- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

Subscription
by Anfilova Blanka 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

I wish to subscribe for the RIPE mailing list. Thank you. Blanka Anfilova (Mrs.) nic-hdl: BA85-RIPE NCC-Reg.ID: cz.cznet

1 0

Hostcount for November 1996
by Mirjam Kuehne 03 Dec '96

03 Dec '96

Dear all, Here is the hostcount for November 1996. The table shows an increase since last month of over 82,000 (or 2.5%) to a total of almost 3,450,000 hosts in the DNS in Europe. The UK shows the highest increase for November with more than 110,000 hosts more than in October (Remember the amount of hosts in the UK dropped significantly last month, now it is back to normal :) In some countries we see quite a significant decrease this month, also in countries were the hostcount is done remotely. We couldn't find any explanation for this besides general connectivity problems and servers not responding. Please note that FI consistently loses hosts (hidden behind firewalls?). BA is the first time included in the count. The hostcount can also be found under ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/hostcount. The graphical version of the hostcount can be found at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/hostcount/RIPE-Hostcount-{Mo,Qu}.eps The translation of the country codes can be found at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes All this data can also be found at http://www.ripe.net/statistics/ I would like to thank all people who help me to create the hostcount every month by counting hosts locally: at Gerhard Winkler <winkler(a)cc.univie.ac.at> be Herman Moons <Herman.Moons(a)CS.kuleuven.ac.be> ch Marcel Schneider <hostmaster(a)nic.ch> cy Panagiotis Tzounakis <pj(a)ics.forth.gr> cz Jiri Orsag <Jiri.Orsag(a)eunet.cz> de Peter Koch <pk(a)TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> dk Robert Martin-Legene <robert(a)dknet.dk> es Jose Sanchez-Seco <jose.sanchez(a)rediris.es> fi Petri Ojala <ojala(a)eunet.fi> fr Annie Renard <Annie.Renard(a)inria.fr> gr Dimitris Zisiadis <zisiadis(a)forthnet.gr> hr Ivan Maric <Ivan.Maric(a)stribor.srce.hr> hu Gabor Kiss <kissg(a)sztaki.hu> ie Mike Norris <mnorris(a)dalkey.hea.ie> il Sason Levi <sason(a)NetVision.net.il> it Antonio_Blasco Bonito <bonito(a)nis.garr.it> no Havard Eidnes <Havard.Eidnes(a)runit.sintef.no> pl Irek Neska <irek(a)nask.pl> pt Armando Domingues <fccn(a)dns.pt> ru Andrey Dobrotsvetov <adbr(a)ripn.net> sk Ivan Lescak <Ivan.Lescak(a)Slovakia.EU.net> Lubos Elias <Lubos.Elias(a)uakom.sk> sm Antonio_Blasco Bonito <bonito(a)nis.garr.it> tr Yener Yigit <yener(a)knidos.cc.metu.edu.tr> uk Kevin Hoadley <K.Hoadley(a)nosc.ja.net> Please note, that the next hostcount (December 1996) will be published later than usual, approximately mid January. This is due to my holidays :) I hope this doesn't cause any inconveniences. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC RIPE DNS Hostcount Previous Count : Thu Oct 31 1996 This Count : Sat Nov 30 1996 CY SOA COUNTED DUPL REAL CHANGE ============================================================ al 5 78 0 78 - 3 am 9 202 5 197 + 4 at 3706 97376 11849 85527 + 4591 az 6 49 1 48 + 29 ba 7 30 0 30 + 30 be 3475 65523 2534 62989 + 3050 bg 126 3168 151 3017 + 38 by 14 251 10 241 + 41 ch 6586 133636 6982 126654 + 7379 cy 149 1168 18 1150 + 104 cz 1555 40797 1362 39435 + 420 de 23980 727211 39091 688120 +35557 dk 4394 106028 4126 101902 + 7301 dz 1 0 0 0 - 18 ee 275 5729 117 5612 - 2312 eg 97 1969 109 1860 + 124 es 3296 110509 1943 108566 + 7344 fi 2560 199894 3558 196336 -112855 fo 23 96 0 96 + 7 fr 5522 228077 8104 219973 - 7211 gb 2 40 0 40 0 ge 13 188 2 186 + 19 gr 522 12339 644 11695 - 3559 hr 424 4508 733 3775 - 260 hu 908 32152 1666 30486 + 2226 ie 1368 26064 484 25580 + 618 il 1853 39648 3213 36435 - 5554 is 298 11033 111 10922 + 458 it 7306 154899 13173 141726 -10488 li 88 272 77 195 + 11 lt 190 1809 112 1697 + 44 lu 289 4062 774 3288 - 76 lv 159 5719 296 5423 + 697 ma 28 528 65 463 + 27 md 10 85 4 81 + 61 mk 21 237 4 233 + 22 mt 68 558 88 470 + 67 nl 9189 249097 9190 239907 + 7618 no 5340 153728 6082 147646 + 6132 pl 1970 52106 2506 49600 + 1459 pt 850 22695 771 21924 + 1483 ro 412 5447 186 5261 + 494 ru 1977 42373 3068 39305 + 2979 se 10234 249645 14278 235367 + 9425 si 563 26262 1136 25126 +12762 sk 394 7580 383 7197 + 127 sm 12 720 328 392 + 28 su 568 18375 895 17480 - 199 tn 4 44 3 41 - 1 tr 727 14135 768 13367 + 738 ua 306 7961 1505 6456 + 461 uk 34363 815905 106068 709837 +110739 va 2 5 0 5 0 yu 187 1904 86 1818 + 371 ============================================================ 136431 3683914 248659 3435255 +82549

