- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like
by Chad Skidmore 19 May '98

19 May '98

The TTC T-Berd 224 would be a good choice for DS1 testing. The T-Berd 310 is a similar unit for DS3 level testing. The TTC units have several different software options that you may or may not need (ISDN, various loop codes, etc). The price is often times higher than $3-$6k. You can plan on spending $10k or more for a well configured test set. --------------------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. http://www.nwnexus.com 1-888-NWNEXUS > -----Original Message----- > From: Marko Bukvic [mailto:marko@pfmc.net] > Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 2:53 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like > > > 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 >

2 1

RE: renumbering and roaming
by pflores＠wcg.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In message <19980518135928.37530(a)mcs.net>, Karl Denninger writes: > > >> After several discussions, we came up with this solution > that we think > >> works well to support standard services for roaming users: > >> > >> Support a .local. root domain in your DNS servers. Examples of DNS > >> hostnames would be mail.local., ntp.local., news.local., > etc. When a > >> roamer dials up he generally uses the DNS servers assigned > by the NAS; > >> these addresses would be authoritative on a provider-by-provider > >> basis. If all networks supported this schema all users > could simply > >> have these addresses coded into their client software and would > >> connect to the proper machines as they differ on various networks. > >> > >> iPass is currently building an Internet-Draft specifying > the details > >> of this approach. What do you think? > > >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. Ass-umeing (never ass-ume, right) that the NAS supports the LCP extensions. > > 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." Okay, that is reasonable. Why not take the extra step of reserving some 'internal' IP space, and make it work with 100% of the clients? > Those > clients that can't use dynamic DNS server assignment will have to use > the home ISP's services. Combine a non-advertised, reserved subnet with the .local TLD. (I might point out, that clients not using the the local .local assignments, will get the 'home ISPs' services addresses. I am not quite sure if you meant all their services or just DNS, but that is an important distinction to make here) I would also point out that ANY failure of the local DNS would render everything useless to the roamer. If you had a combination of both, you could actually put the hardwired IPs/ .local domains in a host file on the roamer's machine. You would sacrifice some flexibility, but would probably solve a few nagging details this way. (on second thought, this is probably not such a good idea... :> ) > 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. > > >.LOCAL along with defined addresses, declared as > "non-routable" (ie: local > >only) *DOES* do the trick. > > Routability and IP address definitions are secondary to the problem > we're discussing here--the ability for roamers to use local services > provided by the POP provider. Exactly. Why does it matter if you use DNS, private IP space, or a combination of both. IMHO, both provides the most flexibility. > Let DNS do the work for you. I don't > see the need to force IP assignments on the Internet community. Force? I don't think force is the word. No one forces people to use reserved IP space for their private networks. To me, this is simply an extension to 1918, with the addition of some very sensible service layer options for Service Providers. Paul Flores Williams -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNWCkd71al1suqRKtEQLLHwCdGyvWzGRTDepkJvnQ4MFKCQSFjggAoI1H 7onUFl+f5cSU/MrbFL158t/q =yEDK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NANOG and ARIN
by Jim Fleming 18 May '98

18 May '98

How come all of these discussions about ARIN are not on the ARIN mailing list(s) ? Could it be because some of the ARIN mailing lists are not available to the public ? Why is that...? Or...Is it because these are really IANA discussions and there is not a public IANA discussion list ? Will that be one of the first things that the new IANA Inc. does...??...(i.e. create an open discussion list)... === By the way...since there appears to be interest from NANOG members in these topics....here is my 2 cents... 1. People have been suggesting for years that /19 allocations should be easy to get and totally free of subjective decision making. I and others have suggested that TWO signed affidavits from upstream providers that will be providing the ISP with at least DS1 connections should be all that is required to obtain the allocation. If the ISP goes out of business, the registry gets to recover a larger block that can be easily recycled. Having many different sizes costs more in administrative costs and requires companies like ARIN to spend more money and therefore charge more. 2. It should be clear to everyone that the IPv4 address space is a mess and the IPv4 core transport network will eventually be replaced. There are a variety of strategies for how to do this. Which protocol is used is not the major issue. The Address Management Plan is more critical. The IPv4 plan is the result of years of strife, there is no IPv6 plan, and the IPv8 plan is oriented toward the ideas that some NANOG members have expressed here about NAT and RFC 1918 10.x.x.x networks behind proxy/firewalls. It is encouraging to see that NANOG members are moving in that direction. It is a shame they are being forced there because the IPv4 policies are so onerous and biased toward large telcos, ISPs and the regional registries like ARIN, RIPE and APNIC who are taxing everyone with millions of dollars in fees for a very minimal service. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

3 2

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 18 May '98

18 May '98

> > 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. > The example above is realistic, and they go to the next provider saying "we know we have to renumber this time, but we want space we won't have to ever renumber again." Guess what.... There are some larger providers out there that can (and do) accomodate this type of customer. As a result, smaller providers are on the losing end of this. It's real. Owen

