- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: May COOK Report Published tonight (fwd)
by rcollet＠sprint.net 01 May '95

01 May '95

Karl: if the preponderence of the membership feels the same way as you do we'll obviously not pursue this approach. What are your thoughts on the alternative approach of simply enhancing existing InterNIC operations through supplementary funding, e.g., from CIX, ISOC, etc. thanks Bob Collet >> >> I hope this is a road they never try to go down. >> >> Joseph Stroup >> >> On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Michael Dillon wrote: >> >> > >> > I wonder how many of you have heard about the CIX plans to become THE >> > Internet routing arbiter and in other ways replace the former NSFNet? >> > Is there any serious possibility of their plans coming to fruition? > >This is a road that, should the CIX attempt to travel, it will be met with >extremely high resistance from people like myself. > >You don't even want to think about the restraint of trade issues if a trade >association tries to set itself up as a RA or NIC and demands money for >membership to receive those services. > >-- >-- >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity >Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland >Voice: [+1 312 248-8649] | 7 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8 >Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Email to "info(a)mcs.net" for more information >ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net

2 1

Pathways of the NSFNET - a poem
by skh＠merit.edu 01 May '95

01 May '95

Hi all: Late last night upon the last hours of NSFNET, I wrote something in response to Sean Doran's poem. By request of a few friends, I am submitting it to NANOG list for thought. I hope you enjoy it. Pathways of the NSFNET (1988-1995) All pathways lead but inward, yet ever outward. All travels begin, and run far only to end at the beginning. Dreams which lead us to learn to build, Lead us onward only to find out How little we truly understand our pathways which go ever onward in spite of us; For time burns all but truth away. Networks begun grow toward success. If they succeed, they often transform beyond us. Like children who grow up and beyond us and lead us further to understand who we are. (A poem for the end of the NSFNET era from a nsfnet nerd.) Blessings and best wishes for the Next Generation Internet, Sue Hares Sean's poem that inspired me > > All nature is but art unknown to thee; > All chance, direction which thou canst not see; > All discord, harmony not understood; > All partial evil, universal good; > And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite, > One truth is clear, "Whatever IS, is RIGHT." [some future RFC] > > Sean. > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > >

