- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by fehnb＠jerseycape.net 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

> >I have heard nothing but horror stories about dealings with the NIC >in the last month or two, including the domain my day job is at >being shut down 3 times in one week and not being able to get through Same here. Seems the WHOIS database went south and rs.internic.net was unreachable for at least 24hrs. Then Email was being bounced... Sounds like a minor meltdown.... Robert J. Fehn Sr.,President and CEO Jersey Cape Information Systems Inc. PO Box 967 Marmora, NJ, 08223 Voice: 609-390-0061 http://www.jerseycape.net fehnb(a)jerseycape.net fehnb(a)jerseycape.com

2 1

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by matthew＠scruz.net 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

Original message <199611190257.VAA03776(a)dilbert.multiverse.com> From: Jamie <jamie(a)dilbert.multiverse.com> Date: Nov 18, 21:57 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting > address space. That had better not be the case. This is business. Multimillion dollar business, even. And if the Internic starts to pick and choose which companies can and cannot have IP addresses based on their public postings, some judge is going to have a field day. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by matthew＠scruz.net 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

Original message <Pine.BSI.3.93.961118181247.11775K-100000(a)sidhe.memra.com> From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> Date: Nov 18, 18:25 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > > I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP > > addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others > > who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers. > > Lawyers will only cost you money, slow you down and accomplish nothing in > the end. > > > Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument > > that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on > > looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with > > small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed > > publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like > > w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently > > doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg(a)internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing > > our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had > > to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously > > sanitize it. > > Sounds like your company is suffering from a serious lack of knowledge > about IP allocation procedures and policies. The only solution to this is > to educate yourself, get your internal procedures and policies in order, > and integrate your knowledge of IP allocation procedures into your > planning processes. We have been doing this since 1992, and have significant knowledge of IP allocation proceedures and policies. We were around when class B addresses were still being handed out,... we were around when CIDR was first deployed, and we've adjusted our internal policies regarding allocation as the standards have changed. For instance, it was once standard to issue a full class C subnet to almost any "corporate" client, and most routers didn't understand VLSM anyway. Now that's changed, and our policies have changed to match. In order to keep table size down, in the very early days we got a class B network and issued subnets of that to some of our clients, which even today saves a significant number of announcements that pre-CIDR couldn't have been reduced any other way. We also used to accept and advertise routes for customers who had their own PI class C space, but now we almost always require renumbering to inside one of our CIDR blocks,... something which has increased the rate at which those blocks are taken up. We were around when SWIP became available, and were one of the early victims of the "SWIP deletes IN-ADDR records" bug. And when rwhois became an option, one of our techs set up an rwhois server, and we switched to that for reporting our distribution of networks downstream. The reason for CIDR is to reduce table size. The reason for tight subnetting is to reduce IP address space waste until more addresses become available (class A subnetting, and then IPv6). We use both. > > > All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, > > allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more > > addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've > > been forced into getting our lawyers involved. > > It's your own ignorance that created your problem and its your own > ignorance that is leading you to lawyers. The Internic formerly responded to requests for addresses, backed up with valid engineering requirements, with an address allocation. Now they do everything possible to block the allocation of additional addresses, and have gone so far as to request information which we are contractually prohibited from releasing. Ask anyone who receives junk (snail)mail from their domain name records why a provider should be able to keep its customer contact information private. The Internic has changed the allocation model to a 3-month term, which, unless large reservations are kept, will simply increase table size as providers consume their small blocks. > > > Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be > > reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note. > > For starters after reading your plans I can't see any reason why you > couldn't afford to spend $10,000 or $20,000 to get the IP addresses you > need. If you are willing to spend some money here's what to do. > > Telephone the IP allocation folks at the Internic and ask to meet with > them in Virginia to explain what you need to do to get IP addresses and > ensure smooth allocation of addresses in the future. Don't even mention > the specifics of what has happened in the past and do *NOT* ask for > addresses. Ask for a meeting. Tell them that a technical person and a > management person (CEO) will be at the meeting. Once the date and time is > arranged, fly to Virginia, sit down, listen, ask questions, take notes. First you say I'm ignorant of how IP address allocation works, and now you're telling me that the way it works is to fly me and the CEO to Virginia?!? This is the INTERNET. I ought to be able to get this entire matter resolved via email. Period. > > Be especially careful with the notetaking. For instance, if the Internic > person says "You have to one, two, thre, blah blah" you should confirm it > by saying "So if we one, two three, blah, blah that will meet this > requirement?". Throughout this meeting be friendly. Do not bluster or > threaten or yell or whine. I've asked for specific requirements via email, and been told that only one thing was blocking me, and then when that's resolved, found that now there's 3 more things blocking it. That sort of nonsense is why lawyers are getting involved. A simple inability to keep their own word via email, and actions which are preventing us from doing business make them perfect targets. > What if they won't meet with you? Then ask them where you can find out > this information. Where can you find a consultant to hire who knows. > Your intent on the phone call should be to determine who has the knowledge > to solve the problem (Internic person or consultant) and where you have to > go to meet with this person. I have a consultant who can help me when my own negotiations with the Internic fail. He happens to be my lawyer, and has a very good track record of getting the Internic to behave themselves. If I'm going to fly someone out to take notes at a meeting, it'll be my lawyer, because then there won't be any argument over what the stated requirements were. > Be prepared to change your internal policies. Be prepared to thoroughly > document what you are using IP addresses for. Be civil. Our internal policies have been and continue to dynamically adjust to the current "state of the art" for address allocation. Our usage of IP addresses has been extensively documented to the Internic via SWIP, rwhois, and detailed statements on our applications for additional addresses. The ONLY thing we've refused to document is the specific names and addresses of people who have been allocated small subnets and who don't already have their contact information on file with the Internic. We've been civil. We've been frank. We've pointed out that a failure to act will start to cost us real money. And we've been turned away every time. As I said before, I can't believe that this process has gotten to the point where lawyers have to get involved, but it has, and that's that. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Eric Germann 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

