April 1994 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Vadim Antonov 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>>you have no plan... >Would you be so kind as to tell us whether you have a plan ? "Mister Fiks, do you have a plan?" "Do I have a plan? Do I have a plan? I have two sacks of plan!" :-) --vadim

1 0

egregious waste of bandwidth...
by Robert E. Seastrom 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Hmmm, the regional-techs and bgpd lists are looking a lot like com-priv these days... ---Rob

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Vadim Antonov 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Not, Marty; the "market reality" is that you do CIDR or people will stop getting PSI's routes. By not doing it you already got screwed routing; the next step is loss of global connectivity, i guess. God bless your customers. Your analogy with 800 portability and IP renumbering is more than artificial. The whole debate about 800 portability rotated around retracting published numbers and loss of investments in advertisements. So far i didn't hear anyone publishing IP numbers in their ads. Changing providers *always* involves some expenses and probably disruption of service. Also, nobody was really interested in renumbering technology in pre-CIDR times; now market will force software vendors to provide network number discovery as a standard feature. The host portability problem is not new -- the mobile communications folks worked on it for quite a time; but it wasn't anywhere near the interest field of regular TCP/IP community. Now it is -- as well as IPNG, video and security. New times, new problems. --vadim

1 0

Dups
by bmanning＠is.rice.edu 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

I am getting a lot of these.... Perhaps this is the carrot to dump an AS or two. :) -- Regards, Bill Manning

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Walt Haas 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>The problem is that there are many things that can be easily >overlooked. I believe if done right, renumbering 20 workstations in a >single department is a no-brainer. However, what it would require is >some cheat sheet of things that can be easily overlooked. Some recipe >of how to do it right. Exactly my point, the recipe could be defined in an RFC and implemented in code, so that the execution cost would be very low. This might be an easier problem to solve than the problem we are trying to address with CIDRizing. -- Walt -------

2 1

20402 routing entries
by yakov＠watson.ibm.com 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Ref: Your note of Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:39:45 -0400 Marty, >We will have to incent (carrot) people to do the right thing... Would you be so kind as to share with the rest of us what that "right thing" is. >you have no plan... Would you be so kind as to tell us whether you have a plan ? Comrades Yakov&Peter

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by hoodr＠netcom.com 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>Robert Hood writes: >> I tried. They told me that the forms and policy for removing more >> specific routes were not in place yet, and that there would be an announcement >> about it in a week or so. (I tried to remove 150 routes). I've got >> a few hundred more to do next week. >> >Why dont you just stop announcing them ? I did, but BGP didn't want to let them go (the other end never recieved a network unreachable event). I tried finding a way to remove the routes without reseting the BGP link, but couldn't, so I just reset the links. I hate doing that. Can we change the subject to 20252 routes now? :) BTW: I just sent another set of CIDR NACRs to Merit. I hope to remove another ~350 routes by the end of next week. -- Robert Hood hoodr(a)netcom.com 1-408-983-1510 System/Network Administrator for NETCOM On-line Communications Services, Inc.

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by hoodr＠netcom.com 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>According to NSF/ANSNET data, 23 aggregates ALONG with its covered 898 specific >routes are co-exist in the routing table now. If the ASs withdraws all these more >specific routes, the routing table could be reduced by 898. Given the urgent >need of reduce the routing table size, would these ASs withdraw those specific >routes as soon as possible? I tried. They told me that the forms and policy for removing more specific routes were not in place yet, and that there would be an announcement about it in a week or so. (I tried to remove 150 routes). I've got a few hundred more to do next week. -- Robert Hood hoodr(a)netcom.com 1-408-983-1510 System/Network Administrator for NETCOM On-line Communications Services, Inc.

5 4

None
by Stephen Wolff 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

If NSF were to waive the NSFNET Backbone Service AUP **for the sole purpose of assisting providers in effective CIDRization/aggregation to avoid Internet collapse**, would that be of any help? I have alerted the NSF Counsel to this possibility, and they are of course concerned that everyone will cancel their current commercial contracts, switch their traffic to NSFNET, and hurl all the private providers into bankruptcy. I should welcome your comments; if you support the idea (the waiver, not hurtling into ruin), I may also enlist your help convincing Counsel and the IG. -s

7 8

Re: 20402 routing entries
by sob＠hsdndev.harvard.edu 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Marty, You don't seem to like the state all that much. What is your suggestion to get the bridge long enough? (or the river narrow enough) Scott

1 0