Re: DC Power choices (was Re: Network visibility)

[Bryan Fields]

On 10/22/21 1:13 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> It was, in fact, pretty impressive to look at.  But I was a little worried 
> about 
> the loading on the building frame.  :-)
> 
> And while I think there might be advantages in running power supplies in gear
> at -48, I'd want to rectify it in the cage, preferably from 480/3ph.

High voltage DC (400v) has all the advantages of DC with none of the lossy
drawbacks of -48v.  What's nice is most every AC PSU now will run off it with
minor modifications, so it's trivial for vendors to support.  Nokia and
Juniper even do it in the same AD/HVDC supply.

I like DC, it's much simpler, but it's a lower volume product.  One advantage
to AC is I can call any electrocution and they can run a cable in a pinch for
me.  DC, even though it's the same physics, is harder to find experienced tech
to work with.

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: Network visibility

[Miles Fidelman]

Seth Breidbart has the last word on this point, I think:

The Internet is "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, 
transitive,
symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet 
from'."





The associated press can bite me.


Nice!

Miles

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

> But I will capitalize Internet in all relevant uses.
> 
> This is an *engineering definition*, it matters that you name the right
> object, and I am one of the people who will, in fact, die on this hill.

You are not alone.


> The associated press can bite me.

While I respect and appreciate the AP (ap?) in general, in this particular 
instance, I am with you.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> On Oct 22, 2021, at 01:21, Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Miles Fidelman" 
> 
>> Guys,
>> 
>> You guys were in grade school, some of us were there at the beginning
>> (well, in my case, 2 years after the beginning).  I can assure you that
>> folks made a big deal about what was and wasn't the Internet, and the
>> distinction between "an internet" and "the (capital I) Internet."
>> Opinions varied then, and opinions vary now.
>> 
>> But... by and large, as I understand the general zeitgeist:
>> 
>> - you're either on the Internet, or you're not - the key question is
>> whether you can send & receive IP packets from the public address space
>> (i.e., the classified segments are internets, but not part of THE
>> Internet).  There are also disagreements on where the Internet ends - at
>> the demarc, or at the IP stack in your machine (I argue the latter, but
>> that's debatable)
> 
> Seth Breidbart has the last word on this point, I think:
> 
> The Internet is "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, 
> symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'."
> 
> The associated press has, in the last year or two, disparaged the 
> capitalization
> of the word Internet, proving they do not understand there's a difference.
> 
> If they won't capitalize "my" name, I won't capitalize theirs.
> 
> But I will capitalize Internet in all relevant uses.
> 
> This is an *engineering definition*, it matters that you name the right
> object, and I am one of the people who will, in fact, die on this hill.
> 
> The associated press can bite me.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Network visibility

[Jay R. Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Miles Fidelman" 

> Guys,
> 
> You guys were in grade school, some of us were there at the beginning
> (well, in my case, 2 years after the beginning).  I can assure you that
> folks made a big deal about what was and wasn't the Internet, and the
> distinction between "an internet" and "the (capital I) Internet."
> Opinions varied then, and opinions vary now.
> 
> But... by and large, as I understand the general zeitgeist:
> 
> - you're either on the Internet, or you're not - the key question is
> whether you can send & receive IP packets from the public address space
> (i.e., the classified segments are internets, but not part of THE
> Internet).  There are also disagreements on where the Internet ends - at
> the demarc, or at the IP stack in your machine (I argue the latter, but
> that's debatable)

Seth Breidbart has the last word on this point, I think:

The Internet is "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, 
symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'."

The associated press has, in the last year or two, disparaged the capitalization
of the word Internet, proving they do not understand there's a difference.

If they won't capitalize "my" name, I won't capitalize theirs.

But I will capitalize Internet in all relevant uses.

This is an *engineering definition*, it matters that you name the right
object, and I am one of the people who will, in fact, die on this hill.

The associated press can bite me.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

DC Power choices (was Re: Network visibility)

[Jay R. Ashworth]

One of the 4 or 5 datacenters in downtown Tampa had a telco or offshoot in
their spaces, when I took All The Tours about 9 years ago.  

They have 8x750MCM hauling -48VDC from their power plant to the cage in 
question.

On each side.

It was, in fact, pretty impressive to look at.  But I was a little worried 
about 
the loading on the building frame.  :-)

And while I think there might be advantages in running power supplies in gear
at -48, I'd want to rectify it in the cage, preferably from 480/3ph.

Cheers,
-- jra

- Original Message -
> From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" 
> To: "Mark Tinka" 
> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 4:50:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Network visibility

> Outside the datacenter is where DC power really shines in my opinion.  Inside
> the DC, everything is AC now and probably for the best.
> 
> We never came up with a modular standard for -48VDC. Perhaps that could have
> changed things.
> 
> But it sure is nice having 72hrs of battery run time in the field/edge -
> although those are becoming mini data centers themselves and are in turn also
> slowly going AC.
> 
> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> CEO
> l...@6by7.net
> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the
> world.”
> 
> FCC License KJ6FJJ
> 
> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:19 PM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10/20/21 20:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
>>> 
>>> -48VDC power is still the best.
>> 
>> I really envy folk that love DC for networking gear :-).
>> 
>> Work in 2007 was an all-DC network. I rebuilt it into AC, considering the ISP
>> also owned the data centre (most of whose customers bought AC). The space we
>> freed up and the ease of deployment was night & day.
>> 
>> Currently, we obviously need DC for the terrestrial Transport and wet plants
>> (because that's just how classic telco rolls), but I also switched all 
>> IP/MPLS
>> gear to AC soon as I arrived. Heck, even the Arbor (now Netscout) gear, as 
>> well
>> as the HP server rack, was loaded with DC power supplies. Those things just 
>> had
>> to go.
>> 
>> There is an avenue of pleasure in not having to spend inordinate amounts of 
>> time
>> adding major electrical planning to deploying/decommissioning a router, 
>> switch
>> or server.
>> 
>> But yeah, I know the AC vs. DC discussion can become a rat hole.
>> 
>> I'm aware of data centre operators now providing DC as an option for their
>> expansion projects, when they previously had it as the norm, FWIW.
>> 
> > Mark.

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/21/21 22:50, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


Outside the datacenter is where DC power really shines in my opinion.  Inside 
the DC, everything is AC now and probably for the best.

We never came up with a modular standard for -48VDC. Perhaps that could have 
changed things.

But it sure is nice having 72hrs of battery run time in the field/edge - 
although those are becoming mini data centers themselves and are in turn also 
slowly going AC.


I suppose it depends what business you are in.

If you are a mobile operator and have towers in all sorts of places 
where utility mains may be unavailable or spotty, I guess having to 
convert DC to AC makes little sense if that's your primary source of 
power (especially since solar PV, wind turbines and batteries all output 
DC power anyway).


We run a fair bit of Metro-E network in the countries we operate, and 
most of that is in standard commercial buildings that are not data 
centres. Even there, we run AC, with a UPS, and rely on the building 
generator for an alternate AC source in case of a mains outage.


But yes, for our terrestrial Transport network, that's all DC anyway, 
regardless of the power source.


Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 13:50 , Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
>  wrote:
> 
> Outside the datacenter is where DC power really shines in my opinion.  Inside 
> the DC, everything is AC now and probably for the best.
> 
> We never came up with a modular standard for -48VDC. Perhaps that could have 
> changed things.

I’m actually surprised the industry never standardized on the connectors used 
in Forklifts. They’re basically a large-current variant
of Anderson Power Pole style connectors, but they come in a fixed two-conductor 
format. They are genderless connectors with
excellent durability and very easy assembly.