I know of one large ($1 Billion+) retailer who was assigned 5 Class C's two months ago by MCI for a DMZ network, one for each division sharing the link. 1270 addresses is a hell of a lot of proxies and email gateways... At 08:00 PM 11/18/96 -0800, Matt Ranney wrote: >Wayne Bouchard writes... >> >> Heartily agreed.. Its far far easier to get address space when you've >> got the docs to prove you need it and you've allocated >> intelligently. They require you to justify need, why shouldn't you >> require customers requesting multiple class Cs to justify need? > >Do larger providers have to play by the same rules, or do they all >still have so much extra space from the pre-CIDR days that it doesn't >matter? I ask because I know of at least one BBN customer that less >than a year ago was assigned 3 /24's for their 30 machine network. >-- >Matt Ranney - mjr(a)eit.com > >This is how I sign all my messages. > >

1 0

quote from the last issue of EE Times
by Vadim Antonov 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

"Still, MCI's Gross noted that one unidentified member of the engineering task force recently condemned RSVP as, according to Gross, "the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the Internet community."" (nov 18, page 16) Does anybody know who that "unidentified member" is? I would like to buy him beer. --vadim

1 0

Re: IRR
by dgaudet-nanog＠plebe.com 18 Nov '96

18 Nov '96

In article <hot.mailing-lists.nanog-199611181859.NAA09628(a)merit.edu>, Craig Labovitz <labovit(a)merit.edu> wrote: >the larger providers. With the exception of Sprint, most providers seem to >have ~10% error in their BGP announcements (of course, this is from a very >small sampling). Sprint install folks have this tendancy to put in static routes regardless of whether you're peering or not. At least that's been my experience getting multi-line setups installed. I'm only half-kidding when I suggest telling a sprint installer "yeah we have our own IPs, 172.16/16". If you do end up peering then they seem to put a static in for the class C that contains your loopback interface. You can get them to change it, but the default seems to be static-everything. Do any providers reserve ips for use on loopbacks? i.e. nets they divide into /32s to point at loopbacks on the customer router. This would seem to be a prudent measure for many multihomed customers -- I'm loathe to use any PI addresses for loopback-peering because of the potential for mistakes with static routes to the loopback address. Dean

1 0

Correction:ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 3/27-28/97 S.F.
by William B. Norton 18 Nov '96

18 Nov '96

Fat Thumbs - March 26-27 is a Wed-Thu. NANOG 9 is March 27-28, Thu and Fri. (As a side note, in response to the surveys, we are working on the possibility of a pre-NANOG Wednesday evening (6-9 or 7-10) BOF/ISP focused training session.) Bill >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:36:18 -0500 (EST) >X-Sender: wbn(a)home.merit.edu >To: nanog(a)home.merit.edu >From: "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)umich.edu> >Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 3/26-27/97 S.F. >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > >Hi - > >We have just received confirmation that Warren Williams (PacBell) will be >hosting NANOG 9, March 26-27 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco. >More details as they become available. > >Bill >-------------------------------------------------------------- >William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

