see routes from Sprintlink. A few Canadian network connect through Sprint/Canada as well as fONOROLA. The more specific networks from 198.53 are announced by Sprintlink. Since the no-export suppressed the more specific announcement to MCI BGP peers, the traffic for those Canadian sites follows the more specific network announcement and heads for Sprint. I understand the BGP mechanics are working as specified, so it isn't "broken" per se. But I'm just wondering if Canadian sites really expect traffic to go via Stockton, California? I haven't been able to reach anyone at fONOROLA/Istar. I was just wondering if any other North American network operators had heard what was supposed to happen last month when fONOROLA made these changes. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

5 4

NANOG spamming?
by Hank Nussbacher 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

Have other received this spam from an outfit located at MAE-Dallas? Is this a harbinger of spams to come? -Hank ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: hank(a)ibm.net.il From: Internet Resources Group <F00103200027894(a)[206.245.228.50]> Subject: Remote Web Site Monitoring Service Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 17:35:45 -0500 Greetings Webmaster! Internet Resources Group announces Red Alert Web Site Monitoring Service. Red Alert is an independent, off-site service that checks your essential URLs 4 times/hour, 24 x 7, and immediately pages or emails you if your site becomes inaccessible or returns incorrect data. Located in the MAE-Dallas building, Red Alert notifies you with intelligent alerts in cases of server crash, ISP outage or CGI failure. And Red Alert keeps you in control with a real-time, Web based user interface. Red Alert monitors Chase Manhattan Bank, First USA, VISA, PepsiCo, large ISPs including Internet America and MCI, entrepreneurs such as AudioNet, and small businesses worldwide. Try it risk-free for 30 days. No credit card required. Immediate activation. http://www.redalert.com/red07/ We look forward to serving you. Michael Martin, CEO 1.214.422.6364 1.214.422.6366 fax Internet Resources Group -- 821 Ashburn Place -- Plano TX 75075 USA PS--If this message is a duplicate, you may be on our announcement list under two different addresses. If so, please reply with "remove" in the subject. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il WWW: http://www.ibm.net.il/~hank ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: sell shell accounts?
by Avi Freedman 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

> If you have full use of the fiber across which you move your packets you > can create a mesh of PVCs directly connecting each router thus decreasing > the hop count. The same can be done when using an existing cell-relay cloud, > but you pay on a per pvc basis so the benefit needs to be weighed against the > cost. Of course the packets still flow along the same physical path and in a > wide area network the time in transit will be more significant than the time > to get through the routers. > > Jim Nope, remember - there is no magic. Any mesh of PVCs that one makes over a switched network must reflect the toplogy of that network, and one can set up a matching set of active routing sessions and route weights which will cause traffic to flow the same way. Yes, the switches are a bit faster and have less to do. Data moves through them in a few ms less per point. But as you said (and as I said in our discussion in NYC), relative to any distance, the speed of light guarantees that you won't notice the difference. The question is: Will there be routers available that can make IP routing decisions based on 40-60kroutes and move 2-3 OC3s worth of bidirectional traffic? The building of the configs to have a routed network work the same as a switched ATM one can be automated, but it's true that it *can be* easier to see what's going on in a large-scale switched network. Avi

9 21

Re: T3 or not to T3
by sob＠academ.com 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

> From stuff I've seen here and elsewhere I think the most important reason > for this is congestion at NAPs making it impossible to suck (or shove) > lots of bandwidth at anything but your provider's backbone. In using "NAPs" above, are you just talking about the NSF NAPs or all interconnections? I think it may be an overstatement to say that all NAPs are congested. Perhaps that not what you meant. My experience is that provider backbones are congested at times as well. It is unclear how fast providers can address these types of problems. My experience is that providers often don't have large enough ingress into the NAPs. So, sometimes the NAPs are congested and sometimes the providers have inadequate facilities to make the best use of the NAPs. > I haven't considered yet the maintenance/logistical cost of managing > 15 T1s to 6 or 7 providers vs. the "ease" of two frac-T3s to two providers. Generally for each connection to each provider, you would have to set up BGP. This will have some cost in processing and memory in your border routers. This will also involve dealing with full routing information and maintaining valid filters relating to the the changes that occur in other parts of the Internet. I believe that some providers have people who spend full time just doing this task, so you might have to allocate the same resources to do that. -- 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.

