- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Why aren't ISPs providing stratum 1 NTP service?
by Sean Donelan 18 Jul '96

18 Jul '96

>> GI/MIDnet does this as well, and we've only had 3 takers...... > >Perhaps it's because you folks aren't listed in the web-based successor >to clock.txt?: I don't know why they aren't listed, but I'm not listed because DRA doesn't provide "public" NTP service. We provide NTP services to all our customers, though. How many of those customers realize they are getting NTP services is a different question. They tend not to complain when the clock is correct, only when it is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if this is similar to the thinking of other ISP's which provide NTP services to their customers, and aren't listed as public NTP servers. I'd be happy to send a listing into Dave Mills if folks think that is the right thing to do. Our marketing department loves to get the company name listed in as many places as possible. Or if the NTP folks aren't thrilled with the prospect of 7,000 different ISP's wanting to be listed, perhaps a note a the top of the list directing people to contact their ISP first. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: Digital's XP
by Sanjay Dani 18 Jul '96

18 Jul '96

>So is Digital going to become an NSP too? > >http://www.pcweek.com/news/0715/17edec.html Must be the best kept secret around unless this is a new name for CIX's Palo Alto location. http://www.ix.digital.com doesn't want to give more info either.

1 0

The root nameservers will be replaced August 1st
by Michael Dillon 18 Jul '96

18 Jul '96

If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally. Can they do this? Or are they bluffing? If you want to comment on issues related to top level domain names but not related to network operations, please, please, please post those comments to newdom(a)iiia.org only even if it means replying twice to this message. Believe me, you do *NOT* want to crosspost between NEWDOM and NANOG and you do *NOT* want to attract these discussions into NANOG either. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:53:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <karl(a)mcs.com> To: newdom(a)iiia.org Subject: Re: Issues on the table Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: newdom(a)iiia.org > >They're the official "top of command" for the root domain... > > Hypothetical, to help me understand: > > Says who? > > IANA runs their roots - what happens if AlterNIC gets enough people > to recognize their roots, and serves out their own TLDs? Does the > IANA have an enforcement branch? > > Please don't flame, I'm not trying to argue, just understand how this > all works. Seems to me that 2 entities are trying to be in charge. IANA > want to be in charge, and AlterNIC wants to share being in charge. Seems > that it can't be both ways, but what if they're both doing it? > > Christopher Ambler > President, Image Online Design, Inc. Well, let's see... What if someone, say Eugene, started showing up at major exchange points and major ISPs with, oh, say, "root nameserver in a box" systems? As in public root nameservers. As in distributed, across-the-country, on every major backbone root nameservers. Which, among other things, outperformed and were more stable than the current roots. What do you think might happen? :-) Hint: This is not a hypothetical question. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1 from $600 monthly; speeds to DS-3 available | 23 Chicagoland Prefixes, 13 ISDN, much more Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1] | Email to "info(a)mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Home of Chicago's only FULL Clarinet feed!

8 13

Re: Digital's XP
by sob＠academ.com 18 Jul '96

18 Jul '96

If I read this right, Digital is wanting to be a NAP operator, not an NSP. Anyway, the URL for more information, http://www.ix.digital.com, does not appear to work, so I am not sure what to believe. -- 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

Why aren't ISPs providing stratum 1 NTP service?
by scharf＠vix.com 18 Jul '96

18 Jul '96

I just crossed the 200th machine syncing of one of my stratum 1 servers. I like providing the service and it doesn't cost very much for me to offer the service. the problem I have with this is that NTP hates asymmetric routing, so the likelyhood is that for most people outside the provider that serves this machine, NTP time is suspect. It seems to me that the days when running a GPS refclock into an NTP server was exotic are long past. Why don't providers give NTP stratum 1 service to their customers? Then I can at least shed some of the most suspect clients (it's the routing path not the user that is suspect.) In search of good time for all, Jerry

4 3

Re: Why aren't ISPs providing stratum 1 NTP service?
by David C. Kovar 17 Jul '96

