- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: the Internet Backbone
by craig＠mci.net 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

At 02:44 PM 4/8/96, David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz wrote: >On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote: > >> Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose >> not to. Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it >> takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to >> deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router >> instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router. >> >> Avi > > Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider >operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption >that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a >route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default >route is mostly pointless anyway? > > What am I missing? > > DS you are missing the definitions of Peering vs. Transit. craig

1 0

NETCOM.NET
by Philip Wood 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Folks, I wanted an answer to a simple question about network 1/8 that netcom is routing today. But, netcom has no obvious phone number for a noc. We default out esnet and thus the following traceroute: traceroute to 1.144.153.46 (1.144.153.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 lanl-gw (192.16.1.1) 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms 2 esnet-rt1 (192.16.1.241) 4 ms 2 ms 4 ms 3 llnl-atms.es.net (134.55.24.1) 82 ms 98 ms 206 ms 4 ames-llnl.es.net (134.55.4.161) 41 ms 41 ms 46 ms 5 scl-ca-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.51.16) 68 ms 67 ms 55 ms 6 * t3-1.chw-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.189) 134 ms 229 ms 7 * * chw-il-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.132.26) 121 ms 8 t1-2.chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.222) 117 ms 106 ms * 9 chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31) 114 ms 122 ms 105 ms 10 chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.17.1) 113 ms 120 ms 119 ms 11 chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31) 118 ms 117 ms * 12 chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.17.1) 143 ms 105 ms 157 ms 13 * chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31) 110 ms 121 ms 14 chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.17.1) 121 ms 194 ms * 15 * * chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31) 116 ms Looks like they have a little problem in chicago. WHOIS says: NETCOM On-line Communications Services (NETCOM2-DOM) 4000 Moorpark Ave, Suite 209 San Jose, CA 95117 Domain Name: NETCOM.NET Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Hood, Robert (RH505) hoodr(a)NETCOM.COM (408) 983-1510 Record last updated on 02-Apr-93. Record created on 02-Apr-93. Domain servers in listed order: NETCOMSV.NETCOM.COM 192.100.81.101 NS.NETCOM.COM 192.100.81.105 But, that number gets you into trying to find someone to talk to by punching numbers, non of which are appropriate. We are getting a number of probes from various network 1 host address. As well as generating some packets with network 1 source addresses ourselves. (these are now blocked, we try to only send packets from networks we are responsible for) Anyone have an idea what is causing this? Should I be worried? Thanks, Phil

2 1

Re: the Internet Backbone
by sgoldste＠nsf.gov 08 Apr '96

08 Apr '96

At 11:17 AM 4/8/96, Mark S. Fedor wrote: >> >> Perhaps you can tell me where PSI connects, good sir... >> By my count it's MAE-East and CIX and nowhere else. >> There are a few major backbones not at the Chicago NAP. >> And none of the majors are at MAE-Chicago or any of the MAEs other >> than East and West. >> > >PSINet connects to MAE-west, MAE-East, MAE-East+, CIX, and the >SWAB (little known SMDS Washington (DC) Area Bypass). > >mf But, d#*(^&-it, they don't peer with ANS, and therefore we at NSF cannot get to hosts like fnc.gov. We, denizens of the NSF who have the good fortune to have been caught in the institution's un-debated switchover to PSInet. Arghhh! This is the way some hosts that are not yet forced through PSI *can* get to fnc.gov: traceroute to web1.hpc.org (192.187.8.59), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gw.cise.nsf.gov (128.150.55.1) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 2 wtn-6.bbnplanet.net (192.221.39.13) 6 ms 7 ms 6 ms 3 wtn-9.bbnplanet.net (128.167.26.9) 6 ms 9 ms 6 ms 4 wtn-8.bbnplanet.net (128.167.7.8) 22 ms 17 ms 30 ms 5 cpk-9.bbnplanet.net (128.167.212.1) 7 ms 37 ms 46 ms 6 cpk-5.bbnplanet.net (128.167.252.5) 9 ms 7 ms 9 ms 7 mae-east.bbnplanet.net (4.0.1.18) 22 ms 15 ms 14 ms 8 mae-east.ans.net (192.41.177.140) 9 ms 11 ms 10 ms 9 ft3.cnss56.Washington-DC.t3.ans.net (140.222.56.4) 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms 10 mf0.cnss58.Washington-DC.t3.ans.net (140.222.56.194) 14 ms 13 ms 12 ms 11 ft0.enss146.t3.ans.net (140.222.146.1) 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms 12 web1.hpc.org (192.187.8.59) 10 ms 15 ms 14 ms --SG ____________________________________________ Steve Goldstein, National Science Foundation +1(703)306-1949 Ext. 1119 "Let's not procrastinate until next week!"

2 1

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