- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: BGP4 peering wiht Sprint, and MCI
by rcraig＠cisco.com 14 Oct '95

14 Oct '95

Hey, Nathan, try using static routes, then exporting them to BGP: static { 204.17.64.0 masklen 24 gateway <gwaddr>; 204.183.0.0 masklen 19 gateway <gwaddr>; 205.215.0.0 masklen 18 gateway <gwaddr>; }; export proto bgp as <asnum> { # connected networks, if necessary proto direct { ALL metric <whatever>; }; # statics, you may want to do less than all, see gated docs ;-) proto static { ALL metric <whatever>; }; }; At 14:34 95/10/14, Nathan Stratton wrote: >We have a 486 DX4 100 with 40 megs of ram running FreeBSD and gated with a >T1 to Sprint and a T1 to MCI. I have a few questions that someone may be >able to answer. > >If my Sprint T1 goes down, how long will it take for route to drop out of >the routing table? Should be pretty quick. > >I have peering going with sprint and MCI and I have about 31,000 routes >in my routing table. When I called up sprint and MCI they said they were >not getting routes form me. How do I advertize my CIDR blocks to sprint >and mci via BGP4? > >I have: > >204.17.64.0/24 >204.183.0.0/19 >205.215.0.0/18 > >Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Your Gateway to the World! >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. >Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite B-5 >Email sales(a)netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 >WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert.

1 0

Re: DNS delegation for non-octet boundaries
by sob＠academ.com 12 Oct '95

12 Oct '95

1 0

Re: DNS delegation for non-octet boundaries
by William Allen Simpson 12 Oct '95

12 Oct '95

> From: Geert Jan de Groot <GeertJan.deGroot(a)ripe.net> > People have been using this for some time already, it is just not > widely known which is why havard and I wrote it down. > > Re-sending the (slightly updated) draft is long overdue. > I'll try to fix that ASAP > Better yet, send an updated version directly to IESG(a)cnri.reston.va.us for publication as a Best Current Practice! Bill.Simpson(a)um.cc.umich.edu Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

DNS delegation for non-octet boundaries
by Jeremy Porter 12 Oct '95

12 Oct '95

At the most receint NANOG some methods of delegating DNS (in-addr.arpa's) on non octet boundaries was disccused. If I remember correclty there were two parts to this, regarding delegating individual records, and some other process. If anyone has any references to this, I would apprecated it. We are looking into this and also automatic or assisted renumbering to help reduce allocation growth and router table sizes. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Jeremy Porter (512)-339-6094 Freeside Communications, Inc. info(a)fc.net | | jerry(a)fc.net (512)-339-4466 (data) P.O. Box 530264 Austin, TX 78753 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 3

None
by Lucia Cerbai 10 Oct '95

10 Oct '95

subscribe l.cerbai(a)iunet.it

1 0

Re: Funding for NAPs...
by sincos＠bellcore.com 09 Oct '95

09 Oct '95

Just to confirm, what Gordon said about the Bellcore/AADS/PB funding arrangement is true. AADS and PB do not receive any money from NSF for NAPs. Bellcore receives a small amount for coordinating the project, and for some network management research. Does the $2K (per month?) for connecting to the MFS NAP/MAE include access costs, or just the colocation charge? Dave

3 2

Re: Funding for NAPs...
by jgs＠aads.net 08 Oct '95

08 Oct '95

At 11:02 PM 10/6/95, Dave Siegel wrote: >The NAP providers (Ameritech, Sprint, and PacBell) do get some government >money. As with all government funding, there is red tape, such as >providing services to R&E type stuff. Ameritech doesn't receive any government funding for the Chicago NAP. I believe that Bellcore receives some government funding. I don't think that Sprint or PacBell get any government $$ either, but they should confirm or deny that themselves. --John

4 4

Re: Sprint violations (setting space aside for slow-start allocations)
by Sean Doran 08 Oct '95

08 Oct '95

Nick - Good points. You also join the registries in making one of the two very persuasive arguments in favour of relaxing (perhaps some, perhaps all) of 206.0.0.0/8 by one bit, to allow in /19s. Slow-start is a good idea, and we have the RIPE /19 legacy to prove it. Now we need to look at whether this can be done with /18s without exhausting IPv4 too soon, as there are some real concerns about doubling the maximum number of prefixes many routers will see. I also see no problem about working out case-by-case arrangements for putting holes into our filters in the future, taking everybody's various costs into consideration. | If Sprint is not doing a good job of aggregating its announcements, | filter them, eventually they'll get around to aggregating everything | they can. There certainly is some aggregation that should be done downstream from Sprint. We try to encourage people to aggregate what they can aggregate, but some outside pressure to do so probably would help... Sean. P.S.: | So how about agreeing on pools of address space for small allocations? I think you found a good topic!

