- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Paul Ferguson 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

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]. :-) - paul

1 0

join the Internet Backbone
by Christian Nielsen 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

Ok, I am really getting sick of hearing, I am connected to 'the Internet Backbone' We are connected to the Internet Backbone so we are better than X and Y put together. I guess this is what happens when you get back from Interop and here all these people, uh they start with USWEST in their name, tell me and everyone else, We are connected to The Internet Backbone. So please someon,e please tell me I am correct in saying to all these not so bright people that there really is not an 'Internet Backbone' that USWest, SISNA (who now claims to be the 3rd largest ISP/NSP and still have only a T1 to MCI, and claim that is a DS3) and all these other people who think that they are connected to the internet back bone. For all that matters, I guess I can say that I am the internet Backbone because it is at my house and you all connect to me via my 28.8 modem. Oh, and for anyone is Scottsdale (sp?) AZ, go to your local Chamber. I saw them talking with a company that I can't name but probally does local phone serverice in Scottsdale, because they want a web page, connections for all their members, etc. etc. They were pretty high up. Well, thanks for all your help. because I wanna be an isp :) Now where did I put that Lart. Christian Nielsen Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen(a)vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953 Private Email - Christian(a)Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen(a)one.dot PS :)

4 6

CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Christian Nielsen 06 Apr '96

06 Apr '96

I think we all agree that CIDR is a good thing, I have no problems with it and feel that we should use it as best we can. The problems that I see, yes I know this has been said before, it is getting harder and harder for the little guy to get IPs from the Nic. Now that Sprint is saying that you now need a /16 to route over their network, I don't see the nic just handing out /16s like they did with the /19 or before that the /20s etc.. And Just because I have nothing else to do, except work, sleep, work, internet, eat, work, sleep, I did some looking around. [21]/export/home/c/cnielsen> whois 208.0.0.0 Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINTLINK-BLKS) Netname: SPRINTLINK-BLKS Netblock: 208.0.0.0 - 208.3.255.0 Here now shows that Sprint is getting a /15 from the nic and that they can now server more customers, move their ips around with little problem, etc. But what about some other ISP? Can they get a /15? Nope. But I bet you that if Sprint wanted to or even MCI for that matter, they could get a /14 or a /13 from the nic. How can we solve this problem? How can we make sure that everyone has equal access to IP addresses to make IP addresses usable around the Net, save on router memory etc? This is how I would do it. Move into the 206.10.0.0 - 206.15.0.0 Any ISP/NSP that can provide a good network outline, showing not only how they plan to put into pratice but show their current setup, locations, etc. will be assigned a /16 in the range above. That would give about 1200 ISPs /16s. Now, to make sure they are being conservative with their networks, routing tables, CIDR, etc. Explain to the ISP that the only way they are going to get a /16 is if they renumber their whole network. This will return a lot of larger /20 and above address space to the nic and reduce the size of the routing table on the net. Now, why can't something like this be done? Trust me, If you gave me /16, I would have all my customers re-number, re-number all my hosts, etc in about 6 months, which is about the timeline I would bive. But than again, we can go along as we do, the larger keep getting larger and the rest of us have to fight for IPs. ok, now off the soap box. Christian Nielsen Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen(a)vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953 Private Email - Christian(a)Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen(a)one.dot PS :)

4 4

Re: Address "portability"
by matthew＠scruz.net 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

> 1. If everyone in area code 213 (for instance) decided to exercise number > portability and move their existing number to a new provider, that'd be > about 3.7 million "host routes" with NO possibility of aggregation. ^^^ Excuse my miscalculation here... I believe that's closer to 8 million,... finger slipped while calculating. -matthew

1 0

Re: Address "portability"
by matthew＠scruz.net 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

