- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys.
by Jim Fleming 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 6:19 AM, Wolfgang Henke[SMTP:wolfgang@whnet.com] wrote: @ salo(a)msc.edu (Tim Salo) wrote: @ It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the @ tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor @ to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables. @ @ @Tim, @ @this smells like an opportunity to me. To my regret I've been observing @the decline of the supercomputer industry for years due to a lack of demand @(KSR, CM5). Can't the supercomputer gurus apply some of their extensive @knowledge gained in a super-router? @ @ @Wolfgang @ Solutions that move the overall architecture toward the need for "bigger, faster, etc." will drive the Internet down the same path as the supercomputer industry... In my opinion, we need to sit back, look at the big picture, and come up with incremental architectural changes. We need to RE-apply the Internet Philosophy to the Internet itself and investigate the result. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

4 3

RE: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys.
by Jim Fleming 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 4:20 AM, Wolfgang Henke[SMTP:wolfgang@whnet.com] wrote: @ @> Solutions that move the overall architecture toward the need for "bigger, @> faster, etc." will drive the Internet down the same path as the supercomputer @> industry... @> @> In my opinion, we need to sit back, look at the big picture, and come up with @> incremental architectural changes. We need to RE-apply the Internet Philosophy @> to the Internet itself and investigate the result. @ @ @I prefer incremental changes as well. The only problem is that they @might not be sufficient to solve the current bottlenecks. It might @work if we restrict new users just to V.34 modem speeds. But if we @have *potential* new user growth with ATT Worldnet with up to 80 million, @@home with up to 50 million and the fast growing traditional ISPs, @(which show no signs of consolidation as far as I can tell) as well as @widespread access speed increases to ISDN BRI, ADSL and cable, it may @not be enough. @ @As Robert Moskovitz pointed out, even the growth in common used backbones @speeds is not keeping up: @ @1. 56 kbps @2. 1.544 Mbps increase by 24 @3. 44.736 Mbps increase by 28 @4. 155.520 Mbps increase by merely 3 @ @Just keeping in step with past growth patterns would require a step @to OC-24c at 1244.15 Mbps now, but there are no routers which come @even close to those speeds. @ @ @Wolfgang @ @ @PS. www.whnet.com/wolfgang/giga.html has an overview of routers. @ @ Raw bandwidth and router capacity are only two dimensions of the problem. You have not mentioned that the current "architectures" may inject a certain amount of "overhead" which is being carried on the same network with subscriber traffic. The "service perception" of the user has not necessarily been taken into account in developing these architectures. This is partly because there was not a large enough subscriber base to obtain valid usage patterns and statistics. A simple example can be easily demonstrated when a consumer is shown that a broken DNS system can be circumvented by using an IP address in the URL for their web browser. This is like telling a telephone user, "if (411) Directorty Assistance is out to lunch, just dial the number directly". Their eyes light up when they see that the "site" is not busy, the DNS system is choking them. It is unfortunate that the consumer has not yet been educated that they should test the site directly, before declaring that the entire system is broken. Now that various usage patterns are developing, it is time to look at the entire architecture and characterize what each component is trying to do. This should not be restricted to Web Browsing. Internet voice and audio is an important area. Raw file transfers are also important. The maintenance infrastructure also has to be addressed. In my case, I am primarily interested in distributed, object-oriented, architecture- neutral software development, distribution and billing. I am interested in seeing the network support a "sea of objects". These smart pieces of data and information need a clean addressing scheme to be able to flow around the world. The Legacy Internet is a reasonably good vehicle to provide raw bit transportation for these objects, but very little else. (except maybe some Java demo programs to keep everyone happy until 1/1/98) Because of the growing problems of Cats and Dogs fighting, us Dolphins need to make sure that we do not come ashore. We just need to transport "objects" via sonar from one coast to the other...even the U.S. Navy has not figured out what Dolphins are saying...:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

RE: 192/8 survey (was Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role)
by Jim Fleming 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 6:52 AM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso@cisco.com] wrote: @At 09:46 PM 4/5/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> @>As part of the educational effort you might want to add information about @> IPng (IPv6) as well as RFC 1918...this may help to give people hope... @> @ @Please, don't get me started on v6. ;-) @ @- paul @ @ Actually, I was going to suggest what some call "IPv8"...:-) see: http://comm.unety.net/US/IL/Naperville/Unir I do not think that we will see IPv6 in our lifetimes... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

2 1

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Hong Chen 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

Well, connecting to an Internet backbone and having your own nationalwide backbone are two different things. It is even extremely difficult to define what is Internet backbone. Are MCI and Sprint connected to backbone? I think that not only they are, they also have their own DS3 backbone. Is company like Aimnet connected to backbone? Well, we have DS3s to PacBell NAP and MAE West, and of course think that we are connected to backbone although we do not have our own backbone. But we do not claim that we have Internet backbone. Hong Aimnet -------- Begin Included Message ------- > At 10:32 AM 4/5/96, William Allen Simpson wrote: > >> From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> > >>... > >> 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. > > Bill, > > I'm not sure that's a viable definition. First, the number of MAE's > seems to be increasing withou bound, and secondly, there are points > that you don't want to connect due to their performance. Finally, is > "connecting" considered the same as "peering"? > > /John > > > -------- End Included Message --------

5 4

Re: the Internet Backbone
by William Allen Simpson 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

