- Test - lists.nanog.org

Sidelined?
by Jim Fleming 25 Apr '96

25 Apr '96

On Wednesday, April 24, 1996 3:44 PM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote: <snip>. @However, the market speaks loudly and those of us who do not listen @to it will find ourselves sidelined. I've never been given permission <snip> I am not sure what you mean by sidelined. As I see it, the Legacy Internet has years and years of life left in it. People will be able to debate everything from how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to whether or not angels exist and should all be given one of the scarce IPv4 addresses. After that, more debates will focus on IPv6. Just as the railroads were augmented by airlines, the Legacy Internet will hopefully be surrounded by more modern designs that have the luxury of building on the successful platform that you helped create. In my opinion, these new designs will demand very little change to the Legacy Internet and this will be good because changes to large systems are always very difficult. New designs will bank on the fact that changes will not likely occur and that people like yourself will keep the "trains" operating long enough for others to get the airlines flying. Fortunately, we do not need clearance (permission) from the railroads to fly over the tops of the trains moving slowly along the tracks. Someday, air traffic control will be needed and I hope that some of your technology is reused. I would hardly call this being sidelined. In the meantime, it does not make much sense to try to attach wings to railroad cars. At best, all we can hope is that the railroads will deliver lots of passengers to the air terminals. These passengers will be searching for more efficient, faster and lower-cost transportation solutions. They may not care if the plane has a V6 or a V8....:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 25 Apr '96

25 Apr '96

Tim Bass wrote: <skipped> Oh, here we go again; arguing against mathematics. "Social Engineering" is merely a way to organize a society so it won't behave in a self-destructive manner. Free market rules (private property, freedom of trading, etc) is also a form of social engineering. Attaching any religious value to it is silly and counterproductive. In most cases the free market is quite adequate as a regulator. However, Internet namespace *is* a monopoly; and free market approach does not work here. There's no other Internet to go to if you don't like pricing or features or performance of the current one (and i'm not sure we want to have an alternative Internet). The problem with the "infinite" resources like namespaces is that they aren't. Every single name added to .COM does not do much damage; but the cumulative effect is that the whole system is going straight into a brick wall. It is no different from route announcements in terms of social dynamics. The math is also very much the same. --vadim PS BTW, is there any kind of statistics for .COM NS-es on the diversity of requests per different time intervals? How many requests are handled by .COM NS-es every second?

