February 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Customers Didn't Know
by Simon Chan 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote: > > > Shouldn't we here see how we get our act together, e.g. peering (why in > > this community are there people not peering, putting up 'rules' etc, when > > peering would just make everyone happy since the routing landscape is way > > simpler when there are lots of direct links), and of course, the same > > always: instead of creating unnecessary friction to put into the address > > allocation mechanism a measure to satisfy building up ISP/NSP businesses. > > I agree that there might some people need more restrictive routing, but > > restrictions must always be implemented in a way not to create injustice > > or even only extra problems. > > Well, the prefix-filtering policies of the unnamed ISP you mention above > is definitely a problem. However, I don't see it as a problem for me, > because most ISP's are sensible enough to route that kind of traffic. > > I look at it as a problem for customers who use that unnamed ISP. Those > customers should contact their providers and pressure them to get > alternative links (or, in the case they are a direct customer of this unnamed > ISP, change to another provider or obtain another link and become > multi-homed). > > I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or > DIE!". At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're > not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable > within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal > connectivity to any particular site. > > The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share > information. It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where > most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we > help this group? They're customers of ISP X!" > > Now, if there's a sincere need to filter, say, because you still use > AGS+'s with CSC/3's and 16 MB of RAM and your poor 1988-age equipment > can't handle it, then fine... > > /cah > > I agree. Internet should belong to everyone. However, I felt pity to those still using that ISP X as their Internet access provider. At the last Comnet Conference at Washington DC (1/30-2/1), I happened to run into a few exhibitors at the floor who were customers to this ISP X. To my surprise, none of them were aware of the fact that they were restricted to reach out potential customers who insist on using their own long prefix IP address. They all expressed serious concern of such limitation and felt angery at the arbitrary restriction by their service supplier. I think ISP X is going to have some explanation to do. ISP X definitely cannot claim itself offering universal connectivity in the Internet world. Its customers cannot reach out and touch anyone they wish. There is potential legal liability due to loss of business opportunity if the customer can establish misrepresentation by ISP X, or perhaps show gross disregard of negligence as compared to the industrial standard. Afterall, ISP X is the only one departing from the industrial norm. I get the feeling that all this matter can be resolved simply by someone informing the customers of ISP X's unilateral practice decision which resulted in their accessibility limitation. Who knows, may be all ISP's other than ISP X will benefit from the windfall of the exodus customers who felt being cheated for the service they've contracted. Better yet, I think ISP X is creating seed for a class action suit. SC

1 0

Any men out there !.
by come＠get.me 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

Hi there. I am Mary Jane. I am Filipino and I live in Manila, the capitol of the Philippines. The original pearl of the orient. In this land we have many of the world's most beautiful sights. Perhaps the most beautiful sight to behold are the girls like me, with smiles to die for. Can you imagine, long black silky fine hair, brown sharp knowing eyes, a mixture of Latin and Asian features on top of my 5'6" body with my legs taking up most of that and with 37/24/36 curves not even the safest car in the world can handle. I am quite young, I am not going to let you know how young, but I am old enough and I would like to take you, my American dream man, on a tour of this beautiful Country. My beautiful young friends are all here waiting for you if I am busy or not here when you call and I believe we can give you memories never to be forgotten. Call us when you are free and ready to let your imagination run riot. 011 63988 2225001 011 63988 2225002 011 63988 2225003 011 63988 2225004 011 63988 2225005 011 63988 2225006 011 63988 2225007 011 63988 2225008 011 63988 2225009 011 63988 2225010

1 0

LAST CALL NANOG Registration
by Pam Ciesla 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

Due to the large volume of attendees registration for the NANOG Meeting on February 15 & 16 will be closed at 12:00PM EST on Tuesday, 2/13. Pam Ciesla

2 1

Re: ISP Domain Auction
by Kent W. England 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

