- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: CIDR FAQ
by Sean Doran 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

| Once the market is there, its usually too late for the poor fools | running the backbone. Hi there. I'm one of those "poor fools". Could you please take this off NANOG? Given the level of factual content, I humbly suggest com-priv as the appropriate venue for this enlightening conversation. Thanks. Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)sprint.net>

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ
by Nicolas Williams 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

Tony Li previously wrote: > The original post was about making time at the Pittsburg NANOG meeting > to talk about solutions to the problem of some exchange routers seeing > tens of thousands (even 100x) paths. The size of a full-Internet route > table is growing (albeit more slowly than it used to), the number of > ASes meeting at the various NAPs and MAEs is increasing, etc. Will the > number of paths heard by some routers at the XPs ever be so large that > they don't fit in the 7000 or 4500m's 64MB of RAM? Possibly (IMHO, > likely). What then? Use lots of filtering to keep the number of paths > heard down and lose flexibility? >Then I ask you to sign a nondisclosure agreement. ;-) Oh, then the whole argument is for naught. :) >We've actually been very good (some say too good) about adding >features. Yes, Cisco is very good about adding software features and even about allowing its customers to beta test software. >Tony > Nick

3 5

Re: CIDR FAQ
by jgs＠aads.net 16 Aug '95

16 Aug '95

At 7:23 PM 8/15/95, Nicolas Williams wrote: [...] >Colocated BGP4 "proxies" (I'm still not sure what to call these, >anyone?) [...] How about RCP (routing control processor)? And you could call the forwarding box a PSP (packet switching processor). Unless of course IBM has trademarked these or something. --John P.S.: For nostalgia's sake the RCP and PSP could talk over a 4 Mbit token-ring.

1 0

Re: PCs as routers...
by Jonathan Heiliger 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

On Aug 15, 4:22pm, Nathan Stratton wrote: > Ok, yes you are correct you can't drop a DS3 into the back of a PC, but > why not use a 4500 or 7000 for your ds3's and then use a PC to do the > major BGP4? On a 4500 I only can put in 32 megs or ram. Yes gated will > use more ram for the same number of routes, but I can put 128 meg or more > in a PC. >-- End of excerpt from Nathan Stratton I don't know if others have mentioned it... but I seem to recall that DEC was developing a PCI based HSSI interface for PCs. It also recently surfaced on one of the zillions of mailing lists. Granted you'd still need a DL 3100 or Larse Access-T45 to do your DS3 <-> HSSI stuff though. -- Jonathan Heiliger oOo Technical Specialist Email: loco(a)MFSDatanet.COM ooo MFS Datanet, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Telephone: [408].975.2259 oOo NCC: [800].637.4872

1 0

Re: CIDR FAQ
by Vince Fuller 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

Please remove CIDRD from the CC list for further discussion of the relative merits of cisco vs. PC routers. This is NOT relavent to the charter of the CIDR Deployment Working Group. Thanks, --Vince (the silent co-chair)

1 0

Re: How do I change my subscription?
by Robert E. Seastrom 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

You have my deepest sympathies. I've been trying for over a year via messages to postmaster(a)merit.edu and others, to get rs(a)tiny.sprintlink.net taken off the nanog list (I left Sprint last July). I get mail as rs(a)digex.net directly, and I get mail forwarded to me via Sprint, which means that I get two copies of everything that comes along. Problem is, the folks at Merit consistently deny that rs(a)tiny.sprintlink.net is on the list, though if you telnet to merit.edu's smtp port and EXPN the list, you see rs(a)tiny.sprintlink.net there, plain as day. Well, you used to be able to. Now if you telnet to merit.edu port 25 and say "expn nanog", the expn will eventually time out. This situation wouldn't be so bad if I could have an ongoing dialog with the Merit folks until we got things straightened out, but the standard MO seems to be to ignore the mail for three weeks to a month before sending back a claim that I'm not on the list and never have been. Then when I respond to that message, it goes in the bit bucket. I went through three iterations of this, and then gave up and wrote an incoming mail action to simply delete all duplicate messages in my nanog mailbox. It's simpler. Since all other mailing lists I used to subscribe to have propagated to rs(a)digex.net and NANOG mail is the only mail to me that routinely traverses Sprint, it crossed my mind to ask Sprint to point all mail for rs@tiny to nanog(a)merit.edu, but that seemed a little mean-spirited. :) ---Rob > I've tried nanog-request(a)merit.edu, it's no a valid address, and > I've tried majordomo(a)merit.edu, ditto. I need to change my > subscription to point to my new address. > > In case anyone's reading this that can do it, I subscribed to this list > as either: > > patrick(a)amdahl.com > patrick(a)oes.amdahl.com > or pjh70(a)eng.amdahl.com > > Starting Monday, my address will be: > > patrick(a)verity.com > > Thanks, and we return you to regularly scheduled business;) > > Patrick

