- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

07 Apr '96

At 10:17 PM 4/3/96 -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >Provider X takes on some number of customers N that want prefixes and >think they may later dual home or want to leave the option of changing >providers without renumbering open. Substitute for X as you see fit. > >If provider X insists that small providers or small to medium business >customers must renumber to leave a CIDR aggregate the smaller >organization go off and get "portable" address allocations which put >them in the unaggregatable toxic waste dump (TWD). If so, they will >also try as hard as they can to get a /19. > >Some of the small prefixes go out of business. Some grow and become >dual homed. Some switch providers. Most just don't change. > >In either case, TWD allocation or out of a provider aggregate, a dual >homed customer requires an additional prefix (to get routing right). > >If a small prefix changes providers and is TWD allocated, they already >have a unique route. If they were allocated from a large provider >aggregate, one more prefix is needed. If they were allocated from a >large provider aggregate and are given a generous grace period, some >will renumber quickly, some not at all (continuous requests to extend >the grace period). Lets assume they are never forced (grace period >extensions are granted). > >If the number of small prefixes that resort to the TWD as a result of >strong renumbering policies exceeds the number of small prefixes that >move out of aggregates without eventually renumbering, then there the >strong renumbering policy actually promotes more growth in the routing >table size. > >In the short term, the difference may not be all that substantial. >Longer term, if the provider community can cooperate to aggregate >better then many of the extra routes caused by prefixes changing >providers can be aggregated back together over a multple AS >aggregation boundary. > >Since you made the comment "And the global routing table grows", do >you feel what I described above is invalid? If so, what assumptions >are you making differently? Do you feel people will never renumber if >given a grace period, even if renumbering becomes easier with time? > >Curtis > I think that its a fair description. And honestly, I don't think a substantial percentage of end-networks will renumber if there are not substantial incentives. If renumbering becomes less-painful, with time & better tools, perhaps more will renumber, but again I personally don't foresee a substantial number doing so without some incentive(s). The scenario that was previously described by Michael Dillon, I believe, was one in which a singularly-homed [to provider 'a'] end-network [x] moved to another provider [provider 'b'] and wanted to take their provider [a] allocated address(es) with them. This is a case where, if a larger aggregate is being announced by [a], then a specific component announced from the [a] CIDR block would be announced by [b]. Of course, this happens anyway if [x] is dual-homed. I think we can all agree that the peace-of-mind obtained by [x] in becoming dual-homed is less than optimal for the Routing Table Watchers (tm). :-) This just happens to be a Catch-22 with multihomed end-networks. - paul

7 9

Re: NANOG
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:31:30 +0800 Vadim Antonov wrote: >Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> >>Craig came down very hard on Bob Metcalfe and I was hoping that over >>the past few days someone would step in and explain that Bob is far >>from being a clueless journalist. I believe Craig is just showing >>how young he is. > >On my part, when i was flaming B.M. i was perfectly aware of who he >is. However, being an authority is not a guarantee of being right >or being clueful about that particular subject. My criticism was not directed to you but rather to Craig. Your response to Bob was detailed and contained numbers. Craig's contained nothing and did not add to the discussion but rather to the Noise Ratio. > >I happened to learn that hard way. > >>Bob Metcalfe along with David Boggs published in >>ACM (July 1976) an article entitled "Ethernet - Distributed Packet >>Switching for Local Computer Networks". This paper was the groundwork >>for Ethernet - without which we would still be using X.25 and possibly >>no LANs. > >That is an exaggregation. BTW, Ethernet has little to do with X.25's >obsolescense. > >>Having Bob (as well as a few other heavyweights) on this list, >>we can only come to a better understanding of the routing, addressing >>and portability problems of the Internet that we are all hitting. > >Hm. > >>Craig, Bob has probably forgotten more than you and I will ever know. > >I find the attitude of reverence to authorities a bit out of place >in any scientific or engineering society trying to be something more >than a country club. I am not saying to have blind reverence. Just listen and argue validity - and if you can knock him down - fine by me as well as everyone else on the list. But back up your comments with facts and numbers (as you did) rather than comments of buzzwords and hog prices as Craig did. > >--vadim > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: join the Internet Backbone
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:25:47 -0500 (EST) Avi Freedman wrote: >We have a local, new, competitor who generally lies out his ass and also says >'We are the Internet backbone. Only we can offer you 100% Full Bandwidth'. >They have a T1 to a provider with a T1 to MCI and a T1 to AGIS. > >Of course, they claim to have 3 T3s and they claim that MAE-East an >unimportant private exchange point between AT&T and Sprint. > >And they solicit our customers, sigh. > >And someone with 2 T1s to Sprint has been saying "We are *the* Internet >Backbone in South Jersey". I think every area and country has their liars and charletons. What you say is nothing new. You just have to keep plowing ahead and maintain a high level of service and connectivity and users will stay with you. Those that switch will come back after the FBNs (Fly By Nights), turn bellyup. >Avi > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE-invent the Net
by Jim Fleming 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 7:31 AM, Vadim Antonov[SMTP:avg@postman.ncube.com] wrote: @Hank Nussbacher wrote: <snip> @>Craig, Bob has probably forgotten more than you and I will ever know. @ @I find the attitude of reverence to authorities a bit out of place @in any scientific or engineering society trying to be something more @than a country club. @ @--vadim @ I have found that the demographics of the Internet are such that the "epoch" keeps moving closer to us. I used to think that we were lucky if we preserved about 20 years of history. That would now take us back to 1976. As the average age on the net gets lower, that may be more like 10 years. Soon it will be 4 years. If a person involved in the Internet is not "reinventing the net" every 4 years then they might as well retire. Internet careers will probably become like NFL careers. You get about 4 years out of college to make it to a Super Bowl. You may get a 4 year extension if you are not injured. A 12 year career is not in the cards... unless you can reincarnate yourself and "revinvent the net"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: NANOG
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >Craig came down very hard on Bob Metcalfe and I was hoping that over >the past few days someone would step in and explain that Bob is far >from being a clueless journalist. I believe Craig is just showing >how young he is. On my part, when i was flaming B.M. i was perfectly aware of who he is. However, being an authority is not a guarantee of being right or being clueful about that particular subject. I happened to learn that hard way. >Bob Metcalfe along with David Boggs published in >ACM (July 1976) an article entitled "Ethernet - Distributed Packet >Switching for Local Computer Networks". This paper was the groundwork >for Ethernet - without which we would still be using X.25 and possibly >no LANs. That is an exaggregation. BTW, Ethernet has little to do with X.25's obsolescense. >Having Bob (as well as a few other heavyweights) on this list, >we can only come to a better understanding of the routing, addressing >and portability problems of the Internet that we are all hitting. Hm. >Craig, Bob has probably forgotten more than you and I will ever know. I find the attitude of reverence to authorities a bit out of place in any scientific or engineering society trying to be something more than a country club. --vadim

