April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by hcb＠clark.net 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

At 11:04 AM 4/4/96, Tim Bass (PIER) wrote: >Howard states: > >[ ... ] > >> IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay >> routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good >> way to guarantee routable prefixes. > >Yes, there is a good way to GUARANTEE routable prefixes. Intermediate >system address translation which maps to "virtual renumbering".... In the specific case, this might take a new translator box that is not budgeted. Yes, I know renumbering costs staff time, but many organizations find it much easier to justify staff time than capital expenses. There's already a commitment to renumber here. Tim, my major point was that the enterprise here should, when renumbering, install infrastructure that makes possible future renumbering easier. Are you opposed to this? DHCP and such exist today, but I'm not sure I would say fully functional and tested address translators do. They may very well be in the near term. I'll agree that address translation will work in some, but not all situations. The problems are less in pure routing than in network management, DNS (especially reverse mapping), etc. > >The answer my friend.... is blowing in the wind... in the technical >implementation, not "human attitude re-engineering"..... I don't think we are in philosophical disagreement, but what the technical implementation should or can be. > >The attitude, .... "bluntly, there's no good way for man to fly...." >is not unique to written history.... it is alive and well in the >Internet today ;-) There is no good way for man to fly. There is an excellent way for man to be flown in airplanes. There isn't always a need to fly. Requirements analysis can fix things at the end system, with application-dependent solutions ranging from videoconferencing to ICBMs.

2 1

Re: CSPAN at next NANOG?
by William B. Norton 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

At 11:35 AM 4/4/96 CST, Stan Barber wrote: >I have worked with CSPAN before. They also expect the organization providing >the event to be willing to cover some of their costs. In DC, that may be zero, >but the question needs to be asked. I didn't get the impression there was any cost involved here. They told me that they look over the list of public interest events that are going on in Washington, and the night before, they decide which event to tape/broadcast. They don't give advanced warning that they are going to show up; you just let them know the event is occuring. If it turns out that socks, the whitehouse cat, has kittens, they probably won't show up ;-) The compelling reason to let CSPAN know about the NANOG is that the broadcast quality is likely to be *far* better than the MBone. We are in Washington and someone is willing to broadcast it for free. This probably won't happen again for a while. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by hcb＠clark.net 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

Originally posted to the NANOG list. Relevant to PIER as a real-world example of what we have to solve. >On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:> >> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of >> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable >> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed, >> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all >> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would >> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and >> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and >> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please. > Dalvenjah FoxFire <dalvenja(a)ict.org> replied, >I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this >question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else >to ask it... You have legitimate concerns; I'm not sure that you'll like the answers. > >As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24 >to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from >InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next >few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure. IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good way to guarantee routable prefixes. What is reasonable, while you are renumbering, to put in the hooks that make subsequent renumbering much less painful. PIER is ... ahem ... addressing these. Please share your major problems in renumbering with PIER. IMHO, the most important parts are making your end stations easier to renumber, using DHCP (or its predecessors) for end station IP addresses and DNS for server references. Obviously, there are other issues, but these are key. I can send you the draft router renumbering guide that has been posted to PIER but is not yet on the server. > >Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools >in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for >internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute >that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this >solution? > It certainly would be much cleaner, but I still don't think you are going to be able to guarantee you won't renumber in the moderate term. Growth curves are too steep.

2 1

More NANOG info
by Pam Ciesla 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

HLC-Internet will provide lunch on Thursday, 5/30. Lunch will include assorted sandwiches, vegetable pasta salad, cookies and soda or bottled water. Pam

1 0

regional aggregation
by William Allen Simpson 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

> From: Dalvenjah FoxFire <dalvenja(a)ict.org> > I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this > question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else > to ask it... > This is the right place, as you are talking about operational issues. > As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24 > to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from > InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next > few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure. > > Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools > in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for > internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute > that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this > solution? > Yes, you should. If all traffic goes that way, it is the root of the topology. Please renumber topologically. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Internet affiliations (and settlements)
by William Allen Simpson 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

