- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Re: Address "portability"
by Justin W. Newton 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California, >with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be >fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the >same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly >the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs >are regulated, and they get the same mandate. Uhm, Cisco, you hear that? Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay caught up. Internet Architect * Erol's Internet Services *

2 1

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

06 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 7:09 PM, Suzanne Woolf[SMTP:woolf@isi.edu] wrote: @ @As most folks here already know, the basic problem with cleaning up @the TWD, and by extension any chunk of IP space, is in two parts: @ @1. Finding the people responsible <snip> @ @2. "Social engineering" their behavior <snip> @Regarding item 1, we're proceeding with the problem of cleaning up the @contact information we do have. Regarding Item 2, I suspect some, @perhaps many, providers would be willing and able to help with an @educational effort in this area targeted towards their customers; such @an effort needs materials and followup, but seems do-able. @ @ @Suzanne @who still thinks (hopes?) social @engineering doesn't require blunt instruments @ 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... also, you might want to develop some incentive programs for turning in IP Addresses..."awards", press, etc...along this line I think that there should be some "peer pressure" approaches added to the process... do publicly held companies want to be exposed as "wasting" IP addresses..?? this might be worse than "acid rain" or "water pollution"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

2 1

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

06 Apr '96

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

1 0

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by salo＠msc.edu 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 17:12:24 -0800 > To: salo(a)msc.edu (Tim Salo), nanog(a)merit.edu > From: "Kent W. England" <kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com> > Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. > > 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. > > > 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. Obviously, cleaning up the current swamp is difficult. On the other hand, should consolidation occur, presumably a smaller number of larger ISPs would use a smaller number of larger address blocks, (plus or minus issues of the magnitude of dual-homing and changing upstream providers). -tjs

1 0

Re: Address "portability"
by Paul Ferguson 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

At 06:39 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Justin W. Newton wrote: >At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >>The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California, >>with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be >>fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the >>same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly >>the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs >>are regulated, and they get the same mandate. > >Uhm, Cisco, you hear that? > > Um, and pray tell, what exactly is cisco supposed to do about this? I'll write my congresscritter if you write yours. :-) - paul

2 1

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

06 Apr '96

At 05:09 PM 4/5/96 PST, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >In addition, we did some preliminary analysis on routing table entries >for /24s in 192/8, which we presented in the IEPG meeting on March 2, >available as http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/whose_routes. But the >indications so far are that the required contact information is >scattered and incomplete. Suzanne, This URL appears to be non-existent. :-) - paul

1 0

RE: the Internet Backbone
by Jim Fleming 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 1:55 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso@cisco.com] wrote: @Better yet, call it the 'default-free core', which is ironically what it @is already called. :-) @ @- paul @ Actually some of the large carriers do have a hidden default route...to the bit bucket...:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0