1 0

Re: Very fast IP, no ATM...
by Paul Bryant 03 Dec '96

03 Dec '96

At 08:48 03/12/96 +0000, you wrote: > > > >You are missing the point, to make voice work, you have to move bits > >between sender and receiver, and, it does not really matter how you do > >it. > > >More interesting is to se when you can no longer make a normal > >phone-call, becouse all the resources in the voice switch is consumed > >by people accessing the Internet with Modems or ISDN. > > >What will they do, improve the voice network (very expensive) or give > >people real IP services? Once they given people real IP services, > >well, voice is just an application. Interestingly BT claim that their network will never overload as they charge for local calls - ie ration by cost. The corollary is that if the network becomes overloaded they raise the cost. > > >absolutely - voice (and hi hi audio) work very nicely on our 155 Mbps >IP over ATM net - they could ONLY work BETTER if we tok the ATM >out....in fact, the utilisation on our IP on 34Mbps SMDS is far >better...and even there, i think we could sacrifice the SMDS if it >wasn't so stable... > > jon > > Paul Bryant - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, UK Mail P.Bryant(a)rl.ac.uk Tel.+44 1235 445 267 Fax. +44 1235 446 626

2 1

Re: Very fast IP, no ATM...
by Peter Lothberg 03 Dec '96

03 Dec '96

> * We can run the world-wide telephone system say by IPv6 * > * > > over SDH? > * > What make you believe we could not ? * > * > Christian Huitema > > Hereby I formally declare > > > Christian THE Ultimate Internet Prophet > > > Don't miss to deposit his visionary statement in a safe place. > > > Artigst > > > Paul Christ :-) Paul, You are missing the point, to make voice work, you have to move bits between sender and receiver, and, it does not really matter how you do it. More interesting is to se when you can no longer make a normal phone-call, becouse all the resources in the voice switch is consumed by people accessing the Internet with Modems or ISDN. What will they do, improve the voice network (very expensive) or give people real IP services? Once they given people real IP services, well, voice is just an application. --Peter

2 1

Re: Very fast IP, no ATM...
by Peter Lothberg 03 Dec '96

03 Dec '96

> Hi, all of you, > > ok, congratulation, 'no ATM' - but: > > Don't you feel sometimes in all this fine argumentation against ATM > a certain intellektuelle Unredlichkeit (intellectual dishonesty)? > > Why? > > 'ATM said' from the beginning: We can do everything - the > telephone system, eventually the video distribution and data. > > Did anybody in the `integrated services packet network' camp > claim: We can run the world-wide telephone system say by IPv6 > over SDH? > > (or would this be a non-goal?, or do we say, ATM also > wouldn't run the phone system, and so on; > years ago we had IBM's > packet transfer mode ... and so on) > > > Yours > > > Paul Christ I don't undertsand, if ATM did create bandwith it would be great, but it does not. If ATM was needed to make packets move it would be great, but it's not. It seems to be usable as aa replacement for X.25 and Frame-Relay, for those who buy bandwith and routers and build private networks, but, for a public infrastructure, I don't think so. As the service deleiverd at the endpoint is IP, we need to interconnect the various parts of IP moving clouds, so we will have to have IP-switches (called routers) that go damn fast anyway. So, explain what's the problem here, I just demostrated that you can run production IP traffic at 155Mbit without making a detour through an ATM switch. It has been more stable than any other international circiut we have, and the 'new' technology works great. --Peter