> X-Sender: bob(a)kelmscott.com > From: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com (Bob Metcalfe) > >From: jerry <jerry(a)fc.net> > >You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of > >offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit > >kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum > >where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn > >about problems and fix them. > > > Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet > Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? > Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is > IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. > That's a lot of questions. The history is complicated. Briefly, there was a long debate about whether the network operations should be directly affiliated as a seaprate group under the IAB, back when that was the "Activities Board". There appeared to be consensus that this was not the correct direction. And thus, various independent groups have arisen on their own. The ISoc is not involved. Indeed, the IETF is not affiliated with ISoc. The ISoc is currently a separate educational and outreach Internet organization. In some respects, it is beginning to serve a fundraising and administrative role as well, but these are strictly limited at this time. There is considerable trepidation on the parts of the volunteer, engineering, vendor and operators about the extent of this role. This is a current topic for discussion in the Poised WG in the IETF, and you are certainly welcome to participate in that forum. > >Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do > >much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters > >is just plan wrong of the face of it. > >... > Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy > defensive to argue? > Well, several years ago I collected the practical considerations about settlements into "Settlements Considered Harmful". The technical and economic problems are well known. I never got around to polishing and publishing the RFC. I _was_ too busy. Now, if someone would PAY me to write them, more might get finished.... Until then, I'll stick with getting higher priority work done. Sorry. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

NANOG Meeting Info
by Pam Ciesla 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

The next NANOG Meeting will be May 30 & 31 in Washington D.C. co-sponsored by CIX on the George Washington campus. The meetings start at 9:00AM both days with a continental breakfast served at 8:30AM. The meeting on the 30th ends at 5:00PM and 1:00PM on the 31st. Hotel, airport, directions and misc. info can be found on the CIX webpage http://www.cix.org/Events/nanog8.html. For registration use the Merit webpage http://nic.merit.edu/~nanog/NANOG.html or send e-mail to pam(a)merit.edu. Any questions regarding this meeting send e-mail to me (pam(a)merit.edu) Pam Ciesla

1 0

stats for Ames ring at MAE West
by booloo＠cats.ucsc.edu 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

I was perusing the stats for MAE West earlier and noticed that the graphs for the Ames ring went from showing 90% utilization to about 10% utilization around 11am on 3/30 (and they've stayed there). Did something change at Ames or are the numbers bogus? mb -- Mark Boolootian booloo(a)cats.ucsc.edu

2 1

RE: NANOG
by bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG) Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually really run. Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your objections (below). Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which is half our problem. Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy defensive to argue? So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really worried. Thank you for sharing, stay tuned, /Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld >Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com >>From jerry(a)fc.net >X-Envelope-From: jerry(a)fc.net >Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST >Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by >largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for ><bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800 >Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79(a)fc.net> >Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800 >From: jerry <jerry(a)fc.net> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com >Subject: RE: NANOG >X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of >offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit >kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum >where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn >about problems and fix them. > >Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report >their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off. > >I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW >the Internet is run. >Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do >much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters >is just plan wrong of the face of it. > >Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet >more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the >net are busy working, so people like you can whine >about outages, "increasing diameters", etc. > > >>From todays NANOG List: >------------------------------------------------- >Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST) >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Metcalfe's clue density... >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >Precedence: bulk > > >the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization >is a good calibration on everything else. > >just remember: > > "Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion > >soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night. > > -mo ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and VP Technology, International Data Group Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com Voice Messages: 617-534-1215 Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center March 1-5, 1997 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

5 4

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Gordon Cook 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

OOOPS! <blush> you are right. But, isn't the point two fold? While NSFnet stats were available for another year is anyone going to seriously blame ISOC for not having them on display a year after the fact? They are surely available some where. Many reading this list would likely know where in an instant. I'd turn to an Altavista search and to the NSF web stite to find them. second point. For a year now nothing has been available and given the nature of the new market place, how could one reasonably expect them to be available except by looking a through put figures at the MAEs. MAE East in particular. ********************************************************************* Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new COOK Report Glossary of Internet terms ********************************************************************* On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 rboivie(a)VNET.IBM.COM wrote: > Gordon, > Small point. The NSFnet backbone service ended on April 30, 1995 > (not '94). > Rick Boivie > rboivie(a)vnet.ibm.com > > > commercial internet matured and the federal gov't withdrew. Last traffic > > reports march 1994!? Of course! This was the month before the last > > gov't funded backbone (NSFnet) was turned off. Since then the traffic > > statistics have been the **proprietary** possessions of Sprint, MCI, > > UUNET, ANS, etc. >

2 1