1 0

May COOK Report Published tonight (fwd)
by Michael Dillon 01 May '95

01 May '95

I wonder how many of you have heard about the CIX plans to become THE Internet routing arbiter and in other ways replace the former NSFNet? Is there any serious possibility of their plans coming to fruition? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 22:19:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Gordon Cook <gcook(a)tigger.jvnc.net> To: inet-access(a)earth.com Subject: May COOK Report Published tonight Apologies for the empty post! CIX Reorganization. pp. 1-7 We publish an interview with CIX Association President Bob Collet. In January the CIX appointed Susan Fitzgerald as its new Executive Director. Given the uncertain situation of the CIX, Susan's position is part time while she continues to run her network consulting company. Nevertheless Collet and Fitzgerald have been hard at work on a strategic plan and telecom white paper designed to turn the CIX into a trade association. While the CIX is still running its router and filtering has just gone into effect, the environment of the Internet has been so totally transformed since last summer that that the interconnect and peering services offered by the CIX router have become essentially meaningless with the opening of the NAPs and MAE West and the expansion of MAE-East. However, the change in network topology has done interesting things to the cost of directly connecting to the core Internet. A year ago this could be done via a connection at the CIX router for perhaps $40,000 a year for the membership, connect fee and T-1 transit to the router. Now connection at T-3 speeds to multiple NAPs is necessary at a base cost that we estimate to be about $400,000 a year. The CIX task force that was recruited when Collet became President late last November has turned its attention to such tasks as the definition of lobbying positions before the FCC in an effort to keep a level field for ISPs faced with the entry of RBOCs into their markets. In its Strategic Plan it has also outlined a new infrastructure model of High Bandwidth Packet Exchange Points (HPEPs), First Tier Providers, Large ISPs and Third Tier Prodivers which may aggregate their traffic in Packet Exchange Points before being sent on the HPEPs. One of the possible roles posited for the CIX is providing the basic language of interconnect agreements between the various levels of the new infrastructure. Running a routing registry for members is another possible service for members that is discussed. While press accounts list 155 members Susan Fitzgerald told us that the current count is actually 145. She said this figured is taken from the total number of networks that had ever joined the CIX, including the large number that signed up last fall paying a partial year's fee in order to be able to attend the Atlanta membership meeting. Critical to the CIX's future will be the number who pay 1995 dues. Because the first thing that Fitzgerald had to do was reorganize the CIX's books, invoices for 1995 dues were not even sent out until February. Members will have until June 1 to pay up in order to attend the membership meeting at I- Net in Hawaii later that month. The Strategic Plan and Telecom White Paper were sent to memebrs on March 30, with the hope that they would give members sufficient reason to renew. With only a single tier of dues set at $7500 a year, our guess is that the number of members at the June meeting will be much diminished from the current 145 total. Last week NYSERnet announced that it would not be renewing its CIX membership - not a good sign for the future viability of the CIX. While there is nothing about the program that Collet has put together that looks especially negative to us, there are parts of the infrastructure model design that may not be well received by all quarters. More important however is the question of communication with the network community at large. If the CIX is ever again to speak for the preponderance of the commercial internet, those on its Board must take the organization's new program before the internet community as a whole and argue openly for its support. The fact that we have not seen this happen combined with an increasingly active role by an Internet Society showing signs of wanting to move into the vacuum created by the end of the NSFnet, is not a sign that bodes well for the CIX's future. ISOC, Network Infrastructure, IETF & NAPs pp.1, 8 -9 Who will put money into commercial domain name registration and into the IETF is a current critical topic among Internet policy makers. We state some NSF assumptions on these issues, publish responses from ISOC Director Tony Rutkowskii and describe the decision taken by the Federal Networking Council to continue supporting IETF to the tune of nearly 1.5 million a year in order to be certain that IETF maintains its independence. Updates on PacBell and Ameritech NAPs - including a PacBell communications slip. MCI May Impose Metered Pricing pp. 10 - 11 MCI's John Houser side stepped our questions after New Hampshire ISP asserted that his MCI sales reps had said metered pricing would begin some time in May. Routing in the Post NSFnet World, pp. 12-16 The MERIT Policy Routing Data Base is being replaced by the Routing Arbiter Database and Route Servers. But in the new decentralized multiple backbone world we have just enetered, not everyone has committed to use the Routing Arbiter. This combined with heavy pressure on Sprint's routers, caused Sprint to begin to restrict the portability of some CIDR blocks for routing purposes. After a heavy flame war between Sprint, PSI and MCSnet, the likely out come will be to restrict greatly the portability of IP numbers obtained via CIDR blocs should a customer using those numbers decide to change providers. Access Indiana Revisited, pp. 17-20 The award of the state preferred provider contract has been delayed until late May. In the meantime it has become clear that a centralized head end, top down model into which all community networks will be plugged is intended. A 12 county private sector effort to link K-12 schools was polity told to stand aside in early April since it would be duplicating the centralized effort of state government. When a private ISP offered to extend service into a rural community, she was also rebuffed. Ameritech, State Dept of Education and State Library money is going not into community owned infrastructure but rather should go according to organizer Ed Tully into professional web page design so that Indiana communities will have attractive content to give a state choosen central provider. When many communities said they had adequate talent to design their own Web pages, Tully sharply disagreed. Washington State Porn Bill pp. 21-22 Under this grossly misguided legislation now on Governor Mark Lowry's desk, ISPs would be liable to the tune of $5000 a day and one year in jail for each instance of pornographic material found on their systems by minors. The legislation would effectively force ISPs to deny access to minors. ******************************************************************** Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscript.: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet -> NREN Non Profit. $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate. Site Lic $650 http://www.netaxs.com/~cook <- Subscription Info & COOK Report Index ********************************************************************

3 2

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
by sob＠academ.com 01 May '95

01 May '95

Okey. I am just looking for clarification. Vadim's statement seemed to either indicate that ANS was not a "large service provider" or that NSSes were no longer part of ANS's backbone. I am certainly in no position to know how to classify "large service provider" unless we look at the NSF NSP definition as a metric. If there is another objective definition, I'd be happy to hear about it. As for the NSSes no longer being in the ANS backbone, it is clear that ANS is using some Cisco products, but it is also clear there are still some CNSSes that Cisco didn't build. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: bcm!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

