RE: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
how would you guarantee connectivity? should each isp present should provide bandwidth as part of collocation expenses? should the opexes be included in the colo bill? and then - this would probably make the colo becoming a connectivity provider, wouldn't it? -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
-----Original Message----- From: Nipper, Arnold [mailto:arnold.nipper@de-cix.net] Sent: 6. júna 2002 16:07 To: Jan-Ahrent Czmok; Sabine Dolderer/Denic Cc: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net; apops@lists.apnic.net; ddiaz@ripe.net; joao@ripe.net; lir-wg@ripe.net; nanog@merit.edu; randy@psg.com; routing-wg@ripe.net; tech-l@ams-ix.net Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
As a lot of people are offering secondary services: may be it's a good idea to place infrastructural services at IXP. IXP seem to be more stable than any ISPs and often more neutral than ISPs.
Comments?
Arnold -- Arnold Nipper, DE-CIX, the German Internet Exchange email: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net mobile: +49 172 2650958 handle: an6695-ripe
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sabine Dolderer/Denic" <dolderer@denic.de> To: "Jan-Ahrent Czmok" <czmok@gatel.net> Cc: <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>; <apops@lists.apnic.net>; <ddiaz@ripe.net>; <joao@ripe.net>; <lir-wg@ripe.net>; <nanog@merit.edu>; <randy@psg.com>; <routing-wg@ripe.net>; <tech-l@ams-ix.net> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
Hello,
DENIC runs currently several secondarys (not only DE but also for some other TLDs) in different places worldwide. We are willing to offer secondary service for other ccTLDs. But there will be because of security/stability reasons a limit on the number of ccTLDs we want to run on a single machine.
Sabine
-- Sabine Dolderer DENIC eG Wiesenhüttenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt
eMail: Sabine.Dolderer@denic.de Fon: +49 69 27235 0 Fax: +49 69 27235 235
Jan-Ahrent Czmok An: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@ripe.net> <czmok@gatel. Kopie: randy@psg.com, ddiaz@ripe.net, routing-wg@ripe.net, net> lir-wg@ripe.net, tech-l@ams-ix.net, apops@lists.apnic.net, Gesendet von: nanog@merit.edu, apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net owner-lir-wg@ Thema: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. ripe.net
06.06.2002 01:29
PostedDate: 06.06.2002 01:29:37 $MessageID: <20020606012937.2c476312.czmok@gatel.net> From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net SendTo: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@ripe.net> CopyTo: randy@psg.com;ddiaz@ripe.net;routing-wg@ripe.net;lir-wg@ripe.n et;tech-l@ams- ix.net;apops@lists.apnic.net;nanog@merit.edu;apnic-talk@lists. apnic.net
Subject: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. Received: from smtp.denic.de ([194.246.96.22]) by notes.denic.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002060601283597:15602 ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:28:35 +0200 Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by smtp.denic.de with smtp id 17FkCg-0004uX-00; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:28:34 +0200 Received: (qmail 11455 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2002 23:28:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 11452 invoked by uid 66); 5 Jun 2002 23:28:15 -0000 Delivered_To: lists-lir-wg-out@lists.ripe.net PRINCIPAL: Jan-Ahrent Czmok <czmok@gatel.net> In_Reply_To: <p05111700b92449b9ddee@[193.0.1.81]> References: <200206051725.g55HPlA05396@birch.ripe.net> <E17Ff8f-0003So-00@roam.psg.com> <p05111700b92449b9ddee@[193.0.1.81]> Organization: Global Access Telecommunications Inc. $Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.6claws16 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu) X_Ncc_RegID: de.gatel MIME_Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk X_Loop_Detect: RIPE NCC SMTPOriginator: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net RouteServers: CN=notes/O=Denic RouteTimes: 06.06.2002 01:28:36-06.06.2002 01:28:38 DeliveredDate: 06.06.2002 01:28:38 DENICDOCOPENCOUNT: 1 $MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes/Denic(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 06.06.2002 01:28:36;MIME-CD by Notes Client on Sabine Dolderer/Denic(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 06.06.2002 09:32:28;MIME-CD complete at 06.06.2002 09:32:28 BlindCopyTo: WebSubject: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:08:46 +0200 Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@ripe.net> wrote:
At 11:04 -0700 5/6/02, Randy Bush wrote:
Given the current situation of KPNQwest and the possibility of its services going offline sometime soon, the RIPE NCC in agreement with KPNQwest will be temporally hosting this server (ns.eu.net) in its premises.
nice emergency hack and sorry to whine. but i used them both to get diversity.
Hi Randy,
there are 16 ccTLDs for which ns.ripe.net and ns.eu.net are both secondary. So we will definitely request those ccTLDs to look for a new host as soon as possible.
Hi Randy, hi Joao, dear routing-wg,
probably my Company (GATEL, AS13129) is able to host a secondary server for the ccTLDs.
The question is rather what are the hardware "requirements" for the secondary server.
We have sufficient bandwidth capacity available and rack space as well.
The rest can take bit more time to think what they want to do since ns.eu.net will keep running.
Well done ! Congrats for the good ideas and coordination work.
We are offering secondary service on ns.ripe.net for any ccTLD that we weren't sencodaring for, as are other people.
The idea is not to have ns.eu.net running for ever, just to enable people to have time to take rational decisions, without the fear of having the server going away because of some unexpected turn of events.
when in less of a panic, please move it to moscow or something.
Panic? what panic? this is just common sense
right. it's not panic.
--jan
-- Jan Ahrent Czmok - Senior Network Engineer - Access Networks Global Access Telecommunications, Inc. - Stephanstr. 3 - 60313 Frankfurt voice: +49 69 299896-35 - fax: +49 69 299896-66 - email: czmok@gatel.de
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Daniska Tomas wrote: Hi,
how would you guarantee connectivity?
should each isp present should provide bandwidth as part of collocation expenses? should the opexes be included in the colo bill?
and then - this would probably make the colo becoming a connectivity provider, wouldn't it?
I think Arnold has a point. The internet-community as a whole has benefits in more secondaries and I for myself would not mind paying a tiny bit of the costs in my IX-connection-fee's. I can image more parties share this feeling. -- Sabri Berisha 'Een beter internet begint bij jezelf.'
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Daniska Tomas wrote:
how would you guarantee connectivity?
as you have a lot of ISPs around you it should be really easy to get some connectivity. Very easy: tell some friendly ISP to announce your prefix/AS to outside.
should each isp present should provide bandwidth as part of collocation expenses?
What do you mean by this? If some ISP want to donate bw, nice. If not also Ok.
should the opexes be included in the colo bill?
Which colo bill?
and then - this would probably make the colo becoming a connectivity provider, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. This much depends on your IXP model. Let's take DE-CIX. There is an association running DE-CIX, but InterXion as colo partner takes cae for a lot of things. If DE-CIX would offer infrastructural services, InterXion still would remain a simple colo provider. Arnold -- Arnold Nipper Email: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net DE-CIX, The German Internet Exchange Mobile: +49 172 2650958
participants (3)
-
Arnold Nipper -
Daniska Tomas -
Sabri Berisha