At 10:47 AM 2/12/96 +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) writes: > > > > My personal opinion is that the IANA should recommend that the InterNIC > > simply unregister the names. > > > > randy > >I second that, especially for the country names. > >Daniel > > If you read the fine print on the InterNIC application for changing domain names, the InterNIC reserves the right to review the entire application as a new application if the change requests a change to the Organization information. Therefore, a straightforward attempt to transfer a .COM domain name to another entity results in a new application for that name. This makes it smoother to do coordinated transfers, but if InterNIC re-considers the transfer it makes the rights about what Sean said he would bid in an earlier message. ($1) By the way, domain names are not uniquely speculated. About two years ago, a company widely circulated an offer to sell 1-800-INFO-HIWAY for about US$20,000. I passed. --Kent

1 0

More on MTU discovery...
by Jamshid Mahdavi 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

Based on the number of replies, it sounds like there is quite a lot of interest in this subject. I didn't want to call out any sites in particular, because I didn't want to pick on any providers. I sent mail to three people with problems this morning at around the same time I sent the nanog mail, and have so far only heard a response back from one. The one who responded turned out to be exactly what Matt suggested -- mismatched ATM MTUs on Cisco routers. Apparently the Cisco default is something like 4470 even though ATM default MTU is supposed to be 9180. The other two sites haven't responded. The IP hop in question in both cases was, I believe, a cisco router (based on the prompt I got when I telnetted to them). However, since I know that in most cases Ciscos seem to do the right thing, I suspect that these sites have other problems down at layer two. Lots of people out there make bridging products who have never heard of RFC1191... If I hear back from the providers for the other two sites, I'll post the answers to the list. --Jamshid

1 0

unsubscribe now
by rpd＠exodus.net 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

unsubscribe gia(a)indosat.go.id nanog(a)merit.edu unsubscribe NOW

1 0

Disbanding nsfnet-cert list on merit.edu
by Larry J. Blunk 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

At this point, I will be removing the nsfnet-cert mail list exploder on merit.edu (given that the NSFNET is long dead and I don't feel like policing this list). This list is currently subscribed to the cert-advisory list at cert.org. If you're not already subscribed to this list directly, you'll need to subscribe via the following address: cert-advisory-request(a)cert.org By the way, here's the current subscription list for nsfnet-cert(a)merit.edu. Folks may want to subscribe their local exploder to the cert advisory list rather than having individuals subscribe directly. BRENDAN(a)otago.ac.nz, ken(a)VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Paquette), korpela(a)ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela), n.brownlee(a)aukuni.ac.nz, mhageman(a)empros.com (Mary Hageman), dar(a)cadcentre.co.uk (D.Ashton-Reader), mckee(a)sunbelt.net (Tim McKee), cert(a)ncar.ucar.edu, ops(a)noc.sura.net, nsfnet-cert-ml(a)ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, nwnet-cert(a)nwnet.net, nsfnet-cert(a)spot.colorado.edu, nsfnet-cert(a)rice.edu, cert(a)cic.net, merit-cert, regional-techs ------ Larry J. Blunk Merit Network, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan

1 0

MTU discovery problems in the Internet?
by Jamshid Mahdavi 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

All, In the last few days I have noticed two sites, quite by accident, to which MTU discovery does not work correctly. In one case the router which failed blackholed the traffic, and in the other case, the router returned an MTU value which is garbage (Friday I got 18K, today I get 63692!) Many sites depend on MTU discovery working properly, and the need for MTU discovery is not going away! I ask all of you provider types out there to please look over RFC1191 (it is short). If you don't have tools to diagnose MTU discovery problems, you can pull down ftp://ftp.psc.edu/pub/net_tools/traceroute.tar which includes a -M switch for MTU discovery. Thanks, --Jamshid

2 1

None
by tgardner＠bellsouth.NET 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

