Mailing List Archive: [no subject]

[no subject]

Apr 12, 1994, 10:35 AM

Post #1 of 7 (2815 views)

FYI.

This is a large step in getting ASes 1321-1333 fully CIDR-compliant.
ANS will now be working on the aggregations themselves.

- John
---------------

Received: from interlock.ans.net by home.ans.net with SMTP id AA13587
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Tue, 12 Apr 1994 10:06:28 -0400
Received: from knock.aa.ans.net by interlock.ans.net with SMTP id AA30279
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1); Tue, 12 Apr 1994 10:10:55 -0400
Received: by knock.aa.ans.net id AA45218
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Tue, 12 Apr 1994 14:11:10 GMT
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 14:11:10 GMT
From: Serpil Bayraktar <sbb>
Message-Id: <199404121411.AA45218@knock.aa.ans.net>
To: ans-neteng@ans.net, install-eng@ans.net, nnaf@ans.net

All the core CISCOs have been upgraded to 9.21+bgp4.2.2 and they are
running BGP4 with AS 690.

Serpil

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[no subject] [ In reply to ]

steve at nsf

Apr 15, 1994, 10:09 AM

Post #2 of 7 (2776 views)

Permalink

If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole
purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to
avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help?

I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of
course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial
contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private
providers into bankruptcy.

I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not
hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and
the IG.

-s

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[no subject] [ In reply to ]

schoff at us

Apr 15, 1994, 10:11 AM

Post #3 of 7 (2779 views)

Permalink

continuing my bridge analogy

you are now providing glider service from the river bank to the bridge

not very useful for that Teamster driven truck

m

> If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole
> purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to
> avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help?
>
> I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of
> course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial
> contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private
> providers into bankruptcy.
>
> I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not
> hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and
> the IG.
>
> -s
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: your mail [ In reply to ]

steve at nsf

Apr 15, 1994, 11:57 AM

Post #4 of 7 (2790 views)

Permalink

> continuing my bridge analogy
>
> you are now providing glider service from the river bank to the bridge
>
> not very useful for that Teamster driven truck
>
> m

Marty - Sorry, but that's now TWO bridge analogies I don't understand.
Could you please be a little more explicit? Tnx, -s

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[no subject] [ In reply to ]

mathis at pele

Apr 15, 1994, 1:15 PM

Post #5 of 7 (2776 views)

Permalink

A safer position, which would be easier for many people to swallow, would be
to retain the AUP as a legal entropy, but lift the requirement to use routing
to enforce it. (Oops I mean entity. Talk about Freud!). A further
refinement: allow the case where commercial traffic traverses the NSFnet
becasue routing technology is not sufficient to support an existing entirely
commercial path between subscribers, as long as there are contracts and
sufficient facilitys in place to support the path.

--MM--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[no subject] [ In reply to ]

jyy at merit

Apr 25, 1994, 11:17 AM

Post #6 of 7 (2776 views)

Permalink

Hi,

For those who already run BGP4, would you please provide the following information:

Vendor routers (e.g. Cisco, Proteon ...etc)
Hardward platform (e.g. Cisco 7000, 4000 .. etc)
Software version
other info which you think is valuable for new users

We have been asked about these kinds of questions from people who are working on
deploying BGP4. Please help.

Please send your information to me. I will summerize it and post it to the list.
Thanks!

--jessica
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[no subject] [ In reply to ]

pst at cisco

Apr 25, 1994, 12:28 PM

Post #7 of 7 (2777 views)

Permalink

> To: bgpd@merit.edu, regional-techs@merit.edu
> Cc: jyy@merit.edu
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:17:54 -0400
> From: Jessica Yu <jyy@merit.edu>
>
> Hi,
>
> For those who already run BGP4, would you please provide the following information:
>
> Vendor routers (e.g. Cisco, Proteon ...etc)
> Hardward platform (e.g. Cisco 7000, 4000 .. etc)
> Software version
> other info which you think is valuable for new users
>
> We have been asked about these kinds of questions from people who are working on
> deploying BGP4. Please help.
>
> Please send your information to me. I will summerize it and post it to the list.
> Thanks!
>
> --jessica

Just as a side note, 10.0 has left beta, and we are suggesting that everyone
who is migrating to BGP4 run 10.0, instead of 9.21+BGP4, since 10.0 receives
better support (9.21+BGP4 is on the way out).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -