- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

/24 in the RIPE netblocks
by Mikael Abrahamsson 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Ripe delegates the 193/8, 194/8 and 195/8 blocks to european customers and some of these are /24 called "provider independant" nets and therefore arent connected to an ISP but rather directly to the customer and thus by definitition cannot be aggregated. The original idea was to have these so people wouldnt have to renumber when changing ISPs. I guess a lot of you consider this "a bad thing" (tm) but it's the way it is... My question is how many in the US filter out these /24 announcements from these blocks? And if you filter, would you consider making an exception for /24 in 193,194,195/8? ----- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

3 2

RE: (*F) Re: USAC and SPIN
by Jim Fleming 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

On Monday, June 01, 1998 4:18 AM, James Rishaw[SMTP:jamie@dilbert.ais.net] wrote: @If you're trying to infer that SPIN = IP addresses, you're way wrong. @ 1. No, I was not trying to infer that. 2. There is more to life than configuring routers. 3. I often wonder if people that configure routers know how routing *should* work. Do people that drive cars know how cars work ? Do they care ? Here is some more information for people interested in the more global issues of numbering, and network operations. The U.S. Government provides ISPs with SPIN numbers, FREE of charge. Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) ARIN sells 16 bit ASNs for $500. <http://www.arin.net> The IEEE provides 24 bit Organizationally Unique Identifiers (OUI). <http://standards.ieee.org/db/oui/> The cost of the OUI is U.S. $1,250. Maybe we should create a Top Level Domain named .SPIN. That TLD could be used to register the free SPIN numbers at the second level. For example, Bell Atlantic might have 143001398.SPIN for Pennsylvania. A TXT Record could be included in the DNS to contain the name "Pennsylvania" for the SPIN number. After registering a SPIN number, an ISP could add A records for their ASNs and OUI information. Since an A record is a general purpose container for 32 bit quantities, a single A record can be used to hold an ASN in the low 16 bits. Another A record can hold the 24 bit OUI in the low 24 bits. With this, the following DNS entries would return A records: ASN.143001398.SPIN OUI.143001398.SPIN As an alternative to the above, ARIN could negotiate with the IEEE to obtain a unique 8 bit pre-fix for a block of OUI codes. This would allow the 16 bit ASN to be combined with that prefix to complete the unique 24 bit "company id" that is used in many IEEE standards. This would allow ARIN to provide OUI numbers for $500 which is less than the IEEE charge of $1,250. Still another approach would be for ARIN to negotiate with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to obtain a block of SPIN numbers. Since ASNs are 16 bits, the largest value is 65535. Maybe USAC can assign a SPIN prefix such as 1431xxxxx and all ASNs could be mapped to SPIN numbers. This would effectively allow ARIN to create SPIN numbers for $500 each. @@@@@ Other References @@@@@@ @@@ http://www.neca.org/usnewrel.htm Whippany, NJ -- May 21, 1998 - The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of former Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman Cheryl L. Parrino as USAC's first Chief Executive Officer (CEO), effective June 1, 1998." @@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.bell-atl.com/edk-12/spincode.htm Bell Atlantic Service Provider Identification Numbers (SPIN) 143001398 143002680 143001362 143001422 143001401 143001432 143002681 143012559 143001291 143001288 143001303 143002682 143001314 143001359 143004468 143004333 143000677 @@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.neca.org/funds/usacspin.htm "For companies which have not filed a FCC Form 457, you may contact USAC at (888) 641-8722 to obtain a SPIN assignment. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/OUI.html What is an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)/"company_id"? An OUI/"company_id" is a 24 bit globally unique assigned number referenced by various standards. OUI is used in the family of 802 LAN standards, e.g., Ethernet, Token Ring, etc. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://standards.ieee.org/db/oui/tutorials/lanman.html Use of the IEEE assigned Organizationally Unique Identifier with ANSI/IEEE Std 802-1990 Local and Metropolitan Area Networks @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ http://standards.ieee.org/db/oui/tutorials/cdpd.html Cellular Digital Packet Data Networks The EUI-48 consists of the 24 bit company_id (assigned by the IEEE/RAC) and a 24 bit unique CDPD M-ES number (assigned by the manufacturer). @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ http://standards.ieee.org/db/oui/tutorials/futurebus.html Use of the IEEE assigned 'company_id' value with IEEE Std 896.2-1991 Futurebus+ Physical Layer and Profiles @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ http://standards.ieee.org/db/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html GUIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER (EUI-64) REGISTRATION AUTHORITY @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network http://www.unir.net 0:196 .MALL

