June 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

BBN's class As [was RE: Address allocation stats]
by Kent W. England 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

At 10:15 AM 6/7/96 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: >I couldn't help but notice how much address space BBN has: > >>4 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (SATNET) >>8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBNCCNET), listed as "temp" since 1992 >>46 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) > >It would be nice if they (BBN-Planet) would renumber into a much smaller >block. As one of their customers who renumbered to get a larger block, I >find it hypocritical that they are asking their customers to renumber when >they have not done it themselves. > >Bob > Perhaps BBN is waiting for the Internet Draft <draft-ietf-cidrd-mktbased-alloc-00.txt> to become an RFC. [Come to PIARA BOF at IETF to discuss.] If so, these As could be worth millions of $. Best to let them alone for now. --Kent

1 0

RE: Address allocation stats
by hinden＠ipsilon.com 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

I couldn't help but notice how much address space BBN has: >4 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (SATNET) >8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBNCCNET), listed as "temp" since 1992 >46 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) It would be nice if they (BBN-Planet) would renumber into a much smaller block. As one of their customers who renumbered to get a larger block, I find it hypocritical that they are asking their customers to renumber when they have not done it themselves. Bob

4 3

Better Late than never
by bmanning＠isi.edu 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

Hi, I've finally updated the exchange point pages again. New sites are: St.Louis Mo. USA Israel Singapore I received a list of providers in Colombia and there are a bunch of hyperactive ISPs in Metro Manila who might soon have the MM-MAP operational. As always, if you know of an operational exchange, either public or private, that would like to be added to these pages, let me know. http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/naps.html -- bill

1 0

A third lawsuit against NSI by a domain name owner to save its domain name
by Carl Oppedahl 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

NSI has stated that its July 1995 domain name policy was designed to avoid getting sued. It is thus of interest to see a third case in which NSI wrote to a domain name owner saying that their domain name would get cut off in 30 days, and in which the domain name owner says it wasn't infringing anybody's trademarks (which is of course no defense under the present NSI policy), and finds itself with no choice but to sue NSI to avert loss of the domain name. First lawsuit - Roadrunner v. NSI background at: http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht complaint at: http://www.patents.com/nsicpt1.sht Second lawsuit - DCI v. DCI and NSI background at: http://www.patents.com/dci/dci.sht complaint at: http://infolawalert.com/source/src061496_dc_complaint.html Third lawsuit - Giacalone v. NSI et al. complaint at: http://zeus.bna.com/e-law/cases/giac.html --- Carl Oppedahl, oppedahl(a)patents.com Oppedahl & Larson, patent law firm http://www.patents.com/ is a web server with frequently asked questions and answers on patent law and other intellectual property subjects

1 0

Routing Statistics
by Justin W. Newton 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

At 09:49 AM 6/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > I went to NANOG meeting in Wash. DC a couple of weeks ago . > It didn't specifically address these issues , but there > was a presentation with following in-depth :) class on > peering with RS at MAEs/NAPs.Also lots of interesting stuff > were delivered by Merit ppl ( such as BGP peering stats etc). > The whole thing in general was very useful. > > Rashid I am still somewhat curious as to why exactly withdrawls are sent out for routes that aren't announced. I know its according to spec, but /why/ is it speced that way. It seems to me that the spec states that you should withdraw routes which you do not announce then we may want to base route instability only on the number of announcements you send and /not/ on the number of withdrawls (as you are not creating instability by announcing withdrawls which are passed on to you, only redistributing it). In my somewhat less than humble opinion having a large number of withdrawls, but not a large number of announcements only means that you are exceedingly well connected and are hearing routes from just about everyone and are therefore are passing on all of their routing instabilities. Justin "I hope that was coherent" Newton Justin Newton Internet Architect Erol's Internet Services

1 0

Re: Routing Tutorial - Just Wondering
by Christian Nielsen 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Is there anything you'd like the InterNIC to speak on? If so, let Maybe speak on the future of IPs... Let ISPs know why they NEED to SWIP. > > If there were to be a two day routing/peering tutorial for sysadmins here > > in D.C. With say, a twelve router MAE model, a frame relay simulator, > > presentations by a couple of smaller "big" guys (i.e. not MCI, Sprint, or > > UUnet, etc...), how many would be interested? Oh yeah, free (lunch included). Sounds cool. I would like to go, even us from the old west. Why not do it with Nanog... Christian Nielsen Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen(a)vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953 Private Email - Christian(a)Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen(a)one.dot PS :)

2 1

RE: Address allocation stats
by Joel M Snyder, bucket o' bits 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