> From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> > At 03:34 PM 4/5/96 +0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: > >Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> wrote: > >>Last time this term came up, I opined that there was no "backbone" any more > >>and that 1996's Internet had a "hairball topology." Vadim, among others, > >>disagreed with me but we didn't pursue the topic. Perhaps we should have. > > > >Well, "backbone" is too vague. I rather prefer to think of Internet > >topology as of "tiers". The nodes in upper-levels cast "cones of > >influence" in lower tiers. Nodes from lower tiers belonging to > >different cones of influence do not generally speak to each other, > >and so have to purchase transit from higher tiers. > > > > Well, I kind of liked the term 'blobs' [credit to Jerry Scharf]. :-) > I agree with Paul Vixie, there is no true backbone, although there are two possible contenders for the title. Tiers were called "bubbles" by Noel Chiappa, if I remember correctly. I rather like bubbles instead of cones or tiers, as it matches the old political "spheres of influence". 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

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by William Allen Simpson 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

> From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > Why not just start calling it the Internet "core". The core of the US > Internet no longer follows a backbone topology. The core is composed of > the major NSP's who operate national backbones providing national transit > and who interconnect at all or most of the public exchange points. > > Make sense? > Core makes sense to me, as a description of the entirety! Actually, the old "backbone" was a mesh, with redundancy. Some NSPs claiming "backbone" (such as PSI) have so little redundancy that they fall over regularly. And the connectivity beteen many NSPs is excrable, as well documented in this forum. My point was there are few (if any) backbones. If your own back didn't connect to all your limbs, you would have a bit of trouble standing. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

1 0

RE: 192/8 survey (was Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role)
by Jim Fleming 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

On Saturday, April 06, 1996 2:23 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] wrote: @> As part of the educational effort you might want to add information about @> IPng (IPv6) as well as RFC 1918...this may help to give people hope... @ @Until there's an operational plan for simplifying routing by using IPng, @I think we'll avoid mentioning it since it begs the question "If we can't @route 2^32 addresses..." @ @> Jim Fleming @ @Avi @ Yes...that is why we are coding as fast as we can on C+@nIP (or IPv8)...:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by John Curran 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

At 3:02 PM 4/5/96, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Gordon Cook wrote: > >> Bill sez: A US Internet "backbone" is one which connects to ALL the >> NAP/MAEs in the US. Not just two. All of them. > >Why not just start calling it the Internet "core". The core of the US >Internet no longer follows a backbone topology. The core is composed of >the major NSP's who operate national backbones providing national transit >and who interconnect at all or most of the public exchange points. Sounds like a fine definition... (although adding the qualification of "functional" to "public exchange points" might be worthwhile...) /John

2 1

Re: the Internet Backbone
by hcb＠clark.net 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

I frequently teach routing and operations, and find this discussion of terms to be coming up with a useful consensus to answer some very frequently asked questions. I'd like to see the results of this discussion spread more widely than the NANOG list. It strikes me that the discussion is the kernel of an informational RFC complementary to Dave Crocker's RFC1775, "To be "on" the Internet." Here, perhaps we are defining what it means to be "in" the Internet. RFC1775 emphasized the user perspective; it would seem that a different document emphasizing the operator perspective also would be useful. Michael Dillon and others have put forth some good definitions. Would any of you active contributors be interested in trying an RFC on this? I'll step up to editing it if it would be useful. ----- My comments on Michael's last posting: HCB> Another FAQ is the meaning of "multihoming." There seem to be HCB> two cases in common usage: IP-level multiple paths to a single HCB> AS, and BGP peerings to >1 AS. If we think like an onion (shades of TinyBASIC!) then the core of the Internet are these providers who supply transit over their own national and international backbones and who do not need to buy transit from other providers. The providers who form the Internet core are sometimes called NSP's (Network Service Providers) and sometimes called Tier 1 providers HCB> I'd add that a Tier 1 provider/NSP has at least some routers that HCB> are default-free. > That's pretty common usage. Sounds much better than an-as-pee. > The term for second-tier is "regional provider" and third tier is > usually local providers. The next layer of the onion is the Tier 2 providers sometimes referred to as regional providers although they may actually serve overlapping geographical regions. These providers do not provide transit but they do supply other providers in a lower tier. HCB> I'm not sure about the part that a Tier 2 provider never provides HCB> transit. This brings us to the Tier 3 providers commonly known as ISP's (Internet Service Providers. These organizations may connect to Tier 2 providers or Tier 1 providers but their distinguishing characteristic is that they do no normally supply organizations who resell Internet access. Tier 4 networks belong to those organizations who provide Internet access for their own members or employees. These could be corporations, schools, or universities who operate both internal networks and provide dialup services that are not available to the general public. Sometimes a Tier 4 network provides access to other organizations such as a company which supplies its subcontractors with their Internet connectivity. HCB> A Tier 4 might be the first level that provides proxy aggregation, HCB> if it supports external organizations such as subcontractors. HCB> Proxy aggregation is more likely to be at Tier 3 or higher. Tier 5 is the end user. They may have a single PC that dials up to the Internet or they may be sitting in front of a workstation on a corporate LAN. Unlike an onion skin, these layers are not precise and there is some overlap especially in Tier 2. Until recently most ISP's connected directly to Tier 1 providers and although there are some providers who are starting to specialize in Tier 2 services it will remain common for both Tier 1 and 3 organizations to be in that market. This seems to explain the relationships in a way that I think the average person or journalist could understand and still form concepts fairly close to the reality of today's global Internet.

2 1

Re: Address "portability"
by Erik-Jan Bos 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

Peter, > > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of > > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range? > > 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. Maybe this is considered poorman's portability, but: When I take my GSM-phone to Hong Kong (or to Stockholm) my grandmother is still able to give me a call while I am there on the same number as when I am at home... Address portability at work... __ Erik-Jan.

3 2