February 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by sob＠academ.com 17 Feb '96

17 Feb '96

> At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote: > > > > >How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP? > >"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was > >not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to > >cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves > >out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight > >between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely. > > > > This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership > draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere > in the text. > > This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful. > > - paul I have found that given a good description of the problem and how cooperation can solve it, even the small ISPs (at least in my neck of the woods) will consider cooperation. Some of them will even if they don't see a direct benefit to them. I am not saying that all small ISPs are like that, but I at least know of some that are. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

unsubscribe
by Debbie Fuller 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

Please unsubscribe. debbief(a)internic.net or debbief(a)netsol.com Thank Deborah Fuller

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

At 11:01 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Robert Du Gaue wrote: >> No circularity about it. First, you need customers. Second, if you >> already have enough customers, you get your own IP space. >> >> Until then, you get a small chunk out of somebody else's bigger IP space. > >Yeah right. You try that with a growing business. Then when you finally >get enough users and corporate customers to 'justify' your own 64block and >then give them the news that their entire networks will now need to be >reconfigured how do you think they'll react. If I was that big, the amount >of money it would cost me and my end-users would not be trivial. > Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix. This has been suggested on numerous occasions. - paul

8 11

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by Paul Ferguson 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

At 11:38 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Tim 'The Heretic' Bass wrote: > >On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC, >European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes' >in classless blocks and were assigned to the user. Furthermore, >there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing >infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive >and counterproductive. > I agree that address allocations that originated from the various registries pose a different problem, for which there is no clear-cut solution. I imagine that the various ISPs will decide how to handle it themselves, as some already do. Again, we're [collectively] not trying to dictate address allocation or routing policy. What we *are* trying to do is document a Best Current Practices procedural issue, which can be used as reference. If some organizations wish to use it as a basis for policy, that's fine too. I'm not naive enough to believe that this draft, as a BCP, will be viewed as the end-all-be-all policy doctrine, and that if you as an ISP or end-system network do not adhere to the letter of the document you will be flogged with a wet noodle. Bah. This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no longer a luxury that can be expected. Yes, it may be unpopular. Does it actually represent 'Best Current Practice'? I believe it does. Should it instead be moved ahead as 'Informational'? I don't believe so, as Curtis and others do, since it would then give the appearance of levity. - paul

2 1

RE: ATM availibility and reliability
by Jim Browning 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

There is a list of pointers to ATM related sites on our home page (http://www.ATMnet.net) It's not too pretty, but the info is good... -- Jim Browning ---------- From: Justin W. Newton[SMTP:jnewton@hq.mai.net] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 1996 10:17 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: ATM availibility and reliability Sorry if this is somewhat off topic, but I couldn't think of a better place to look. I need to get up to speed on ATM in a relatively short time frame, and as a starting point I need to start looking at its current availibility and reliability on a national scale. That topic seems /somewhat/ germane to this group, but if y'all point me somewhere else that would certainly be fine as well. Justin Newton | jnewton(a)hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now # Justin Newton | jnewton(a)hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now #

1 0

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by Paul Ferguson 15 Feb '96

15 Feb '96

At 07:28 PM 2/15/96 -0500, The Heretic wrote: > >The use of terms like 'shameful' are really out of line when discussing >ideas born from different perspectives. We all know that the continuing >deployment of a hierarchical routing model for the Internet means more >routers sold; big ISPs get bigger; etc. ad infinitum. > Okay -- perhaps ludicrous is a more apropos term. Reality check: ISPs already force renumbering. And as several people have already stated [deja vu, many times over], this draft, if moved to BCP, has no teeth. It simply states that the idea of address ownership is null and void, and Joe's ISP decides to pull up stakes and move to another upstream provider [B] for whatever reason, Joe should not be surprised when his [A] provider asks him to return his address allocation so that its doesn't punch holes in his CIDR block. This makes sense to me. - paul

2 1

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by Paul Ferguson 15 Feb '96

15 Feb '96

At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote: > >How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP? >"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was >not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to >cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves >out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight >between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely. > This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere in the text. This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful. - paul

3 2

ATM availibility and reliability
by Justin W. Newton 15 Feb '96

15 Feb '96

Sorry if this is somewhat off topic, but I couldn't think of a better place to look. I need to get up to speed on ATM in a relatively short time frame, and as a starting point I need to start looking at its current availibility and reliability on a national scale. That topic seems /somewhat/ germane to this group, but if y'all point me somewhere else that would certainly be fine as well. Justin Newton | jnewton(a)hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now # Justin Newton | jnewton(a)hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now #

1 0

Unsubscribe
by Krishin Asnani 15 Feb '96

15 Feb '96

unsubsribe. krish(a)ans.net

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 14 Feb '96

14 Feb '96

From: Geoff Huston <G.Huston(a)aarnet.edu.au> it will be economically infeasible IF we continue with this strange system of zero dollar interconnections we use as a peering model. ... In the same way that giving away IP addresses and giving away IP routing can only be described as a very bad case of irrational behaviour, especially when the underlying resource is under stress ... then I'd also note that giving away transit is similarly a case completely irrational behaviour! All this points to a desperate need for a more realistic economic structure to be used within a number of key aspects of Internet infrastructure. Geoff, while I sort of agree with you, please note that the current "free" models in all these areas do have one real advantage, which is that they are simple. Perhaps we will need "more realistic economic structure[s]", but I can more or less guarantee you that those will be more complex as well. Also, that complexity has a cost, which also has to be figured in. (The classic example is long-distance telephone service, where the cost of creting the bill is said to be far larger than the cost of the underlying service.) Finally, given past history, I suspect that the 'Net community, and particularly the 'Net technical community, is going to have a painful transition, on the emotional level and others, to this brave new world of more commercial structures, and the inevitable technical impacts that causes. That has certainly been the case in every such step in the past... Noel

14 24