3 2

Re: CIDR FAQ
by sob＠academ.com 15 Aug '95

15 Aug '95

Here is a small list for you. Of couse, corrections are most welcome: Routers that don't support fully support CIDR: ASCEND Pipeline and MAX products Telebit Netblazer Compatible Systems -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: amdahl!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

5 5

Re: One alternative to CIDR... ASAP
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 14 Aug '95

14 Aug '95

From: Tim Bass <bass(a)linux.silkroad.com> Here is a very rough strawman idea just posted to the CIDRD-WG. ... Autonomous System Aggregation Protocol Without commenting on the technical details (I've always held that mapping from IPv4 addresses to something else is one way to provide routing that scales, as well as "portable" IPv4 "addresses"), let me just point out that this scheme requires a certain amount of protocol development and documentation, as well as implementation and deployment. As well all have seen, the Internet seems to have a hard time doing that in less than three years, flat out. Also, the CIDR RFC (RFC-1519, 1993, three years ago) explicitly says: the Internet ... is soon to face several serious scaling problems. These include: ... Growth of routing tables in Internet routers ... It has become clear that the first two of these problems are likely to become critical within the next one to three years. This memo attempts to deal with these problems by proposing a mechanism to slow the growth of the routing table In other words, the growth of the routing tables was seen as a problem even then, and CIDR (and "supernetting") was the solution that was proposed, in a timely fashion, to that problem. RFC-1519 goes on to note: The proposed solution is to topologically allocate future IP address assignment ... this plan neither requires nor assumes that already assigned addresses will be reassigned ... routing technology will be capable of dealing with the current routing table size and with some reasonably small rate of growth. If this was an unacceptable solution, the time to say so, and make alternate plans, was back then. We've put a lot of code in place assuming that this was going to be the way we solved this problem, and it's very late in the game to say "oops, not the right approach". Noel

1 0

Re: One alternative to CIDR... ASAP
by Vince Fuller 14 Aug '95

14 Aug '95

People keep sending me e-mail asking for my ideas on alternatives to renumbering and CIDR. Here is a very rough strawman idea just posted to the CIDRD-WG. There are similar variations on this ASN routing paradigm that also could be considered: I'd suggest that those considering this proposal also peruse the archives of the IPAE mailing list, since IPAE (IP Address Encapsulation) was, at least in its earlies form, precisely this - a mechanism for encapsulating IP addresses in such a way as to create an inter-AS routing scheme using a separate, 32-bit address space. If memory serves, there have also been other earlier proposals for doing AS-to-AS routing using either a separate address space or using IP options - I believe the Big-Internet mailing list archives contains volumnous discussion of these techniques. Re-inventing a square wheel doesn't make it roll any better... --Vince

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by Sean Doran 14 Aug '95

14 Aug '95

| Knowing Sean for who he is, I'm fairly sure that no RADB or RS will ever be | suitable to him. In particular... On the contrary; I believe Peter Lothberg's proposals for an RS scheme are quite reasonable. I think his criticisms of the current RADB and RS models are pretty well known, and valid. I would point out one more thing though, and that's that at the Stockholm IETF I had a genial chat with a number of folks from MERIT and the RA Team in general, and suggested several ways that the RADB could be made incrementally useful. I hope that some good comes out of that conversation. I'll use any tool that will make my job easier, and help our operation and the Internet scale better. At the moment, though, the RADB does the opposite, and the RS has no value whatsoever. Sean.

1 0