- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ATM thruput
by jim＠calstate.edu 10 Aug '95

10 Aug '95

d

1 0

Re: routing meltdown - let's talk at Pittsburgh
by sob＠academ.com 09 Aug '95

09 Aug '95

Okey, I'd be happy to take this one on. Does anyone have an objection to the agenda sequece that Curtis suggested in his earlier mail? Are they any additions or sequence changes that folks want to suggest? Finally, since I am not dexterous enough to takes notes ANY moderate, are there any volunteers to take notes? [Note: Yes, I am once again volunteering to be the note taker for NANOG unless someone else wants to do it. I have been kinda busy in the last few months and have not had a chance to get all the materials into the last set of pages I built. I am committed to getting that done before the September NANOG, though.] -- 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.

1 0

Re: routing meltdown - let's talk at Pittsburgh
by sob＠academ.com 09 Aug '95

09 Aug '95

Curtis, I'd be willing to proxy-moderate if you can't get an asbestos suit. I think this is an important issue and certainly should be discussed at NANOG. -- 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.

2 1

Re: routing meltdown - let's talk at Pittsburgh
by Sean Doran 09 Aug '95

09 Aug '95

I'll be prepared to talk about it, but I like your offer of proxy-moderation. I always seem to end up either lecturing or playing Phil Donohue. Sean.

1 0

routing meltdown - let's talk at Pittsburgh
by Curtis Villamizar 09 Aug '95

09 Aug '95

Sean, Could you please sign up to lead a discussion of the impending routing meltdown as you see it at the upcoming NANOG meeting. You've been very vocal on CIDRD, but it is not clear what solutions you are offering. I sincerely would like to know what you feel the problem is (though I have a good handle on this part already, I think) and what could be done about it. Specifically (for discussion at the meeting): 1. Number of destinations - 30K one path is beyond the technology available today, but it is pushing what parts of the Internet can support. Right? CIDRization helps here (and in 2 and 3 below). How can we better promote CIDRization? Can we do a better job of identifying who still needs to CIDRize? Are we ready to do proxy aggregation, and if so on what scale? Under what circumstances is hostile proxy aggregation (without the approval of the originator of the routes) justified? What safeguards should be in place to prevent hostile aggregation with no approval whatsoever? Or should the ability to do hostile aggregation be a feature??? 2. Number of paths - what is the limit on paths 100k, 200k? Are there ways to reduce the number of paths at hot spot routers? a. If the hot spot routers are at the exchanges and the problems are too many peers would it help to take routing from a single third party like a route server? Is there something wrong with the route server model, or the people running the route server? (save RA flames for the meeting please!) b. If the problem is peering at too many exchange points with the same people, would it help to limit your peerings with other major providers to three or even two exchange points? This would need to be configured, so would some sort of registry for this type of configuration help? 3. CPU load. Are the efforts of Cisco in implementing route flap dampenning paying off? If so, do we anticipate that this will solve the problem or just buy us time (at this point it may be very preliminary)? Will the RA RS support dampenning? If you prefer, I will ask ANS to rent me an asbestos suit and I'll do my best to lead a discussion on this. This is just a suggested outline. If you want to lead the discussion, of course you are welcome to structure the discussion as you see fit. I'd like to hear your assessment of what the problems are and how you think the Internet community should be addressing them. There are people who claim that they are not opposed to the idea of documenting the routing topology to better coordinate routing configuration, particularly aggregation, but object to the way it is currently being done. I'd like to know how it could be better done. There is also the sticky issue of who will do it, whatever this better plan happens to be. Curtis

1 0

Ideas for presentations
by Susan R. Harris 09 Aug '95

09 Aug '95

Greetings - Here are the presentations we've planned so far for the September 11-12 meeting: --Future of .COM and other top-level domains --NAP reports with focus on statistics being gathered --Route flapping update --RA status --SNMPv2 and next-generation network management tools Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? --Susan Harris

2 1

route flap reports work now
by Curtis Villamizar 09 Aug '95

09 Aug '95

The good news is the the route flap reports are up again. The bad news for statistics fans is that while the reporting was down due to a disk crash, the machine that was thought to be still collecting raw data was switched to peer with a different router and was confused and declared all the BGP updates invalid for the entire (nearly a month) period. People with unstable routing signed up for the reports should start getting them again starting in an hour or less. Since my last message I got a lot of "what are these reports anyway" messages. Please see: ftp://ftp.ans.net/pub/info/routing-stats/daily-reports/README I just updated the README file a bit. For those that receive these, I'd like to take a poll. It appears that routing stability has improved since these reports first began. The previous criteria for reporting a network as "unstable" was 50 changes per day for a single prefix or a down time of 1 hour. I've just changed this to 20 changes and 15 minutes down time. I'd like to know if this is too sensitive after running for a while. Curtis

1 0

NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 08 Aug '95

08 Aug '95

The next NANOG Meeting will be September 11 & 12 in Pittsburgh, PA. Please register by e-mail (name and organization) or by the registration form on the Merit Home Page. To get to the registration form online use http://www.ra.net/routing.arbiter/NANOG/mtg-9509/registration.form.html Hotel: Holiday Inn At University ctr 100 Lytton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA (412)682-6200 $78 per night + tax if reserved by 8/25 mention the NANOG Meeting. The hotel is about 2-3 blocks from the meeting site. Airport: Pittsburgh International Airport Meeting Site: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Ctr. Mellon Institute Bldg. 4400 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA (412)268-4960 (main number) Agenda and other information will follow later. Please register ASAP. Thanks Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: NAP Info
by salo＠msc.edu 08 Aug '95

08 Aug '95

> From: salo(a)msc.edu (Tim Salo) > Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:10:07 -0500 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: NAP Info > > Does anyone have an URL to NAP information that my Mosaic can read? > > (http://www.merit.edu/routing.arbiter/RA/index.html displays only a > single odd character on my version of Mosaic...) Thank you to everyone who replied. I needed to finish my presentation before Federal Express left, and didn't want to debug WWW problems before then. The problem appears to be an odd interaction between NCSA Mosaic for the Mac and the www.ra.net server. I promise my next question to NANOG will be harder... -tjs

1 0

Re: subscribe
by Pam Ciesla 08 Aug '95

08 Aug '95

Cleveland: I have added you to the nanog mail group. Pam >From list-admin(a)merit.edu Mon Aug 7 17:59:21 1995 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by home.merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id RAA19240; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 17:59:17 -0400 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com (gatekeeper.mcimail.com [192.147.45.5]) by merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id RAA21925 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 17:11:14 -0400 Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id VAA03508; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 21:09:39 GMT Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id aa05548; 7 Aug 95 21:08 WET Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 16:07 EST From: Cleveland Mickles <0003797473(a)mcimail.com> To: "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)merit.edu> Cc: cleveland mickles <cmickles(a)mci.net> Subject: subscribe Message-Id: <55950807210755/0003797473NA2EM(a)MCIMAIL.COM> Status: RO subscribe 3797473(a)mcimail.com

1 0