- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 22 Apr '96

22 Apr '96

The current problem with DNS is not load on root NSes (however, even a blind person can see how exponential growth at more-than Moore's law will get it to the point where you simply won't be able to find a box fast enough to run root NS). Those of us with longer memories remember times when 16Mb on AGSes was "more than enough for any foreseeable future". And, yes, followinmg your analogy, 99.999% of routers do not have to have more than 100 routes in them. Does it help a dozen of dying backbone boxes much? The current problem is increased name collisions. Which is, to say, a fundamental one. No matter how you jump you won't be able to decrease rate of name collisions w/o increasing depth of the tree. The only other remedy is to stop choosing natural abbreviations and start doing as AOL does with customer names. Which is, essentially, an inferior way to do exactly what i proposed to do. (And, BTW, there's life after 26 letters are done with; you can set moving "line in the sand" on who gets shorter names). But -- the idea that first level domains are sexy got to be stomped out before anything real can be done about DNS. New TLDs is merely moving the problem one level higher. It definitely cannot fix anything. --vadim PS. No, i don't call to "rename Internet". I call to stop the insane practice of building the flat namespace. >From GAVRON(a)ACES.COM Mon Apr 22 17:45 PDT 1996 Return-Path: <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> Received: from postman.ncube.com by butler.ncube.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16312; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:45:36 +0800 Received: from Hearts.ACES.COM by postman.ncube.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18743; Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:04 PDT Received: from ACES.COM by ACES.COM (PMDF V4.3-10 #4107) id <01I3RYXO7X0G000031(a)ACES.COM>; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:46:44 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:42:30 -0700 (MST) From: Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> Subject: Re: NAVYJOBS.COM In-Reply-To: Your message dated "Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:45:23 +0800" <9604222245.AA15747(a)butler.ncube.com> To: avg(a)postman.ncube.com Cc: john(a)interport.net, smd(a)icp.net, nanog(a)merit.edu, GAVRON(a)ACES.COM Message-Id: <01I3UN0PL9NS000031(a)ACES.COM> Organization: ACES Research Inc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1809 Status: R Vadim asks: >Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies >which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts? Creating a problem to solve a problem is not a solution. Paul already said that a 16MB 486 can handle root DNS just fine. This does not bespeak of a problem requiring "renumbering" hundreds of thousands of domains. FURTHER, your "big win" is only a 1/26 lessening of load. If the problem is such that 1/26 is a "big win" I think it's not big enough to rename the Internet for. ... >What we should worry about is number of first-level >domains/number of hosts ratio. It is the same problem >as with routing. The solution is also the same -- No, it's not the same problem as routing. All routers with non-default rules need to know about all routes. The only possible analogy for that in DNS is root nameservers. These (as Paul pointed out in a previous post, since he runs F) are not saturated, and don't require that many resources. If you feel the growth of domain names is such that it will outstrip a 486 w/16MB soon, tell me when it will be a SIGNIFICANT problem. I.e. when will it outstrip a real machine (Sun, VAX, Alpha, SGI) with real memory (64MB? 128MB? 4G?) Remember, upgrading HUNDREDS of routers all running 45Mbps is a priority. Upgrading 8 boxes running BIND and doing it well is a much much much lower priority. >mnemonic can be used to distinguish between thousands of >nearly identical small businesses?) >--vadim >PS. Obviously if IBM registers 100 domain names it is > still a lot less damage than a small ISP (with 1000 dial-up > customers) which registers a domain name for every such > customer. Big folks registering POISONOUS-BURGER.COM and > SHIT-ON-TV.COM aren't really a problem. Zillion of > MOM-AND-POP.COMs is. Ehud