2 1

Re: Very fast IP, no ATM...
by Peter Lothberg 02 Dec '96

02 Dec '96

> [Guy Almes] > > have you any measures of IP-level throughput over this link? > > Since this is The Internet the link will probably be saturated > by Friday evening. :-) > > > Eric. > It did not.. First, most users does not seem to have a proper 'on-ramp' to the network, both including HW and SW. In theory the users of Sunet (Swedish University Network) aggregates up at well above 5*34M, but it seems like the university local network at the campus level is a bottleneck. All routers that does not have enough buffer memory generate packet drops.. Last, the US infrastructure in no better either.. Sigh.. I think it will last another month, I hope.. 622Mbit/s inside Sweden next.. --Peter (And no cell's....)

1 0

Re: Very fast IP, no ATM...
by Peter Lothberg 02 Dec '96

02 Dec '96

> p.s.: have you any measures of IP-level throughput over this link? Almost 2 moths of operation, 4h downtime and we have been running upto 120Mbit/s user traffic. (Traffic generated by traffic generators does not count, but it's possible to fill it up to theoretical max.) It's just a releif to see this first link that have enough buffer memory to deal with the network burstiness and allow TCP to do it's job.. --Peter > >On Monday 23 September 1996 00:15Z.. > > > >Was the worlds first transatlantic 155Mbit native IP service brought into > >operation by Sprint/USA and Tele2/Sweden. > > > >The circiut wich is part of Sprintlink and ICMnet runs between the > >NY-Nap in Pennsauken, NJ, USA and Tele2 in Sweden and uses cisco > >packet-over-sonet/sdh technology. (Native IP over SDH/VC4)

1 0

SIRCE - again (this is the intended text of my reflection...)
by Lajos Balint 28 Nov '96