This is an example of the 175A rated version:

https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L=DChcSEwix29Cn4dzzAhWAPq0GHXbQBIsYABAwGgJwdg=2=www.google.com=CAESQeD2msApqo8j1XMaWbSlUZSb5GKwd-_HS9fjxEHuC1OZtIF_P1TcvIJf6iU1eWg7zXydeBdm7vKY48oTxpBuYKqk=AOD64_0UQZ9Dc5Zv-hSYz-76-eM0uMPfKQ=2ahUKEwjprsSn4dzzAhWCIDQIHYCNAzcQ0Qx6BAgCEAE=1

They come in sizes from 120A to 350A.

Owen

RE: Network visibility

[bzs]

On October 21, 2021 at 16:13 bka...@ford.com (Kain, Becki (.)) wrote:
 > I'm just kidding.  I wasn't on until 1990 when I was teaching IBM 370 
 > assembler

I taught IBM 370 ASM for several years at BU, I can probably still
explain what a CSECT is, never know when it might come up like right
now.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

RE: Network visibility

[bzs]

On October 21, 2021 at 16:04 bka...@ford.com (Kain, Becki (.)) wrote:
 > How old are all you people?

My first experience with the ARPAnet was either 1977 or 1978 when
someone got me an ITS account at MIT (BARRYS@AI), I was working at
Harvard.

Tho I didn't really have much use for the net other than joining some
mailing lists I'd play with it. It was astounding to me. With a few
keystrokes I could get to a login prompt at Stanford or in London etc.

I was on the night the pentagon shut it down briefly (several
broadcast messages messing up my screen, I thought it was a prank,
then dead) because some students had just taken some US hostages in
Tehran. It wasn't on the news yet. They (pentagon) were testing their
ability to take it all under their control for some reason tho I think
the word "war" was on their minds. That was 1979-11-04.

So, pretty old.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Network visibility

[bzs]

Just to throw in another curve ball what got many of us excited about
the internet or Internet was that at the time there were several
networking protocols in wide usage like SNA (IBM), DECNET (DEC), XNS
(Xerox, ok not such wide usage), BITNET (mostly IBM systems,
organization was volunteer, public, hundreds of mostly university data
centers, or maybe several dozen I dunno but non-trivial), UUCP (ad hoc
as all get out), CHAOSnet (run by three people :-), BerkNeT (maybe 2
people :-), Netware (basically commercial NFS with apps), and no doubt
some others, plus several "time sharing" systems like Tymnet,
Compuserve, MCI, etc.

These were non-trivial in terms of $$$ and/or people using them, not
always both.

So one BIG PROMISE was that this [Ii]nternet would connect them all
together at least marginally (e.g., email, maybe specially designed
apps, but there'd be paths between them for bits.)

  One net to connect them all, one net to find them, one net to bring
  them all, and in the darkness bind them.

Not much of that happened.

Instead they all were TCP/IP roadkill which was probably a better
result.

I do remember the U. Wisconsin ARPAnet/BITNET gateway, big deal!

At BU I hooked up our ARPAnet systems to the big IBM mainframe
(probably a 3081 at the time) via that gateway.

Which got me a visit from the computing center director yelling "ARE
YOU REALLY SENDING BITS THROUGH WISCONSIN TO GET THEM 150 FEET DOWN
THE HALL?!?!"

To which I calmly replied: Never, ever, feel sorry for the wires.

On October 21, 2021 at 15:55 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
 > 
 > On Oct 21, 2021, at 8:19 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
 > 
 > No, but you are ignoring the point of my message…
 > 
 > The TCP/IP internet existed _BEFORE_ the flag day you mentioned. The flag
 > day was the end of NCP, not the beginning of TCP/IP. IIRC, at the time,
 > 
 > 
 > Owen,
 >  
 > But we’re not talking about the birth of TCP/IP. We’re talking about the 
 > birth
 > of the capital-I Internet, which by definition runs exclusively on TCP/IP, 
 > and
 > that didn’t start until Jan 1, 1983. Although there was experimentation using
 > IP during 1982, that was still ARPANET. It was the guaranteed exclusive 
 > availability of IP that made 1983 the Internet’s birth date. 
 > 
 > And no, it’s not analogous to the eventual IPv6 transition, because both IPv5
 > and IPv4 are Capital-I Internet standard protocols.
 > 
 >  -mel
 > 
 > 
 > it was IP version 2, but IP versions 2, 3, and 4 came in relatively rapid
 > succession of each other and 4 was the first version with (relatively)
 > clean
 > layer separation between 2, 3, and 4.
 > 
 > According to https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2016/09/
 > final-report-on-tcpip-migration-in-1983/ , TCP/IP was developed starting 
 > in
 > 1975 and
 > declared the official future standard of the ARPANET in March, 1982, 
 > with a
 > transition plan supporting both protocols (NCP and TCP/IP)
 > until January 1, 1983.
 > 
 > January 1, 1983 is more analogous to the future happy day we finally turn
 > off IPv4 at the majority of peering points and PNIs than it is to the
 > past days when IPv6 began being deployed.
 > 
 > True, the initial deployment of TCP/IP and the flag day were much closer
 > together for the implementation of IPv4 and deprecation of NCP
 > than has been the case for IPv6 deployment and IPv4 deprecation, but
 > nonetheless, it is still true that there were at least several months
 > of TCP/IP deployment, testing, and use at multiple sites and on multiple
 > systems prior to the deprecation of NCP on January 1, 1983.
 > 


-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Network visibility

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

Outside the datacenter is where DC power really shines in my opinion.  Inside 
the DC, everything is AC now and probably for the best.

We never came up with a modular standard for -48VDC. Perhaps that could have 
changed things.

But it sure is nice having 72hrs of battery run time in the field/edge - 
although those are becoming mini data centers themselves and are in turn also 
slowly going AC.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
l...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:19 PM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10/20/21 20:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
>> 
>> -48VDC power is still the best.
> 
> I really envy folk that love DC for networking gear :-).
> 
> Work in 2007 was an all-DC network. I rebuilt it into AC, considering the ISP 
> also owned the data centre (most of whose customers bought AC). The space we 
> freed up and the ease of deployment was night & day.
> 
> Currently, we obviously need DC for the terrestrial Transport and wet plants 
> (because that's just how classic telco rolls), but I also switched all 
> IP/MPLS gear to AC soon as I arrived. Heck, even the Arbor (now Netscout) 
> gear, as well as the HP server rack, was loaded with DC power supplies. Those 
> things just had to go.
> 
> There is an avenue of pleasure in not having to spend inordinate amounts of 
> time adding major electrical planning to deploying/decommissioning a router, 
> switch or server.
> 
> But yeah, I know the AC vs. DC discussion can become a rat hole.
> 
> I'm aware of data centre operators now providing DC as an option for their 
> expansion projects, when they previously had it as the norm, FWIW.
> 
> Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Miles,

Silly schmilly. These are important matters of great import, and thus it’s 
important someone has the final say.

And since you agree with me, I’m happy for that to be you :)

 -mel

On Oct 21, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Miles Fidelman 
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net>> wrote:

Guys,

You guys were in grade school, some of us were there at the beginning (well, in 
my case, 2 years after the beginning).  I can assure you that folks made a big 
deal about what was and wasn't the Internet, and the distinction between "an 
internet" and "the (capital I) Internet."  Opinions varied then, and opinions 
vary now.

But... by and large, as I understand the general zeitgeist:

- you're either on the Internet, or you're not - the key question is whether 
you can send & receive IP packets from the public address space (i.e., the 
classified segments are internets, but not part of THE Internet).  There are 
also disagreements on where the Internet ends - at the demarc, or at the IP 
stack in your machine (I argue the latter, but that's debatable)

- as to when the Internet was born... that's also debatable.  The ARPANET 
started passing it's first packets in Sept. 1969 - that's a known point in 
time.  One could probably find the date when the first IP packet crossed 
transited a router between two networks.  Beyond that, the Flag Day is about as 
good a date as any - before that there it all was a gaggle of networks, some 
routers (then called gateways), supporting various internetworking protocols, 
including IP.  But the Flag Day made it all official - except for a few special 
exceptions, that marks the date that every machine on the net was reachable by 
IP, and NOT by NCP.

