- Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG Meeting Info
by Pam Ciesla 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

The next NANOG Meeting will be May 30 & 31 in Washington D.C. co-sponsored by CIX on the George Washington campus. The meetings start at 9:00AM both days with a continental breakfast served at 8:30AM. The meeting on the 30th ends at 5:00PM and 1:00PM on the 31st. Hotel, airport, directions and misc. info can be found on the CIX webpage http://www.cix.org/Events/nanog8.html. For registration use the Merit webpage http://nic.merit.edu/~nanog/NANOG.html or send e-mail to pam(a)merit.edu. Any questions regarding this meeting send e-mail to me (pam(a)merit.edu) Pam Ciesla

1 0

stats for Ames ring at MAE West
by booloo＠cats.ucsc.edu 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

I was perusing the stats for MAE West earlier and noticed that the graphs for the Ames ring went from showing 90% utilization to about 10% utilization around 11am on 3/30 (and they've stayed there). Did something change at Ames or are the numbers bogus? mb -- Mark Boolootian booloo(a)cats.ucsc.edu

2 1

RE: NANOG
by bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG) Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually really run. Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your objections (below). Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which is half our problem. Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy defensive to argue? So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really worried. Thank you for sharing, stay tuned, /Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld >Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>From jerry(a)fc.net >X-Envelope-From: jerry(a)fc.net >Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST >Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by >largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for ><bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800 >Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79(a)fc.net> >Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800 >From: jerry <jerry(a)fc.net> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com >Subject: RE: NANOG >X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of >offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit >kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum >where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn >about problems and fix them. > >Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report >their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off. > >I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW >the Internet is run. >Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do >much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters >is just plan wrong of the face of it. > >Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet >more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the >net are busy working, so people like you can whine >about outages, "increasing diameters", etc. > > >>From todays NANOG List: >------------------------------------------------- >Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST) >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Metcalfe's clue density... >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >Precedence: bulk > > >the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization >is a good calibration on everything else. > >just remember: > > "Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion > >soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night. > > -mo ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

5 4

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Gordon Cook 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

OOOPS! <blush> you are right. But, isn't the point two fold? While NSFnet stats were available for another year is anyone going to seriously blame ISOC for not having them on display a year after the fact? They are surely available some where. Many reading this list would likely know where in an instant. I'd turn to an Altavista search and to the NSF web stite to find them. second point. For a year now nothing has been available and given the nature of the new market place, how could one reasonably expect them to be available except by looking a through put figures at the MAEs. MAE East in particular. ********************************************************************* Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new COOK Report Glossary of Internet terms ********************************************************************* On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 rboivie(a)VNET.IBM.COM wrote: > Gordon, > Small point. The NSFnet backbone service ended on April 30, 1995 > (not '94). > Rick Boivie > rboivie(a)vnet.ibm.com > > > commercial internet matured and the federal gov't withdrew. Last traffic > > reports march 1994!? Of course! This was the month before the last > > gov't funded backbone (NSFnet) was turned off. Since then the traffic > > statistics have been the **proprietary** possessions of Sprint, MCI, > > UUNET, ANS, etc. >

2 1

RE: NANOG
by jogden＠merit.edu 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

>From my point of view (from my customers' point of view) the Internet in the US is failing right now. It hasn't collapsed, but some parts are almost unusable due to congestion. I think lots of people are working hard to improve that situation and I do think it will get better over time (and then it will get worse again and better and ..., just as it has in the past). I do think communication about who is doing what, could be better. I say this as a customer of an NSP (MCI) as well as an NSP manager myself (MichNet a regional network in Michigan). So I agree with Bob a lot more than I agree with Jerry or -mo. -Jeff Ogden Merit/MichNet (the non-RA half of Merit) At 4:55 PM 4/2/96, Bob Metcalfe wrote: >Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG) > >Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually >really run. > >Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic >collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your >objections (below). > >Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 >engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that >they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which >is half our problem. > >Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet >Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? >Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is >IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. > >Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy >defensive to argue? > >So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to >whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops >ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how >store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? > >Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really >worried. > >Thank you for sharing, stay tuned, > >/Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld > >>Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>>From jerry(a)fc.net >>X-Envelope-From: jerry(a)fc.net >>Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp >> (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST >>Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by >>largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for >><bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800 >>Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79(a)fc.net> >>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800 >>From: jerry <jerry(a)fc.net> >>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>To: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com >>Subject: RE: NANOG >>X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >>You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of >>offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit >>kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum >>where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn >>about problems and fix them. >> >>Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report >>their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off. >> >>I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW >>the Internet is run. >>Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do >>much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters >>is just plan wrong of the face of it. >> >>Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet >>more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the >>net are busy working, so people like you can whine >>about outages, "increasing diameters", etc. >> >> >>>From todays NANOG List: >>------------------------------------------------- >>Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST) >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: Metcalfe's clue density... >>Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >>Precedence: bulk >> >> >>the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization >>is a good calibration on everything else. >> >>just remember: >> >> "Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion >> >>soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night. >> >> -mo > > >______________________________________________ >______________________________________________ > >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 >______________________________________________ >______________________________________________