28 Nov '96

Dear Daniel, By reflecting your Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:27:38 +0100 e-mail, let me first emphasize that my original message didn't aim at hurting anybody. It was a trial of explaining the situation (i.e. the relatively low level of commitments) and also our own hesitation until now. If I try to reflect your reaction, I have to further explain what I wrote yesterday, and here I'm in a really uncomfortable situation. While I don't want to be impolite, and I try to avoid offending you, I'm forced to go into some more details. What I wanted to point out in my yesterday message was that the situation was more complex than it might have turned out of the exchange of messages about commitments. What I felt in the recent period of time was that ISPs were repeatedly urged to make their commitments so that they even could feel blamed by not doing so. Let me begin with repeating my last sentence of my previous message: I hope that the problem is not overall lack of interest in European CERT coordination but just a result of the still open situation about the CERT coordination issue, in general. Namely: RIPE NCC started to collect commitments before TERENA made a decision. And, although RIPE-149 and TIPE-150 did talk about TERENA's intent, RIPE NCC did behave during the last weeks like suggesting that the ISP's had to make a decision about your plan. I have to stress that RIPE NCC is always excellent in doing its job but, probably (and by my sincere belief) with the honest will, in this case did forget to take into consideration all the rules of the game. I try to understand your reaction to my earlier message (and the conduct how you handle the CERT coordination matter) but I mustn't forget the interests of the service providers. And I also should keep in mind the other potential CERT coordinators, too. The service providers need the best coordination service, so their interest is to wait until the (hopefully most advantageous) decision by TERENA is made. On the other hand, the potential CERT coordinators are well behaving if they wait until TERERNA decides about their proposals, and organization of CERT coordination is to be started by the selected one, as soon as the decision is made. You are right: documents RIPE-149 and RIPE-150 are, as I emphasized in my first message, well describing all the details. Of course, if I did speak about "misleading", I didn't think of an intentional thing. The problem is with what followed: the forceful activity toward collecting commitments. This was really a disturbing process: readers of your messages could feel uncomfortable by not committing. And this is what I called misleading (sorry for the wording, probably by a better knowledge of English I could have found a more appropriate expression): if I feel a pressure to do something without real reasons of doing that, I'm mislead by being bombarded. If you don't agree with my above thoughts, it is understandable. Your goal was (is) to get support and you did think that the way you selected was the appropriate one. Maybe there are some ISPs (ISP representatives) being happy with the way you choose. However, I guess, I'm not alone with my feelings about the situation. Originally I didn't want to send my previous message by going into details of the process. I simply wanted to inform you yesterday (the deadline) just about HUNGARNET's interest in the CERT coordination project, by adding that if the RIPE NCC would be selected, HUNGARNET would be ready to commit ECU 500. However, in the last minute there was your reaction to Petter's message which I didn't want to leave without comments. Although Petter himself didn't react your reflection, somebody had to react in favour of him. He was correct with all of his words. But the reaction he did get was not the most appropriate one: it didn't reflect Petter's message about not committing before TERENA's decision but did, by a certain way, criticise his behaviour. Just what I tried to point out above about RIPE NCC's pressurizing manner in this matter. Moreover, your wording had a certain kind of prejudice, a kind of assuming something fishy about the CERT TAG, which is more than impolite from you. That's why I tried to go into details about the full process and not just about HUNGARNET's conditional commitment. Of course, I didn't want to generate a controversy but only wanted to draw the attention of all interested parties to another side of the coin. Fraankly saying, I'm sorry for this debate. I admire RIPE NCC and especially you for your excellent work in general. I'm also sure that if finally the RIPE NCC will be selected by TERENA for European CERT coordination, the task will be performed by a similarly high quality and enthusiasm. (Which doesn't mean any qualification of the other candidates.) Moreover, if the RIPE NCC will be the winner, HUNGARNET will fully support your CERT coordination activity, too. But even so, I mustn't hide the truth (at least by my feelings). Again I emphasize: without the intention of hurting anybody, but just for helping. I hope that also you, Daniel, have a more fragmented picture now of the situation, even if you possibly don't agree with all the details of my arguments. Let me finish again by my sincere words: Regards and best wishes (to you and to the RIPE NCC, too), Lajos P.s.: I would be glad not to continue with this debate. I admit that the RIPE NCC did prepare a set of attractive documents. I admit that, if selected by TERENA, RIPE NCC would surely be an excellent CERT coordinator. I emphasize again that HUNGARNET is interested in European CERT coordination and is ready to commit to the prospective coordinator to be selected by TERENA (either the RIPE NCC or any other organization). I'm ready to admit that my wording about "misleading" was not the fortunate one. On the other hand, I stress that advance collecting of commitments and especially the manner of the process are not fully agreeable. And I stress again that your reflection to Petter's message wasn't the fortunate one. I hope that you are satisfied with this summary, and I'm in favour of stopping further arguing. --- I wanted to launch this message yesterday evening but - the devil never sleeps - unfortunately I launched again my previous text, as I realized this morning. Sorry for that. I also had to re-type my message because I did delete it unintentionally :-( Let me add that in the meantime I have read your message about Questionnaire Clarifications which is of course an agreeable continuation of the on-going process.

1 0

SIRCE - again
by Lajos Balint 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