1 0

ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 3/26-27/97 S.F.
by William B. Norton 18 Nov '96

18 Nov '96

Hi - We have just received confirmation that Warren Williams (PacBell) will be hosting NANOG 9, March 26-27 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco. More details as they become available. Bill -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

1 0

Re: Why doesn't BGP... -Reply
by Avi Freedman 18 Nov '96

18 Nov '96

> Routing does not use an exponential NP-Complete algorithm (like the > travelling salesman). The travelling salesman problem tries to solve the > cheapest way in which a salesman can visit every one of a set of cities. > In fact, routing can be done in order (n) with a bounded metric and > bounded distance, since it really is only trying to find the cheapest way > to get to a single destination. > > What I don't know, is why is it that SS7, the telephone routing protocol, > can do some of the things that are required, like load sharing across > unequal paths, for example. Does anyone have any insight into this? > > --Neal Quick comment: You're looking at the computing of routes wrt one router. I'm suggesting that perhaps we should consider the set of all routers since we're concerned about spreading load due to the quick communication from one router to many of every best external-path changing. But no, I'm not familiar with SS7, and I've not even been thinking deeply about other routing algorithm possibilities. I was just suggesting that people are encouraged to do so... Avi

6 5

DC-ISOC Meeting About Domain Names
by russ＠navigators.com 17 Nov '96

17 Nov '96

I thought this meeting announcement may be of interest to members of this list (especially if you are in the mid-atlantic) Russ Haynal The Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (DC-ISOC) announces its Next Event! Domain Names - Issues, Policies, and Solutions Tuesday, December 3, 1996, 7-9 p.m. There have been many pressures building on the Domain Name System, including rapid growth of .com, trademark disputes, and increasing amounts of litigation. Join DC-ISOC to hear from Industry leaders how domain names are being handled and what steps are being taken to possibly expand the domain name space. Confirmed speakers include: Dr. Donald N. Telage, President and COO of Network Solutions, Inc., which manages the InterNIC Registry administering the .com, .net, .edu, and .org top level domains. Dr. Telage will discuss: - Issues involved in operating a domain name registry. - The latest Internic policies for handling domain name disputes - Network Solution's initiatives to ensure that Internic operations keep pace with the rapidly evolving Internet Donald M. Heath, President and CEO of the Internet Society. Don also serves as chairman of the Internet International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) which is charged with looking at the complex issues surrounding the current domain name and registry situation, including trademark and infringement, economics and administration of registry operations, dispute policies, fees and international Top Level Domain (iTLDs). The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, at the Marriott Hotel in Tysons Corner from 7-9 p.m. Please arrive prior to the meeting start time of 7pm. Directions: Washington Beltway (I-495) Exit for Route 7 (Leesburg Pike) heading west. The Marriot is located immediately on your right. As with all of our previous events, there is no charge to attend this event. Seating will be on a first-come, first-seated basis, though we expect that there should be room for all those interested. This meeting of the DC-ISOC is being sponsored by Network Solutions, Inc. Network Solutions is a leading Internet-Intranet Solution Provider who has operated the Internic since 1991. Related Links for this meeting: Network Solutions - http://www.netsol.com Internic - http://rs.internic.net Internet Society - http://www.isoc.org Press annoucment about IAHC - http://www.isoc.org/whatsnew/iahcmembers.html IAHC - http://www.iahc.org -------------------------------------------------------------- Call for volunteers! The DC-ISOC needs YOU. The DC-ISOC would like to organize a series of events such as this one throughout 1997. We are looking for volunteers to get involved in helping to plan these events and to help shape the direction of this chapter of the Internet Society. Anyone interested in volunteering can come forward after the meeting or contact Russ Haynal ( russ(a)navigators.com ) Individuals who are interested in becoming members of DC-ISOC can do so by joining the Internet Society. See their web site at http://www.isoc.org for more information. The Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society maintains its own web site at: http://www.dcisoc.org Please feel free to pass this announcement message along to other interested individuals. If this message was forwarded to you, you can join our announcement mailing list through our web site ( http://www.dcisoc.org ) __________________________________________________________________ Russ Haynal - Internet Consultant, Instructor, Speaker "Helping organizations gain the most benefit from the Internet" russ(a)navigators.com http://www.navigators.com 703-729-1757 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Author:"Internet; A Knowledge Odyssey" (Top-rated CD-ROM Tutorial) Available from MindQ Publishing: http://www.mindq.com

1 0