2 1

Re: stats for Ames ring at MAE West
by Sean Doran 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

NASA AMES has installed a DEC Gigaswitch for its tenants at MAE-WEST. Sean.

1 0

Re: IRR visualization
by Brett D. Watson 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

rusty, which versions of tkined, tk, and tcl will this work with? i grabbed your first incantation of this package after ietf in dallas but i have upgraded to the latest versions of tcl/tk at that time and it wouldn't work properly. -brett > Hello everyone, > > Sorry for duplicates of this message. The visualization front end > for the IRR is available from: > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/eddy/irrv-0.2.1.tar.gz > > There is also a README file: irrv-README available from the same > location. Please note this software runs as a module under the > scotty/tkined network management package, that are also freely > available. > > http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/ibr/projects/nm/tkined/welcome > > Bug reports are eagerly awaited 8-). Just as important, i'd like > to solicit the opinions and suggestions of the NANOG and RPS > communities as to the capabilities a visualization tool that you > would find useful. > > Thank you, > > > -- > > - rusty > > eddy(a)isi.edu

1 0

Re: NANOG
by Wolfgang Henke 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com (Bob Metcalfe) wrote: Perhaps I am confusing terms here. How can it be a fact that "store-and-forward delays are a mere fraction of wire propagation delays?" I don't think so. Check me on this: Packets travel over wires at large fractions of the speed of light, but then sadly at each hop they must be received, checked, routed, and then queued for forwarding. Do I have that right? Forget checking, routing, and queueing (ha!), and you get, I think, that store and forward delay is roughly proportional to the number of hops times packet length divided by circuit speed (N*P/C). For 10 hops of a thousand bit packet at Ethernet speed, that would be 1 ms, or a couple hundred miles of prop delay. Check me on this, one of us might be off by several orders of magnitude. Hmm... Using a real in use backbone of one of the mayor service providers, I find that a DS3 between silicon valley to Chicago has a 44 msec latency going through 4 hops. That's about the speed of light in fiber for the 5000 mile roundtrip ICMP ping packets. Using ATM will reduce the router latency. I estimate that with TCP/IP over ATM over SONET OC-3c the latency will be reduced from 44 msec to 40 msec, only a rather small improvement. The bandwidth used on the fiber wont matter much. With OC-12c I would still expect 40 msec or so since the speed of light in fiber is the limiting factor. Wolfgang

3 2

RE: NANOG
by bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

Dear Mr. Antonov, Thanks for taking time to enter this little spat about Internet collapses, the growing importance of NANOG, and my cluelessness. You wrote: >I was in a backbone engineer's skin for quite a few years, and "hops" >per se never were a problem. In fact, store-and-forward delays are >a mere fraction of wire propagation delays -- do a traceroute coast-to-coast, >look at delays and calculate how it relates to distance divided by speed of >light. Indeed, you're the first person concerned with the growth of diameter >(which is, BTW, logarithmic to size of the network). Perhaps I am confusing terms here. How can it be a fact that "store-and-forward delays are a mere fraction of wire propagation delays?" I don't think so. Check me on this: Packets travel over wires at large fractions of the speed of light, but then sadly at each hop they must be received, checked, routed, and then queued for forwarding. Do I have that right? Forget checking, routing, and queueing (ha!), and you get, I think, that store and forward delay is roughly proportional to the number of hops times packet length divided by circuit speed (N*P/C). For 10 hops of a thousand bit packet at Ethernet speed, that would be 1 ms, or a couple hundred miles of prop delay. Check me on this, one of us might be off by several orders of magnitude. But at 30 hops of thousand byte packets at T1 speeds, that's, what? 4,000 miles of prop delay. A mere fraction? OK, maybe soon the entire Internet backbone(s) will be ATM at 622Mbps, which would certainly knock some of the wind out of N, P, and C. Soon? But of course, getting back to 1996, N*P/C doesn't count checking, routing, and queueing -- queueing gets to be a major multiple with loading. Oh, I forgot retransmission delays too, at each hop. And I forgot the increasing complications of route propagation as hops increase... If I am, as you say, the first person to be concerned with the growth of Internet diameter, which I doubt, then I deserve a medal. Or is my arithmetic wrong? Ease my cluelessness. /Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld At 6:44 PM 4/2/96, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>From avg(a)postman.ncube.com >X-Envelope-From: avg(a)postman.ncube.com >Received: from postman.ncube.com by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4IvH-000wq4C; Tue, 2 Apr 96 19:07 PST >Received: from butler.ncube.com by postman.ncube.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA19923; Tue, 2 Apr 96 18:42:20 PST >Received: from skynet.ncube.com by butler.ncube.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) > id AA02534; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:40:46 +0800 >Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:40:46 +0800 >From: avg(a)postman.ncube.com (Vadim Antonov) >Message-Id: <9604030240.AA02534(a)butler.ncube.com> >To: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com, jerry(a)fc.net >Subject: RE: NANOG >Cc: letters(a)infoworld.com, nanog(a)merit.edu >Content-Length: 2913 > >Bob Metcalfe wrote: > >>Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic >>collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your >>objections (below). > >One does not need to be Nostradamus to predict that s*t happens. >It happened in the past, many times, too. Like when me and Sean >installed a just-baked SSE into a DC box and it looked fine but >screwed nearly all connectivity to Europe for few hours when we were >trying to figure out what was going on. Or when FIX-E<->ICM-DC >Bell Atlantic's DS-3 was flapping like mad when moon was >in the wrong phase and BA did nothing to fix it for months. Or when >some sequence of 1s and 0s was triggering some bulls*t alarms in >Sprint fiber network so causing shutdowns on the entire OC-24 trunk. >Or when a bogus static route in a Sprint's box was causing ANS's >version of gated to go banana and drop BGP sessions. Or many many >more occasions when "Bysantine-mode failure" becomes ugly reality in >the middle of the night so causing more than few people to be dragged >out of beds. > >As long as Internet technology is freaking bleeding edge and operators >are in the "code of the day" club catastrophes are bound to happen. > >>Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 >>engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that >>they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which >>is half our problem. > >That is simply not true. The backbone engineering society is tightly >knit and quite often backbone engineers are simply personal friends. >I certainly never had a problem with people refusing to fix problems >within their domains (well, PSI's TWD is not an operational problem). >The organization-level corrdination is often broken at operators level, >but that is merely a function of severe shortage of qualified personnel >and inadequate compensation for the high-stress job. > >>Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy >>defensive to argue? > >Before you talk of settlements answer the simple question -- >a packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Who should pay >to whom? Then, please, stop perpetuating nonsense. > >>So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to >>whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops >>ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how >>store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? > >I was in a backbone engineer's skin for quite a few years, and "hops" >per se never were a problem. In fact, store-and-forward delays are >a mere fraction of wire propagation delays -- do a traceroute coast-to-coast, >look at delays and calculate how it relates to distance divided by speed of >light. >Indeed, you're the first person concerned with the growth of diameter >(which is, BTW, logarithmic to size of the network). > >--vadim ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

2 1

Re: vocalizing majors, etc, etc.....
by hcb＠clark.net 03 Apr '96

03 Apr '96

>"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" > >:-) > >- paul > Come now, Paul. The Spannish Tree Inquisition is for large-scale bridged networks, not the routed Internet.

1 0