Dear Daniel, I have studied all the SIRCE-related materials (at least I think that all of them did reach me): - your Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:23:44 +0100 message - the RIPE-149 document - the RIPE-150 document - your Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:22 +0100 message - your reports about the collected commitments - RIPE NCC Feedback Dept's Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:52:09 +0100 message - Petter Kongshaug's message of Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:28:51 +0100 - your Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:27:30 +0100 message reflecting Petter's one I'm a bit disturbed by the full process. On one hand, the RIPE NCC did prepare a well elaborated project plan (as it is common with any RIPE NCC activities). However, on the other hand, nothing was mentioned about the background situation which Petter is talking about. While potential supporters are well informed about the plans of the RIPE NCC, they are mislead by the presentation: most of them even don't know about the full picture. An only note is touching the question in its entirety, namely by your Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:22 +0100 message: > Q: Am I bound to my commitment if TERENA decides to execute SIRCE > differently than proposed in ripe-150? > > A: No. The commitment is specifically for the project proposed in > ripe-150. If a different proposal is preferred by TERENA, we will > provide information about it and it is up to you to decide whether you > want to get involved. While I express the interest of HUNGARNET in a Europe-wide CERT coordination, I have to emphasize that I fully support Petter's view: > TERENA has set up a CERT TAG to evaluate candidates for a European > CERT. UNINETT ... wait to see the prefered candidate, and > do not want to conclude on CIRCE before the evaluation is done. (I did intentionally omit that part of Petter's message saying that > ... UNINETT is part of this TAG ... because this fact is irrelevant regarding UNINETT's intentions but underlines only the fact that an ISP, being fortunate enough to know about the background situation, doesn't want to make any commitment before TERENA evaluates the candidates, including the RIPE NCC.) In view of the above comments, let me express HUNGARNET's intention to subscribe the prospective European CERT coordination. If the selected coordinator will be the RIPE NCC (in the frameworks of the planned SIRCE project), HUNGARNET will be ready to commit ECU 500. If the selected coordinator will be a different organization, HUNGARNET will probably join the CERT coordination activity selected by TERENA. In addition, let me mention that Petter's message was correct with respect to the questionnaire, too: > Sorry for not using your form, but i did not find any suitable statements. A suitable statement could have been eg. %STJ We wait for a decision made by TERENA about European CERT coordination. (or something similar). Without such an option, Petter couldn't find any suitable statement, indeed, because only this kind of statement could express suitably why UNINETT didn't commit to SIRCE before your deadline. Finally, I don't know why the amount of commitments is relatively low. If ISPs didn't react because they share Petter's view (and mine, too), that's ok. If the reason is lack of interest in CERT coordination, in general, that's worse. Hopefully at the end, a really Europe-wide coverage of CERT coordination will be achieved - either by SIRCE or by some other project. Regards and best wishes, Lajos

1 0

SIRCE
by Lajos Balint 27 Nov '96

27 Nov '96

Dear Daniel, I have studied all the SIRCE-related materials (at least I think that all of them did reach me): - your Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:23:44 +0100 message - the RIPE-149 document - the RIPE-150 document - your Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:22 +0100 message - your reports about the collected commitments - RIPE NCC Feedback Dept's Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:52:09 +0100 message - Petter Kongshaug's message of Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:28:51 +0100 - your Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:27:30 +0100 message reflecting Petter's one I'm a bit disturbed by the full process. On one hand, the RIPE NCC did prepare a well elaborated project plan (as it is common with any RIPE NCC activities). However, on the other hand, nothing was mentioned about the background situation which Petter is talking about. While potential supporters are well informed about the plans of the RIPE NCC, they are mislead by the presentation: most of them even don't know about the full picture. An only note is touching the question in its entirety, namely by your Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:22 +0100 message: > Q: Am I bound to my commitment if TERENA decides to execute SIRCE > differently than proposed in ripe-150? > > A: No. The commitment is specifically for the project proposed in > ripe-150. If a different proposal is preferred by TERENA, we will > provide information about it and it is up to you to decide whether you > want to get involved. While I express the interest of HUNGARNET in a Europe-wide CERT coordination, I have to emphasize that I fully support Petter's view: > TERENA has set up a CERT TAG to evaluate candidates for a European > CERT. UNINETT ... wait to see the prefered candidate, and > do not want to conclude on CIRCE before the evaluation is done. (I did intentionally omit that part of Petter's message saying that > ... UNINETT is part of this TAG ... because this fact is irrelevant regarding UNINETT's intentions but underlines only the fact that an ISP, being fortunate enough to know about the background situation, doesn't want to make any commitment before TERENA evaluates the candidates, including the RIPE NCC.) In view of the above comments, let me express HUNGARNET's intention to subscribe the prospective European CERT coordination. If the selected coordinator will be the RIPE NCC (in the frameworks of the planned SIRCE project), HUNGARNET will be ready to commit ECU 500. If the selected coordinator will be a different organization, HUNGARNET will probably join the CERT coordination activity selected by TERENA. In addition, let me mention that Petter's message was correct with respect to the questionnaire, too: > Sorry for not using your form, but i did not find any suitable statements. A suitable statement could have been eg. %STJ We wait for a decision made by TERENA about European CERT coordination. (or something similar). Without such an option, Petter couldn't find any suitable statement, indeed, because only this kind of statement could express suitably why UNINETT didn't commit to SIRCE before your deadline. Finally, I don't know why the amount of commitments is relatively low. If ISPs didn't react because they share Petter's view (and mine, too), that's ok. If the reason is lack of interest in CERT coordination, in general, that's worse. Hopefully at the end, a really Europe-wide coverage of CERT coordination will be achieved - either by SIRCE or by some other project. Regards and best wishes, Lajos

2 1