January 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 10 Jan '97

10 Jan '97

Apologies the brokeness of this weeks report. Fixed one to follow. --Tony Tony Bates <tbates(a)cisco.com> writes: * * This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jan 10 12:00:00 PST 1997 * It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully * you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look * through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you * perform. * [...the rest of stuff deleted...]

1 0

RE: Continental aggregation?
by Jim Fleming 10 Jan '97

10 Jan '97

On Friday, January 10, 1997 4:03 AM, Bradley Dunn[SMTP:bradley@dunn.org] wrote: @ On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote: @ @ > Bradley Dunn wrote: @ > > Is anyone currently aggregating at the continental boundary? @ > @ > Like, how? There isn't a single continent served by a only one provider, @ > with the possible exception of Antarctica. :) @ @ Each continent is served by only one registry, correct? @ It seems to me that there is a flaw in the way the IPv4 address space is viewed with respect to registries. Rather than try to decide what is an ISP or an upstream provider or for that matter a registry, would it not be easier to just agree that... "Anyone or any organiztion who has been allocated a continguous block of IPv4 addresses with at least 16 bits of variable bits is considered to be a *registry* for that block and all addresses in that block. Those addresses can be loaned or leased as that *registry* sees fit subject to the terms and conditions of any agreements that organization may have with one or more superior registries whom allocated the block from a larger continguous block." It seems to me that it is a historic fact and a historic mistake that IP addresses have been allocated to many types of organizations without those organizations understanding the *registry* duties that go with such an allocation. For example. companies that have been allocated a /8 should be encouraged to be registries for that /8 or to pass the block to a company that *is* willing to perform registry services for the block. Registry services consist of: Operation of a IN-ADDR.ARPA Name Server Maintenance of Global IN-ADDR.ARPA Records Registry to Registry Coordination Network Engineering Assistance Routing Agreement Negotiations General Clerical Matters of Registries Registry services have nothing to do with being an NSP, an ISP, an IAP, an IPP, a webmaster, a geek, a guru, or a god. If somehow, IPv4 addresses can be placed in the hands of *registries* then the Internet can get on with the business of cleaning up the address space. In many cases, the same organization that currently claims "ownership" of an IPv4 address block could be considered to be a registry, but there should be a recognition that the registry services are separate from the other missions and operations of the organization. Also, the block of IP addresses that more or less defines a registry, should stay with the registry. The registry can of course be sold or consolidated with a larger registry, but the registry function for that block could remain as an autonimous entity. As food for thought, I have included some notes on how registries can be organized in a hierarchy. Even though registries do not necessarily allocate on octet (byte) boundaries, they could be organized on those boundaries for administrative and revenue flow purposes. The following is only an example, for illustrative purposes. @@@@@@@@@@ IPv8 Registry Revenue Notes @@@@@@@@@@@@ IPv8 addresses are 43 bits. They are 11 (3+8) bits larger than an IPv4 address. This provides two levels of hierarchy above the IPv4 addresses. The 3 bit field is called the Galaxy ID. The 8 bit field is called the Stargate ID. IPv8 addresses with a 0:0:x.x.x.x format are converted IPv4 addresses. IPv4 packets can be viewed as IPv8 packets with an implied 0 in the Galaxy and Stargate fields. =================== 8 Galaxy Registries X:X:x.x.x.x 256 - Stargate Registries per Galaxy X:X:x.x.x.x 256 - Continental Registries per Stargate X:X:X.x.x.x 256 - Island Registries per Continent X:X:X.X.x.x Weighted Sum using double weights downstream 8+512+1024+2048 = 3592 Percentage Calculations 8/3592 = .002227 512/3592 = .142538 1024/3592 = .285077 2048/3592 = .570155 Revenue Percentages to Various Registries 57.0155% to Island Registry 28.5077% to Continental Registry 14.2538% to Stargate Registry 00.2227% to Galaxy Registry ======== EXAMPLE - Based on Lease Rate of $2 per IP Address per Year Typical Class C scenario 256 IP address x $2 - $512/year Gross Revenue from Customer $512 x 57.0155% = $291.919360 to Island Registry $512 x 28.5077% = $145.959424 to Continental Registry $512 x 14.2538% = $41.609601 to Stargate Registry $512 x 00.2227% = $1.14 to Galaxy Registry Theoretical Total Potential Gross Revenues Island Registries handle /16 allocations (16 bit address space to manage) $291.92 x 256 = $74,731.36 Gross Revenue for Island Registry Continental Registries handle /8 allocations (24 bit address space to manage) $145.96 x 65,536 = $9,565,634.56 Gross Revenue for Continental Registry Stargate Registries handle /0 allocations (32 bit address16 space to manage) $41.61 x 16,777,216 = $698,099,957.76 Gross Revenue to Stargate Registry Galaxy Registries handle /-8 allocations (40 bit address space to manage) $1.14 x 4,294,967,296 = $4,896,262,717.44 Gross Revenue to Galaxy Registry ============================================================= -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Attendee List
by Pam Ciesla 10 Jan '97

