- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Sean M. Doran 17 May '98

17 May '98

| ISPs should be | advising their customers to be prepared for renumbering since it is in the | customer's best interests. One of the ironies in many of these discussions is that ISPs are very keen on not having to renumber their customers if they themselves have to switch providers, therefore they should get sizable address allocations that are liklier to be portable. Yet, any customer of theirs is then instantly in the same position: if an end user wants to switch ISPs, unless it has portable address space, the end user has to renumber. Few tears are cried here over that (modulo Eliot Lear). That said, I see no reason to be fair and even-handed just for the sake of seeming to be "nice". Otherwise, we degenerate into Bill Manning's "constant renumbering" Internet [*], running out of addresses through allocation of too-large blocks, or reversing CIDR and putting an end to hierarchical routing [**]. Therefore, a minimum allocation unit, which has a "price", either in terms of actual dollars paid to a RIPE-like registry or in terms of a set of requirements set out by such a registry (or both), where the price is unattractive to end users is a reasonable solution. Sean. P.S.: [*] one fun and useful thing to think about is what would break if every device in the Internet (routers and hosts) were to be shut down and brought back up, with or without new addresses. [**] hierarchical routing is the only known means of maintaining adequate routing in an enormous growing network.

2 1

RE: Topology (Flow chart) drawing program
by Michael J. Freeman 17 May '98

17 May '98

Visio 4. -----Original Message----- From: Geoff White [SMTP:geoffw@precipice.v-site.net] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 1998 1:58 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Topology (Flow chart) drawing program Does anyone know of a flow chart program that I can use to diagram parts of my network in ASCII. (i.e to e-mail a description to someonme) I should be able to type in a description (that shows up in the block) and then specify links to other blocks, the program outputs an ASCII block diagram suitable for putting into documents. Im sure someone must have written something like this when they were back in undergrad :) geoff white

1 0

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by shields＠crosslink.net 17 May '98

17 May '98

In article <199805171722.KAA25313(a)mail.nwlink.com>, "Michael K. Smith" <mksmith(a)nwlink.com> wrote: > 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? It's very ugly, but I put in two /32 routes internally for my old resolver addresses in Net-99 space... this keeps them reachable from the inside. If they ever get reused, I just won't have connectivity to those two hosts. I think now that it is a mistake to ever give out resolver IPs from NP space. If you don't have your own space, use 1918 space. -- Shields, CrossLink.

1 0

Topology (Flow chart) drawing program
by Geoff White 17 May '98

17 May '98

Does anyone know of a flow chart program that I can use to diagram parts of my network in ASCII. (i.e to e-mail a description to someonme) I should be able to type in a description (that shows up in the block) and then specify links to other blocks, the program outputs an ASCII block diagram suitable for putting into documents. Im sure someone must have written something like this when they were back in undergrad :) geoff white

1 0

RE: NANOG and ARIN
by Jim Fleming 17 May '98

17 May '98

On Sunday, May 17, 1998 1:39 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:sprunk@paranet.com] wrote: @Jim Fleming wrote: @> How come all of these discussions about ARIN are not on the ARIN @> mailing list(s) ? @ @Because the bulk of people on naipr unsubscribed to get away from you, @and nanog is currently the only (while inappropriate) mailing list with @a significant audience. @ Are you saying that people discussing technical topics are really more concerned about the audience watching than the people involved in the discussion ? That sounds like marketing as opposed to a discussion. - 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

RE: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Jim Fleming 17 May '98

17 May '98

On Sunday, May 17, 1998 5:56 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Sun, 17 May 1998, Michael K. Smith wrote: @ @> 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? @ @IMHO every dialup customer from every ISP in the world should use @192.168.254.1 for their DNS address and this number should be hard coded @as the default in all client software. Then this problem would go away. @ In doing that people would be moving in a direction toward IPv8. In IPv8, some IP addresses are viewed as "opaque handles" which are more like virtual addresses in a large distributed computer system. They can also be viewed as "locally-routed, specific-service, addresses". The following RFC 1918 IPv4 address ranges play a key role in the IPv8 0:0.x.x.x.x address space. User - DHCP Sub-Nets - 0:0.10.x.x.x Group - ISP Infrastructure - 0:0.172.16.0.0-0:0.172.31.0.0 World - Inter-ISP Links and Services - 0:0.192.168.1.x-0:0.192.168.254.x - 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

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Sean M. Doran 17 May '98

17 May '98

Karl Denninger writes: | Used previous allocation in < 3 months = Add 2 bits to the size | (ie: Used a /19 in > 3 months, get a /17 next time) | | Used previous allocation in < 6 months = Add 1 bit to the size | (ie: Used a /19 in < 6 months, get a /18 next time) | | Used previous allocation >= 6 months, <= 1 years = Same size | | Used previous allocation >= 1 year = Decrease one bit size UNLESS | you were at a /19, in which case we give you another /19 | ... | So we just got Mr. Big on the net - completely - with less than a half-dozen | announcements. This RIPE-like scheme is an extremely good one, and it would be a fantastic idea for ARIN to continue evolving towards an allocation policy very much like this. Sean.

3 3

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Sean M. Doran 17 May '98

17 May '98

Michael Dillon wrote: | In fact I can't | remember ever ... | hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business | because of renumbering. Renumbering is a fact of life on the Internet. People should be prepared to renumber, and technologies that facilitate easy renumbering should continue to be developed. That said, even if it were possible to renumber gracefully at any time, reducing the frequency and scope of renumbering is not in itself a bad idea. Therefore, I have no problem at all supporting an allocation policy designed to allow growing networks to undergo fewer renumberings, and to allow networks with many levels of administrative authority (as in the case of an ISP with downstream customers, some of which may also have downstream customers) to undergo nearly none. What appears to be the correct approach now has been outlined by Karl and implemented by RIPE. The test for who should get a minimum portable allocation unit (/19 these days) should be the only thing argued about. It should be easy for any ISP to obtain an initial allocation, and somewhat less easy for entities which do not re-allocate address space to others. Sean.

1 0

RE: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Sean M. Doran 17 May '98

17 May '98

| I imagine stuff like this will just cause more and more customers to move | into environments with NAT Using NAT is not a bad thing. More and more customers will move towards NAT anyway, as NAT features and implementations improve. | or encourage them to join the bigger networks | where renumbering would be less likely. Karl's assertion is that adopting a RIPE-style system where for a fee anyone who is an ISP can get a small allocation of portable space, and add other allocations over time, is a practical solution. I agree completely. Sean.

1 0

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by shields＠crosslink.net 17 May '98

17 May '98

In article <19980516152145.42206(a)mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <karl(a)mcs.net> wrote: > Why do you need to renumber out of previous space if MCI doesn't have to > when they get a bigger block handed to them? Like MCI, Jon will not need to renumber out of a /14. You only have to ever renumber out of small blocks. A /20 is not hard to renumber. -- Shields, CrossLink.

5 7