So... how about dropping all the pontification.  It just makes you look silly.

Miles Fidelman



Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


On Oct 21, 2021, at 08:55 , Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:


On Oct 21, 2021, at 8:19 AM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

No, but you are ignoring the point of my message…

The TCP/IP internet existed _BEFORE_ the flag day you mentioned. The flag day 
was the end of NCP, not the beginning of TCP/IP. IIRC, at the time,

Owen,

But we’re not talking about the birth of TCP/IP. We’re talking about the birth 
of the capital-I Internet, which by definition runs exclusively on TCP/IP, and 
that didn’t start until Jan 1, 1983. Although there was experimentation using 
IP during 1982, that was still ARPANET. It was the guaranteed exclusive 
availability of IP that made 1983 the Internet’s birth date.

IMHO, that’s an absurd definition. It was still ARPANET after January 1, 1983 
too. Prior to 1982, it was ARPANET on NCP. During 1982, it was ARPANET running 
on NCP+TCP/IP, much like the Internet runs dual stack today on IPv4 and IPv6.

In 1983, NCP was removed from most of the backbone, as I hope will happen with 
IPv4 in the next few years.

And no, it’s not analogous to the eventual IPv6 transition, because both IPv5 
and IPv4 are Capital-I Internet standard protocols.

You’re picking arbitrary definitions of Capital-I Internet standards. NCP was 
every bit as standardized as TCP/IP in 1982.

Both were documented in the same IEN series of documents.

IEN later (well after TCP/IP) evoked to become RFC.

Don’t believe me? Look at the hosts.txt file from IPv4 days which still 
referenced IEN116.


Owen




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Miles Fidelman]

Guys,

You guys were in grade school, some of us were there at the beginning 
(well, in my case, 2 years after the beginning).  I can assure you that 
folks made a big deal about what was and wasn't the Internet, and the 
distinction between "an internet" and "the (capital I) Internet."  
Opinions varied then, and opinions vary now.


But... by and large, as I understand the general zeitgeist:

- you're either on the Internet, or you're not - the key question is 
whether you can send & receive IP packets from the public address space 
(i.e., the classified segments are internets, but not part of THE 
Internet).  There are also disagreements on where the Internet ends - at 
the demarc, or at the IP stack in your machine (I argue the latter, but 
that's debatable)


- as to when the Internet was born... that's also debatable.  The 
ARPANET started passing it's first packets in Sept. 1969 - that's a 
known point in time.  One could probably find the date when the first IP 
packet crossed transited a router between two networks. Beyond that, the 
Flag Day is about as good a date as any - before that there it all was a 
gaggle of networks, some routers (then called gateways), supporting 
various internetworking protocols, including IP.  But the Flag Day made 
it all official - except for a few special exceptions, that marks the 
date that every machine on the net was reachable by IP, and NOT by NCP.


So... how about dropping all the pontification.  It just makes you look 
silly.


Miles Fidelman



Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:



On Oct 21, 2021, at 08:55 , Mel Beckman > wrote:



On Oct 21, 2021, at 8:19 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote:


No, but you are ignoring the point of my message…

The TCP/IP internet existed _BEFORE_ the flag day you mentioned. The 
flag day was the end of NCP, not the beginning of TCP/IP. IIRC, at 
the time,


Owen,
But we’re not talking about the birth of TCP/IP. We’re talking about 
the birth of the capital-I Internet, which by definition runs 
exclusively on TCP/IP, and that didn’t start until Jan 1, 1983. 
Although there was /experimentation /using IP during 1982, that was 
still ARPANET. It was the /guaranteed exclusive /availability of IP 
that made 1983 the Internet’s birth date.


IMHO, that’s an absurd definition. It was still ARPANET after January 
1, 1983 too. Prior to 1982, it was ARPANET on NCP. During 1982, it was 
ARPANET running on NCP+TCP/IP, much like the Internet runs dual stack 
today on IPv4 and IPv6.


In 1983, NCP was removed from most of the backbone, as I hope will 
happen with IPv4 in the next few years.


And no, it’s not analogous to the eventual IPv6 transition, because 
both IPv5 and IPv4 are Capital-I Internet standard protocols.


You’re picking arbitrary definitions of Capital-I Internet standards. 
NCP was every bit as standardized as TCP/IP in 1982.


Both were documented in the same IEN series of documents.

IEN later (well after TCP/IP) evoked to become RFC.

Don’t believe me? Look at the hosts.txt file from IPv4 days which 
still referenced IEN116.



Owen




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Miles Fidelman]

Me... 67.

I arrived as an MIT Freshman, about a month before Ray Tomlinson sent 
the first ARPANET email (1971), and then about 15 years later had an 
office next to him at BBN.  I was at BBN when the guy in the next office 
pulled the plug on the ARPANET.


(And... just because the topic of network management systems started 
this whole thing, my name is on the Architecture document for DDN 
Network Management.)


Barry Shein (bzs) was the guy who finally pushed NSF into allowing 
commercial traffic (he was running "The World" - the first service to 
provide public access to the backbone).


Miles Fidelman

Kain, Becki (.) wrote:

How old are all you people?



(JK)


-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Owen DeLong 
via NANOG
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:43 AM
To: b...@theworld.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Network visibility

WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution 
when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.



On Oct 20, 2021, at 14:19 , b...@theworld.com wrote:


On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:

Mark,

Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet.
Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the
“IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users'
email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP 
message.

I think you mean before 1982.

TCP/IP was deployed starting in 1982. NCP was deprecated (removed from the
ARPANET) January 1, 1983, but TCP/IP was implemented (and deployed) prior to 
that.


Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10,
ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.

So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or
fiber today, you needed an adapter?

It really wasn’t, but even if you just want to count from TCP/IP forward, 1983 
isn’t the correct date. 1983 was when we turned off NCP. It wasn’t when we 
turned on TCP/IP. The turn on of TCP/IP occurred over several months, so 
there’s no particular date that can be assigned to it.

Owen





--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Gerry Boudreaux]

One of my favorite classes ever.

G

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 11:15, Kain, Becki (.)  wrote:
> 
> I'm just kidding.  I wasn't on until 1990 when I was teaching IBM 370 
> assembler
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mel Beckman  
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:12 PM
> To: Kain, Becki (.) 
> Cc: Owen DeLong ; b...@theworld.com; nanog 
> Subject: Re: Network visibility
> 
> Becki,
> 
> I was on ARPANET through the USDA in the 1980s. So, not that old :)
> 
> -mel
> 
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2021, at 9:04 AM, Kain, Becki (.)  wrote:
>> 
>> How old are all you people?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (JK)
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
>> Owen DeLong via NANOG
>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:43 AM
>> To: b...@theworld.com
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Network visibility
>> 
>> WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution 
>> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 14:19 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. 
>>>> Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the
>>>> “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' 
>>>> email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each 
>>>> NCP message.
>> 
>> I think you mean before 1982.
>> 
>> TCP/IP was deployed starting in 1982. NCP was deprecated (removed from 
>> the
>> ARPANET) January 1, 1983, but TCP/IP was implemented (and deployed) prior to 
>> that.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10, 
>>> ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.
>>> 
>>> So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or 
>>> fiber today, you needed an adapter?
>> 
>> It really wasn’t, but even if you just want to count from TCP/IP forward, 
>> 1983 isn’t the correct date. 1983 was when we turned off NCP. It wasn’t when 
>> we turned on TCP/IP. The turn on of TCP/IP occurred over several months, so 
>> there’s no particular date that can be assigned to it.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Network visibility

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 08:55 , Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2021, at 8:19 AM, Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>> 
>> No, but you are ignoring the point of my message…
>> 
>> The TCP/IP internet existed _BEFORE_ the flag day you mentioned. The flag 
>> day was the end of NCP, not the beginning of TCP/IP. IIRC, at the time,
> 
> Owen,
>  
> But we’re not talking about the birth of TCP/IP. We’re talking about the 
> birth of the capital-I Internet, which by definition runs exclusively on 
> TCP/IP, and that didn’t start until Jan 1, 1983. Although there was 
> experimentation using IP during 1982, that was still ARPANET. It was the 
> guaranteed exclusive availability of IP that made 1983 the Internet’s birth 
> date. 