1 0

request to network operators
by Jeremy Porter 20 Apr '96

20 Apr '96

In keeping with my goal of providing the Nanog community with some numbers based in fact, that indicate paths toward sustainable Internet economics. Please note, all raw data I gather and my methods will be published, hopefully at May Nanog. This work is based on cost studies of resource utilizations in the various parts of the net. Some people may not agree with my conclusions or my methods, and I don't realistic hope to end the various debates on policy, but the calculations cannot be made without reasonable data that reflects todays Internet. I have traffic data comming from 3 of 5 of the major naps, and hope to get the last two on board soon. I need flap data, but it apears that the RA project has reasonable data to work from. Lastly I need information on router table utilization, speicifcly if you have Cisco routers at 3 or more of major exchanges, and basicly run "defaultless". Specificly I'm looking at processor and memory utilziation in Cisco routers with large numbers of views/paths. The magic command in this case would be: show ip bgp sum If for security reasons, you do not wish send the whole output, I would be happy with the first summary part, as I don't need the peer information. The Cisco firmware version would be helpful, but not required. It would be nice to have a MAE-East and MAE-West snapshot, but I'm not terribly picky, and realize that you will be taking time out of your schedule for this. Anyone that sends me a snapshot of 2 or more routers, I buy lunch for at Nanog. Thanks. -- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry(a)fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net

1 0

Northwest Internet eXchange (NIX) operational!
by Eric Kozowski 20 Apr '96

20 Apr '96

The NIX is now initially operational! IXA and NWNexus are currently exchanging traffic. Structured should be connected next week (if I get time to hook the circuit up). According to Ed @ NWNexus, traffic is running between 25kbps to 65kbps, with only the two of them connected. For those of you not familiar w/ NIX, take a look at: http://www.structured.net/nix Eric PS - Thanks to Ed and Nikos for getting things rolling while I was busy w/ other things. -- Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc. kozowski(a)structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (503)656-3235 FAX "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1

1 0

IRR visualization
by eddy＠isi.edu 19 Apr '96

19 Apr '96

Hello everyone, Sorry for duplicates of this message. The visualization front end for the IRR is available from: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/eddy/irrv-0.2.1.tar.gz There is also a README file: irrv-README available from the same location. Please note this software runs as a module under the scotty/tkined network management package, that are also freely available. http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/ibr/projects/nm/tkined/welcome Bug reports are eagerly awaited 8-). Just as important, i'd like to solicit the opinions and suggestions of the NANOG and RPS communities as to the capabilities a visualization tool that you would find useful. Thank you, -- - rusty eddy(a)isi.edu

1 0

CAnet IP Transition
by Kim Hubbard 18 Apr '96

18 Apr '96

Beginning May 1, 1996 the University of Toronto will no longer process IP requests for Canada. Until another IP registry is selected, the InterNIC will handle all IP requests for Canada. Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry

1 0

Welcome to nanog
by Majordomo＠merit.edu 17 Apr '96

17 Apr '96

-- Welcome to the nanog mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe nanog tonyhain(a)microsoft.com nanog(a)merit.edu Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: North American Network Operators Group

1 0

Re: The Attitude (was: the Internet Backbone)
by EDS＠RHQVM21.VNET.IBM.COM 17 Apr '96

17 Apr '96

> >> and it might even be possible to enforce some interesting > >> policies in that regard in the route servers (e.g. if you have more > >> than N routing or BGP peer transitions per time period, the route > >> server will refuse to peer with you for 48 hours - think of it as the > >> hold-down or damper from Hell). > >Interesting concept! > Exponential backoff works well, too bad the code base that does > route flap damping isn't really stable enough for production > use in large parts of the Internet. > Best results are give, when everyone runs it. Flap dampening works on most routers- just have to be aware of what the effects are, particularly with multiple BGP Peers. You have to decide whether to dampen outbound and/ or inbound, and if short duration events like temporary recalculations of the IGP are considered a "flap". Ed Segal EDS(a)RHQVM21.VNET.IBM.COM 914 684-3976