2 1

Re: May COOK Report Published tonight (fwd)
by rcollet＠sprint.net 01 May '95

01 May '95

Mike: there are no plans to do anything at this time! Please don't read more into this exploratory initiative than that we are examining the environment with respect to membership needs. The White Paper looks at both being a registry and utilizing existing registries, e.g. InterNIC. We obviously need to be complimentary with existing and future endeavors. Thanks Bob Collet >I wonder how many of you have heard about the CIX plans to become THE >Internet routing arbiter and in other ways replace the former NSFNet? >Is there any serious possibility of their plans coming to fruition? > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 22:19:06 -0400 (EDT) >From: Gordon Cook <gcook(a)tigger.jvnc.net> >To: inet-access(a)earth.com >Subject: May COOK Report Published tonight > >Apologies for the empty post! > > >CIX Reorganization. pp. 1-7 > >We publish an interview with CIX Association President Bob Collet. >In January the CIX appointed Susan Fitzgerald as its new Executive >Director. Given the uncertain situation of the CIX, Susan's position >is part time while she continues to run her network consulting >company. Nevertheless Collet and Fitzgerald have been hard at >work on a strategic plan and telecom white paper designed to turn >the CIX into a trade association. While the CIX is still running its >router and filtering has just gone into effect, the environment of >the Internet has been so totally transformed since last summer >that that the interconnect and peering services offered by the CIX >router have become essentially meaningless with the opening of >the NAPs and MAE West and the expansion of MAE-East. > >However, the change in network topology has done interesting >things to the cost of directly connecting to the core Internet. A >year ago this could be done via a connection at the CIX router for >perhaps $40,000 a year for the membership, connect fee and T-1 >transit to the router. Now connection at T-3 speeds to multiple >NAPs is necessary at a base cost that we estimate to be about >$400,000 a year. > >The CIX task force that was recruited when Collet became >President late last November has turned its attention to such tasks >as the definition of lobbying positions before the FCC in an effort to >keep a level field for ISPs faced with the entry of RBOCs into their >markets. In its Strategic Plan it has also outlined a new >infrastructure model of High Bandwidth Packet Exchange Points >(HPEPs), First Tier Providers, Large ISPs and Third Tier Prodivers >which may aggregate their traffic in Packet Exchange Points before >being sent on the HPEPs. One of the possible roles posited for the >CIX is providing the basic language of interconnect agreements >between the various levels of the new infrastructure. Running a >routing registry for members is another possible service for >members that is discussed. > >While press accounts list 155 members Susan Fitzgerald told us >that the current count is actually 145. She said this figured is >taken from the total number of networks that had ever joined the >CIX, including the large number that signed up last fall paying a >partial year's fee in order to be able to attend the Atlanta >membership meeting. Critical to the CIX's future will be the >number who pay 1995 dues. Because the first thing that Fitzgerald >had to do was reorganize the CIX's books, invoices for 1995 dues >were not even sent out until February. Members will have until >June 1 to pay up in order to attend the membership meeting at I- >Net in Hawaii later that month. The Strategic Plan and Telecom >White Paper were sent to memebrs on March 30, with the hope >that they would give members sufficient reason to renew. With >only a single tier of dues set at $7500 a year, our guess is that the >number of members at the June meeting will be much diminished >from the current 145 total. Last week NYSERnet announced that it >would not be renewing its CIX membership - not a good sign for >the future viability of the CIX. > >While there is nothing about the program that Collet has put >together that looks especially negative to us, there are parts of the >infrastructure model design that may not be well received by all >quarters. More important however is the question of >communication with the network community at large. If the CIX is >ever again to speak for the preponderance of the commercial >internet, those on its Board must take the organization's new >program before the internet community as a whole and argue >openly for its support. The fact that we have not seen this happen >combined with an increasingly active role by an Internet Society >showing signs of wanting to move into the vacuum created by the >end of the NSFnet, is not a sign that bodes well for the CIX's future. > >ISOC, Network >Infrastructure, IETF & NAPs pp.1, 8 -9 > >Who will put money into commercial domain name registration >and into the IETF is a current critical topic among Internet policy >makers. We state some NSF assumptions on these issues, publish >responses from ISOC Director Tony Rutkowskii and describe the >decision taken by the Federal Networking Council to continue >supporting IETF to the tune of nearly 1.5 million a year in order to >be certain that IETF maintains its independence. Updates on >PacBell and Ameritech NAPs - including a PacBell communications >slip. > >MCI May Impose Metered Pricing pp. 10 - 11 > >MCI's John Houser side stepped our questions after New >Hampshire ISP asserted that his MCI sales reps had said metered >pricing would begin some time in May. > >Routing in the Post NSFnet World, pp. 12-16 > >The MERIT Policy Routing Data Base is being replaced by the >Routing Arbiter Database and Route Servers. But in the new >decentralized multiple backbone world we have just enetered, not >everyone has committed to use the Routing Arbiter. This >combined with heavy pressure on Sprint's routers, caused Sprint to >begin to restrict the portability of some CIDR blocks for routing >purposes. After a heavy flame war between Sprint, PSI and >MCSnet, the likely out come will be to restrict greatly the >portability of IP numbers obtained via CIDR blocs should a >customer using those numbers decide to change providers. > >Access Indiana Revisited, pp. 17-20 > >The award of the state preferred provider contract has been >delayed until late May. In the meantime it has become clear that a >centralized head end, top down model into which all community >networks will be plugged is intended. A 12 county private sector >effort to link K-12 schools was polity told to stand aside in early >April since it would be duplicating the centralized effort of state >government. When a private ISP offered to extend service into a >rural community, she was also rebuffed. Ameritech, State Dept of >Education and State Library money is going not into community >owned infrastructure but rather should go according to organizer >Ed Tully into professional web page design so that Indiana >communities will have attractive content to give a state choosen >central provider. When many communities said they had adequate >talent to design their own Web pages, Tully sharply disagreed. > >Washington State Porn Bill pp. 21-22 > >Under this grossly misguided legislation now on Governor Mark >Lowry's desk, ISPs would be liable to the tune of $5000 a day and >one year in jail for each instance of pornographic material found on >their systems by minors. The legislation would effectively force >ISPs to deny access to minors. > > > >******************************************************************** >Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscript.: Individ-ascii $85 >The COOK Report on Internet -> NREN Non Profit. $150 >431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200 >(609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 >Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate. Site Lic $650 >http://www.netaxs.com/~cook <- Subscription Info & COOK Report Index >********************************************************************

