- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Sean Donelan 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

>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". I like that! Are the "Tier 1" providers going to create a BGP non-proliferation pact? I was wondering why AGIS, AT&T/BBNplanet, MCI, and Sprint suddenly all needed to have their peering policies reviewed by their lawyers at the same time. I have this sinking feeling things are getting worse with people trying to one-up each other. You can't be a "Tier 1" provider unless your router config is 30,000 lines long. Well, my router config is 40,000 lines long, so I'm even better. Perhaps the adage should be "Making a network complicated is simple, but making a network simple is complicated." Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the sake of complexity. Personally I find today's front-door peerings infinitely easier to maintain than some of the backdoor monsters we used to sneak around the AUP requirements. But if nasty looking router configs is what it takes to be a Tier 1 provider, I can make mine as grody looking as the next guy's. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

iepg home page
by Paul Ferguson 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Bill, You're suggestion for Dave Siegel to look at the IEPG home page revealed that its just a tad out-of-date: Details of the forthcoming December 4th 1994 meeting are located here. :-) - paul

4 3

Re: NANOG
by bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Dear Mr. Huegen, Must say your below email about me was very upsetting. What EXACTLY was "rubbish" in my recent InfoWorld column about NANOG etc? /Bob Metcalfe PS: You're confusing me with the other Bob Metcalfe, the one who writes about hog prices. At 8:44 AM 4/4/96, Craig A. Huegen wrote: >Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>From c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com >X-Envelope-From: c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com >Received: from quad.quadrunner.com by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4kt9-000wxUC; Thu, 4 Apr 96 00:59 PST >Received: (from c-huegen@localhost) by quad.quadrunner.com (8.7.5/8.7-quad) id >AAA04296; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:30:26 -0800 >Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:30:25 -0800 (PST) >From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com> >To: Jeremy Porter <jerry(a)fc.net> >cc: Bob Metcalfe <bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com>, jerry(a)fc.net, > letters(a)infoworld.com, nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: NANOG >In-Reply-To: <199604040616.AAA04651(a)freeside.fc.net> >Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960404002814.4165B-100000(a)quad.quadrunner.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote: > >> As top the top 100 cheief engineers, assuming for a moment that 100 >> number is something more than a number I pulled out of thin air., With >> your comments to Nanog you are probably addressing half. > >Bob Metcalfe is just another example of a computer journalist caught up >in the buzzwords of the current technology. It's sad to see such rubbish >in news, but hey, it's how they make the money. It's very disappointing >that he attempts to DEFEND his cluelessness against some of the BEST in >the industry. > >Bob, I recommend you go back to covering hog prices for the local paper. > >/cah ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and VP Technology, International Data Group Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com Voice Messages: 617-534-1215 Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center March 1-5, 1997 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

3 2

Re: the Internet Backbone
by hcb＠clark.net 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

Here are my first thoughts on a tiered model, with attributes of each tier. Top level (Tier 1): -- provide transit as their principal business -- have at least some default-free routers -- have connectivity at >1 geographically separated major exchange -- need special measures to deal with BGP scaling issues inside their AS (or multiple AS) such as confederations, clusters, etc. 2nd Level -- provide transit within a geographic area -- may have default-free routers -- limit operations to a geographic area; may connect to multiple exchanges within that area 3rd Level -- do not provide commercial transit services, although they may incidentally provide transit among their customers -- do not do BGP peering with any "downstream" organizations. Their user base is part of their AS. -- May peer with multiple upstream providers 4th Level -- do not run BGP -- Internet access through provider only

8 9

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Barry Raveendran Greene 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

---------- From: Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 1996 1:15 AM To: Michael Dillon Cc: pferguso(a)cisco.com; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: the Internet Backbone > Are they an NSP? > Do they operate their own national backbone? > Can they provide national transit over their own network infrastructure? > Do they interconnect with other NSP's who satisfy the previous two > conditions at most of the public exchange points? Where public exchange points == {MAE-East, MAE-West, Pennsauken, PacBell NAP, Chicago NAP, and arguably the CIX router/cloud}. And NSPISP, NXIX, STIX, HKIX, D-GIX, F-GIX, CIXP, LINX, etc. etc. etc. Barry

3 2

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Kent W. England 09 Apr '96

09 Apr '96

At 08:25 AM 4/5/96 -0600, Tim Salo wrote: >Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant >event in the efforts to control routing table size. > >-tjs > Do we need address leasing to hasten that process or should we let the market decide? In any event, anyone buying up a bunch of ISPs will have a difficult time cleaning up the aggregation of addresses they inherit. --Kent BTW, I thought it was the updates, peerings and flaps that was the true problem, not the absolute number of routing table entries.

2 1

Re: the Internet Backbone
by craig＠mci.net 08 Apr '96

08 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 08 Apr '96

08 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