January 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by matthew＠scruz.net 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

Original message <MAPI.Id.0016.00657465726420204333343130303138(a)MAPI.to.RFC822> From: Peter Dawe <peterd(a)dial.pipex.com> Date: Jan 28, 18:46 Subject: Static IP addresses for Dial-up > > Demon Internet Services provide an IP address for every dial-up > customer. Most other ISPs have taken the view that this is a waste of > valuable IP space and allocate IP addresses dynamically. > > How should our industry respond to ISPs who behave selfishly and do > not take into account the good of the network? The access-control argument has been beaten to death already. We offer our customers static IP addresses for some additional reasons: - ability to receive mail by SMTP instead of POP - ability to run a part time WWW or BBS service at a fixed address - support for systems that don't easily support dynamic addresses (some Unix machines with hand-coded dialup scripts) and most importantly - ability to do disconnect-and-redial without breaking connections, which is particularly useful with ISDN. You can telnet somewhere, get idled out of the ISDN server, hit return and your ISDN adapter auto-redials and connects and your packet goes through, and you're still on the same address so everything works. Customers on flakey dialup lines (28.8k from up in the mountains during bad weather) appreciate this too. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0

Kudos to Sprint
by Kent W. England 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

Dick; It's nice to hear someone recognize Sprint's early understanding of how to approach the commercial Internet market with a two-pronged high/low strategy. Too bad the one who figured it out is no longer associated with SprintLink. --Kent At 01:03 AM 1/29/96 -0500, Dick St.Peters wrote: > >Were it not for Sprint, I wouldn't exist. > ... >Thanks in part to Sprint, that side business has grown into a network >of four POPs bringing the Internet to NY State's Adirondack region. >There's no fortune to be made here, but there's a living in it. It's >what I wanted to do, and I couldn't have done it without Sprint. > >Sean Doran's recent posting about how the Sprints aren't out to squash >us little guys but in fact are dependent on us was remarkably like the >way I used to explain Sprint's position during the CIX filtering war >in summer of '94. In fact, I think he stole those ideas from me :) > >Sprint is big, and they're busy, and it can be damnably hard to get >their attention (hence my posting), but I'm here because they helped >me when I needed help and backed me politically and operationally when >I needed backing. Out here in the woods, things like that still >matter. > ...

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

>What's been bothering me is that Sprint is filtering at /19 in 206/8 >but just allocated me a /21 out of 206/8. Since my largest customer >is leaning on me to multi-home, and since I view Sprint's filtering as >indicative of what others are likely to do RSN, I begged Sprint to >allocate a block the size of the smallest block they would route if I >had gotten it from another NSP. > >Is it unfair to ask Sprint to make allocations based on its own >filtering policies? > >When I multihome and Pennsauken is down, will Sprint's filtering cut >me off from access to other Sprint customers via my alternative path? Ah, a reason why Sprint's filters are self-defeating. You would be better off leaving sprint now, and going to a different provider. Use a /21 out of another provider's CIDR block. If at a later date you decide to multi-home with sprint, sprint's filters only effect small inbound blocks. Sprint is more than happy to spew little blocks (so much for 'saving the global Internet'). I've hear of a lot of crazy ideas from other NSP's, but not a peep of any other NSP following Sprint's lead on filtering. But suppose other NSP's did decide to start filtering in the future, that's another reason to get your own CIDR blocks from the InterNIC ASAP. If you hadn't waited this long, you could have gotten a block in 192/8 - 205/8, and wouldn't have to worry about Sprint's filtering in 206/8. Yes, it is perverse that the people most harmed are those that patiently follow the 'rules.' It is unfortunate that the IANA and NIC policies seem to be creating a system that encourages people to jump to the front of the line. But folks, there seems to be nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by being a good net citizen. You don't get any brownie points for being a nice guy. You just get ignored. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

3 2

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by Paul Ferguson 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

At 05:18 PM 1/29/96 +0100, Piet Beertema wrote: > I can certainly understand the need for access control & security, > but with the use of a smart-card one-time password system, this is > a moot point. >Huh? How are you going to stop a system from "illegally" >(in the sense of the provider, contracts, or whatever) >acting as -say- www, ftp, or whatever server with such >a one-time password system? You'll need access control >*based on IP addresses* to reach that goal! > > No, no, no. The concept of access-filtering based on source address is easily spoofed, where the OTP password systems that I'm referring to are based on a concept of authentication-based access, which is much more reliable than a [possibly fake] source address. This is not a new concept. - paul

1 0

so have nanog and cidrd merged???
by Mike O'Dell 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

if so, let's shoot one and reduce the mail i get by half. if not, let's pick one and use it for this discussion and reduce the mail i get by half. -mo

1 0

Re: value of co-location
by Curtis Villamizar 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

