- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Worldly Thoughts
by Dave Paulsen 10 May '96

10 May '96

On 9 May 96 at 22:09, Alan Hannan wrote: > And yet, I fail to grasp why it is not in their best interest to > still include that group located in p%, NSP3's customers. Perhaps > because they'd rather have the customers? [pessimistic mode on]...that's kinda my gut level feeling, considering the way some of the national providers, and recent announcements by some of the RBOCs, tend to lead the uninitiated to believe the only way to reliably connect in a time sensitive and cost effective manner is with the big boys. _dave_(seemingly obligatory and definitely bandwidth wasting .sig)

1 0

Out of date contact information
by Sean Donelan 10 May '96

10 May '96

I hate to interrupt the ongoing discussion about peering, but I'd like to bring up another perennial topic, out-of-date network contact information. The larger, and older the company the harder it is to find the right contact person. Sure there are lots, and lots of lists; WHOIS at the InterNIC, lists kept by various NAP operators, even in in-addr.arpa TXT records. So many lists people have difficulty knowing what to update when people's responsibilities change. Suppose I wanted to find out Sprint's real policy this week, or a government agency network such as ESnet's Internet policy; who would I contact? The listed contact names don't seem to work, or are out-of-date. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

20 32

RE: Worldly Thoughts
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 10 May '96

10 May '96

> >From: Erik Sherk[SMTP:sherk@uunet.uu.net] > > >> From: David Schwartz aka Joel Katz[SMTP:stimpson@stimpson.igc.net] > >> Let's look at a hypothetical situation. ISP1 peers at MAE-E and > >> buys transit from MCI there. Now they ask Sprint to peer with them. > Let's > >> look at how they reach sites on the west coast. > > > >This is a violation of the rules of Mae-East: it is not to be used for > >customer connections. ISP1 must have a private connection to MCI. > > > >Erik > > Are you saying that MFS will not allow a private connection between two > routers located at the MAE facility, even if the connection is _not_ made > using the MAE FDDI switch, but is instead a direct (e.g. HSSI or AIP) > connection between the two routers?? If so, I haven't seen any > documentation to that effect... > -- > Jim Browning > > > I interpret it slightly differently. I think he is saying that if you buy transit from MCI, you can't do it across MAE East, but instead would need a private connection to MCI. Presumably this could be done at the MAE East site, as long as it did not congest the MAE East net. Owen

1 0

RE: Worldly Thoughts
by Jim Browning 10 May '96

10 May '96

>From: Alan Hannan[SMTP:alan@gi.net] > Pondering many things. I have certainly been trying my best to gain as complete an understanding of these 'things' as I possibly can while constructing a backbone, and so will offer my (hopefully not _too_ clueless) thoughts: > Why is it not in my best interest to talk to > NSPX at a meet point? > > My thought, conspiratorally, is that larger folks (NSP4) could > care less about talking to NSP3's p% of the net, when there is a > lower cost involved in talking to NSP4's q% of the net, > assuming q >>> p. > > And yet, I fail to grasp why it is not in their best interest to > still include that group located in p%, NSP3's customers. Perhaps > because they'd rather have the customers? Perhaps NSP4 believes (likely correctly) that NSP3 will pay NSP4 (or someone peering with NSP4), to ensure that NSP3 customers can talk to the (larger set of) customers served by NSP4? > Just because someone has 30% of the internet, they still have an > interest in connecting their 30% of the net to .1% of the net, no? Or expect the .1% to find a way to them? > Perhaps the geographic cost investment in transit to far-reaching > customers is sufficient. Somehow that doesn't answer the question > for me. > I'm not talking about transit, I don't think it's necessarily in > NSP3's interest to carry NSP4's traffic to NSP1. But NSP3-NSP4 I > can see as beneficial, w/ no dalliance. Clearly this issue is rooted in economics, involving costs (including the labor costs involved in maintaining what would be a large number of peering relationships) as well as the maximization of revenue potential. We have lost prospective customers because of our lack of NAP peering relationships, when the customer hadn't the faintest idea what the concept meant ("asking if we "paired" with anybody). My mental image of the whole picture is that, if NSP4 is going to accept traffic from a West Coast customer of NSP3 and haul it to their East Coast customer, they expect to be able to hand the return traffic back to you on the East Coast, not haul it to a single peering location in one part of the country. This is not transit in the sense that it crosses into other networks, yet it certainly requires the use of national infrastructure. I'm not sure this answers the question fully for me, either. > -alan > > "baring my heart for the wrath of all" May it bring us all closer to cluefullness... :) -- Jim Browning

1 0

FWD: Pacific Bell's LA NAP in service
by Kent W. England 08 May '96

08 May '96

Pac Bell has announced their LA NAP is operational. Contact and details below. --Kent ---------- I am pleased to announce that Pacific Bell has installed, tested and is ready for service at our LA NAP. If you are interested in service in the LA area please contact your Pacific Bell account representative or respond via email to nap-info(a)PacBell.com. The Los Angeles area StrataCom BPX ATM switch is designated HLWDCA01, located at 1429 N. Gower Street, 2nd floor, Hollywood, California. The NPA NXX information is 213 468. Initial service will be at the DS3 rate. With our upgrade to StrataCom's BPX release 8.1, scheduled for June '96, we will offer OC3c UNI access in both LA and Bay Area NAPs. NAP service continues to be offered under a California Public Utilities Commission approved Market Trial. Jim J. P. Diestel Director Internet NAP Marketing 510-824-7244 jpdiest(a)popper.pacbell.com