IMHO, that’s an absurd definition. It was still ARPANET after January 1, 1983 
too. Prior to 1982, it was ARPANET on NCP. During 1982, it was ARPANET running 
on NCP+TCP/IP, much like the Internet runs dual stack today on IPv4 and IPv6.

In 1983, NCP was removed from most of the backbone, as I hope will happen with 
IPv4 in the next few years.

> And no, it’s not analogous to the eventual IPv6 transition, because both IPv5 
> and IPv4 are Capital-I Internet standard protocols.

You’re picking arbitrary definitions of Capital-I Internet standards. NCP was 
every bit as standardized as TCP/IP in 1982.

Both were documented in the same IEN series of documents.

IEN later (well after TCP/IP) evoked to become RFC.

Don’t believe me? Look at the hosts.txt file from IPv4 days which still 
referenced IEN116.


Owen

RE: Network visibility

[Kain, Becki (.)]

I'm just kidding.  I wasn't on until 1990 when I was teaching IBM 370 assembler


-Original Message-
From: Mel Beckman  
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:12 PM
To: Kain, Becki (.) 
Cc: Owen DeLong ; b...@theworld.com; nanog 
Subject: Re: Network visibility

Becki,

I was on ARPANET through the USDA in the 1980s. So, not that old :)

 -mel


> On Oct 21, 2021, at 9:04 AM, Kain, Becki (.)  wrote:
> 
> How old are all you people?
> 
> 
> 
> (JK)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
> Owen DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:43 AM
> To: b...@theworld.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Network visibility
> 
> WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution 
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 14:19 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. 
>>> Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the
>>> “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' 
>>> email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP 
>>> message.
> 
> I think you mean before 1982.
> 
> TCP/IP was deployed starting in 1982. NCP was deprecated (removed from 
> the
> ARPANET) January 1, 1983, but TCP/IP was implemented (and deployed) prior to 
> that.
> 
>> 
>> Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10, 
>> ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.
>> 
>> So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or 
>> fiber today, you needed an adapter?
> 
> It really wasn’t, but even if you just want to count from TCP/IP forward, 
> 1983 isn’t the correct date. 1983 was when we turned off NCP. It wasn’t when 
> we turned on TCP/IP. The turn on of TCP/IP occurred over several months, so 
> there’s no particular date that can be assigned to it.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Becki,

I was on ARPANET through the USDA in the 1980s. So, not that old :)

 -mel


> On Oct 21, 2021, at 9:04 AM, Kain, Becki (.)  wrote:
> 
> How old are all you people?
> 
> 
> 
> (JK)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Owen 
> DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:43 AM
> To: b...@theworld.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Network visibility
> 
> WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution 
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 14:19 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. 
>>> Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the 
>>> “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' 
>>> email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP 
>>> message.
> 
> I think you mean before 1982.
> 
> TCP/IP was deployed starting in 1982. NCP was deprecated (removed from the
> ARPANET) January 1, 1983, but TCP/IP was implemented (and deployed) prior to 
> that.
> 
>> 
>> Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10, 
>> ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.
>> 
>> So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or 
>> fiber today, you needed an adapter?
> 
> It really wasn’t, but even if you just want to count from TCP/IP forward, 
> 1983 isn’t the correct date. 1983 was when we turned off NCP. It wasn’t when 
> we turned on TCP/IP. The turn on of TCP/IP occurred over several months, so 
> there’s no particular date that can be assigned to it.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 

RE: Network visibility

[Kain, Becki (.)]

How old are all you people?



(JK)


-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Owen DeLong 
via NANOG
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:43 AM
To: b...@theworld.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Network visibility

WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution 
when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.


> On Oct 20, 2021, at 14:19 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. 
>> Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the 
>> “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' 
>> email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP 
>> message.

I think you mean before 1982.

TCP/IP was deployed starting in 1982. NCP was deprecated (removed from the
ARPANET) January 1, 1983, but TCP/IP was implemented (and deployed) prior to 
that.

>
> Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10, 
> ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.
>
> So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or 
> fiber today, you needed an adapter?

It really wasn’t, but even if you just want to count from TCP/IP forward, 1983 
isn’t the correct date. 1983 was when we turned off NCP. It wasn’t when we 
turned on TCP/IP. The turn on of TCP/IP occurred over several months, so 
there’s no particular date that can be assigned to it.

Owen

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

On Oct 21, 2021, at 8:19 AM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

No, but you are ignoring the point of my message…

The TCP/IP internet existed _BEFORE_ the flag day you mentioned. The flag day 
was the end of NCP, not the beginning of TCP/IP. IIRC, at the time,

Owen,

But we’re not talking about the birth of TCP/IP. We’re talking about the birth 
of the capital-I Internet, which by definition runs exclusively on TCP/IP, and 
that didn’t start until Jan 1, 1983. Although there was experimentation using 
IP during 1982, that was still ARPANET. It was the guaranteed exclusive 
availability of IP that made 1983 the Internet’s birth date.

And no, it’s not analogous to the eventual IPv6 transition, because both IPv5 
and IPv4 are Capital-I Internet standard protocols.

 -mel

it was IP version 2, but IP versions 2, 3, and 4 came in relatively rapid 
succession of each other and 4 was the first version with (relatively) clean
layer separation between 2, 3, and 4.

According to 
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2016/09/final-report-on-tcpip-migration-in-1983/
 , TCP/IP was developed starting in 1975 and
declared the official future standard of the ARPANET in March, 1982, with a 
transition plan supporting both protocols (NCP and TCP/IP)
until January 1, 1983.

January 1, 1983 is more analogous to the future happy day we finally turn off 
IPv4 at the majority of peering points and PNIs than it is to the
past days when IPv6 began being deployed.

True, the initial deployment of TCP/IP and the flag day were much closer 
together for the implementation of IPv4 and deprecation of NCP
than has been the case for IPv6 deployment and IPv4 deprecation, but 
nonetheless, it is still true that there were at least several months
of TCP/IP deployment, testing, and use at multiple sites and on multiple 
systems prior to the deprecation of NCP on January 1, 1983.

Re: Network visibility

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 14:19 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each
>> ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and simplex
>> Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing
>> had to be specified in advance within each NCP message.

I think you mean before 1982.

TCP/IP was deployed starting in 1982. NCP was deprecated (removed from the
ARPANET) January 1, 1983, but TCP/IP was implemented (and deployed) prior to 
that.

> 
> Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10,
> ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.
> 
> So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or
> fiber today, you needed an adapter?

It really wasn’t, but even if you just want to count from TCP/IP forward, 1983
isn’t the correct date. 1983 was when we turned off NCP. It wasn’t when we
turned on TCP/IP. The turn on of TCP/IP occurred over several months, so there’s
no particular date that can be assigned to it.

Owen

Re: Network visibility

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 13:09 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/20/21 12:38 PM, james.cut...@consultant.com 
>  wrote:
>>  I miss DECUS, but not DELNIs.

I miss DECUS, too.

