- Test - lists.nanog.org

$320 for a .com domain registration?
by Michael Dillon 12 Aug '95

12 Aug '95

I just finished browsing http://www.britain.eu.net/naming-co/couk-form.html which is the registration form for the .co.uk domain. They charge 300 pounds for each domain registered, approximately $320 is US funds. Comments? Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com

4 4

Re: routing meltdown
by Hank Nussbacher 12 Aug '95

12 Aug '95

On Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:10:12 -0400 you said: > Sean. > >P.S.: I seem to have misplaced my copy of Radia Perlman's > _Bridges and Routers_. Does anyone have the ISBN handy? Try the Jan 1988 IEEE Network issue for many definitive articles on routers vs bridges. 2 articles by Radia as well as others on this list. Hank

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by Barney Wolff 12 Aug '95

12 Aug '95

> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 21:41:35 -0700 > From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > > N**2 BGP4 sessions are bad for likely values of N (100, maybe.) That won't > change just because we've got a 1GB-RAM DEC Alpha with a 300MHz processor > instead of a Cisco to do our route processing. N**2 BGP4 sessions is a bad > design no matter what you're implementing it with. In that sense, your idea > is not "viable" since it doesn't solve some of the real problems coming up. Is N**2 sessions on N hosts really so bad? Am I missing something here? Since only the hosts are aware of the sessions, I don't see N**2 as a problem. Is the rate of updates dependent on the number of peers, or on the rate of real changes in the real networks? Barney Wolff <barney(a)databus.com>

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by Nicolas Williams 12 Aug '95

12 Aug '95

If the problem we're talking about is that the large number of paths that an exchange point router will soon be seeing is too large, and having a single route-server at each exchange is not politically acceptable, then here is a possible solution. One way to cut down the number of paths each XP router sees would be for every XP NSP/ISP/whatever to install a router _and_ a BGP4 "proxy" server. Meaning that each XP router would peer via IBGP with a large (64-128MB of RAM) computer, which in turn would peer, via EBGP, with all of that AS' peers' routers or router servers. This way each XP router so configured would have as many paths learned at the XP as it would have routes learned at the XP, which would be a substantial reduction from the number of paths most XP routers tend to carry nowadays; the computer next to the router would be the one to absorb the heavy load of handling so many neighbors, routes and paths, and these computers can be upgrade with more ease than can the routers. This approach has two major benefits: - The load on the XP routers would be lowered considerably by relieving the router of part of the path selection process as well as the need to have enough memory to carry hundreds of thousands of paths. The pressure on router vendors to beef up their products "path" capacity would be considerably reduced, thus lowering router costs in the long run. - NAP members would be freed from having to wait for their router vendor to implement better route filtering features. After all, each member would then have better control over the software used for the BGP4 server (there's gated, there could be new PD/free/shareware BGP4 router daemons, or even commercial ones if everyone tried this setup), able, perhaps, to hack their BGP4 daemon any which way they desire. A Pentium-class PC running some sort of Unix or Unix-like OS, or a Sun or DEC Alpha, or something like that, populated with 64MB of RAM or more would do for such a server; these, unlike Cisco routers, tend to be easily upgradable to larger amounts of RAM or faster CPUs too! If you think about it, freeing ourselves from our router vendors' BGP4 limitations would allow more experimenting with route dampening, and even a model that allows for some temporary entropy within the /18 model. For example, a BGP4 daemon could be developped that keeps track of each prefix's routing flap, thus allowing policies that filter unstable prefixes/paths, or that would temporarily allow in prefix announcements that are too long (this would allow a /18+Entropy model, which would help ASes deal with rare AS partitioning incidents and the like). The number and size of holes in large aggregates could also be controlled; a policy could specify that no more than 4 /24 holes in /18s be accepted for example. All of the above features would take some time before they are implemented, but it would probably be less than the time it would take router vendors (after all, many of us would have an interest in helping to develop these features). One other, less important, benefit of doing this would be that of saving router vendors the headache of having to add more and more CPU and RAM capacity to their routers. Why would this be good? Well, IPv6, if it ever is accepted by the Internet (and I bet it will be), will only requiere XP routers to carry a few hundred routes at most (IPv6 would be used with CIDR from the beginning), wasting, as a result, the large amounts of RAM and fast CPUs everyone will have put in their XP routers by the time IPv6 replaces IPv4; general purpose servers can easily be reused, and if anything, are far less expensive than large routers. NAPs could even segregate all BGP4 traffic off of the FDDI or ATM switches, since member's XP route servers could be configured to peer over a lower bandwidth, separate LAN. Would this exchange point configuration be acceptable? Nick PS: A Cisco 4500 with two high speed interface boards and one ether card, along with a Pentium-class, 128MB box in a small case with no monitor or keyboard and with one ethernet interface would be enough of a start up kit for most NAP newcomers and it would all fit in the limited rack space Sprint offers at its NAP. I'd love to see lower entry barriers.

