Re: international routing
Torben Nielsen <torben@foralie.ics.Hawaii.Edu> Mon, 02 April 1990 07:19 UTC
Received: by devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU (5.59-1.12/1.3-Cornell-Theory-Center) id AA26286; Mon, 2 Apr 90 03:19:32 EDT
Received: from foralie.ics.Hawaii.Edu by devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU (5.59-1.12/1.3-Cornell-Theory-Center) id AA26282; Mon, 2 Apr 90 03:19:24 EDT
Received: by foralie.ics.Hawaii.Edu id 2075; Sun, 1 Apr 90 21:16:16 HST
From: Torben Nielsen <torben@foralie.ics.Hawaii.Edu>
To: long@nic.near.net, tewg@devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: international routing
Message-Id: <90Apr1.211616hst.2075@foralie.ics.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 1990 21:16:10 -0000
>Not sure the relationship between tewg and fepg but this came my way and I >thought that some of you tewg folks might be interested in getting in on this >discussion. Time for the old ``open mouth, insert foot" bit..... I'll bite on a couple of issues. >1. Who has responsibility for advertising which foreign >routes to whom? > > a. If we bring in West German routes over the FRG fat >pipe and give them to (for example) NSFnet, can/will NSFnet >advertise those routes only to the regionals? Or >could/would NSFnet advertise the FRG routes to, say, the >Canadians - thereby becoming a transit network for foreign >traffic. NSFnet *is* a transit network for foreign networks right now..... And Steve Wolff approved of that at least in the cases I'm familiar with. Traffic from the PACCOM (Australia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand so far...) is traversing the NSFnet to get to Canada, Europe, South America,.... But I think this issue needs a fair bit of discussion. >2. Should the foreign country have any say about who is >responsible for advertising their routes? If so, by what >mechanism do they specify their requirements? For example, >what if in 1a above, the Germans do not want NSFnet to >advertise their routes to the Canadians, but they do want >Milo to advertize them to the Japanese, but not the >Australians? Right now, they cannot choose. Milo advertises the routes to me and I advertise the routes to both Australia and Japan. And Korea and New Zealand for good measure :-) Some day soon this will become even more complicated. As an example, consider hat happens when a link goes in between Australia and New Zealand and direct PACCOM link between Haaii and New Zealand is cut. No think of the situation faced by the Germans who want to talk to the Kiwi's! They've got to coordinate with the US *and* wwith Australia :-) >3. How do we assure ourselves that the foreign countries do >not do cleaver stuff with our routes. E.g. how do we >specify that the routes that we advertise over the FRG fat- >pipe do not show up on the UK fat-pipe. Or that the >Japanese do not readvertise our routes in places we would >not like them to do so. An interesting example is likely to come up. Suppose get a link to Hong Kong. And that Hong Kong gets a link to China...... And that someone plays games ith subnetting...... How can e *tell* wwhat's going on? >4. Do those who have responsibility for a fat-pipe have any >special claim on the routes being brought over/sent over the >pipe. For example, can/does NASA claim first "rights" >to the disposition of the PACCOM routes? What responsibility >does ESnet have for the FRG routes brought over the FRG fat-pipe? Answering for the PACCOM part of it, it's not funded exclusively by NASA. According to the current budget, it's not even funded purelly by federal agencies. The US half circuits are mostly paid for by federal agencies. No circuit is solely funded by a US agency. And the lions share of the personnel costs and most everything save for outright line costs are funded by local government. Makes it a lot more complicated..... >5. Is there any agreement about the AS foreign routes should >be in? Should they be in the AS of the coordinating agency >network? After looking at the FRG fat-pipe, we are coming >to the opinion that the best approach to handle policy >issues is to put two ciscos at the FIX-East and to advertise >the FRG routes in one AS and our backbone routes in another >AS, from a separate cisco. Right now, all of PACCOM is in Milo's AS. But that's about to change. I intend to put all of the Pacific into a single AS for the time being. On the order of a hundred networks right now. Right now, Milo is running EGP. Soon I'll doo that. So they all move out of Milo's AS. > I would appreciate hearing about any of these issues, >and any others that I have overlooked. It seems to me that >it might be very useful to think about developing a FIX- >agency routing plan for international traffic, just so we >have to think through some of the issues and have the >answers written down somewhere. It is maybe easier to do >the RIGHT THING if we can agree on what the right thing is. >And possibly we could present it to other countries as a model >about how routing could/should be handled, or as a coordinated US >position about how we will handle foreign traffic. To make life more fun, let me throw in a little tidbit..... I've been talking to various groups here in Japan about a link from the Pacific directly into Europe. Totally bypassing the US. It's possible that such a thing could be done this year assuming we can find the right group in Europe to cooperate with... It would be *very* useful to develop a *general* plan for international routing. Not just for the agencies, but for *all* links. At least get the relevant people to come up with some kind of statement/draft/plan.... So much for my two cents worth. International networking is great. I'm sitting in Tokyo and still logged into my own machine. The link is terrestrial so it's not bad. I get confused about the time every so often when I want to get someone on the phone (home is minus a day and plus five hours away :-(). But that's about it. Got Hawaii on one screen, my machine here on another and Korea on a third. The link to Korea came up just before I left Hawaii so I had to finish setting things up from here. All I needed was a phone to control a set of ``remote hands" and everything was fine.... Torben
- international routing Daniel Long
- Re: international routing Guy Almes
- Re: international routing Torben Nielsen
- Re: international routing Torben Nielsen
- Re: international routing Scott Brim