- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

PI or PA?
by Ray Davis 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

A customer needs a /24 which is to be announced by us and other ASes (including uunet). Should we just give them a /24 out of our space or would it be better to apply for a /24 PI space? Thanks, Ray

2 1

Sidgmore to Join MicroStrategy
by Mohamed Hirse 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

FYI, I guess this means UUNET will finally be devoured by WorldCom. Those of you interested, the following link has the full press release by MicroStrategy. http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/000905/n0428432.html Mo

2 1

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by Randy Bush 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

>>> * The IETF makes the standards (for good or ill) and the quality of those >>> standards, and, indeed, the decision about what to standardize has an >>> impact on operations. By attending, you can help avoid disasterous >>> standards and help shape useful ones. >> >> my candidate of the season is rfc 2547,mpls vpns. consider what it will >> do to your bgp table and the load on the PEs when you have say 100k vpns. >> and we have customers who want over 1k vpns each. > > Sorry to get off the subject, but to answer your question wrt > "what it will do to your bgp table and the load on the PEs" > please (re)read section 15 of draft-rosen-rfc2547bis-02.txt. no problem. scalability just might be of interest to providers. i am far from convinced that route reflectors will be sufficient. in a few years, just about every dedicated customer will want multiple vpns, some will want many, and most vpns will cross inter-provider boundaries. the root mis-design here is that it is telco-style, putting the complexity in the core network. this means the core bears the burden of scaling. the internet style, smart edges and simple core, scales sooooo much better. hence my mention of ipsec. but mpls vpns will sure sell hardware. randy

1 0

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by Sean Donelan 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

On Mon, 04 September 2000, smd(a)clock.org wrote: > The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between > the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who > have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too. I think its great some organizations allow/encourage its employees to participate in activites such as the IETF. However, there is a postive feedback loop. What is the return on investment of an operator sending folks to the IETF? Most major operators already get private presentations and submit individual requirements to the vendors to incorporate in their products. If UUNET needs some operational feature in a protocol, they call up their Cisco engineer and say jump. Presto, in the next release train, feature X shows up. Who needs rough consensus? I think the IETF is valuable, but what do you tell investors when they ask what's in it for them?

6 5

Request for assistance
by John Smaling 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

-- This is not intended to be SPAM, but a legitimate request for advice. An organization I work for, holds a registered full class 'B' address range. Since we are moving to an RFC 1918 based addressing scheme, we are looking to "sell" the rights to utilize our class 'B'. Having no experience with this, I can only assume that perhaps a secondary tier ISP may have an interest in this, but I have no idea where to begin, or if this has value at all. Can someone provide me with some advice relative to what types of organizations might be interested in such a purchase, who they might be, and any other pertinent information. I'm aware that ARIN provides this type of thing for a price, that they publish on their Web site. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not looking for buyers through this forum, but advice on how I might go about pursuing this. end

6 7

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by smd＠clock.org 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

| I don't know | if operators are finding the IETF less useful The IETF has at least since CIDRD not really been on the best of terms with operators. It is very clear that there is essentially no conversation happening between operators and the IPNGWG, for example, and there are other working groups which are nearly as out-of-touch with operators' realities. Moreover, the IESG and the IAB have generally also been bereft of much operator input. Volunteering for NOMCOMM and making sure operators have a chance to influence the selection of the IESG and IAB may help bring at least those bodies half a clue, and ideally help make the IETF a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect". The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too. Sean.

3 2

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting (fwd)
by Brandon Ross 04 Sep '00

04 Sep '00

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 owen(a)exodus.net wrote: > This makes the assumption that it is in the best interests of the internet > for only profitable or business organizations to control the address space, > and that the almighty (insert your favorite currency) is directly tied > to the common good. That is the assumption. While certainly not perfect, it's a much better assumption than [insert your favorite government or government like institution here] knows what's good for you or your organization better than you do. > This assumption is false. Capitalism suffers from a similar derivation of > the root problem of socialism. In socialism, there is little or no > incentive to achieve, thus productivity suffers. In capitalism, there > is lots of incentive, but nothing ties that incentive to the common > good or a long-term perspective. Thus, you end up with things like > the polution in TX, supposed environmental groups killing fish to > keep them on the endangered list, etc. I currently provide free services > to a number of non-profit organizations. I would not be able to afford > to do that if my address space were commodotized. So you are saying that I and thousands of other organizations around the world should be forced to provide you resources whether or not they agree with your opinions, goals, or mission? If your for-free services are so compelling, surely you wouldn't have any problem getting contributions without resorting to governmental style force. > The Internet is not a business. The Internet is a tool used by and provided > by several businesses and other non-business organizations. Wrong. There is no "Internet". There are only hundreds of organizations connected together under various arrangements to create a large interconnected infrastructure. A vast majority of those organizations are for-profit businesses. > Many other resources are not simply traded on the open market either. > In fact, government rationing of scarce resources is hardly a new thing. So since it has been proven not to work, we should continue to do it because we fear change? Brandon Ross 404-522-5400 EVP Engineering, NetRail http://www.netrail.net AIM: BrandonNR ICQ: 2269442 Read RFC 2644!

1 0

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by Sean Donelan 04 Sep '00

04 Sep '00

On Sun, 03 September 2000, John Hawkinson wrote: > > I believe it was you who pointed out to me several years ago, real > > operators have more important things to do than volunteer for public > > service stuff. > > Perhaps some of us think the IETF is more important than "public service > stuff." Whether you call it volunteer, or pro bono, or contributing to the community; the nature of IETF does seem to be changing. I don't know if operators are finding the IETF less useful, or the folks interested in working in the IETF have migrated to positions in other types of organizations.

1 0

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by smd＠clock.org 04 Sep '00

04 Sep '00

Sean Donelan writes: | I believe it was you who pointed out to me several years ago, real | operators have more important things to do than volunteer for public | service stuff. When I'm wrong, I change my mind. Sean.

1 0

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by Sean Donelan 04 Sep '00

04 Sep '00

On Sun, 03 September 2000, smd(a)clock.org wrote: > Oh yes, it was suggested that I point out that today is the deadline > for volunteering. Also, that it would be nice to have more than two > actual operators on the volunteer list (which is 84 persons long now)... I believe it was you who pointed out to me several years ago, real operators have more important things to do than volunteer for public service stuff.

2 1