7 14

How do I change my subscription?
by patrick＠oes.amdahl.com 11 Aug '95

11 Aug '95

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 _______________________________________________________________________ / These opinions are mine, and not Amdahl's (except by coincidence;). \ | (mail copyright Patrick J. Horgan) (\ | | Patrick J. Horgan Amdahl Corporation \\ Have | | patrick(a)amdahl.com 1250 East Arques Avenue \\ _ Sword | | Phone : (408)992-2779 P.O. Box 3470 M/S 316 \\/ Will | | FAX : (408)773-0833 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470 _/\\ Travel | \___________________________O16-2294________________________\)__________/

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by Scott Bradner 11 Aug '95

11 Aug '95

> I seem to have misplaced my copy of Radia Perlman's _Bridges and Routers_. Does anyone have the ISBN handy? ISBN- 0-201-56332-0 Interconnections: Bridges and Routers Scott

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by Hans-Werner Braun 11 Aug '95

11 Aug '95

On the MBONE. When the load becomes too high, the VIRC (van inflow routing control) kicks in. At 14:41 8/11/95 PDT, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >Jon, > >> > Making >> > routing decisions based on load is somewhere between silly and scary. If >> >> No, it is not, in fact it happens all the time. > >Would you please point to places in the Internet that do load-sensitive >routing ? > >Yakov. > >

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by Sean Doran 11 Aug '95

11 Aug '95

>in fact it happens all the time Not generally in Big Internets, although I'd love to know anyone who has been playing with feeding congestion info into their IGPs or whatever, just out of curiosity. Moreover, even where it does happen now, it happens in the middle on a hop-by-hop basis, and not on an end-to-end basis. The latter course introduces all sorts of really interesting problems into something that I thought was nuked as a bad idea a long time ago... Sean. P.S.: I seem to have misplaced my copy of Radia Perlman's _Bridges and Routers_. Does anyone have the ISBN handy?

1 0

Re: routing meltdown
by scharf＠vix.com 11 Aug '95

11 Aug '95

jon(a)branch.com (Jon Zeeff) wrote > Perhaps "policies, procedures & data" is a better word than "protocols" used > in the generic sense. > > I want to route things differently based on the time of day, whether > or not a particular network is seeing heavy traffic, and what my > horoscope said today. I can implement this much more easily on a > workstation where I have source code than I can convince Cisco to > implement it. > > > So, it seems that using route servers would have no impact wrt to removing > > "complex routing protocols from routers". Making routing decisions based on horoscopes doesn't bother me. Making routing decisions based on load is somewhere between silly and scary. If you only cook yourself then it's silly, if you cook others it's scary. In my dusty past I played with a digital simulation of an analog computer, and remember trying to build various damped circuits. Then you hooked up the signal generator, and about 8 times out of 10, some part of the circuit went to rail (this means you blew it.) The idea of positive feedback loops in the internet routing/traffic fabric seems unimaginable for someone who had trouble taming 10 opamps with a known input signal. It's easy to look at what exists and see it is suboptimal. I would venture it is impossible to build an automatic system that would not display catastrohic actions under certain stresses. Jerry

3 2

Re: routing meltdown
by Curtis Villamizar 11 Aug '95

11 Aug '95

Yakov, > So, it seems that using route servers would have no impact wrt to removing > "complex routing protocols from routers". There is at least one large Internet service provider who has talked (internally) about doing things like removing routing protocols entirely from commercial routers that forward very well but route very poorly. It was even suggested at one point that maybe we could open a telnet session and feed the router "ip ro net mask hext-hop" and "no ip ro net mask hext-hop" commands as a means to control it, but though giving it routing using a single BGP connection and third party routes was a cleaner approach. Probably the only thing that kept us from doing that was the poor cache performance and buffering problems (didn't really forward all that well under real network conditions). Curtis They don't build them like they used to. They never did. :-) True for arbitrary values of "they".

1 0