1 0

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
by sob＠academ.com 01 May '95

01 May '95

Vadim, I thought that ANS was still using CNSSes and ENSSes, which I don't believe that Cisco built. Please let me know if I have misunderstood your statement here. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: bcm!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

3 3

Re: BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics)
by Robert E. Seastrom 30 Apr '95

30 Apr '95

Sue: Lots of companies require electricity and phone service in order to conduct their business. Given the comparatively small number of companies that have phone lines served by more than one central office or redundant power feeds to their buildings (much less lines provided by more than one phone company or more than one power company), I little evidence to suggest that there will be a huge growth in the number of multi-homed networks in the near future. Your last paragraph is most telling, however. We are looking at this situation from two different angles. While you are designing the next generation of routing protocols, my compatriots and I are discussing how to reasonably configure the hardware we've already got with existing protocols in order to keep the poor CPUs in boxes that carry full routing from melting down due to route flap. Neither task is inherently better or more honorable than the other, but it is important to not let the purposes become crossed. When the futurists are permitted to interfere with the here-and-now pragmatists, what happens is called OSI. When you let the here-and-now pragmatists interfere with the vision of the futurists, you get the phone company and cable TV. I am quite interested to see a copy of your paper; please send it (or a pointer) along. IDRP may be wonderful, but it is not likely to make the CPUs in ICM's routers sit down and take a rest in the near term. Pull-up routes to reduce flap are a cheap, easy-to-install, and rapidly deployable (though not technologically beautiful) way to do that, and should be deployed with all reasonable haste (in my biased opinion). Best regards, ---Rob > Rob: > > During the Development of the IDRP specification, there we > discussion about how to automatically generate from the IGP > information, the information necessary to send in BGP/IDRP. Have you > read the paper by Yakov, Dave Oran, and myself on this? It was written > a while ago. I can send you a copy. > > The single core corporate, with single homed may be currently a > winner - due to security and ease of access. However, it may be that > the future, will require more redundancy for certain businesses who > use the Internet to sell services. > > At that point multi-homed corporate networks may grow out of the 5%. > The multi-homed network prefixes, could be generated form IGP > information. > > Please don't take this as a should, but a thoughtful response on > what "might" be. > > Best wishes, > > Sue Hares > >

1 0

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
by Vadim Antonov 30 Apr '95

30 Apr '95

> You were saying that Cisco's "state of the art" equipment was inadequate to > handle the load you were presenting to it, in that the slightest abnormality > in the external world made it essentially useless for a period of time. Yes. But not because of CPU switching packets. >My argument is that one of three things must then be true: >1) You are incorrectly using the equipment you purchased. Please teach us on how to use it correctly. Ypu have the full information on the toplogy of SprintLink and the Internet at large. >2) The equipment is not meeting its specifications which you relied on > when you purchased it. That is certainly not the case, for we are beta-testers for cisco. We do not rely on the marketing literature; and cisco is being very cooperative in providing large ISPs with the access to the people in company who actually know how the thing works. >3) The equipment is incapable of handling the load presented by a > "modern" Internet. It is barely capable. The fact is it is the only equipment today which is capable of handling the load and has appropriate functionality (i.e. actually works). Which explains why *all* large service providers use ciscos as backbone routers. We're investigating the alternative vendors' products, too. The only interesting thing available now on the market is highly specialized, unfortunately. --vadim

2 1

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
by Sean Doran 30 Apr '95

30 Apr '95

They also keep asking me who might be interested in a number of them at cut-rate prices (slightly used). I could always point them at you. Sean.

1 0

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
by Sean Doran 30 Apr '95

30 Apr '95

Actually, Tony, people at Advantis keep calling me and asking if we'd be interested in picking up a bunch of NSSes on the cheap. Sean.

2 1