May 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

aggregation in 207/8
by Eric Kozowski 28 May '96

28 May '96

Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck? -- Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc. kozowski(a)structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (503)656-3235 FAX "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1

2 1

Continuation of NPD project at Merit
by Dun Liu 28 May '96

28 May '96

We are pleased to announce that MERIT will continue Vern Paxson's NPD project under his approvement. We will use his software NPD and his methodology. The effort is to continue the diagnosis of end-to-end routing behavior in the Internet. Beside that we will use those data to analize latency and packet loss along the pathes of this project. We will also investigate the influnce of route flap on routing behavior by analyzing route path from BGP announcement and route path from traceroute. We will try to find out whether t he traffic in the Internet has impact on the routing behavior. To fulfill this project, we need cooperation from our nanog community. What you can contribute is a site which can run npd software and announcement of routing information to the route servers. In return, we may have a better understand of Internet, you may see your connectivity to all other sites that may shows your connectivity to the Internet. Interested people can contact me at nanog, or send me e-mail at dunl(a)merit.edu. My name is Dun Liu. You can also directly download npd software, install it, and let me know. The software is at nic.merit.net. By anomynous ftp, it is at "routing_arbiter/tools". Your help is greatly appreciated! Dun Liu at Merit

1 0

Directions to NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 28 May '96

28 May '96

The Marvin Student Center is located at the corner of 21st and "H" Streets. The meeting is being held within the Dorothy Betts Marvin Theatre, which is accessible by walking through the Marvin Student Center. Parking is available at the Marvin Center and at 22nd and "I" street. Directions from Wyndham Bristol: Follow "K" street east to Washington Circle. Go counterclockwise around Washington Circle until you reach 23rd street. Follow 23rd street for about 2 blocks and then take a left onto "H" street. Follow "H" street for 2 blocks. The Marvin Center will be on the corner on your left. Directions from Washington Marriot: Follow New Hampshire Avenue south to 22nd street. Follow 22nd street about 5-6 blocks until you reach "H" street. Take a left onto "H" and follow for about a block. The Marvin Center will be on the corner on your left.

1 0

Re: RFC 1597
by Dave Morton 28 May '96

28 May '96

>| I need a few class Cs. Hope nobody will mind if I take >| 192.168.0.0/20. ;) > >Knock yourself out. :-) > >| *> 192.168.100.0/22 144.228.71.5 0 1239 1794 ? > >This appears to be a truly ancient (before 17 Jan 1996) typo >or thinko or somesuch, and has been corrected. > > Sean. Sh*t. Part of the plan here was to filter these damn addresses - seems we managed to drop this under the table at some stage. Very sorry and red faced yours. Filters going in - if not already in place by our NOC. Dave

1 0

RE: Stargates (In Defense of J.F.)
by Jim Fleming 28 May '96

28 May '96

On Monday, May 27, 1996 7:13 PM, Nathan Stratton[SMTP:nathan@netrail.net] wrote: @ On Mon, 27 May 1996, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > On Sunday, May 26, 1996 10:50 AM, Dorian Kim[SMTP:dorian@cic.net] wrote: @ > @ On Sun, 26 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote: @ > @ @ > @ > Excuse me just a little, but I would like to follow-up on the @ > @ > Bush-o-Gram with regard to Jim Fleming and others whom Randy @ > @ > would love to silence in this world. @ > @ @ > @ > I am not sure why people on the Internet want to silence people. @ > I thought that the Internet was born with a basic goal of breaking @ > down centralized control over information flow and the censorship @ > that always goes with power being concentrated in a few people's @ > hands (or minds)... @ @ Humm, I don't think ARPA cared about breaking down centralized control @ over information flow and censorship. They wanted to connect DOD computers @ together and could care less about most of the things the internet is used @ for today. @ @ Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! I stand corrected...I should have said..."corruption" not "censorship"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

