- Test - lists.nanog.org

the Internet Backbone
by William Allen Simpson 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

> From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> > And they solicit our customers, sigh. > > And someone with 2 T1s to Sprint has been saying "We are *the* Internet > Backbone in South Jersey". > > Everyone (of importance) agrees that in order to claim you're a backbone > you have to (now, not a year ago) be connected to at least 2 public NAPs/MAEs > and have at least one circuit that runs at DS3 or higher speed. > No, that is not correct. A US Internet "backbone" is one which connects to ALL the NAP/MAEs in the US. Not just two. All of them. Everyone else is just a "regional", of one size or another. If anyone solicits your customers saying otherwise, report them for false advertising to the FTC, and sue the bastards. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

9 11

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Jim Browning 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

>From: David Miller[SMTP:david@dirigo.mint.net] > >I think our US -centrism is showing here guys:) > Perhaps there needs to be a "Global Service Provider" or "Tier/Level 0" designation for those with International 'backbone circuits' and routers at meet points in other countries?? -- Jim Browning

4 3

Re: New Internet Routing Statistics
by Sean Doran 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

Elise - Gotcha. While the timings won't be exactly exact, we will take you up on your invitation. Sean.

5 5

history of the 'Net book
by Dave O'Leary 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

All of this history stuff... John Curran and Jeff Burgan and others have sent me little corrections and clarifications to the note I sent out... An acceptably good reference is "Casting the Net" by Peter Salus, 1995 Addison-Wesley. ISBN # 0-201-87674-4 dave

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Justin W. Newton 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

At 12:47 PM 4/6/96 -0500, you wrote: >Does the backbone only exist in the US then? Or have previous posters >been referring to NAP's and MAE's worldwide? > >I think our US -centrism is showing here guys:) Well, this iss NANOG, one would suppose a slight slant towards things going on in NA. Plus, note the discussion was concerning the US backbone. > Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services *

1 0

'Backbone' terminology
by pj＠place.org 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

Can't we just call an apple and apple and look at the internet as a CS-type graph? small single-home ISPs are leaves off of a bigger ISP that may be just a branch off an even bigger ISP, or may be a 'strut' connecting two bigger ISPs... There's little hierarchy to it, the essence of the net is, after all, peer-to-peer... --Paul

1 0

Re: Address "portability"
by Peter Lothberg 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

> > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range? > > > -- > Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc. > kozowski(a)structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. > (503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" > (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1 > Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale. Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number work in California. --Peter

2 1

Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Justin W. Newton 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

At 09:58 AM 4/5/96 -0600, you wrote: >We hear a lot about dual-homed ISPs and ISPs who want to change their >upstream providers. It would be very interesting to have some >quantitative information about the size of these classes. > >(Or, are issues related to dual-homed ISPs and changes in upstream >providers more theoretical than real?) I have worked for 3 ISP's in the past several years. Of the three 2 peer at the MAE (actually the connection for one of them is still sitting in MaBell's in box). This is a prohibitively small sample to be useful though. At most the number of ISP's dualhoming must be <= the number of assigned ASN#'s. As for leaving their NSP, I am not sure that many are doing that. Its hard as hell to do without killling your customers. Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services *

2 1

CSPAN at next NANOG?
by William B. Norton 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

Hi all - Since we are holding the next NANOG in Washington DC, I thought it might be interesting to see if CSPAN was interested in broadcasting it (a nice alternative/addition to the Mbone I think.) I contacted the CSPAN folks and they tell me that they usually don't decide what event to cover until the day before or so, but if we wanted to make this meeting open to the public (it is) and let them know the agenda, then they can consider it. Does this sound ok? Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

2 1

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Paul Ferguson 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when >> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the >> TWD would not be growing at its current rate. > >Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK >you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI >via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our >aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for >a fee. > And the global routing table grows. - paul

5 4