2 1

Re: my personal reality check on dual homing and backbone growth
by Roger Fajman 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

> As 1985 and 1986 progressed, the ARPAnet got more loaded as more sites > came on, but I don't have any specific statistics. Cross-country links > like the one we had through Pittsburgh (CMU, PSN #14) were apparently > the real hot spot. > > BITnet was starting around then, too, mostly 9.6-19.2-56 kb links > between IBM mainframes. It's not important to your very interesting history, but I believe that BITNET started in 1981. It was already up to more than 1000 nodes when we joined in 1985 with a 56 kbps link to the University of Maryland. I remember many of the events you describe, but from the perspective of someone responsible for our connections. We got our SURAnet connection up in early 1988 with a Proteon p4200 and a T1 line. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 4265 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF(a)CU.NIH.GOV

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Paul Ferguson 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

At 05:00 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Dave O'Leary wrote: > >Communications Week (April 1, pp 135-139) has the usual limited view >of the world, but its better than nothing, with some related >commentary from noted dignitaries. There is a map, showing interconnects >and trying to explain how they work. > Yeah, I was actually impressed that something like this cropped up in Communications Week. :-) >It's probably on their web page somewhere >http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/current >but I couldn't find it (Paul F. is the search tool guy in our group :-). > They are somewhat selective about what they put on their web site, and it usually lags by about a week or two behind the paper media. :-/ - paul