5 5

[fwd] CIX announces relocation
by Paul Ferguson 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

I may have missed discussion on this earlier, but I see that CIX has decided to relocate to the Digital exchange. - paul [excerpt: 07-19-96 at 08:48 EDT, Business Wire] > >HERNDON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE) via Individual Inc. -- The Commercial >Internet Exchange (CIX), a non-profit trade association representing >160 Public Data Internet Service Providers, announced today it is >relocating its router from Santa Clara, California, to a Digital >Equipment Corporation (Digital) facility in Palo Alto, California. >Relocating the router, which provides many of CIX members with an IP >interconnection, is designed to provide the membership with reduced >operating costs and a higher quality of service at a co-location >facility with "hands-on" technical support. > >CIX's router and related facilities have been replicated at the Digital >facility, called the Digital Internet Exchange. Testing is currently >underway, with the cutover scheduled for July 18, 1996. The interconnection >will continue to be called the CIX NAP. The CIX router, currently located >at the Wiltel facility, will be maintained as members are transitioned to >the new facility. > [snip]

1 0

Re: T3 or not to T3
by Sean Doran 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

Dorian Kim writes: | Agreed. IMO, the best place for these things is one hops away from an XP, | either in a provider's network or behind a content provider's router that's | connected to the XP. Wrongthink. For righthink, please see ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/talks/vj-webflame.ps.Z Pay _particular_ attention to pages 9 and 11. Please also see the excellent work by the NLANR and Squid folks, which while not quite perfectly rightthink, is a much better set of things to spend brainpower on than worrying about multiple T1s and T3s and the like. http://www.nlanr.net/Cache/ Run with these ideas. Otherwise, you will be in this rathole answering the same questions Dean Gaudet has asked, only for tens, then hundreds and then thousands of people. I suspect that we are already, as a group of smartish people, answering these questions multiple times. Meanwhile, the people thinking of producing content for mass-availability should pay attention to page 13 (the last page) of the same set of viewgraphs. Well, unless you like the fact that the popularity of your content makes it expensive for you to make it available, either due to big bills or spending many hours pondering ugly solutions to precisely the sort of problem being discussed in this thread. There will be a quiz. Sean.

1 0

Re: T3 or not to T3
by sob＠academ.com 22 Jul '96

22 Jul '96

> I'm not clear on the distinction -- but since the first location we > want to do this would be based in San Francisco, I'm referring mostly to > mae-west, the pacbell nap, and CIX. Only one of these is an NSF NAP (PAC*BELL in San Francisco). > >Generally for each connection to each provider, you would have to set up > >BGP. > > Yeah, definately. But most backbones seem to have "customer routes" as > an option, and if I trust them enough to get those routes correct then > I will hopefully not have to bother with extreme amounts of filtering. If you pursue getting that option, there will still be some routes that you will get via a transit connection that will have to pass through some interconnect. That means you are still going to to depend on some interconnect somewhere. Of course, if you don't have a transit agreement anywhere, you just won't see these routes at all. > It's pretty easy to enforce "no transit" at the packet filtering level > -- only packets destined for my nets will be allowed in. Is there some > other aspect of filtering I'm forgetting about? We have a dedicated > and backup network engineer at any rate. The border router would be a > cisco 7200 or 7500 series with 128Mb. The main thing is to insure that you don't get route announcements from places you don't expect them and that you do get them from places you do expect them. Expectations will change from time to time as changes in the routing mesh do occur. That means that your routing folks will have to monitor for such changes and make adjustments from time to time. The RA (and others) have been doing such monitoring and you can get some idea how such things affect you by looking at some of their work. -- 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.

1 0

Re: sell shell accounts?
by Brett D. Watson 20 Jul '96

20 Jul '96

> > Acceptable arguments are: > > > o Switches can handle more throughput > > That's difficult to quantify in theory *or* practice. > > > o Switched networks are easier for humans (or at least, humans without > > huge brians && many internal registers) to design/debug/maintain. > > More levels of indirection does not mean it's easier for humans necessarily. > In fact, there are many more nobs to miss, and more places for error to > be introduced into your engineering model. i would agree strongly. putting a bunch of switches between two routers makes troubleshooting that much more involved. if i can't get a packet from router A to router F (assuming B,C,D,and E are atm switches) where has the link broken down? you have to go to each switch and look at incoming/outgoing cells to see which is not sending or receiving. this scenario definately makes more work for the network operator doing the troubleshooting. it certainly doesn't make things *easier*. -brett

1 0

Re: sell shell accounts?
by Brett D. Watson 20 Jul '96

20 Jul '96

> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Avi Freedman wrote: > > > I assume that the mondo-routers have a switching engine, and the > > only job of the main CPU/gated combo is to feed the current idea > > of the best next-hop/interface to the engine. > > Current mondo-routers like Netstar uses a switch fabric to parallelise > switching. It becomes pretty obvious that at OC-N speeds current serial > backplane architecture doesn't scale > > Handling routing updates, unlike switching packets, is more a function of CPU > and software routines. and the last time i worked on a netstar gigarouter (admittedly months ago) it was a long way from really doing solid routing (bgp, etc). maybe it's much improved now? -brett

1 0