Original message <199604052143.NAA28351(a)gw.home.vix.com> From: scharf(a)vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Apr 5, 13:43 Subject: Re: Address "portability" > > > > > > > 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 > > >-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg > > > > > > 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. > > > > -matthew kaufman > > matthew(a)scruz.net > > > > Not quite. If I move today from San Francisco to San Jose, I have to renumber > because of area codes. This provides first level hierarchy, which the Internet > doesn't have (actually second, country codes are the first). The phone > companies also have settlements worked out, such that a cutout costs the > group getting the cutout, not the group who has the base or the IXC. Phone > routing are vastly more restrictive than IP routing. > > Jerry >-- End of excerpt from Jerry Scharf 1. If everyone in area code 213 (for instance) decided to exercise number portability and move their existing number to a new provider, that'd be about 3.7 million "host routes" with NO possibility of aggregation. That's far more routes than are in my border routers (by about 100X) (Presumably CAPs in LATAs with lots of area codes are going to want to hold internal routes for ALL of the local area codes, so they can do complete bypass... in the Los Angeles area that'd at least quadruple this routing table requirement) 2. The costs of portability in the latest proposals I've read are to be shared between the existing and the new providers, with the visible end-user cost of "keeping your number" relatively low 3. It may be technically stupid, but it is what consumers want, and the PUC and FCC are on their side. I still won't be surprised when the "number portability" precedent gets picked up by a regulatory agency and forced on the Internet, at least within the United States. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Paul Ferguson 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

Better yet, call it the 'default-free core', which is ironically what it is already called. :-) - paul At 12:02 PM 4/5/96 -0800, 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. > >Make sense? > >Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 >Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com > >

3 2

Re: Address "portability"
by scharf＠vix.com 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

> > > > 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 > >-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg > > > 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. > > -matthew kaufman > matthew(a)scruz.net > Not quite. If I move today from San Francisco to San Jose, I have to renumber because of area codes. This provides first level hierarchy, which the Internet doesn't have (actually second, country codes are the first). The phone companies also have settlements worked out, such that a cutout costs the group getting the cutout, not the group who has the base or the IXC. Phone routing are vastly more restrictive than IP routing. Jerry

1 0

RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
by Jim Fleming 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

On Friday, April 05, 1996 5:33 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, 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. @> @> Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant @> event in the efforts to control routing table size. @ @There are other analysts (myself among them) who anticipate the number of @North Amercan ISP's to grow by a third this year from around 2,000 to @around 3,000. Yes, there is some consolidation, but this is very little @in relation to the entry of new ISP's into the market. As long as the @Internet is growing exponentially, there will be room for new entrants @and we will not be seeing an absolute decline in the number of ISP's. @ Has anyone analyzed what these ISPs will be doing? Will most be dial-up providers? Will ISPs gravitate to leased line sales as dial-up becomes a commodity? Will some specialize only in co-located server farms? How about the growing need for "gateway" services? Will many of these new ISPs only serve other ISPs? Have you included organizations that may not currently appear to be ISPs but in reality will be ISPs? (Churches, schools, private networks, etc.) Have we seen the first round of "cash out Kids" or "selling up and out"? (It took several years for that to occur in PCs and Software) @Think exponentially, plan accordingly ;-) @ Yes, think exponentially, plan accordingly, and act globally...;-) @In other words, CIDR, PIER, and RFC1918.... @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 No matter what happens Michael, keep in mind that the entire Internet as you know it can fit in (Galaxy Zero, StarGate Zero) or (G:0,S:0)....:-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: the Internet Backbone
by Paul Ferguson 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

At 01:59 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >The core of the US Internet, also known as the default-free core, 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. > Also, it would preferable to omit 'US' from the above; the Internet core doesn't reside solely in the United States. :-) - paul

1 0

Re: MIX
by Joe Provo 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

bill> How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro? [clip] bill>A business model that shafts everyone else on the net so that you can bill>make more money? How do the extant MIXes fare, economically? No, not post-NSF subsidized NAPs, but the 'purely' independant ventures. I can grok most of the numbers involved in these but the ones beginning with $'s. Cheers, Joe Provo Network Operations Center UltraNet Communications, Inc.

1 0