2 1

other routing anomalies
by Gordon Cook 17 Apr '96

17 Apr '96

For the last week the *ONLY* way I can hold a connection to tigger at jvnc.net has been to log into a net access machine in philly and telnet from there to tigger rather than telnet directly from my house. Both connections go througth the CIX to get me 20 miles up the road in New jersey!! When I get packets from this connection it is like a 1200 baud connect. The infuriating thing is that after giving me 1200 baud service for a minute or two, it will stop for any where from up to 45 seconds to 3 minutes before moving a single character!!!!! I have complained to jvnc. They say they are laboring mightily to solve the problem and that a LOT of their users are affected. Not much luck so far ...still 300 baud service. BUT a traceroute from tigger to a commercial web site in wash DC run by PSI goes through MCI's MAE EAST ++ router which is where *MY* packets oughtta go rather than to California and back. Anyone have any idea why? The person I asked at JVNC today didn't. Here are the two traces done within the last 30 minutes. JVNC To my router via cix traceroute to 205.164.155.1 (205.164.155.3), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 nomad-eth0 (128.121.50.50) 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 liberty-hssi1/0-1 (130.94.40.250) 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 3 waters-ser1/6 (130.94.45.249) 77 ms * 61 ms 4 ness-ser4 (130.94.17.250) 89 ms 126 ms 116 ms 5 goldengate-ser8 (130.94.15.65) 204 ms 186 ms 163 ms 6 cix-jvnc.west.cix.net (149.20.6.1) 194 ms 152 ms 149 ms 7 * hlc.west.cix.net (149.20.64.32) 109 ms 139 ms 8 hlc-east.gw.hlc.net (205.214.32.1) 128 ms * 159 ms 9 * mae-east.netaxs.com (192.41.177.87) 176 ms 172 ms 10 wynd-mae-east-gw.netaxs.com (207.8.160.5) 374 ms 198 ms 194 ms 11 wynd-mfs/k2ne/goldner-we0.netaxs.com (207.8.186.88) 226 ms 127 ms 160 ms 12 k2ne-wynd-t1.tty0.netaxs.com (206.161.91.14) 133 ms 184 ms 158 ms 13 router-ewing.netaxs.com (205.164.155.1) 167 ms 221 ms 199 ms Traceroute JVNC to comcast web site via mae east: tigger-gcook> traceroute www.comcast.com traceroute to www.comcast.inter.net (38.15.13.172), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 nomad-eth0 (128.121.50.50) 2 ms 4 ms 3 ms 2 liberty-hssi1/0-1 (130.94.40.250) 37 ms 15 ms 13 ms 3 border2-hssi2-0.NewYork.mci.net (204.70.45.9) 23 ms 14 ms 24 ms 4 core1-fddi-1.NewYork.mci.net (204.70.3.17) 13 ms 12 ms 16 ms 5 core1-hssi-2.Washington.mci.net (204.70.1.5) 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms 6 borderx1-fddi0-0.Washington.mci.net (204.70.2.4) 18 ms 22 ms 18 ms 7 mae-east-plusplus.Washington.mci.net (204.70.74.102) 26 ms 19 ms 21 ms 8 * mae-east.psi.net (192.41.177.245) 35 ms 32 ms 9 38.1.2.14 (38.1.2.14) 21 ms 37 ms 28 ms 10 www5a-gw.inter.net (38.15.1.40) 36 ms 25 ms 52 ms 11 www5a.inter.net (38.15.13.2) 31 ms * 28 ms ********************************************************************* Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new COOK Report Glossary of Internet terms *********************************************************************

5 6

Route aggregation tool runs for MAE-East routes
by Avi Freedman 17 Apr '96

17 Apr '96

I re-ran on today's data the route aggregation suggestion tool on routes from MAE-East. The results are at http://routes.netaxs.com. These are based *not* on AS-PATHs to determine "ownership of routes". They're based on next hop IPs from a MAE-East router. The goal is primarily to suggest possible border aggregations that could be made, for anyone who's interested in looking. We developed the tool for internal use, but I thought it'd be interesting to give it some Real Data... Please direct any followup flames or comments to cidrd; nanog probably isn't the place to *discuss* such things, but I figured it'd be helpful to announce it there as well. Avi

1 0

Re: The Attitude (was: the Internet Backbone)
by Paul Ferguson 17 Apr '96

17 Apr '96

At 10:32 PM 4/16/96 EDT, EDS(a)RHQVM21.VNET.IBM.COM wrote: > >Flap dampening works on most routers- just have to be aware of what >the effects are, particularly with multiple BGP Peers. >You have to decide whether to dampen outbound and/ >or inbound, and if short duration events like temporary >recalculations of the IGP are considered a "flap". > Excuse me? Care to qualify this comment? - paul >Ed Segal EDS(a)RHQVM21.VNET.IBM.COM 914 684-3976 > > >

1 0