5 4

PROPOSAL #2 - reform of the fee schedule (fwd)
by Karl Denninger 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

I am expanding the discussion list to NANOG and the ARIN Members mailing lists. Please post comments PUBLICALLY, or if you feel you cannot do so without "cloaking" yourself, through someone else (who you trust to strip the attribution). Towards a more fair fee proposal: I would like to ask the AC to direct Kim Hubbard to produce a list of the number of allocations in each of the fee categories currently listed, along with the documentation required to process each. >From this I believe we will find: 1) *TO BE FAIR*, one must document all allocations and use in all existing space at least bi-annually (once every two years) when coming back for more space. 2) A smaller allocation history naturally has less to produce. Therefore, I argue that the fees should be *proportionate* to the existing space. The smallest allocation, a /19, is 8192 addresses. Let's say that we set the "desired entry price" at $2,000. Therefore, the "cost per address allocated, including the current request", is set at, say, $0.25. Now Mr. Big Provider comes in and wants space. They have, let's say, the equivalent of an /8. They pay ~$4M under this formula. Obviously, we have just set the cost too high. Ok. ARIN has an operating budget of $2M. So we cut the base cost by 90%. Therefore, the /19 requestor pays $200 (!), or 0.025 cents per address IN USE, including the NEW requested allocation. Mr. Big Provider pays ~$400,000 Annually. The first allocation you request in a calendar year, you get assessed for ALL space you have, including the request you put in for. So if you have a /16, and ask for another /16, you get assessed for 65536 * 2, or 128k addresses. This works out to a fee of $3276.80. Note that if you ask for less, the fee is lower. There's your resistor on people asking for more than they need - it costs money (regardless of whether or not you get approved!) This is *FAIR*. We're now charging for the amount of verification work to be performed and EVERY allocation is treated equally. Now the reality is that this will put us WAY over budget. This is GOOD. What we need to do then is cut the base membership fee to something that ordinary people can afford - $50/year. The stakeholders should have a say in this, and the stakeholders, folks, are the average users. Would someone please tell me why this isn't a more proper fee strategy? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

4 4

Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
by woody＠zocalo.net 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

> if [the San Diego NAP] is really a local-only exchange point, > i.e. no one is using it for transit, and all are only exchanging > local routes, lots of folk out here would be very interested in > real measurements. like how much of an isp's traffic can they > actually shed locally? not conjecture, real data. Quoting from <http://www.caida.org/Caida/caidaix.html>: "The primary purpose of the SD-NAP is to facilitate efficient interconnection of Internet Protocol transit networks within and to the San Diego Local Access and Transport Area, California LATA 6. The secondary purpose of the SD-NAP is to provide a platform for traffic analysis by CAIDA researchers, with the goal of promoting a robust, scalable global Internet infrastructure.... It is anticipated that the primary use of the facility will be for BGP peering between organizations for the purpose of exchanging local traffic. Participants are permitting UCSD staff to analyze their Internet traffic data as part of the consideration for supporting SD-NAP. So gathering exactly the information you're looking for is an explicit intention of the folks supporting the peering point. Regarding transit, it's a facility with a bunch of ISPs and a bunch of carriers and a bunch of people who might be potential customers of each other. There's the peering point, across which people peer, and then there are private interconnections, across which people can do whatever the heck kind of transit or deals they feel like. I don't know that any real-world peering point is going to yield quite the controlled environment you're positing, but this should come relatively close. Or at least that's the intention. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)nowhere.loopback.edu user(a)host.domain.com

2 1

USAC and SPIN
by Jim Fleming 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

