- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Fwd: FW: Removal from APNIC lists
by Jim Fleming 20 May '98

20 May '98

On Wednesday, May 20, 1998 9:17 AM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] wrote: @ @Eric Germann writes: @> There is a God. @ @Now if only someone could get him off of the IETF and nanog lists, and @maybe a few others... @ @.pm @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

1 0

Re: renumbering and roaming
by William Allen Simpson 20 May '98

20 May '98

> From: "Michael S. Fischer" <otterley(a)iPass.COM> > In message <19980518135928.37530(a)mcs.net>, Karl Denninger writes: > >That doesn't work; too many of those things must be hard-coded numbers > >(specifically, the DNS servers). > > What has to be hard-coded besides the DNS servers? Once you have a > DNS server assigned (which is typically done by the NAS anyway) the > rest is simple. > Ideal World: Nothing should be hard coded. Every NAS should support DHCP and DHCP INFORM. Each roaming user simply sends a DHCP multicast / broadcast packet, which is intercepted and forwarded by the NAS (serial link) or the local router (LAN), and recieves a list of services, including DNS. This is the direction that many of us in the IETF have been advocating for about 11 years.... Real World: Although all the early (circa '89-92) NAS's supported BOOTP/DHCP relaying, more recent shoe-string NAS vendors are missing it, and clients have not universally implemented DHCP. We have to tell our customers the list of local DNS (and other) servers for them to type into their configuration (or we use a standard install CD). For this latter scenario, a few default universal hardcoded numbers would be a great idea! It would help with legacy clients, it would help roaming, and would not hurt as DHCP gets installed base. I look forward to reading the internet-draft. It should require no changes to client or server software. > In our experience, well over 90% of roaming users (which excludes UNIX > and Mac users) use dynamically-assigned DNS servers. Clearly this > approach won't work for those clients that don't support the LCP > extensions, but we consider this "Best Current Practice." Those > clients that can't use dynamic DNS server assignment will have to use > the home ISP's services. > Speaking as the author of "LCP Extensions", there is no such LCP extension as "dynamically-assigned DNS servers". There is a bogus, NDA'd, Mircosoft-only, NetBEUI extension to PPP IPCP, using numbers stolen from the high end of the option space without registering with IANA, which is marginally applicable to DNS. This approach has been officially rejected by the IETF. It is not a "best current practice". It only works with NT servers, which no sane and stable ISP would use. > We consider it important to make sure as many NASes and PPP clients as > possible support dynamic DNS. About the only major obstacle to that > is OT/PPP (MacOS) and, to a lesser degree, UNIX. > AFIAK, Dynamic DNS is _only_ supported by Unix, but I have high hopes to see it on MacOS, now that Vinnie is back at Apple. I have no idea why it would be supported by a NAS or PPP client. I think you have your terminology wrong.... WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

6 6

Re: SkyTel 2Way pagers DOWN all US (fwd)
by David Lesher 20 May '98

20 May '98

> Pagemart service is STILL down as of this time (5-20-98 8:30 AM CDT); Lots of folks are busily repointing lots of dishes.....that does not take place instantly. I'm glad *I'm* not the satcom mjr for anyone today... [In case you've not heard, Galaxy IV decided to take a spin; bringing down lots of pager-feeds, TV network production feeds, and National Public Radio.] -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

SKYWORD OK - Part 2
by Martin, Christian 20 May '98

20 May '98

Guys, Sorry - I'm in Northern VA. Chris

1 0

RE: cpu impact of netflow export ?
by Martin, Christian 20 May '98

20 May '98

Dave, It depends on how you define your aggregates - But, using the default on 7507 RSP2 64 Megs, exporting Flow stats from a table with an average of 10,000 flows doesn't seem to hurt very much. Maybe 5% CPU on the Router. It's the Sun box that takes the hit. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Dave Curado [mailto:davec@navinet.net] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 10:53 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: cpu impact of netflow export ? Does anyone have any data points they'd share regarding the impact of netflow export on cpu load? I'd like to capture all of my netflow stats, but I'm worried about scalability. Thanks, davec

1 0

DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like
by Marko Bukvic 19 May '98

19 May '98

Can anyone recommend DS1 diagnostic equipment? Something similar to what the LEC would use when you ask them to test the line.. I am aware that these units range around $3K-$6K each and that you would want to get 2 of them. Thanks. Marko Bukvic marko(a)pfmc.net

3 2

RFC for common shared IP for easy roaming
by Paul Mansfield 19 May '98

19 May '98

I've begun a mailing list here for this, picked out all names which were interested in pooling ideas and/or reviewing it all. I think its clear that there is a need for something simple, effective, and easy for ISPs to do before IPv6/v8 and other auto-DNS over PPP etc are available. Briefly, ideas so far are to have a fixed nameserver in the "swamp" of IPs, and then have hosts like relay.mail.local and so on, as well as to pre-allocated IPs for common standard services. I'll gladly accumulate ideas until all interested parties have "registered". Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***

1 0

Re: renumbering and roaming
by Paul Mansfield 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Daniel Reed wrote: > ) Nah, good idea, but too many useful services with port numbers > 255, so I think this seems nice, but gets complex, and as said breaks things, although you could use the full range of a /16. However, we'd really want TWO of everything, on different networks if possible to give resilience, hence why I proposed x.y.z.2 -> resolver x.y.z-1.2 -> resolver Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***

1 0

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Michael K. Smith 19 May '98

19 May '98

Michael Dillon said on 5/17/98 6:13 AM >On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > >> agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades >> itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account. > >I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they >tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that >they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space. > >I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a >renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't >remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember >hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business >because of renumbering. > We have renumbered out of two /20's and 2 /19's and, although we haven't lost any dedicated customers, our time investment in the process has been unreal. In several instances we had to go onsite and do the renumbering for them. Of course, the first time you go onsite, the tech guy isn't there, so that's half a day for two people lost. Then, the next time you go, he doesn't have the passwords to the server, so you have to come back again... And, because this is something we are requiring them to do, we can't charge them for it. Let's not forget to mention the 10,000 dialup customers who have to change their DNS numbers. We have sent snail-mail and e-mail over and over again, yet only about 1/3 of that 10k have actually made the change away from the old numbers. How many of those customers do you think we'll lose when we officially turn off the old ip's? Mike Michael K. Smith Senior Network Administrator - Northwest Link http://www.nwlink.com mksmith(a)nwlink.com 1-800-390-1270 Extension 103

14 23

Laptop console
by Pete Ashdown 19 May '98

19 May '98

>(Of course neither of these is a substitute for doing the telnet from >your trusted laptop) Speaking of, does anyone have a recommendation for a simple VT100 capable laptop? I currently use this PowerBook 5500 which takes forever to boot and currently has a bad battery that goes to sleep all the time. 99% of the time I'm using it, I'm using it in Z-Term. I wish there was a laptop with a nice keyboard that did just serial terminal access.

10 9