RE: Stargates (In Defense of J.F.)
by Jim Fleming 28 May '96

28 May '96

On Sunday, May 26, 1996 10:50 AM, Dorian Kim[SMTP:dorian@cic.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 26 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote: @ @ > Excuse me just a little, but I would like to follow-up on the @ > Bush-o-Gram with regard to Jim Fleming and others whom Randy @ > would love to silence in this world. @ I am not sure why people on the Internet want to silence people. I thought that the Internet was born with a basic goal of breaking down centralized control over information flow and the censorship that always goes with power being concentrated in a few people's hands (or minds)... @ NANOG = North American Network Operators' Group @ Tim, please stop lowering this list's signal/noise ratio. This list is not for @ philophical treatise on anything. It's an operator's group. Discussion of @ IPv8, merits or lack there of, and such is better suited for lists like @ Big-internet, which is for non-operational side of things. @ The OuterInternet is the best place to discuss IPv8 but you have to have an IPv8 network to get there... That is no differenent than saying one of the best places to discuss space travel is while cruising around on the space shuttle....just because a person is not on the space shuttle does not mean they should have no opinions or be restricted from discussing what it would be like... BTW, it also helps to have the C+@ programming language to fully discuss and understand IPv8... no space shuttle is required...;-) @ > I have read some of Jim's posts on his ideas of StarGates, @ > Galaxies and his idea of IPv8; and I'll be the first to admit @ > that I haven't taken the time to visit Jim's WWW site and @ > read his proposals and ideas. They do seem to be a radical @ @ Then don't comment. @ People should be able to comment on whatever they like to comment on...maybe people should not listen to comments they do not want to hear... @ > and in NANOG, because his proposals relate directly to IP internetworking @ > and IP operations. @ @ Wrong. As IPv8 currently stands, it has nothing to do with operations. @ I am not sure about that... Operations people may want to know how IPv8 packets are encapsulated inside IPv4 packets and transmitted across the network...this may have an impact on how they configure their networks... Also, operations people may find it useful to make the 10 minute changes required in their BSD systems to be able to use simple IPv8 on their "internal" systems. This can give them added security, and in some cases operations people may find it useful to have a pure IPv8 sub-net and be able to detect if an IPv4 system is plugged into the net. Also, companies that are looking to the future and asking operations people about options may find that it is easier to build an IPv8 network now using the IPv4 network simply for transport and then expand their corporate network using IPv8 addressing. If IPv6 is ever deployed, the 43 bit IPv8 addresses can be easily tucked into the 128 bit IPv6 fields. Correct me if I am wrong, but operations is not just restricted to people sitting in front of a CRT waiting for an alarm to sound...that would not be very interesting... @ Once Jim documents it in an I-D, solicits peer review, and get at least two @ interoperable implementations, then it would be of interest to NANOG. I'm sure @ toy junkies like me would love to spend some time playing with implementation @ of IPv8 once that happens. @ You can more easily play with it on your internal networks. It is important to do this because one can take a view of the world that IPv4 is a sub-set of IPv8 and you have to play with the technology to be able to develop this view. Also, it is healthy to consider IPv8 because people interested in preserving IPv4 via long-term address ecology efforts might find that it is easier to do this with a "place to stand" like IPv8. One does not have to jump to something as radical as IPv6 in order to be able to have a temporary place to sort out IPv4 legacy allocations. @ Until then, please keep whatifs, philosophical rants etc off NANOG. @ I would like to note that I have not said anything here. I am not sure why I was the target of this discussion. Several people have told me that they look forward to the day when IPv8 networks provide them with a place to move from the Legacy Internet where it seems that people spend a lot of useful energy fighting things that they have no ability to change. IPv8 requires no change to the existing networks unless the Network Operators find that they want to provide more efficient service. IPv8 was intentionally designed with the knowledge that people do not like change and also do not like to discuss change. Maybe the best thing to communicate to NANOG members is that they do not have to do anything NEW to support IPv8. People that use IPv8 will only be requesting basic IPv4 transport, and hopefully the sum total of Legacy Internet operators will be able to provide a stable platform upon which to build another Internet...the OuterInternet... As you can see, I am not advocating change for those people that have little ability or interest in changing...for people that use IPv8 from day one, they will of course not see "change"... ...consider the Windows 95 user that would not change to Windows 3.11 (or DOS)...they just move on...some follow and some do not... ...that is the nature of the computer and telecommunications industry...things are always changing...I do not see that changing... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