Not only do I not miss DELNIs, I don’t miss any of the trappings of 
coaxial-based ethernet, including, but not
limited to:
AUI cables
AUIs
Vampire taps
BNC T-Connectors
BNC Terminators
SO-239/PL-259 terminators
TDRs that cost $10k+
Co-ax pinning
Thin-net cables getting cut by furniture legs
Following a long poorly documented thickness cable looking for the 
shorted vampire tap

Does anyone miss any of these things?

Twisted pair ethernet was probably the best thing to come to networking since 
TCP/IP.

Owen

Re: Network visibility

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 11:31 , Miles Fidelman  wrote:
> 
> Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> On 10/20/21 10:30, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>> Owen,
>>> 
>>> LOL! Yeah, and in 1838 Samuel Morse’s telegraph system used electric 
>>> impulses to transmit encoded messages over a wire to Speedwell Iron Works 
>>> in Morristown, New Jersey. Was/ that /the Internet?

No, but you are ignoring the point of my message…

The TCP/IP internet existed _BEFORE_ the flag day you mentioned. The flag day 
was the end of NCP, not the beginning of TCP/IP. IIRC, at the time,
it was IP version 2, but IP versions 2, 3, and 4 came in relatively rapid 
succession of each other and 4 was the first version with (relatively) clean
layer separation between 2, 3, and 4.

According to 
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2016/09/final-report-on-tcpip-migration-in-1983/
 , TCP/IP was developed starting in 1975 and
declared the official future standard of the ARPANET in March, 1982, with a 
transition plan supporting both protocols (NCP and TCP/IP)
until January 1, 1983.

January 1, 1983 is more analogous to the future happy day we finally turn off 
IPv4 at the majority of peering points and PNIs than it is to the
past days when IPv6 began being deployed.

True, the initial deployment of TCP/IP and the flag day were much closer 
together for the implementation of IPv4 and deprecation of NCP
than has been the case for IPv6 deployment and IPv4 deprecation, but 
nonetheless, it is still true that there were at least several months
of TCP/IP deployment, testing, and use at multiple sites and on multiple 
systems prior to the deprecation of NCP on January 1, 1983.

>> 
>> Nope. And it wasn't even the first digital encoding of text. Braille 
>> preceded it, and arguably semaphore.
>> 
> There's a wonderful book, "The Victorian Internet" - that talks about 
> telegraphy, including optical telegraphy - and how the various telegraph 
> networks were internetworked.
> 
> When it came to message traffic, it really was a lot like the modern Internet.
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
> 
> Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
> Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
> In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
> nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/21/21 14:54, Brian Johnson wrote:


There is still zoning on some platforms, but there are now redundancies for the 
zones.


Sounds complex. But to each their own.

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Brian Johnson]

There is still zoning on some platforms, but there are now redundancies for the 
zones.

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 12:22 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/21/21 03:19, Brian Johnson wrote:
> 
>> +1 on -48VDC.
> 
> Wasn't much fun when half the router would shutdown because power supplies 
> failed, due to what was known as "power zoning" those days.
> 
> I haven't deployed a larger router on DC in over 13 years. I'm not sure if 
> this is still a thing, even.
> 
> Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/21/21 03:19, Brian Johnson wrote:


+1 on -48VDC.


Wasn't much fun when half the router would shutdown because power 
supplies failed, due to what was known as "power zoning" those days.


I haven't deployed a larger router on DC in over 13 years. I'm not sure 
if this is still a thing, even.


Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/20/21 20:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


-48VDC power is still the best.


I really envy folk that love DC for networking gear :-).

Work in 2007 was an all-DC network. I rebuilt it into AC, considering 
the ISP also owned the data centre (most of whose customers bought AC). 
The space we freed up and the ease of deployment was night & day.


Currently, we obviously need DC for the terrestrial Transport and wet 
plants (because that's just how classic telco rolls), but I also 
switched all IP/MPLS gear to AC soon as I arrived. Heck, even the Arbor 
(now Netscout) gear, as well as the HP server rack, was loaded with DC 
power supplies. Those things just had to go.


There is an avenue of pleasure in not having to spend inordinate amounts 
of time adding major electrical planning to deploying/decommissioning a 
router, switch or server.


But yeah, I know the AC vs. DC discussion can become a rat hole.

I'm aware of data centre operators now providing DC as an option for 
their expansion projects, when they previously had it as the norm, FWIW.


Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Brian Johnson]

+1 on -48VDC.

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:38 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Mark Tinka > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> At any rate, you may very well need more than one system to monitor your 
>> entire network.
>> 
>> Mark.
> 
> Not the least of reasons for this: Redundancy.  We have more than 1 tool 
> doing every job, incase there’s a bug with something someday, or some 
> platform reboots during a hurricane, etc.  2 is 1 and 1 is none and -48VDC 
> power is still the best. 
> 
> Happy Birthday Internet <3 
> 
> —L.B.
> 
> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
> CEO 
> l...@6by7.net 
> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
> world.”
> FCC License KJ6FJJ
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Network visibility

[scott]

On 10/20/21 6:52 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:


Oh and I remember the day we first got mosaic and I thought “why would 
I need pictures on the internet?”



-


When Mosaic first got  I remember thinking what the heck do I do 
with that?


scott

Re: Network visibility

[Daniel Seagraves]

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 4:59 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> For several years we had UCSB’s IMP control panel hanging in our office as a 
> wall decoration (it belonged to Larry Green, one of the UCSB IMPlementors). I 
> still have the manuals. The actual IMP with 56Kbps modem was in a huge rack 
> with lifting eyes for a fork lift, and weighed about 500 lbs. Every IMP had a 
> unique customized host interface, which packetized bit-serial data from the 
> host over the host’s usually proprietary I/O bus. 

I know of at least one actual hardware PDP-10 (Not PDP-11) that is still 
connected to the public internet.

Mine will be if/when I ever get it working.

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

For several years we had UCSB’s IMP control panel hanging in our office as a 
wall decoration (it belonged to Larry Green, one of the UCSB IMPlementors). I 
still have the manuals. The actual IMP with 56Kbps modem was in a huge rack 
with lifting eyes for a fork lift, and weighed about 500 lbs. Every IMP had a 
unique customized host interface, which packetized bit-serial data from the 
host over the host’s usually proprietary I/O bus. 

While this was part of computers internetworking with each other, it was not 
the capital-I Internet.

 -mel 

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 2:20 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each
>> ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and simplex
>> Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing
>> had to be specified in advance within each NCP message.
> 
> Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10,
> ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.
> 
> So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or
> fiber today, you needed an adapter?
> 
>> 
>> Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. I
>> know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on this history. :)
> 
> Well, we certainly tried in 1989 :-) We had customers from all over
> The World, um, the big round one you see when you look down.
> 
>> 
>> -mel
>> 
>> 
>>On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:43 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>On 10/20/21 17:26, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>Mark,
>> 
>>As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the
>>official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different
>>kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other. 
>> 
>>It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years
>>old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim 
>> that
>>we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)
>> 
>> 
>>Hehehe :-)...
>> 
>>I guess we can reliably say that the ARPANET wasn't keen on pretty
>>pictures, then, hehe :-)...
>> 
>>Mark.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>-Barry Shein
> 
> Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | 
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Network visibility

[bzs]

On October 20, 2021 at 13:09 m...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote:
 > Yeah, I miss DECUS too. I remember one plenary when somebody asked when the 
 > VAX
 > would support the full 4G address space to laughs and guffaws from panel.

We had an 8MB Vax 11/780 at Harvard Chemistry ca 1982 (VMS) which
involved a second double-wide cabinet.

Groups on site visits to Harvard, I remember one bunch of physicists
from Japan for example, would actually drop by to see it and ooh and
ahh.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Network visibility

[bzs]

On October 20, 2021 at 16:08 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
 > Mark,
 > 
 > Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each
 > ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and simplex
 > Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing
 > had to be specified in advance within each NCP message.

Then again there were IMPs fitted to various systems like TOPS-10,
ITS, Vax/BSD Unix, IBM370, etc.