3 2

None
by Edward Henigin 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

I can't reach the whois servers to get POC information for suranet or bbnplanet, thus I spam y'all. A traceroute from escape.com yields: [6:34pm] ~>traceroute knock.ser.bbnplanet.com traceroute to knock.ser.bbnplanet.com (192.239.16.129), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 Escape-gw.escape.com (198.6.71.1) 4.744 ms 7.341 ms 5.56 ms 2 sl-pen-7-S3/1-T1.sprintlink.net (144.228.67.37) 32.182 ms 25.065 ms 29.628 ms 3 sl-pen-1-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.60.1) 31.623 ms 34.746 ms 48.529 ms 4 sl-dc-6-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.33) 41.318 ms 35.605 ms 22.101 ms 5 sl-dc-8-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.20.8) 33.347 ms 14.038 ms 16.873 ms 6 sl-mae-e-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.42) 31.242 ms 45.161 ms 22.078 ms 7 cpe3-fddi-0.washington.mci.net (192.41.177.180) 27.496 ms 24.759 ms 25.055 ms 8 borderx2-hssi2-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.74.117) 38.741 ms 18.782 ms 16.053 ms 9 core1-fddi-1.Washington.mci.net (204.70.3.1) 40.078 ms 24.665 ms 24.12 ms 10 border1-fddi-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.2.2) 27.5 ms 26.435 ms * 11 suranet-wtn-ds3.Washington.mci.net (204.70.56.6) 81.886 ms 30.823 ms 18.012 ms 12 washdc2-br1.bbnplanet.net (128.167.7.8) 20.383 ms 14.938 ms 19.731 ms 13 collegepk-cr9.bbnplanet.net (128.167.212.1) 20.169 ms 21.512 ms 31.437 ms 14 collegepk-cr2.bbnplanet.net (128.167.252.2) 21.481 ms 27.512 ms 41.851 ms 15 knock.sura.net (192.239.16.129) 46.716 ms 30.679 ms 28.82 ms A traceroute from our server yields: millenium:/tmp$ traceroute knock.ser.bbnplanet.com traceroute to knock.ser.bbnplanet.com (192.239.16.129), 30 hops max, 40 byte pas 1 sa-gw.texas.net (204.96.20.1) 2.285 ms 7.453 ms 11.116 ms 2 border1-serial3-0.Dallas.mci.net (204.70.115.41) 42.385 ms 24.505 ms 17.s 3 core1-fddi-0.Dallas.mci.net (204.70.114.17) 15.846 ms 32.539 ms 41.997 ms 4 core1.Washington.mci.net (204.70.4.129) 85.212 ms 98.95 ms 102.686 ms 5 border1-fddi-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.2.2) 146.24 ms 79.149 ms 104.7s 6 suranet-wtn-ds3.Washington.mci.net (204.70.56.6) 125.784 ms 166.232 ms 1s 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * [ad nauseum]. I'm guessing either a routing problem by MCI, or by suranet. Can anyone out there help me? I've called and e-mail MCI's trouble system, but can't get any information on suranet's POC's. Thanks, Ed Henigin Texas Networking, Inc.

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

Hm, I know I may catch some flak for this, but... > [...] The YMBK proposal from the second NSF workshop will > almost certainly be the way of the future, and we will see a > lot more TLD's and hopefully no one of them will ever be as > ugly as .COM is now. It seems to me that the problem which pushes in the direction of lots of more TLDs is fairly US-specific, as the vast majority of registrants in the COM domain are US companies. Why, then, do you want to pollute the name space used for naming the national domain names with what is essentially a US-originating problem? Is there someone who thinks that trademark problems will be any less of a concern by creating lots of new TLDs -- won't a trade- mark owner be equally interested in protecting his rights in all the new TLDs, especially if the new TLDs are "generic"? - Håvard

2 1

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Paul J. Zawada 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

At 02:05 PM 4/24/96 +0200, Havard.Eidnes(a)runit.sintef.no wrote: >Is there someone who thinks that trademark problems will be any >less of a concern by creating lots of new TLDs -- won't a trade- >mark owner be equally interested in protecting his rights in all >the new TLDs, especially if the new TLDs are "generic"? Good point... Look at the introduction of the 888 prefix in the US. The FCC is still trying to figure about what to do about all of the companies that want their "vanity" 800 numbers replicated into the 888 numbering space. What's the point of making the name (or number, in the case of 888) space bigger if it's just going to be filled up with copies of what's out there already? --zawada Paul J. Zawada | Senior Network Engineer zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

1 0

Wyndham Bristol Hotel
by Pam Ciesla 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

There was a bit of confusion at the hotel regarding reservations for the NANOG Mtg. It was listed under Commercial Internet Exchange instead of NANOG. This has been corrected. If you have made reservations and did not get the special rate of $119.00 please reconfirm your reservations. Pam