>From list-admin(a)merit.edu Mon Feb 12 02:13 EST 1996 Return-Path: list-admin(a)merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by ec-mail.bellsouth.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01899; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:13:21 -0500 Received: from Bill.Simpson.DialUp.Mich.Net (pm001-04.dialip.mich.net [35.1.48.53]) by merit.edu (8.7.3/merit-2.0) with SMTP id BAA18366 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:16:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 05:05:02 GMT From: "William Allen Simpson" <bsimpson(a)morningstar.com> Message-ID: <4820.bsimpson(a)morningstar.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu cc: Robert Du Gaue <rdugaue(a)calweb.com> Subject: Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Content-Type: Content-Length: > From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com> > It's a Catch-22. To provide the multi-homed, reliable services that many > successful providers offer their customers, you need your own IP space. > If the InterNIC isn't handing out blocks of routable size, you can't > exactly have the most flexibility with your links. > 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. Them's the current rules. Now, as I noted in my earlier message, I have long advocated that _NOBODY_ gets their own address space, and they _only_ get addresses through the Exchanges where they are connected. But, the rest of the IETF didn't go along with that idea. IPvB for sure, someday. > A good point, but I, as a customer, am looking for a provider which is > stable already; I'm not going to sign up to a service which says "we'll > become multi-homed and fully accessible just as soon as we get X > customers". I've seen others sign up for services which promise > this--you find they go down quickly because they tend to not meet the X > customer line. > So have I. That's another good reason not to give a chunk to such a provider in the first place. > You have to offer services that people want, with good quality, before > you can expect many customers to sign up. If you need X customers before > you can provide those services, then you end up in the Catch-22 loop again. > What's the problem? If you are small, you compete with the other little folks. Demonstrate your quality. You had better not falsely advertise that you are large. Good way to get sued for breach of contract. > Not every ISP has the investment capital to immediately run high-speed > links to every NAP in the nation. There seems to be this misconception -- that there is some _right_ to make money off the Internet without much capital investment. If they cannot meet the barrier to entry, then they deserve to go out of business. > But, that aside, are your customers > going to use your service if they know that the Y% of people on the net > using SprintLink are going to be unable to reach your network? > I hope not. Bill.Simpson(a)um.cc.umich.edu Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

None
by tgardner＠bellsouth.NET 12 Feb '96

12 Feb '96

>From list-admin(a)merit.edu Mon Feb 12 02:13 EST 1996 Return-Path: list-admin(a)merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by ec-mail.bellsouth.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01895 for <bprice(a)bsan.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:13:16 -0500 Received: from Bill.Simpson.DialUp.Mich.Net (pm001-04.dialip.mich.net [35.1.48.53]) by merit.edu (8.7.3/merit-2.0) with SMTP id BAA18366 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:16:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 05:05:02 GMT From: "William Allen Simpson" <bsimpson(a)morningstar.com> Message-ID: <4820.bsimpson(a)morningstar.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu cc: Robert Du Gaue <rdugaue(a)calweb.com> Subject: Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Content-Type: Content-Length: > From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen(a)quad.quadrunner.com> > It's a Catch-22. To provide the multi-homed, reliable services that many > successful providers offer their customers, you need your own IP space. > If the InterNIC isn't handing out blocks of routable size, you can't > exactly have the most flexibility with your links. > 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. Them's the current rules. Now, as I noted in my earlier message, I have long advocated that _NOBODY_ gets their own address space, and they _only_ get addresses through the Exchanges where they are connected. But, the rest of the IETF didn't go along with that idea. IPvB for sure, someday. > A good point, but I, as a customer, am looking for a provider which is > stable already; I'm not going to sign up to a service which says "we'll > become multi-homed and fully accessible just as soon as we get X > customers". I've seen others sign up for services which promise > this--you find they go down quickly because they tend to not meet the X > customer line. > So have I. That's another good reason not to give a chunk to such a provider in the first place. > You have to offer services that people want, with good quality, before > you can expect many customers to sign up. If you need X customers before > you can provide those services, then you end up in the Catch-22 loop again. > What's the problem? If you are small, you compete with the other little folks. Demonstrate your quality. You had better not falsely advertise that you are large. Good way to get sued for breach of contract. > Not every ISP has the investment capital to immediately run high-speed > links to every NAP in the nation. There seems to be this misconception -- that there is some _right_ to make money off the Internet without much capital investment. If they cannot meet the barrier to entry, then they deserve to go out of business. > But, that aside, are your customers > going to use your service if they know that the Y% of people on the net > using SprintLink are going to be unable to reach your network? > I hope not. Bill.Simpson(a)um.cc.umich.edu Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0