So was that really all that different from ethernet vs, oh, wi-fi or
fiber today, you needed an adapter?

 > 
 > Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. I
 > know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on this history. :)

Well, we certainly tried in 1989 :-) We had customers from all over
The World, um, the big round one you see when you look down.

 > 
 >  -mel
 >  
 > 
 > On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:43 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > On 10/20/21 17:26, Mel Beckman wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > Mark,
 > 
 > As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the
 > official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different
 > kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other. 
 > 
 > It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years
 > old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim 
 > that
 > we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)
 > 
 > 
 > Hehehe :-)...
 > 
 > I guess we can reliably say that the ARPANET wasn't keen on pretty
 > pictures, then, hehe :-)...
 > 
 > Mark.
 > 
 > 
 > 


-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/20/21 19:32, Mel Beckman wrote:


such tinkaing...


Cute...


  is rare. It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of “never works out of the 
box.”


Luck you.

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Michael Thomas]

On 10/20/21 12:38 PM, james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
I don’t remember hearing about IP for VAX/VMS 2.4, but I was part of a 
group at Intel in 1981 looking at ARPAnet for moving designer tools 
and design files as an alternate to leased bandwidth from $TELCOs 
using DECnet and BiSync HASP. The costs of switching from 56 Kbps to 
ARPAnet’s 50 Kbps convinced us to wait. Clearly, private demand drove 
the subsequent transition as the TCP/IP stack became effectively free.


I'm not sure how we heard and got a copy of the CMU IP stack, but it was 
probably Mark Reinhold who now owns Java. It was definitely after 1981 
and definitely before 1985, probably somewhere in the middle. Just the 
fact that we could get such a thing was sort of remarkable in those 
early days, and especially for VMS which was, I won't say hostile, but 
had their own ideas. I don't know when early routing came about but DEC 
charged extra for routing for DECNet, so that was yet another reason IP 
was interesting is that it took little investment to check it all out.





 I miss DECUS, but not DELNIs.


Yeah, I miss DECUS too. I remember one plenary when somebody asked when 
the VAX would support the full 4G address space to laughs and guffaws 
from panel.


Mike




-
James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
cell 734-673-5462


On Oct 20, 2021, at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:

I think the issuing of rfc 791 was much more important than the flag 
day. ARPAnet was a tiny, tiny universe but there were a lot of people 
interested in networking at the time wondering what to do with our 
neat new DEUNA and DEQNA adapters. There was tons of interest in all 
of the various protocols coming out around then because nobody knew 
what was going to win, or whether there would be *a* winner at all. 
Being able to get a spec to write to was pretty novel at the time 
because all of the rest of them were proprietary so you had to 
reverse engineer them for the most part. It may be that alone that 
pushed IP along well before the public could hook up to the Internet. 
We had lots of customers asking for IP protocols in the mid to late 
80's and I can guarantee you most weren't part of the Internet. They 
were using IP as the interoperating system glue on their own networks.


Also: the flag day was pretty much an example of how not to do a 
transition. as in, let's not do that again.


Mike, trying to remember when CMU shipped their first version of 
their IP stack for VMS



On 10/20/21 11:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Since we seem to be getting pedantic...

There's "The (capital I) Internet" - which, most date to the flag 
day, and the "Public Internet" (the Internet after policies changed 
and allowed commercial & public use over the NSFnet backbone - in 
1992f, as I recall).


Then there's the more general notion of "internetworking" - of which 
there was a considerable amount of experimental work going on, in 
parallel with TCP/IP.  And of (small i) "internets" - essentially 
any Catenet style network-of-networks.


Miles Fidelman

Mel Beckman wrote:

Michael,

“Looking into” isn’t “is” :)

 -mel


On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:




On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered 
the official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let 
different kinds of computers on different networks talk to each 
other.


It’s 2021, hence the Internet is /less/ than, not more than, 40 
years old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in 
your claim that we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)


Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're 
talking about is the flag day. People including myself were 
looking into internet protocols well before the flag day.


Mike




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Jay Hennigan]

On 10/20/21 11:52, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
Oh and I remember the day we first got mosaic and I thought “why would I 
need pictures on the internet?”


Couple that with the early search engines such as Lycos and WebCrawler 
and there's a story to tell.


I was a volunteer at a local non-profit fledgling ISP way back in the 
day. Sparc 10, bank of Practical Peripherals modems, Portmaster 2e, 
blistering fast frame-relay T-1 to the net, typical state-of-the-art 
setup for its time.


I was doing a lot of the early network stuff, and another guy was the 
system admin. He put together a quick personal page that included a 
picture of a potted plant. No real reason for it, he threw it together 
primarily so he could test the new Mosaic browser.


Somewhat as a joke, he included an ALT tag on the photo of the plant, 
"This is not a picture of a naked woman." This was for the benefit of 
the majority of the visitors using Lynx.


About a week later, the blistering fast T-1 line became quite saturated 
with visitors to his personal test page. Search engines picked up the 
keywords and people on the Internet did what people on the Internet are 
still doing today.


ALT tag got changed pretty quickly.

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Network visibility

[james.cut...@consultant.com]

I don’t remember hearing about IP for VAX/VMS 2.4, but I was part of a group at 
Intel in 1981 looking at ARPAnet for moving designer tools and design files as 
an alternate to leased bandwidth from $TELCOs using DECnet and BiSync HASP. The 
costs of switching from 56 Kbps to ARPAnet’s 50 Kbps convinced us to wait. 
Clearly, private demand drove the subsequent transition as the TCP/IP stack 
became effectively free.

 I miss DECUS, but not DELNIs.

-
James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
cell 734-673-5462

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> I think the issuing of rfc 791 was much more important than the flag day. 
> ARPAnet was a tiny, tiny universe but there were a lot of people interested 
> in networking at the time wondering what to do with our neat new DEUNA and 
> DEQNA adapters. There was tons of interest in all of the various protocols 
> coming out around then because nobody knew what was going to win, or whether 
> there would be *a* winner at all. Being able to get a spec to write to was 
> pretty novel at the time because all of the rest of them were proprietary so 
> you had to reverse engineer them for the most part. It may be that alone that 
> pushed IP along well before the public could hook up to the Internet. We had 
> lots of customers asking for IP protocols in the mid to late 80's and I can 
> guarantee you most weren't part of the Internet. They were using IP as the 
> interoperating system glue on their own networks.
> 
> Also: the flag day was pretty much an example of how not to do a transition. 
> as in, let's not do that again.
> 
> Mike, trying to remember when CMU shipped their first version of their IP 
> stack for VMS
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/20/21 11:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Since we seem to be getting pedantic... 
>> 
>> There's "The (capital I) Internet" - which, most date to the flag day, and 
>> the "Public Internet" (the Internet after policies changed and allowed 
>> commercial & public use over the NSFnet backbone - in 1992f, as I recall).
>> 
>> Then there's the more general notion of "internetworking" - of which there 
>> was a considerable amount of experimental work going on, in parallel with 
>> TCP/IP.  And of (small i) "internets" - essentially any Catenet style 
>> network-of-networks.
>> 
>> Miles Fidelman
>> 
>> Mel Beckman wrote:
>>> Michael,
>>> 
>>> “Looking into” isn’t “is” :)
>>> 
>>>  -mel 
>>> 
 On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Michael Thomas  
  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the 
> official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds 
> of computers on different networks talk to each other. 
> 
> It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  
> Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we 
> still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)
> 
 Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're talking 
 about is the flag day. People including myself were looking into internet 
 protocols well before the flag day.
 