3 4

Re: filtering long prefixes
by Sean Doran 08 Oct '95

08 Oct '95

Yes, Geert Jan, but if you look at the list I prepared, you'll note that the only chunks of old style Bs that are 18-bits long all come from one home-AS and most are in a pair of old-style class Bs which easily could be aggregated into a single /15 with the loss of some routing specificity (which is lost anyway when that provider's internal metrics don't propagate to its external peers). The remainder of the 'chunks' of old style Bs are all longer than 18 bits, and most are /24s or /26s, and I see none at all that appear difficult to aggregate, or which look like anything other than leaks due to misconfiguration. If you get to the point where someone needs to have a /18 in the old-style class B space and it can't be aggregated, we can return to this. Sean.

3 2

Program: 6th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks
by Account of Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research 06 Oct '95

06 Oct '95

------------------------------------------------- 6TH MARYLAND WORKSHOP ON VERY HIGH SPEED NETWORKS ------------------------------------------------- October 30-31, 1995 (Ballroom, University Center) Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering University of Maryland Baltimore County(UMBC) ******************************************************************************* Participation with: University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies IEEE Communication Society - Gigabit Networking Technical Committee IDA/Center for Computing Sciences Johns Hopkins University/Computer Science Department Supported by: Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, UMBC IBM IOS Press MCI Sprint SUN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, October 30, 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8:00-8:45 Registration and Coffee 8:45-9:00 Introduction Dr. Deepinder Sidhu Director, Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research(MCTR) Dr. Joel Morris Chair, Computer Science & Electrical Engineering, UMBC Dr. Freeman Hrabowski President, University of Maryland Baltimore County SESSION 1: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 09:00-9:45 Inder Gopal: IBM Watson Research Center (Keynote Address) Electronic Commerce: Technical Issues and Challenges 9:45-10:15 Thomas vonDeak: NASA Lewis Research Center Status of the NASA Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) Program and B-ISDN Development 10:15-10:45 Coffee Break SESSION 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10:45-11:15 Rick Wilder: MCI The NSF's very-high-speed Backbone Network Service: Architecture and Project Plans 11:15-11:45 Bob Collet: Sprint Overview of Sprint's SONET Infrastructure 11:45-12:15 J. H. Maestas: Sandia National Laboratories Experiences with SONET Transport Networks 12:15-1:30pm Lunch SESSION 3: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1:30-2:00 Raj Jain: Ohio State University Traffic management in ATM Networks 2:00-2:30 Mani B. Srivastava, P. Agrawal, A. Asthana, M. Cravatts, E. Hyden, P. Krzyzanowski, P. Mishra, B. Narendran, and J. Trotter: AT&T SWAN: Testbed for Mobile Networked Computing 2:30-3:00 Vern Paxson: Lawrence Berkely Lab Endpoint Measurement of Network Conditions 3:00-3:30 Donald Smith: Bellcore Adaptive Congestion Controls in SS7 and Implications for Broadband Signaling 3:30-4:00 Coffee Break SESSION 4: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4:00-4:30 J. H. Naegle: Sandia National Laboratories Progress with ATM at Sandia National Laboratories 4:30-5:00 Jonathan M. Smith: Univ of Pennsylvania TCP/IP performance of the Penn Afterburner ATM Link Adapter 5:00-5:30 Javad Boroumand: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center NASA EOSDIS Project ATM Prototyping ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- October 31, 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SESSION 5: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8:45-9:15 Michael Levender: Stratacom Applications Support Over ATM: An Update 9:15-9:45 Brad Makrucki: BellSouth Telecomm What's Wrong with Equivalent Bandwidth? 9:45-10:15 Roch Guerin: IBM Watson Research Center Traffic Shaping and Reshaping to Efficiently Provide End-to-End Guarantees. 10:15-10:45 Coffee Break SESSION 6: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10:45-11:15 Magda El Zarki: Univ. of Pennsylvania Video over ATM Quality Control 11:15-11:45 Guru Parulkar: Washington University Error Control for Continuous Media Applications 11:45-12:15 Anujan Varma: University of California FAST: A Hardware Simulation Testbed for ATM Network 12:15-1:15 Lunch SESSION 7: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1:15-1:45 Robert J. Aiken: Department of Energy/Lawrence Livermore Lab The ENERGY of HIgh Speed Networking 1:45-2:15 Ted Faber: USC/ISI Research in the ATOMIC-2 Project at ISI 2:15-2:45 Bernie Hudson: University of Ottawa High Speed Network Connecting Canada, Europe and North Africa 2:45-3:15 Jorg Liebeherr, I. F. Akyildiz and D. Sarkar: Univ. of Virginia, Virginia An Explicit Rate Control Scheme for ABR Traffic with Heterogeneous Service Requirements -------------------------------------END---------------------------------------

1 0