- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Reality Check
by Timothy R. McKee 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let's have a reality check here. Our job as **OPERATORS** is to provide our subscribers with simple and reliable access to what they consider as the Global Internet. They have the following 2 reasonable expectations: 1) That they can access any publicly acessible web, ftp, email, etc server anywhere in the world by using the destination's published textual address. Without, I might add, having to know that certain locations require loading a special plug-in, changing their resolver, or artificially padding the name. 2) That their customers or prospective customers can access any server OF ANY TYPE that they declare to be public by means of a single published textual address, usually in URL format. Again, with the same caveats as item 1. ************************************************* ** I challenge anyone to prove to me that ** ** their actual customers DON'T expect this!!! ** ************************************************* Remember that, regardless of theoretical arguments, _WE_ are the ones that have to deal with the messes that result from things like this... _WE_ are the ones who will have to pay for the increased NOC and Tech Support staff and phone charges... Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOq+znRRIXzEQLahvEQLjwQCg9TRKv6/zUrD6LAChoqUPNT0yzAUAoKjZ MHVyzwga/VMrkQ0tu7rSfMbE =xFJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 10

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Karyn Ulriksen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

We passed the hat around. We came up with a battered copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a mini-maglite, and a bag of Orville Riddenbacher Popcorn (only partially popped and scorched - the rest is usable). How much will that buy? K :: -----Original Message----- :: From: Chris Davis [mailto:chris.davis@computerjobs.com] :: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:35 PM :: To: 'David Schwartz' :: Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. :: :: :: :: HOWDY! HOWDY! :: :: I AM SELLING I.P. ADDRESSES! :: ARIN HAS HELD THEM FOR "PRIVATE" USE TOO LONG! WHO DO THEY :: THINK THEY ARE? :: NOBODY IS USING THEM ON THE INTERNET! :: :: BARGAIN PRICES! CASH ONLY!!!! :: :: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 :: 172.16.0.0 - 172.32.255.255 :: 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 :: :: RESERVE YOURS NOW! GOING FAST! :: :: :: :: :: :: -----Original Message----- :: From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] :: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:12 PM :: To: Stephen J. Wilcox :: Cc: Jeff Workman; Chris Davis; nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. :: :: :: :: :: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Schwartz wrote: :: > :: > > Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you use? :: > > And you can :: > > continue to use the same nameservers no matter what :: provider you use. :: > :: > Why do nanog threads always repeat themselves fifty times :: before they die? :: :: Because people don't read what other people write. :: :: > Not wishing to repeat myself either but.. :: > :: > Why is choice so important to you? :: :: Who said it was? I'm just saying that it's unreasonable :: for you to :: complain :: about me having a choice. :: :: > OK, I just created Wilcox's law of customer support.. :: > :: > this states that for every choice you give users the :: number of potential :: > problems increases proportianally. :: :: Then don't give your users the choice. See, no problem. :: :: > You give them different operating systems, different :: browsers, different :: > providers now you give them different DNS roots.. :: > :: > You just doubled the number of ways in which a (dumb) home :: user can break :: > their systems and get all confused over why when they just :: installed the :: > new Opal Internet software all the web pages they are used :: to using are :: > different... :: :: Then don't give your customers that choice. Nobody is :: forcing you :: to. :: :: > simple to me, you and everyone on this list, but to a :: (dumb) home user :: > thats 15 minutes to explain the problem, 15 minutes to :: discuss the details :: > of the DNS system and 15 minutes to once again explain how :: this affects :: > them because they dont understand a word you are saying and cant :: > understand why typing in www.yahoo.com now resolves to a porn site! :: > :: > Following me so far? Sure, you are free to choose, very :: good have the :: > "land of the free" feeling of excitement. But I'm :: suggesting its a really :: > bad thing to make this decision for people who are not :: going to understand :: > this and cause all of us nice people problems. :: :: If giving your customers a choice causes you a :: headache, then don't :: give :: them a choice. If you are selling them unfiltered Internet :: access, then give :: them that. If you give them flat-rate support, then give :: them that. If you :: don't support some services, then don't. :: :: DS ::

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Roeland, This thread was about "If IP portability was MANDATED, (like telephone local number portability was mandated), how could it be implemented without blowing up the routing tables?" Hence the qualifier: If all IP addresses will be portable because of the above referenced mandate, there will no grab for interesting addresses. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 PM > To: 'Kavi, Prabhu'; 'Joe Abley' > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, if > someone were to > offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to > ask where you > wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling upon delivery. > > Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than domain names. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM > > To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > > > Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting > > domain names, people worry less about having an > > interesting IP address, especially if they know it > > will be portable. > > > > Prabhu > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > > > To: Kavi, Prabhu > > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > > > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > > > the session. > > > > > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > > > translation today so it would first require a > > > > protocol definition. > > > > > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address > portability > > > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just > described DNS, > > > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > >

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

DNS cache poisoning as adequately prevented by making your zone servers non-recursive. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:03 PM > To: David Schwartz > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. > > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:59:28 PST, David Schwartz said: > > Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you > use? And you can > > continue to use the same nameservers no matter what > provider you use. > > Unless the ISP is security conscious and has allow-query and > allow-recurse > ACLs for his netblocks only, to help combat DNS cache poisoning. > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Operating Systems Analyst > Virginia Tech > >

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> So tell me when I type in the word "apple" where exactly do I > want to go? Apple Records, of course (sez an old hippie). On the TM front, Apple Computer only retains their name because of a contingent agreement with Apple Records, the primary trademark-holder of the term "Apple". Apple Computer is prohibited from entering the music recording and distribution business. Wow, does this mean that Apple could never support Napster or MP3.ORG?