In message <96Jan23.111533-0000_est.20608+185(a)chops.icp.net>, Sean Doran writes : > > | If ATM is being used in VBR without the V mode, essentially providing > | point to point connections between routers at above DS3 rate, then > | there is no need for complex reassembly or any form of congestion > | control. That may turn out to be the way ATM is used by ISPs. > > Ok, so in order to do VBR without the V mode, one effectively > has to either *really* trust one's ATM network provider not > to have any congestion which could lead to cell loss as we > have seen pretty clearly that even very minimal, occasional > cell loss is deadly -- or one has to do the UUPSI hack: > purchase clear-channel L0 circuits and run ATM as a L1 > protocol on top of it. > > That is, the only ATM switches are the ones at the end points > and owned by the NSP. That's not true. VBR without the V means setting PCR and SCR tot the same value and reserving a VC and traffic shaping your output so as to never exceed that value. This would allow you to nail up a X Mb/s pipe (where DS1 << X << DS3 might be cost effective, or DS3 < X << OC3 might also be cost effective). The is no opportunity for multiplexing gain if numerous telco customers do this (ie: are forced to do this if ATM buffering and congestion mechanisms are not improved), but does provide lossless service (unless something isn't working). The UUPSI hack works just as well if you need more than DS3 and either can't get ATM service from your provider or VBR minus V service is not cost effective relative to OC3 SONET. In that case PPP over SONET would be a technically better choice if you can get it. I won't comment in public on the likelyhood of this. > It is my prediction that by this spring, the only reasons why > anybody would want to run ATM for connecting pieces of the > Internet would involve unavailability of SONET/SDH from one's > carrier(s), the desire to save money on point-to-point > circuits by letting one's carrier(s) sell one VCs over some > unknown fabric rather than real circuits over their > transmissions infrastructure, an already-installed ATM > fabric, or general insanity. I mostly agree if you constrain "everybody" in the statement above to mean the major ISPs. I think you still may be missing the point that VBR without the V is supposed to be lossless, not like UBR (currently highly lossy under congestion by design :) or ABR (high vapor preasure, as of yet unproven, but still might just work). ATM doesn't solve everything, but it also isn't comkpletely useless. As George Clapp points out, some people are using ATM successfully. IMO just don't believe everything you read or hear about ATM without thinking about how it will work in your application (not you Sean, anyone's application, whether ISP or LAN or otherwise). Curtis ps - Regarding Kent's comments. There are other routers on the horizon (beside Netstar and Vadim's deep secret and Ipsilon's "we're not saying what it is").

1 0

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by Sanjay Dani 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

>Peter, > >>--------- Text sent by Peter Dawe follows: >> >> Demon Internet Services provide an IP address for every dial-up >> customer. Most other ISPs have taken the view that this is a waste of >> valuable IP space and allocate IP addresses dynamically. >> >> How should our industry respond to ISPs who behave selfishly and do >> not take into account the good of the network? >> >> >> Peter Dawe >> Unipalm PIPEX >> > >1. Speaking as IAB chair, I must state that the IAB has absolutely >no role to play in answering your question. Operational/commercial >issues are outside our mandate, whatever we might feel. > >2. However, even without an IAB discussion, I can tell you that >we are in favour of technology that conserves address space and >facilitates renumbering. > >Regards, > Brian Carpenter (IAB Chair) (brian(a)dxcoms.cern.ch) > voice +41 22 767 4967, fax +41 22 767 7155 I would like to raise concerns regarding the guidelines used by the InterNIC for allocating addresses. Some of the current guidelines seem oblivious of emerging market realities and often times highly non-objective. I wish to see this issue addressed by someone, the iab or iana, or anyone else that sets forth, mandates or influences the policies used by the InterNIC. As a "small" web service provider that wants to continue to be multi-homed, I find the attitude that the use of static dialup addresses or in our perception of the InterNIC that the use of a single IP address to virtual host a .com domain is somehow wasteful to be questionable. I believe that such uses are in fact highly efficient. I have no grounds, and it makes no business sense, to tell a customer they cannot have a dedicated web server for their domain or get SMTP feed to their dialup client. The same registries, I have reasons to believe, tend to overlook allocations of several /16s to major corporations that are completely firewalled from the Internet and could very well use non-public addresses for thousands of internal machines. I used to work in one such corporation and have observed their historical use of IP addresses and new allocations. It is quite possible that the registries are on the forefront dealing with these issues with stretched resources and no body to turn to evolve the policies for the rapidly changing marketplace. I can then understand, and now it is my hope ;-), that being part of these aliases will automatically qualify me as a "caring" Internet citizen. The end result is we have to either learn to play the game so we will survive and continue to be independent. In the meanwhile, we continue to live on the edge fearing the day when a big chunk of the Internet drops our 206/19. Oh yes, we have already renumberd twice and the support costs are enormous. Thanks for listening this far, Sanjay.

1 0

Hmmmmmm...
by Sean Doran 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

>From the latest Cook Report: | InterNIC now dealing with IP address requests from 50 new ISP start ups | every week. By sending them to their upstream providers InterNIC has | gone from handing out 800 CIDR blocks in the /24s to /21s ranges to about | 30 /24s - /21s per month. Sean.

3 2

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by Matt Crawford 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

Peter Dawe, If you want to forbid statically-assigned (yet aggregatable) addresses for dialup customers, then someday you'll have to choose where to draw the line between kre's brother with one IP address and my site with 7164, if I start reaching the internet through some sort of switched virtual circuits. The difference will be only one of scale. _________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford crawdad(a)fnal.gov Fermilab PGP: D5 27 83 7A 25 25 7D FB 09 3C BA 33 71 C4 DA 6A

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by huitema＠pax.inria.fr 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

At 8:04 PM 27/1/96, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >What this has to do with RIPE allocation policies is beyond >me. Everyone in the European realm suffers from extremely high >tariffs. So what? Because tariff distort topologies. In the short term, if you drew a map that used tariffs as the metric of your topology, the Atlantic would hardly be larger than the Rhine. This in itself is at cross purpose with the local implementation of CIDR, i.e. allocation of addresses to European networks from a European block by the RIPE NCC. If you look at the medium term, the perspective is even more interesting. Deregulation will gradually take place in the next three years. It will most probably result in lower tariffs for some lines, but not all, and definitely not at the same time. Take the map which I mentioned above. Imagine it printed on a fin sheet of elastic rubber, not paper. The effect of deregulation is that for the next three years the rubber will be constantly deformed, shrinking here and inflating there, and you are very lucky if you can predict where and when. To believe that this would not have some influence on addressing and internetworking is at least shortsighted. Christian Huitema

2 1