4 3

Re: PHILOS. of NANOG
by Sean Doran 27 May '96

27 May '96

The latest Bassogram said: >discussing network operations *only* >for the sake of *network operations* has little merit On the contrary, anyone taking even the most cursory look at the May NANOG agenda will immediately note that there is a *great deal* of MERIT involved. Sean.

1 0

Re: PHILOS. of NANOG
by Ehud Gavron 27 May '96

27 May '96

>A little Network Operations Contemplation (NOC ;-) >This thread applies directly to NANOG, but just as easily apply to >any number of occupations or organizations associated with a service >or occupation. (i'll keep it kinda' short) I think someone else has already made the S/N ratio comment. Can this list be moderated? Ehud p.s. Anyone wishing to code/test netbsd traceroute lsrr, please inquire within.

1 0

PHILOS. of NANOG
by Tim Bass 27 May '96

27 May '96

A little Network Operations Contemplation (NOC ;-) This thread applies directly to NANOG, but just as easily apply to any number of occupations or organizations associated with a service or occupation. (i'll keep it kinda' short) The question is "What is the ultimate aim of NANOG"? That is *easy* some may say, just read the charter and it says to the effect "discuss matters related to North American Network Operations"! Yet to provide discourse on the aim of NANOG, it is prudent to discuss the aim or goal of Network Operations by asking the local next question: "What is the goal or final aim of Network Operations?" Before answering, it is simpler to ask another series of questions and to answer them in kind as to avoid disagreement. Q. "What is the goal or aim of a Flutist?" A. "To play the flute." Q. "And what is the goal or aim of a Good Flutist?" A. "To play the flute well." Q. But, is playing the flute an end or an intermediate action for some other aim or causal result? A. Yes, of course, we can all see! Playing the flute well makes the flutist happy and makes the listeners whom enjoy the harmonies of the flutist happy. Q. Therefore, is happiness a transitory state to another state!? A. No, according to all accepted philosophy, (especially Greek, BTW) happiness is the ultimate goal, aim, purpose of human existence. I hope you agree! (Of course, there are many paths to happiness!) Conclusion.... Back to NANOG..... it is rational and prudent to state that the ultimate goal or aim of NANOG is to provide for the happiness of network users and by providing good services that make the users happy; the network operators will be happy as well and will have achieved an end if the users are happy with the service. Hence, I remind NANOG that, discussing network operations *only* for the sake of *network operations* has little merit. All aspects of network operations are, in principle, to provide for the happiness and satisfaction of the end user of the service. The path to providing this service is not narrowly focused, however, as *some* would like NANOG to think. Nor is the focus on promoting the individual agenda items of NANOG causal to bringing 'bliss' to the end user. It may be temperate to think; "What is he/she really saying and how does that effect the ultimate goal of network operations, which is the happiness of the end user of these IP networks?" BTW, it *would* be in the best interest of all end users if all devices (read RA) at NAPS were multihomed with on-line backups. If an organization if funding these "experiments" I suggest that they: (a) specify that the "experiments" are not to be used for operations; or (b) provide proper funding to establish a reliable NAP RA architecuture. Sounds reasonable, don't you think? Tim ---- And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. -Roger Waters

2 1

Re: RFC 1597
by Sean Doran 27 May '96

27 May '96

bill manning asked: > Now why would 1239 advertize well known private > address space? Because nobody around here got around to preventing the readvertisement of those addresses. Now fixed in the configs. Sean.

1 0