Although the 0-127 nets are allocated 100%, they are hardly heavily used. The table I made up here is a few months old, but I suspect there has been little change. In fact, only about 1/3 of the available space is assigned from this range. 3 General Electric Company 4 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (SATNET) 6 Army (YUMA-NET) 8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBNCCNET), listed as "temp" since 1992 9 IBM Corporation 11 DoD Intel Information Systems 12 AT&T Bell Laboratories 13 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 14 Public Data Network 15 Hewlett-Packard Company 16 Digital Equipment Corporation 17 Apple Computer Incorporated 18 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 19 Ford Motor Company 20 Computer Sciences Corporation 21 DDN-RVN (Army, not US) 22 Defense Information Systems Agency 24 Being partitioned; 24.0 -> 24.3 "@Home" 25 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 26 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) 28 DSI-North 29 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) 30 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) 32 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) 33 DLA Systems Automation Center 34 Halliburton Company 35 MERIT Computer Network 36 Stanford University 38 Performance Systems International 40 Eli Lilly and Company 43 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) 44 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) 45 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) 46 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) 47 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) 48 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49 Joint Tactical Command, Control, and Communications Agency (NET-JITCNET1) 50 Joint Tactical Command, Control, and Communications Agency (NET-JITCNET2) 51 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) 52 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) 53 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) (Deutches Bundespost?) 54 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) 55 Boeing Computer Services, RCAS 56 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) 57 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques 1 Reserved 2 Reserved 5 Reserved 7 Reserved 10 Reserved 23 Reserved 27 Reserved 31 Reserved 37 Reserved 39 Reserved 41 Reserved 42 Reserved 58 through 126 Reserved 0, 127 Reserved by RFC1812; cannot ever be used jms Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One

2 1

Re: Routing Tutorial - Just Wondering
by malice＠epix.net 10 Jun '96

10 Jun '96

Reply-to: inet-access(a)earth.com Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:54:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen(a)vii.com> To: inet-access(a)earth.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Routing Tutorial - Just Wondering On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Is there anything you'd like the InterNIC to speak on? If so, let Maybe speak on the future of IPs... Let ISPs know why they NEED to SWIP. > > If there were to be a two day routing/peering tutorial for sysadmins here > > in D.C. With say, a twelve router MAE model, a frame relay simulator, > > presentations by a couple of smaller "big" guys (i.e. not MCI, Sprint, or > > UUnet, etc...), how many would be interested? Oh yeah, free (lunch included). I would also be interested in attending.. Please let me know details

1 0

Re: leakage of specifics of 204.70.0.0/16
by Eric Kozowski 08 Jun '96

08 Jun '96

>i am still trying to understand why this is causing so much of a problem, >possibly masking a second bug. but i would appreciate knowing how >widespread the leakage is. r1>sh ip bg 204.70.0.0 255.255.0.0 l BGP table version is 9494623, local router ID is 206.58.7.1 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 204.70.1.0 137.39.164.13 10 701 114 ? *> 137.39.164.9 20 701 114 ? * 204.70.23.0 137.39.164.13 10 701 114 278 4242 i *> 137.39.164.9 20 701 114 278 4242 i h 204.70.29.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 4200 4492 3463 ? h 137.39.164.9 10 701 4200 4492 3463 ? *> 204.70.107.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 1 5638 ? * 137.39.164.9 10 701 1 5638 ? *> 204.70.128.0/21 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4292 i * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4292 i * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4292 i *> 204.70.138.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4281 i * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4281 i * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4281 i *> 204.70.139.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4286 ? * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4286 ? * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4286 ? *> 204.70.140.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4286 ? Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4286 ? * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4286 ? *> 204.70.141.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4286 ? * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4286 ? * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4286 ? *> 204.70.142.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4286 ? * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4286 ? * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4286 ? *> 204.70.144.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4286 i * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4286 i * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4286 i *> 204.70.145.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4286 ? * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4286 ? * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4286 ? h 204.70.173.0 137.39.164.13 20 701 4200 4492 3463 ? h 137.39.164.9 10 701 4200 4492 3463 ? *> 204.70.240.0/20 137.39.164.13 20 701 3561 4292 i * 137.39.164.9 10 701 3561 4292 i * 208.131.0.5 20 5650 3561 4292 i -- 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

1 0

Re: leakage of specifics of 204.70.0.0/16
by Sean Donelan 08 Jun '96

08 Jun '96

>i am still trying to understand why this is causing so much of a problem, >possibly masking a second bug. but i would appreciate knowing how >widespread the leakage is. Yep, that one looks familar. I reported it to trouble(a)mci.net last October when I was setting up a MBONE tunnel with MCI. In the end it was easier to just filter those MCI internal networks on my side. My guess is it leaks across anyone talking to MCI with as-in: ANY, who doesn't agressively filter. I think this one falls into the catagory, trust, but verify. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1