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

Jon Zeef wrote: >> Flattening domain name tree by adding more TLDs is the Wrong Thing. >> It is totally bogus. >> >> How about ceasing .COM allocations altogether? There's .US and .INT. >Which have policies that make them not very usefull for offloading some >of .com. Heh. Are the policies written in stone? Is it gospel or something? Are we supposed to snap to attention as somebody says the magic word "policy"? I'd rather smack those who invent stupid policies on the head so they won't do that again. Can anybody please answer how did it happen that IANA allowed people who cannot come up with sane policies to hijack the country's domain? How did it happen that .US is close to useless? >First you say it's the wrong approach, then you suggest using that >basic approach. Wrong. Did i propose to create new TLDs? Switching from .COM to .US is good because it breaks the dot-envy feeding frenzy. And .US already has a mandatory tree structure in it. >More TLDs is the Right Thing for business reasons and to a small extent, >technically. To a *very* small extent. They're ultimately destructive from the social point of view. How do you propose to prevent the problem which happens in .COM now from repeating at top level? The only thing which kept top level domain from bloating is the strict policy of ISO coutry-codes only. I know several service providers which will start lobbying IANA for new TLDs the very next day it is allowed -- just because they percieve that registries run by competitiors have the ability to harm their business. And you have no way to find out if their claims have any merit. US is lucky to have InterNIC which is *not* in bit transport business. It is not like that in other places. Sorry, new TLDs is worse than non-solution. I've been there with .SU name allocation policies. As long as some guidelines (i.e. only geographical/major metropolitan first-level domains) were maintained everything was fine. They were abandoned for .RU -- and look what a mess it is now. Exactly like .COM. Why the alternative registries won't take subdomains of .US which are not used for states? (Or why not allocate names like <org>.<state><registry#>.US)? *Any* scheme limiting branching of a tree to some reasonable level is better than "new TLD" proposal which does not include any guidelines to that effect. Please do not dump US problems onto outside world. --vadim

1 0

Utah REP
by Christian Nielsen 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

The Utah Regional Exchange Point for the State of Utah is ready to be turned on. The first ISP/Companies will be connecting this week. We have worked on making sure that the Utah REP is able to handle traffic for anyone in the State of Utah. The Utah REP is an exchange point in Utah to bring together all the ISP/companies at one point to take the load off the Major NAPS and MAES around the country. At this time, it takes over 15 hops, traveles around the western US and a 25% packet loss to go about 5 miles. The Utah REP will allow companies to exchange traffic localy but will not be a replacement for their current connections. The Utah REP will be located at Triad 4. If one does not already have a connection at Triad 4 in Salt Lake City, one may bring a connection in. More information about the Utah REP can be found at http://www.utah.net or http://rep.utah.net We would like to thank all those who have helped out so far, Bill Manning, ISI, Dave Siegel, RTD, for the use of the REP name, and many others. For those of you in the Salt Lake City/Utah area, the monthly ISP lunch will be Thurs, May 2nd, yes, I know it is a little past April :), at the Panda on 17th and State. On Thursday night, May 9th, we will have a meeting to answer any and all questions about the Utah REP. Place and time to be announced later. Please email me if you would like to be on the list. And for anyone that has questions, they may email myself cnielsen(a)vii.com or Pete Kruckenberg pete(a)inquo.net. Christian Nielsen Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen(a)vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953 Private Email - Christian(a)Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen(a)one.dot PS :)

1 0

Re: Agenda Topics for May
by Paul Ferguson 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

Yes, I'd like to hear about the renumbering dilemma. :-) - paul At 12:41 PM 4/23/96 -0400, Susan R. Harris wrote: >Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the May 30-31 NANOG >agenda: > > "State of the Internet" - reports from backbone providers, NSPs, NAPs, > researchers, and the InterNIC on topology, traffic, stability, and > trouble spots > Update on the Internet Routing Registry > RA Status Report > >Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu >Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Sean Doran 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Paul Vixie writes (in two separate messages): >(I keep thinking -- what has this got to do with North American Network Ops?) and | I wish the average ISP would be as insistent on proper names. You've answered your own question. You've also answered a bunch of mine (and with impressively few words :) ). The thing I wonder now is that, if we have essentially unlimited scalability of the DNS both technically and administratively, should ISPs even _care_ about what names people choose to use? Moreover, if time needs buying for you development wizard(s), how much do you need and what should we be telling people in the interim? Sean.

3 3