 Mike
 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
>> 
>> Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. 
>> Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. 
>> In our lab, theory and practice are combined: 
>> nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Michael Thomas]

I think the issuing of rfc 791 was much more important than the flag 
day. ARPAnet was a tiny, tiny universe but there were a lot of people 
interested in networking at the time wondering what to do with our neat 
new DEUNA and DEQNA adapters. There was tons of interest in all of the 
various protocols coming out around then because nobody knew what was 
going to win, or whether there would be *a* winner at all. Being able to 
get a spec to write to was pretty novel at the time because all of the 
rest of them were proprietary so you had to reverse engineer them for 
the most part. It may be that alone that pushed IP along well before the 
public could hook up to the Internet. We had lots of customers asking 
for IP protocols in the mid to late 80's and I can guarantee you most 
weren't part of the Internet. They were using IP as the interoperating 
system glue on their own networks.


Also: the flag day was pretty much an example of how not to do a 
transition. as in, let's not do that again.


Mike, trying to remember when CMU shipped their first version of their 
IP stack for VMS



On 10/20/21 11:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Since we seem to be getting pedantic...

There's "The (capital I) Internet" - which, most date to the flag day, 
and the "Public Internet" (the Internet after policies changed and 
allowed commercial & public use over the NSFnet backbone - in 1992f, 
as I recall).


Then there's the more general notion of "internetworking" - of which 
there was a considerable amount of experimental work going on, in 
parallel with TCP/IP.  And of (small i) "internets" - essentially any 
Catenet style network-of-networks.


Miles Fidelman

Mel Beckman wrote:

Michael,

“Looking into” isn’t “is” :)

 -mel


On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:




On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the 
official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different 
kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other.


It’s 2021, hence the Internet is /less/ than, not more than, 40 
years old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your 
claim that we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)


Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're 
talking about is the flag day. People including myself were looking 
into internet protocols well before the flag day.


Mike




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

RE: Network visibility

[Kain, Becki (.)]

Oh and I remember the day we first got mosaic and I thought “why would I need 
pictures on the internet?”




From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Miles 
Fidelman
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 2:47 PM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Network visibility

WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution 
when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.

Since we seem to be getting pedantic...

There's "The (capital I) Internet" - which, most date to the flag day, and the 
"Public Internet" (the Internet after policies changed and allowed commercial & 
public use over the NSFnet backbone - in 1992f, as I recall).

Then there's the more general notion of "internetworking" - of which there was 
a considerable amount of experimental work going on, in parallel with TCP/IP.  
And of (small i) "internets" - essentially any Catenet style 
network-of-networks.

Miles Fidelman

Mel Beckman wrote:
Michael,

“Looking into” isn’t “is” :)
 -mel


On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Michael Thomas 
<mailto:m...@mtcc.com> wrote:



On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official 
birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers on 
different networks talk to each other.

It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  Given 
your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we still can’t “buy 
an NMS that just works.” :)


Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're talking about is 
the flag day. People including myself were looking into internet protocols well 
before the flag day.

Mike




--

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra



Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.

Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.

In our lab, theory and practice are combined:

nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Miles Fidelman]

Since we seem to be getting pedantic...

There's "The (capital I) Internet" - which, most date to the flag day, 
and the "Public Internet" (the Internet after policies changed and 
allowed commercial & public use over the NSFnet backbone - in 1992f, as 
I recall).


Then there's the more general notion of "internetworking" - of which 
there was a considerable amount of experimental work going on, in 
parallel with TCP/IP.  And of (small i) "internets" - essentially any 
Catenet style network-of-networks.


Miles Fidelman

Mel Beckman wrote:

Michael,

“Looking into” isn’t “is” :)

 -mel


On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:




On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the 
official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different 
kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other.


It’s 2021, hence the Internet is /less/ than, not more than, 40 
years old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your 
claim that we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)


Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're 
talking about is the flag day. People including myself were looking 
into internet protocols well before the flag day.


Mike




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Mark Tinka  > wrote:
> 
> 
> At any rate, you may very well need more than one system to monitor your 
> entire network.
> 
> Mark.

Not the least of reasons for this: Redundancy.  We have more than 1 tool doing 
every job, incase there’s a bug with something someday, or some platform 
reboots during a hurricane, etc.  2 is 1 and 1 is none and -48VDC power is 
still the best. 

Happy Birthday Internet <3 

—L.B.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
l...@6by7.net 
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ

Re: Network visibility

[Miles Fidelman]

Jay Hennigan wrote:

On 10/20/21 10:30, Mel Beckman wrote:

Owen,

LOL! Yeah, and in 1838 Samuel Morse’s telegraph system used 
electric impulses to transmit encoded messages over a wire to 
Speedwell Iron Works in Morristown, New Jersey. Was/ that /the Internet?


Nope. And it wasn't even the first digital encoding of text. Braille 
preceded it, and arguably semaphore.


There's a wonderful book, "The Victorian Internet" - that talks about 
telegraphy, including optical telegraphy - and how the various telegraph 
networks were internetworked.


When it came to message traffic, it really was a lot like the modern 
Internet.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Michael,

“Looking into” isn’t “is” :)

 -mel

On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:39 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:




On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official 
birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers on 
different networks talk to each other.

It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  Given 
your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we still can’t “buy 
an NMS that just works.” :)


Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're talking about is 
the flag day. People including myself were looking into internet protocols well 
before the flag day.

Mike

Re: Network visibility

[Jay Hennigan]

On 10/20/21 10:30, Mel Beckman wrote:

Owen,

LOL! Yeah, and in 1838 Samuel Morse’s telegraph system used 
electric impulses to transmit encoded messages over a wire to Speedwell 
Iron Works in Morristown, New Jersey. Was/ that /the Internet?


Nope. And it wasn't even the first digital encoding of text. Braille 
preceded it, and arguably semaphore.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Network visibility

[Michael Thomas]

On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the 
official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different 
kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other.


It’s 2021, hence the Internet is /less/ than, not more than, 40 years 
old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim 
that we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)


Pedantically, IP is 40 years old as of last month. What you're talking 
about is the flag day. People including myself were looking into 
internet protocols well before the flag day.


Mike

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Mark,

I haven’t. With SNMP and other standards, and most NMS’ having extensible 
interfaces, such tinkaing is rare. It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of 
“never works out of the box.” 

 -mel

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:06 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/20/21 18:38, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> I’ve used many commercial NMS platforms. I’ve yet to find one that doesn’t 
>> work “out of the box”. Unless by “out of the box” you mean “clairvoyantly 
>> configured”.
>> 
>> Please identify the ones you think fail your test.
> 
> Have you always used an NMS that you've never had to have the vendor (or 
> community) tweak in a manner that was mostly unique to your operation?
> 
> If not, you're a very lucky man...
> 
> Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Owen,

LOL! Yeah, and in 1838 Samuel Morse’s telegraph system used electric impulses 
to transmit encoded messages over a wire to Speedwell Iron Works in Morristown, 
New Jersey. Was that the Internet?

Sorry, not buying your supposed argument. People experimenting with TCP/IP 
doesn’t an Internet make.

“January 1, 1983 is considered the official birthday of the Internet. "
https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml

  -mel

On Oct 20, 2021, at 9:54 AM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:



On Oct 20, 2021, at 08:26 , Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official 
birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers on 
different networks talk to each other.

January 1, 1983 is actually not that… TCP/IP was running in many locations 
prior to that date.

January 1, 1983 was the day that support for the NCP based internet prior to 
TCP/IP implementation ended.

Further, NCP had actually allowed different kinds of computers on different 
networks to talk to each other, as had UUCP.

It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  Given 
your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we still can’t “buy 
an NMS that just works.” :)

No, not really. The Internet is older than the death of NCP, which is the day 
you are referring to as the birthday of the internet.

Owen


 -mel

On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Mark Tinka 
mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:



On 10/20/21 11:55, Nat Fogarty wrote:

Hi there,

I'm interested in what you good folks do in terms of network visibility.