4 3

RE: FWD: Pacific Bell's LA NAP in service
by Jim Browning 08 May '96

08 May '96

>From: Matthew Kaufman[SMTP:matthew@scruz.net] >From: bmanning(a)isi.edu (Bill Manning) >> > On Tue, 7 May 1996, Kent W. England wrote: >> > >> > > Pac Bell has announced their LA NAP is operational. Contact and details below. >> > >> > Is there not already a MAE-LA? Why would thay have an LA NAP if even >> > MAE-LA hasn't taken off as of yet? >> > >> > Just a question. >> > >> > Christian Nielsen >> >> Yes, there is. I would expect that the NAP service is offering >> is an extention of the existing BayArea service. This approach >> reduces the cost of entry of entry for people you are in the So.Cal. >> area to a local loop charge. >> It appears that thye believe that a "distributed" service is >> more effective than two seperate exchanges. >As far as I know, PacBell wouldn't be permitted to extend PVCs between >the LA NAP and the SF NAP I have had several discussions with PacBell concerning NAP connections to both sites, and at no time have they indicated the ability to provide connectivity between them. To the best of my knowledge, they look at the two (SF and LA) as separate facilities. They are both 'virtual meet points' which utilize ATM connections into the PacBell cell relay clouds, but these clouds are isolated - they do not extend beyond the borders of each LATA. They expect you to obtain a circuit _into_ the LATA from an IXC. -- Jim Browning

1 0

Re: FWD: Pacific Bell's LA NAP in service
by matthew＠scruz.net 08 May '96

08 May '96

Original message <199605072153.AA13332(a)zephyr.isi.edu> From: bmanning(a)isi.edu (Bill Manning) Date: May 7, 14:53 Subject: Re: FWD: Pacific Bell's LA NAP in service > > > > > On Tue, 7 May 1996, Kent W. England wrote: > > > > > Pac Bell has announced their LA NAP is operational. Contact and details below. > > > > Is there not already a MAE-LA? Why would thay have an LA NAP if even > > MAE-LA hasn't taken off as of yet? > > > > Just a question. > > > > Christian Nielsen > > Yes, there is. I would expect that the NAP service is offering > is an extention of the existing BayArea service. This approach > reduces the cost of entry of entry for people you are in the So.Cal. > area to a local loop charge. > It appears that thye believe that a "distributed" service is > more effective than two seperate exchanges. > > > -- > --bill >-- End of excerpt from Bill Manning As far as I know, PacBell wouldn't be permitted to extend PVCs between the LA NAP and the SF NAP -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0

Metcalfe strikes again!
by Michael Dillon 07 May '96

07 May '96

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 09:49:10 +0100 From: Joe Bonin <webmaster(a)scescape.net> Reply-To: inet-access(a)earth.com To: inet-access(a)earth.com Subject: Recent article in US News Resent-Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 08:45:12 -0500 (CDT) Resent-From: inet-access(a)earth.com Interesting 1 page article in US News & WR May 6 issue page 59. Here is a summary of the article. --begin summary Quotes Bob Metcalfe inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3Com Corp. "The Internet is about to collapse and it's going to shake some of the naivete' right out of the industry." The most likely time will be July with the Olympic Committee and IBM planning to put the Summer Olympic video and sound on the Internet according to him. The problems stem from private companies. ANS, MCI, Netcom, UUNET and Sprint and others taking over the backbone in the last year from NSF. These companies now claim ownership of portions of the backbone. But where NSF gave out Internet traffic data the new players do not. As a result no single company has a decent gauge of what's going on. Also, the shared parts of the backbone has no single company incentive to improve them (i.e. no incentive to back each other up.) Rob Hagens, MCI director of Internet engineering views Metcalf's scenario as being extreme with others inspite of 1 1/2 hour brownout on its West Coast backbone early in April. He says "I believe we're going to be able to keep the Internet running." They are all racing to invest in high speed networks to keep ahead of demand which is growing 100% per year. --end summary

5 5

Re: I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 07 May '96

07 May '96

> BTW - do we want to mention "root" as the system administration of a > specific host to report things like "your multicast implementation is > broken and spewing ICMP packets" or other "fix that beast" messages. I don't think it's a good idea to mention "root". I've seen far too many cases of email to root being read very seldom, or not at all. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Re: E.164 SMDS addresses
by George H. Clapp 07 May '96

07 May '96

SMDS addresses are E.164 addresses, or telephony addresses. In the USA, SMDS addresses are taken from the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), which is consistent with E.164 addresses and is administered by Bellcore. You should contact whoever administers the telephone numbers for Mexico. You might contact the administrator of the NANP for guidance on who administers Mexico's address space. His address is... Jim Deak North American Numbering Plan Administration 6 Corporate Place, PYA 1G-278 Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-4157 (908) 699-6612 (908) 336-3293 FAX jnd2(a)cc.bellcore.com George Clapp voice: 201-829-4610 fax: 201-829-2504 page: 800-980-1298 email: clapp(a)bellcore.com At 10:55 AM 5/5/96 -0600, you wrote: > >We are preparing an SMDS service offering on the AcNet Network. We have >been unable to locate the party responsable for the assignment of the >"Network" portion of our SMDS addressing schema. > >Does anyone out there know where one applies for such an identifier >(E.164) for a new SMDS Network? > >Thanks for any advice one might offer. > > >R S Ashton The Ashton Group >P O Box 1175 Ashton Systems Corporation >Chula Vista, CA 91912-1175 USA Ashton-International Corporation >Voice: (619) 424-5362 Ashton Communications Corporation >Fax: (619) 424-5621 AcNet, AcBone, AcNode (R) > >The Ashton Group >Latin America >Apartado Postal 11-436 >Mexico, DF 06101 MEXICO > >Voice: (011-525) 230-2700 or Direct from the USA: (210) 668-6000 >Fax: (011-525) 230-2701 or Direct from the USA: (210) 668-6001 > > >

1 0