17 Jul '96

>It seems to me that the days when running a GPS refclock into an NTP server >was exotic are long past. Why don't providers give NTP stratum 1 service to >their customers? Then I can at least shed some of the most suspect clients >(it's the routing path not the user that is suspect.) > >In search of good time for all, >Jerry I looked into setting up a WWV based refclock a few months back for a client. We were unable to find a WWV capable clock for under a few thousand dollars. The old Heathkit one ($300 or so?) was no longer available and all of the other ones I found mentioned in the xntp docs were in the thousands. You mention using a GPS clock, while I've been looking into WWV. Can you point me to some, hopefully inexpensive, hardware that we could use to provide this service? -David

1 0

Re: The root nameservers will be replaced August 1st
by salo＠msc.edu 17 Jul '96

17 Jul '96

> To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: The root nameservers will be replaced August 1st > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:43:38 -0700 > From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > > > If the information in the following message means what I think it means in > > then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at > > exchange points within the USA if not internationally. > > Yes. However, we are expecting exchange point operators to show some kind > of common sense, which means asking the IANA before they sign onto such a > project. > [...] I would like to think that, at lease in a general sense, the exchange point operators will not ask their customers what type of traffic the customer expects to transmit across an exchange point. Granted, connecting a host to an exchange point might warrant greater scrutiny than connecting a network.... More interestingly, if someone wants to create an alternative set of root servers, there is no particularly good reason for them to be located at exchange points, (unless I am confused about what networks are all about...). True, servers at exchange points should exhibit greater availability, but that is probably not the largest challenge faced by alternative root servers. -tjs

1 0

Re: Why aren't ISPs providing stratum 1 NTP service?
by avg＠ncube.com 17 Jul '96

17 Jul '96

>From customer's point of view, getting stratum 1 service is not a good idea. The stratum 2 clocks tend to be more stable. I think it would be a good idea to stop providing startum 1 service to anybody but ISPs who would then provide s2 clocks straight out of their ciscos to customers thus avoiding the symmetry issues. Reducing load on s1 clocks is also a good thing, as it could improve accuracy. --vadim >I just crossed the 200th machine syncing of one of my stratum 1 servers. I >like providing the service and it doesn't cost very much for me to offer the >service. the problem I have with this is that NTP hates asymmetric routing, >so the likelyhood is that for most people outside the provider that serves >this machine, NTP time is suspect. > >It seems to me that the days when running a GPS refclock into an NTP server >was exotic are long past. Why don't providers give NTP stratum 1 service to >their customers? Then I can at least shed some of the most suspect clients >(it's the routing path not the user that is suspect.) >In search of good time for all, >Jerry

1 0

FYI: Internet gridlock article
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Jul '96

16 Jul '96

"Internet gridlock escalates, ISPs predict autumn Web brownouts" By Stephen Lawson InfoWorld Electric http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?960715.gridlockisp.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

re: problem at mae-west tonight?
by Rob Liebschutz 15 Jul '96

15 Jul '96

> The problem I have with the route server this evening is that I announce > my routes to the route server, and my policy configuration in the route server > reflects that I peer with Netcom, and so the route server tells Netcom how > to reach me. Unfortunately, packets leaving Netcom headed to me at layer 2 > are going into a black hole. To fix this, I've had to dump my peering with > the route server entirely, so that Netcom is only seeing my routes from AGIS > (our transit provider) and not from the route server. Ugh. My fears about > the route server not knowing the status of the layer 2 topology have come true, > and there's no way to fix this that doesn't involve manual intervention. > > -matthew kaufman > matthew(a)scruz.net > > Well, I run gated on a BSDI box for the Hooked MAE West router. I'm thinking about implementing a "pingnouse INTERVAL" option on the peer/group commands in gated, so it will periodically ping next hops received from the route servers and set the nouse bit if the nexthop is unreachable. Any better ideas? It would be nice to come up with a good mechanism for doing 3rd party keepalives that cisco and other router vendors would be willing to implement. Rob

5 5