1 0

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Jim Fleming 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 8:29 AM, Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST)[SMTP:nanog@dune.silkroad.com] wrote: @ @As Vadim corrected pointed out in a earlier post, the Internet @is a routing hierarchy. This hierarchy is *dynamic* and not @static. Hence, a 'Tier 4' (as Micheal suggests) maybe a 'Tier 6' @in two years... @ @It is not practical to define numerical based Tiers, any more than @it is practical to say 200/2=100, 100/2=50, 50/2=25.... okay lets @stop now, cause NANOG defined fractional division 'tier 4' as @the end user in a press release (?) and told the world that @you cannot divide 25 by 2... *not allowed*. @ @FYI, 'a backbone' is not a completely definable entity. Is it @an abstraction. Discussing the exact defination of an abstraction @is much like playing with a Rubic's cube, a nice way to kill @time.... BTW. @ @Abstract concepts allow for creative thinking, growth, and @other conceptual events. Taking abstractions and trying to @turn them into strict constructs and structures limits @the creative processes, ad infinitum. @ @Oh well, now back to another round of..... "Name that Abstraction". @ @Regards, @ @Tim @ You make some very good points...the term "backbone" conjures up certain simple images that allow people to better understand a complex system... I prefer to think of the entire system as a series of concentric rings... the "legacy" Internet is near the center and provides "transport"...this core area can also be viewed like a castle surrounded by a moat...it is good that we have many Cats and Dogs guarding the castle...:-) moving out from the "core/center/castle", the Galaxy Network is the next ring and acts like a moat...this is where the Dolphins swim...:-) the subscribers are in the Outer Network on the other side of the moat...this is where the Cats and Dogs spend most of their time...running around the hills and deploying servers in hamlets... "logical traffic" flows between subscribers (and servers) in the outer ring...the average subscriber does not care about the path taken by the traffic as long as the service is perceived to be good... ...good = (fast, cheap, reliable, cheap, secure, cheap,...etc.) logical traffic flows by transiting to and fro across the moat and in and out of the castle(s)....some castles have better service than others...some subscribers prefer to have their traffic handled by certain monarchs...in those cases, the subscriber does care about the transport path...but they only pick their draw-bridges every so often... to transition from the "backbone" view of the world to the concentric circle view one has to turn their brain 90 degrees...If you slice a large fish at a 90 degree angle to the "backbone"...you see the backbone surrounded by layers of meat... the skin is the outer layer...in that view, the backbone is like the core or the castles...the moat is like the organs and guts surrounding the backbone and the subscribers (and servers) are the "meat"... I think God provides the skin that keeps the meat, guts and backbone together...:-) ...without the skin...everything falls apart...and we have a mess...the backbone is one small part of the puzzle... ...if people want to move "closer" to God...they should move away from the backbone...not closer to it...unfortunately, most Cats and Dogs build their houses as close to the moat and castle as they can....this crowds the Dolphins... the Dolphins do not care...they just make the moat bigger... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

2 1

RE: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys.
by Jim Fleming 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 5:55 PM, Jeff Young[SMTP:young@mci.net] wrote: @you know, @ @i wish that i knew what any of you guys were talking about. @it gives me no end of amusement to listen to people postulate @about how we run our network. SNR is getting pretty high @in this discussion. it's beginning to sound more like a gossip @session than a discussion group. @ @Jeff Young @young@mci.net @ In my opinion, the world is rapidly moving to a maturity where levels of service and performance will be tracked, evaluated, analyzed, etc. This will be part of the agreement(s) between the various participants. I believe that most people up and down the Internet "food chain", just want solid, reliable, secure service....for low cost...:-) Because of the nature of the Internet, we all live in "Flatland" (a great book by the way). There is no concept of "up and down" and hierarchies are difficult to form. Instead, flat triangles are formed. It is sometimes hard to see this world because there is no third dimension to rise above the scene to survey the status. In some cases, a triangle is set up where you have a "customer" on one corner, the InterNIC on the other and an ISP on the third. The customer could be a small ISP and the ISP could be a major carrier but the point is the same...triangles can be deadly, nothing gets done. ...a triangle, as opposed to a hierarchy, can cause some interesting dead-locks where the buck is always on the other corner(s) of the three-way arrangement... ...with a hierarchy, the buck passes up and down and it is easier to see where it is at any point in time... In order to break the dead-locks, someone has to try to take a leadership role in these flat triangular relationship(s). This can be difficult because the other two parties can always be resisting the change. There may be no cooperation. Some parties in a two-dimensional flat triangular relationship may actually discover that they are living in the one-dimensional world of lines. In that world, they can only see two other parties (one at a time) and there is no concept that the other parties see each other. In that world there is no chance for cooperation. We can only judge our perception of the state of the system via our planar relationships with other parties that think they have a global view. It will be interesting to see if a three-dimensional world ever gets started in the Internet. In order for that to happen, someone has to prove that they see more than two other parties, cooperate with all of them, and all of them cooperate in return. That is going to be tricky...:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Dave O'Leary 07 Apr '96

07 Apr '96

I agree with Dave S., either people are going to believe the marketing hype or become educated about what matters relative to the Internet topology. Most are just going to believe the hype so publishing a document with artificial labels is most likely not meaningful. (ref: Bradner testing and equipment throughput results - the vendors make the equipment do well in the tests but the real world is a different story). In particular, the item: -- need special measures to deal with BGP scaling issues inside their AS (or multiple AS) such as confederations, clusters, etc. worries me; this is like announcing at the UN that you can only vote if you have nuclear weapons. Some will be needless encouraged to add complexity to their networks simply to be a "Tier 1". Communications Week (April 1, pp 135-139) has the usual limited view of the world, but its better than nothing, with some related commentary from noted dignitaries. There is a map, showing interconnects and trying to explain how they work. It's probably on their web page somewhere http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/current but I couldn't find it (Paul F. is the search tool guy in our group :-). have fun dave

1 0