NANOG 16 Agenda

This tutorial introduces concepts of Multi Protocol Label Switching, including: <UL> <LI> Overview of MPLS</LI> <LI> Label Encapsulations</LI> <LI> Label Distribution Protocols</LI> <LI> MPLS & ATM</LI> <LI> Constraint Based Routing with CR-LDP and RSVP</LI> </UL>

This tutorial introduces concepts of deploying TCP over satellite, including practical solutions using various routing technologies. Also covered are specific implementation issues for Asian and European operators.

We analyze the pattern and statistics of security incidents reported within a month. Although we have sound proactive measures to secure our backbone elements, we have only been able to react to attacks on our customers\' networks after the damage has been done and the incident reported. DosTracker has been a useful tool on our previous Cisco-centric backbone; however, our recent introduction of new routers limits its usefulness.<BR> <BR> Proactive solutions and early detection of attacks are our primary interest. We present the ideas we have tried or are working on. We review the latest technologies for detecting security attacks on OC-12 and above backbones.

This talk reviews Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing technology and discusses key aspects of the architecture that affect IP networking, such as transponder requirements, synchonization and protection.

Today\'s ISPs are faced with many choices in growing their network topology and architecture. This presentation outlines issues and considerations when making decisions to deploy a greenfield network. A greenfield network is a term usually describing an original first-generation deployment of a telecommunications network. <BR><BR> Specifically, this presentation will address technology decisions regarding network design and L2 protocol choices. Furthermore, we will discuss traffic engineering and scalability as strong components of a network design. Topics to be covered include: <OL> <LI> Designing a network: considering issues such as assets, cost structures, and goals </LI> <LI> Deciding between ATM, packet over SONET, and frame relay </LI> <LI> Physical deployment challenges </LI> <LI> Traffic engineering - transitioning from using IGP metrics to using MPLS constraint based routing and traffic engineering <B>disclaimer</B> - we are just now here, we expect to be significantly into deployment by 5/23 </LI> <LI> Experiences and observations </LI></UL>

SURFnet, the Dutch national research and education network, is a player in the GigaPort Project. GigaPort consists of two interrelated sub-projects, GigaNet and GigaWorks. Within the context of GigaNet a highly advanced communications network is being developed with super-fast connections across The Netherlands and Europe and to North America and Asia. GigaWorks offers the Dutch business community the opportunity to carry out large-scale research into new applications for the next generation of the electronic highway. <BR><BR> SURFnet operated an OC-12 speed backbone across The Netherlands with a 200 Mbit/s connection to North America and a 155 Mbit/s connection to TEN-155, to which most other European national research and education networks are connected. SURFnet is connected to the STAR TAP in Chicago, IL and has a direct connection to Abilene.

This talk highlights the tradeoffs between the direct circuit interconnect model and the exchange point interconnection model for ISPs. The paper discusses the operations and financial models (taking into account the circuit costs, cost of exchange participation, cost of dark fiber, etc.) and the implications of these strategies across the number of interconnection participants and bandwidth utilization between the participants. <BR><BR> Major points to be presented include the following: <UL> <LI> For ISP interconnection, direct circuit interconnection is financially attractive for low numbers of connections (O(5)) of relatively low bandwidth (DS-3/OC-3). This is due to the fact that ISPs typically pay only half of the cost for the direct circuits between each other, while they pay the full freight for the big pipe into the exchange. ISPs may want to use the exchange for a POP, but barring use like that, if all one wants to do is exchange traffic with these other five folks into the foreseeable future, the direct circuit interconnect model makes sense. <BR><BR></LI> <LI> As the bandwidth and number of interconnections grow, the exchange point interconnection model proves much more scalable for two reasons. First, as bandwidth grows between participants, ISPs are able to aggregate interconnection traffic over increasingly large pipes back to their cloud, yielding potentially significant economies of scale. The direct circuit interconnection does not provide for this aggregation. Secondly, operationally, there are fewer backhoes in an exchange, fewer local loop providers to troubleshoot, etc. The greater the dependence on interconnection, the more hardened one wants that interconnection environment. <BR><BR></LI> <LI> Several of the exchanges also provide for the centralization of content, allowing additional transit sales revenue that potentially dwarf the cost savings highlighted above for interconnection. The direct circuit interconnect model doesn\'t allow for this additional revenue opportunity. <BR><BR></LI> </UL> The analysis finds that facilities-based ISPs win big since (being able to exploit WDM technologies) they can seamlessly grow the pipe(s) into the exchange while the direct circuit interconnection model can\'t take advantage of this level of aggregation. These are among several of the dominant reasons for the IXP to be around well into the future.

A report on the activities of \"The Internet and the Millennium Problem\" Working Group of the IETF. A thorough investigation of how Y2K issues will affect the operations of Internet-related protocols was conducted by the IETF. The complete results will be published in an upcoming RFC. This presentation will give a quick overview of the issues discovered and how they may affect operations.