@@@ http://www.neca.org/usnewrel.htm Whippany, NJ -- May 21, 1998 - The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of former Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman Cheryl L. Parrino as USAC's first Chief Executive Officer (CEO), effective June 1, 1998." @@@@@@@@@@@@@ The U.S. Government provides ISPs with SPIN numbers, FREE of charge. Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) @@@@ http://www.neca.org/funds/usacspin.htm "For companies which have not filed a FCC Form 457, you may contact USAC at (888) 641-8722 to obtain a SPIN assignment. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network http://www.unir.net 0:196 .MALL

2 1

RE: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Jamie Scheinblum 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

The last CIDR report I have in my in-box states there are 3606 AS numbers in the routing table. So, my first question is at what point does ARIN reclaim AS numbers? (comparison: 2680 last September and 3075 at the beginning of the year) That's a lot of money Arin rakes in on un-used AS numbers. I understand that ARIN probably doesn't want to get in the middle of routing policies, but by limiting when you can receive an AS, I don't understand why they couldn't limit when you lose it. Second Q: How many AS numbers are available in total? Best regards, Jamie Scheinblum - FASTNET(tm) / You Tools Corporation jamie(a)fast.net (888)321-FAST(3278) http://www.fast.net FASTNET - Business and Personal Internet Solutions The views stated above are mine and do not reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Denninger [mailto:karl@mcs.net] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 2:35 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again? On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 12:30:46AM -0700, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > At 01:27 AM 5/30/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: > >This does make sense - a lot of sense. > > >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin > > >On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 12:26:31AM -0400, Jamie Scheinblum wrote: > >> Suggestion: > >> > >> The initial ASN should be bundled with a /19 to create a "multi-home" > >> package. Unbundled ASNs whould be unreasonably high to cover the > >> administration of the initial ASNs of the world, and the cost associated > >> with a /19. > > No, it does not make a lot of sense. In fact, IMHO, this is a very, *very* > bad idea. > > Remember what we are trying to conserve here - not just ASNs, but IP Space > too. Making unbundled ASNs "unreasonably high" would kill all the people > who are being good little businesses and conserving IP space. Uh, hold on a second.... I didn't say to make the first ASN "unreasonably" expensive (and I do believe $500 is unreasonable). However, with a REASONABLE first ASN fee (ie: $50 or thereabouts) bundling THAT with a /19 when you get your first PI allocation is even more reasonable. After all, the justification for the IP space encompasses that for the ASN, so the work has already been done, and the additional effort at that point should be literally a few keystrokes. My proposals to fix the issue with regards to getting a /19 if you're multihomed are also out there; has NANOG seen them? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

3 3

RE: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Jamie Scheinblum 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

Sorry, should have clarified. The first ASN should always be the least expensive. When acquired at the same time as a netblock, the fees for research and paper handing should be handled as one request. So if ARIN breaks down the cost of a $500 ASN request to say it costs them in man power to call the upstreams and verify the data is correct, then you should save the $250 on processing the request for the netblock. Best regards, Jamie Scheinblum - FASTNET(tm) / You Tools Corporation jamie(a)fast.net (888)321-FAST(3278) http://www.fast.net FASTNET - Business and Personal Internet Solutions The views stated above are mine and do not reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick@priori.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 3:41 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again? At 01:34 PM 5/31/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: >Uh, hold on a second.... > >I didn't say to make the first ASN "unreasonably" expensive (and I do >believe $500 is unreasonable). No, you just said "This does make sense - a lot of sense." when Jamie Scheinblum suggested that "unbundled" ASNs be made unreasonably high. >However, with a REASONABLE first ASN fee (ie: $50 or thereabouts) bundling >THAT with a /19 when you get your first PI allocation is even more >reasonable. While I agree that $500 *might* be too high, I honestly do not think something on the order of $200 or $250 would be too high, especially as a "one time" fee with the $30 recurring charge. >After all, the justification for the IP space encompasses that for the ASN, >so the work has already been done, and the additional effort at that point >should be literally a few keystrokes. Good point. >My proposals to fix the issue with regards to getting a /19 if you're >multihomed are also out there; has NANOG seen them? I have not. But I haven't been following this as closely as I probably should have. >Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin TTFN, patrick ************************************************************** Patrick W. Gilmore voice: +1-650-482-2840 Director of Operations, CCIE #2983 fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today" **************************************************************