1 0

ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Mark D. Nagel 18 May '98

18 May '98

One of our customers was recently allocated a /20 netblock from ARIN. I had just been ass-u-ming it was a /19 until I cross-checked our announcement update with the request from the customer. Is this a change in policy (I thought they only allocated /19 or bigger) or did I miss something? If the former, are NSPs like Sprint planning to update filters to route these new smaller blocks? Mark -- Mark D. Nagel <nagel(a)intelenet.net>, CCIE #3177 in|tele|net communications; 18101 Von Karman Ave, St 550; Irvine, CA 92612 949/851-8250, 949/851-1088 FAX, http://www.intelenet.net/ Cisco Systems Silver Certified Partner

12 20

cpu impact of netflow export ?
by Dave Curado 18 May '98

18 May '98

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

2 1

Re: NANOG and the USG Ex-Parte Rules
by Hank Nussbacher 18 May '98

18 May '98

At 02:04 PM 5/17/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: NANOG is supposed to be be a "controlled" list - can't the owner remove posting privs for Jim? -Hank > >NANOG is supported by Merit > and Merit is supported by the NSF > and the NSF is supported by the U.S. Government > and the U.S. Government is supported by U.S. taxpayers... > >This makes NANOG conversations about Internet Governance >topics subject to the Ex-Parte rules of the U.S. Government. > >I will try to include the right CCs so that the NTIA's web site >can be up to date. > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/ > > >- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net >IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race >AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM > >

2 1

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by shields＠crosslink.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980517144158.13470A-100000(a)chele.cais.com>, Blake Willis <blakew(a)cais.net> wrote: > IMHO every dialup customer, the vast majority of which use Windows 95, > should have their machines set up to get the DNS servers, routing info, > etc. from the terminal server they dial in to. This would be ok if the dialup users used DHCP, but instead they only seem to be able to use the layering violation that Microsoft calls a PPP "extension". -- Shields, CrossLink.

1 0

RE: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Jim Fleming 18 May '98

18 May '98

On Friday, May 15, 1998 11:57 PM, Chris A. Icide[SMTP:chris@abs.net] wrote: @At 08:59 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: @>> @>> Jeremiah Kristal wrote: @ @<snip> @ @>> ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for them to make more @>> money by allowing anyone to register for IPs. They will assign a /20 and @>> reserve the adjacent /20... @>> @ @<snip> @ @>ARIN just can't win with some people :-) If we don't change policy, we're @>evil....if we do, we're greedy. *sigh* @> @ @If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), ARIN is a @Non-profit organization. This classification generally means something to @the effect that they can't make more money. @ It is not clear that ARIN can continue to qualify as a non-profit company because they are engaged in an activity that other companies carry on for-profit. Also, as you can see here, break-even does not define non-profit. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/index.html http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bus-orgs.html @@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html "No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @So, if they begin taking in more revenues due to an increased use of thier @services, they must either spend those revenues, or reduce the price of the @services. @ @Of course increased usage might mean that they may have to add more @hardware/Software/People, etc. @ @<here is where I may be seriously wrong, however....> @ @I do believe that members have a say into how this is resolved, by acting @through one of the governing boards? @ @ @-Chris @ I suggest that you review some actual results from APNIC which ARIN was supposedly modeled from. ARIN seems reluctant to post any real financial information. http://teckla.apnic.net/annual_reports/1997/resource_status.htm#c4_1 http://teckla.apnic.net/annual_reports/1997/financial_status.htm#c3_3 After reviewing this information it should be clear that a non-profit can spend a lot of money on salaries, travel and other expenses (such as $50,000 to the IANA) to offset income. Also, in the case of APNIC, money was spent to subsidize the APRICOT trade-show and people in the Registry Industry were paid via that vehicle, yet APNIC claims it is non-profit (or at least it was). APNIC is now planning to move to Australia and it appears will be for-profit. If you would like to make an estimate of ARIN's revenues here is more information. @http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/ @ARIN Status Report @------------------ @ @ January February March @ @ /24's Issued 2176 3265 5547 @ ASNs Issued 26 60 85 @ Estimated First Quarter Totals /24s - 10,988 - $858,437 ASNs - 171 - $85,500 Total Estimated Revenue - $943,937 This is based on 32 /24s for $2,500 and $500 per ASN. No $1,000 membership fees are included. With 16 employees, this amounts to $58,996 revenue per employee. Assuming no growth, that is $235,984 per employee on an annual basis. ===== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

1 0

NANOG and the USG Ex-Parte Rules
by Jim Fleming 18 May '98

18 May '98

NANOG is supported by Merit and Merit is supported by the NSF and the NSF is supported by the U.S. Government and the U.S. Government is supported by U.S. taxpayers... This makes NANOG conversations about Internet Governance topics subject to the Ex-Parte rules of the U.S. Government. I will try to include the right CCs so that the NTIA's web site can be up to date. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

3 2