2 1

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Chris Davis 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

HOWDY! HOWDY! I AM SELLING I.P. ADDRESSES! ARIN HAS HELD THEM FOR "PRIVATE" USE TOO LONG! WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE? NOBODY IS USING THEM ON THE INTERNET! BARGAIN PRICES! CASH ONLY!!!! 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 172.16.0.0 - 172.32.255.255 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 RESERVE YOURS NOW! GOING FAST! -----Original Message----- From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:12 PM To: Stephen J. Wilcox Cc: Jeff Workman; Chris Davis; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you use? > > And you can > > continue to use the same nameservers no matter what provider you use. > > Why do nanog threads always repeat themselves fifty times before they die? Because people don't read what other people write. > Not wishing to repeat myself either but.. > > Why is choice so important to you? Who said it was? I'm just saying that it's unreasonable for you to complain about me having a choice. > OK, I just created Wilcox's law of customer support.. > > this states that for every choice you give users the number of potential > problems increases proportianally. Then don't give your users the choice. See, no problem. > You give them different operating systems, different browsers, different > providers now you give them different DNS roots.. > > You just doubled the number of ways in which a (dumb) home user can break > their systems and get all confused over why when they just installed the > new Opal Internet software all the web pages they are used to using are > different... Then don't give your customers that choice. Nobody is forcing you to. > simple to me, you and everyone on this list, but to a (dumb) home user > thats 15 minutes to explain the problem, 15 minutes to discuss the details > of the DNS system and 15 minutes to once again explain how this affects > them because they dont understand a word you are saying and cant > understand why typing in www.yahoo.com now resolves to a porn site! > > Following me so far? Sure, you are free to choose, very good have the > "land of the free" feeling of excitement. But I'm suggesting its a really > bad thing to make this decision for people who are not going to understand > this and cause all of us nice people problems. If giving your customers a choice causes you a headache, then don't give them a choice. If you are selling them unfiltered Internet access, then give them that. If you give them flat-rate support, then give them that. If you don't support some services, then don't. DS

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Ben Browning 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

At 11:21 PM 3/14/2001, Vadim Antonov wrote: >And so does any web browser and even all popular e-mail software. The >point is: you don't _remember_ e-mail addresses with their FQDNs, you look >them up in the address book. I remember FQDN's. I know where to email when I want to reach abuse(a)some.isp too. I also know how to tell someone over coffee what my address is, or my mom's email address. For that matter, she remembers my email address, FQDN and all. This is a woman who labeled every port and every cable with matching labels like "a", "b", etc, just to move her desktop to a different room in the house. Labels have an intrinsic value that goes far beyond the scope of the internet, and even beyond the scope of language. A name. What is a name? A rose by any other name... Wouldn't be a rose anymore, would it? We place immense value in names. When you are sick, the first thing you want to know is the name of the disease. When you see someone, someone that stirs the ancient hormonal need to breed, what do you want to know? A name. When something is discovered, be it molecule or star, organism or crystalline formation, what do we do to mark the occasion? We name it. And then we name the day we named it, so we can celebrate that name. Trying to divorce names from our thought processes (even if only in this one area) would be painful (if possible at all) to the general populace. Not to mention the damage it would do to marketing campaigns (print, radio, and TV). >Long-term memory is _much_ better remembering gestalts than precise ASCII >strings. I'm exchanging e-mail with my colleague nearly every day, but >i can't remember what exactly variant of spelling is used for his name >(there's at least sixteen ways to spell his name in English, each as good >as any other :). Methinks he needs a shorter alias. >What i learned so far - if technology aims to change human nature, it >fails. It is very naive to assume that brotherhood of technologists will >stay cooperative when real money gets in. I do not like it any more than >any other techie, but let's face reality. The control of domain name >space is passing from technologists to lawyers and politicos. Only if we bend over and lube for it. >What i am proposing is to remove the contention point. When "names" do not >have intrinsic value, nobody'll fight over them. Do you see many scandals >around people who own cool IP addresses? :) No, but I bet you would see a mad dash for 123.123.123.123 and the like if your proposal were to take hold. > > There's a lot of other stuff behind that, but, I think that you get the > > point. > >The Internet is successful precisely because it is decentralized. There >is absolutely no reason to make the few "natural" central points >vulnerable by having them to dispense what is considered intrinsically >valuable property. (Thanks God, NAT made IP address allocations somewhat >less critical). The Internet is only useful because of standardization (IP, TCP, UDP, SNMP, ICMP, the list goes on forever). Otherwise, we are left sitting in a dark room with 200 other people... all speaking different languages. Let's just ditch this whole "Internet" thing and go back to BBSes, shall we? ~Ben, blah blah speaks for himself blah not reflect blah blah employer --- Ben Browning <benb(a)theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com

2 1

RE: Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Sorry, I misaddressed a message

1 0

Recall: Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Roeland Meyer would like to recall the message, "Inane ... even for NANOG.".

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by smd＠clock.org 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

| How long will it be before they mandate IP address portability? If ISPs collectively mandated trivial site renumbering technology, it would never need to happen. Unfortunately most ISPs are quite happy to let migrating customers retain holes from other ISPs' PA blocks. Also, not enough people point out that this technology is just as lacking in IPv6 as in IPv4. This is the crux of the problem, and will hurt everyone. Sean.

2 1