1 0

Re: The Great Exchange
by Vadim Antonov 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

Deepak Jain <deepak(a)ai.net> wrote: > Since most of this distance stuff is being calculated by IP address or ASN, > why wouldn't the edge routers have SRC IP, DST IP, and "MY IP." And why > couldn't a collector make any other adjustments necessary? Neither ASNs nor network prefixes (particularly aggregated prefixes) correspond to geographical locales. To evaluate cost of end-to-end transmission one has to collect information about state of the things along the path. That information is typically totally unavailable to end-nodes and only partially available to backbones. >> Distance-insensitive per-bit charging is certainly feasible and >> is being practiced by some ISPs (typically as "burstable" T-1 >> or T-3 service). >> >> In fact, even those charges aren't likely to stand against close legal >> scrunity. Example of a scenario of a rationale for action against >> ISP X - they count received and transmitted packets on a user link. >> Unfortunalely, they also count packets they didn't deliver due >> to some packet loss in their backbone. Bingo - they charge >> customers for service not provided. This is fraud, pure and simple. >> Sorry if i gave the idea to lawyers... > A lot of people like the word fraud. I am not sure many ISP contracts > guarantee delivery of packets to their final destination, but most seem > to say that the burstable rate is based on how many packets enter your > connection port, or "enter the ISP's backbone." Even service level > agreements are generally based on link loss to the customer and not > end-to-end backbone loss. There's such thing as implied contract. Delivery of packets to destination is a primary venue of business for ISPs, and they are reasonably expected to carry it on. When you provide flat-rate pricing it is understood that some of them won't be delivered, and customers won't be charged more for retransmission. On the other hand, when you explicitly bill for all packets, and then fail to carry on your service and then proceed to bill for a service not provided you've got a problem. I didn't see a contract language yet which would explicitly and clearly state that customers will be charged for arbitrarily high percentage of non-delivered packets. It's like a food store which sells boxes of some stuff, and some of those are empty - but you have to pay for each one and cannot return the bad ones, and have no way of knowing what your odds are. It may be legal, but not in US. --vadim

3 2

Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Sean Donelan 31 May '98

31 May '98

>5. One is financed by the government out of your taxes and is merely an >accounting formality much like a customer ID number. The other is funded >by a corporation that has no government funding and must support itself >not unlike most businesses and the number is a critical infrastructure >identifier something like an NPA-NXX. Technically, the USF is an industry-funded fund (sic? redundant). The SLC is an independent not-for-profit entity (gosh sounds like ARIN). The Universal Service Administrative Company, a subsidary of NECA collects the USF fees and distributes them to the various funds. The money does not come from the US Treasury, nor even 'taxpayers.' The USF money comes from subscribers of interstate telecommunications services, much like the money for ARIN comes from the subscribers of IP addresses and AS numbers. I couldn't find a budget on the ARIN website; but I wouldn't be pointing to the SLC as an example of a well-run organization. Even ARIN at its worst doesn't match the SLC for insanity. (Yes, Kim that was a compliment). Maybe if the president of ARIN was paid $300,000/year like the president of the SLC, things would be different. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

4 3

Why does Sprint have address filters again?
by Sean Donelan 31 May '98

31 May '98

For some unknown reason, although IHETS has been allocated the entire traditional class B 165.138.0.0, they are announcing it as a partial 165.138.0.0/20. They could announce the entire /16. But they've chosen not too. If IHETS wants to ensure they can reach as much as the Internet as possible, they could follow Sprint's filtering policy, and announce their network as a 165.138.0.0/16. IHET could check http://www.sprint.net/filter.htm for a description of the policy. Since IHETS seems to be a SPRINT customer, I sure would appreciate it if the SPRINT NOC could explain to IHETS why such address filters exist, and if Sprint thinks its a good idea to apply them to other ISPs, why the reciprocal argument would also be true. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

16 40