My interests are around Service Provider space - visibility for IPoE, PPPoE, 
TCP(User Experience).

I use a product called "VoIPmonitor" for all things VoIP - and it is one of my 
favourite tools.  It is a web gui for sip/rtp/etc.

Is there a similar tool in the Ethernet(L2)/IP(L3) space?

Are operators using tcpdump/wireshark for this - or is there a 
voipmonitor-esque tool out there?

It's 2021, and more than 40 years of the Internet, we still can't walk into a 
shop and buy an NMS that just works :-).

Oddly, I was searching for a good system to manage subscriber management on our 
end (Broadband), and we eventually landed on Splynx.

So not sure if you want to see things on the wire (Layer 1 - 4), or if you are 
interested in pretty pictures...

At any rate, you may very well need more than one system to monitor your entire 
network.

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/20/21 18:38, Mel Beckman wrote:

I’ve used many commercial NMS platforms. I’ve yet to find one that doesn’t work 
“out of the box”. Unless by “out of the box” you mean “clairvoyantly 
configured”.

Please identify the ones you think fail your test.


Have you always used an NMS that you've never had to have the vendor (or 
community) tweak in a manner that was mostly unique to your operation?


If not, you're a very lucky man...

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 08:26 , Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official 
> birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers 
> on different networks talk to each other. 

January 1, 1983 is actually not that… TCP/IP was running in many locations 
prior to that date.

January 1, 1983 was the day that support for the NCP based internet prior to 
TCP/IP implementation ended.

Further, NCP had actually allowed different kinds of computers on different 
networks to talk to each other, as had UUCP.

> It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  
> Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we still 
> can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)

No, not really. The Internet is older than the death of NCP, which is the day 
you are referring to as the birthday of the internet.

Owen

> 
>  -mel
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Mark Tinka > <mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/20/21 11:55, Nat Fogarty wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> I'm interested in what you good folks do in terms of network visibility.
>>> 
>>> My interests are around Service Provider space - visibility for IPoE, 
>>> PPPoE, TCP(User Experience).
>>> 
>>> I use a product called "VoIPmonitor" for all things VoIP - and it is one of 
>>> my favourite tools.  It is a web gui for sip/rtp/etc.
>>> 
>>> Is there a similar tool in the Ethernet(L2)/IP(L3) space?
>>> 
>>> Are operators using tcpdump/wireshark for this - or is there a 
>>> voipmonitor-esque tool out there?
>> 
>> It's 2021, and more than 40 years of the Internet, we still can't walk into 
>> a shop and buy an NMS that just works :-).
>> 
>> Oddly, I was searching for a good system to manage subscriber management on 
>> our end (Broadband), and we eventually landed on Splynx.
>> 
>> So not sure if you want to see things on the wire (Layer 1 - 4), or if you 
>> are interested in pretty pictures...
>> 
>> At any rate, you may very well need more than one system to monitor your 
>> entire network.
>> 
>> Mark.
> 

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

I’ve used many commercial NMS platforms. I’ve yet to find one that doesn’t work 
“out of the box”. Unless by “out of the box” you mean “clairvoyantly 
configured”. 

Please identify the ones you think fail your test. 

-mel via cell

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 9:18 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10/20/21 18:08, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each 
>> ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and 
>> simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and 
>> routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP message.
> 
> I do know all of this, mate... I was just being dramatically facetious from 
> my first response to the OP.
> 
> My point being that considering how long TCP/IP has been around, the best 
> monitoring we have gotten, even today, doesn't work out-of-the-box. So a 
> single solution is likely impractical, even with the best of intentions, and 
> none of the massaging.
> 
> 
>> Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. 
>> I know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on this history. 
>> :)
> 
> 1995, actually. But that's not important...
> 
> Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/20/21 18:08, Mel Beckman wrote:


Mark,

Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. 
Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) 
and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' 
email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within 
each NCP message.


I do know all of this, mate... I was just being dramatically facetious 
from my first response to the OP.


My point being that considering how long TCP/IP has been around, the 
best monitoring we have gotten, even today, doesn't work out-of-the-box. 
So a single solution is likely impractical, even with the best of 
intentions, and none of the massaging.



Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 
1992. I know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on 
this history. :)


1995, actually. But that's not important...

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Mark,

Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each 
ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and simplex 
Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing 
had to be specified in advance within each NCP message.

Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. I 
know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on this history. :)

 -mel

On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:43 AM, Mark Tinka 
mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:



On 10/20/21 17:26, Mel Beckman wrote:

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official 
birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers on 
different networks talk to each other.

It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  Given 
your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we still can’t “buy 
an NMS that just works.” :)

Hehehe :-)...

I guess we can reliably say that the ARPANET wasn't keen on pretty pictures, 
then, hehe :-)...

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/20/21 17:26, Mel Beckman wrote:


Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the 
official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different 
kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other.


It’s 2021, hence the Internet is /less/ than, not more than, 40 years 
old.  Given your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim 
that we still can’t “buy an NMS that just works.” :)


Hehehe :-)...

I guess we can reliably say that the ARPANET wasn't keen on pretty 
pictures, then, hehe :-)...


Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mel Beckman]

Mark,

As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official 
birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers on 
different networks talk to each other.

It’s 2021, hence the Internet is less than, not more than, 40 years old.  Given 
your mathematical skills, I put no stock in your claim that we still can’t “buy 
an NMS that just works.” :)

 -mel

On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Mark Tinka 
mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:



On 10/20/21 11:55, Nat Fogarty wrote:

Hi there,

I'm interested in what you good folks do in terms of network visibility.

My interests are around Service Provider space - visibility for IPoE, PPPoE, 
TCP(User Experience).

I use a product called "VoIPmonitor" for all things VoIP - and it is one of my 
favourite tools.  It is a web gui for sip/rtp/etc.

Is there a similar tool in the Ethernet(L2)/IP(L3) space?

Are operators using tcpdump/wireshark for this - or is there a 
voipmonitor-esque tool out there?

It's 2021, and more than 40 years of the Internet, we still can't walk into a 
shop and buy an NMS that just works :-).

Oddly, I was searching for a good system to manage subscriber management on our 
end (Broadband), and we eventually landed on Splynx.

So not sure if you want to see things on the wire (Layer 1 - 4), or if you are 
interested in pretty pictures...

At any rate, you may very well need more than one system to monitor your entire 
network.

Mark.

Re: Network visibility

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/20/21 11:55, Nat Fogarty wrote:


Hi there,

I'm interested in what you good folks do in terms of network visibility.

My interests are around Service Provider space - visibility for IPoE, 
PPPoE, TCP(User Experience).


I use a product called "VoIPmonitor" for all things VoIP - and it is 
one of my favourite tools.  It is a web gui for sip/rtp/etc.


Is there a similar tool in the Ethernet(L2)/IP(L3) space?

Are operators using tcpdump/wireshark for this - or is there a 
voipmonitor-esque tool out there?


It's 2021, and more than 40 years of the Internet, we still can't walk 
into a shop and buy an NMS that just works :-).


Oddly, I was searching for a good system to manage subscriber management 
on our end (Broadband), and we eventually landed on Splynx.


So not sure if you want to see things on the wire (Layer 1 - 4), or if 
you are interested in pretty pictures...


At any rate, you may very well need more than one system to monitor your 
entire network.


Mark.

Network visibility

[Nat Fogarty]

Hi there,

I'm interested in what you good folks do in terms of network visibility.

My interests are around Service Provider space - visibility for IPoE,
PPPoE, TCP(User Experience).

I use a product called "VoIPmonitor" for all things VoIP - and it is one of
my favourite tools.  It is a web gui for sip/rtp/etc.

Is there a similar tool in the Ethernet(L2)/IP(L3) space?

Are operators using tcpdump/wireshark for this - or is there a
voipmonitor-esque tool out there?

Cheers,
Nathaniel