10 Jan '97

Has been updated. If you are not on the list and should be please contact me by e-mail or phone 313-936-0172. Thanks Pam

1 0

Continental aggregation?
by Bradley Dunn 10 Jan '97

10 Jan '97

Is anyone currently aggregating at the continental boundary? -BD

3 3

pre-NANOG road trip -- non-agenda, ignore if offended
by Vince Fuller 10 Jan '97

10 Jan '97

Are there any people heading out early for NANOG who might be interested in a road trip to Lake Tahoe on Saturday/Sunday the 8th/9th? If one leaves by about 5:30AM, it is possible to be on the slopes at Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows, Heavenly (etc.) by about 9-9:30... Please direct any and all followups to me, not to the list. --Vince

4 3

Re: Update on mail bombing threats--not so funny
by Vadim Antonov 09 Jan '97

09 Jan '97

Allan Chong <allan(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >One possible solution is just to have recourse after the fact. >If you as an ISP have their credit card/phone billing, and have >a policy that explicitly states that either.... >Even despite the inevitable chargebacks, many spammers would decide that >fighting with the credit card company isn't worth it. How are you proposing collecting any debts from a spammer in Brazilia? BTW, to be able collect such charges you _must_ be able to prove that the spammer have seen the price list. That is kind of hard to do when you don't have spammer's return address. Implied contracts have been commonly found non-binding by the courts (a typical example would be to open a cafe, wait when people walk in and then tell them "our admission fee is $100 -- please pay up, or we call police"). --vadim

1 0

Re: Update on mail bombing threats--not so funny
by Paul Ferguson 09 Jan '97

09 Jan '97

At 01:19 PM 1/9/97 -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote: > >The solution is source address filtering at edges, to relieve attackers >from the benefit of forged source addresses, and reverse lookup Yet another application for draft-ferguson-ingress-filtering-01.txt. :-) - paul >authentication in MTAs -- just do not accept any mail coming from an >invalid source address, or source address not corresponding to what >is in Sender, Reply-To or From field. >

1 0

NANOG Meeting Attendee List
by Pam Ciesla 09 Jan '97

09 Jan '97

Is available on the NANOG web page. If you are not on the list and should be please contact me. If you registered this afternoon it is possible your name was not added to the list and will be added the next time the list is updated. Alan Koenigsberg & Brian Tackett will be added at a later time. Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links
by Vadim Antonov 09 Jan '97

09 Jan '97

>> That may sound silly, but there's a merit in the >> idea that domain names can successfully replace the >> SNMP's object IDs. SNMP and DNS then become the same >> protocol. >Cool. I can now dream of a day when nslookup for a router returns something >lovely like: >1.3.6.1.2.1.11 >-dorian ;) Nah, that's when your network monitor sends query for an integer number RR to in-bytes.0.0.ethernet.interface.cisco0.san-jose.halter.net and when you type "mail postmaster(a)halter.net" you generate request to postmaster.mail.halter.net when you do "netscape http://halter.net/funpages-dir/funpage.html" then mozilla version 100219382973.117 retrieves html.funpage.funpages-dir.http.halter.net and when you do "cat //rodan.halter.net/mnt1/ftp/pub/junk/README" some global NFS opens file at README.junk.pub.ftp.mnt1.nfs.rodan.halter.net and when your command is "telnet rodan.halter.net" the DNS will get to login.rodan.halter.net. Note that all names are constructed using the simple rule: <application-specific part>.<service name>.<host name>.<domain> --vadim

5 5

Re: Spammer's Spotlite #1 (fwd)
by Cameo Wood 09 Jan '97

09 Jan '97

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:08:15 -0500 From: "Jeremy J. Olson" <olson(a)ici.net> Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: Re: Spammer's Spotlite #1 } >>Subject: Spammer's Spotlite #1 } >>From: Christopher Fenn <eyebeam(a)earthlink.net> } >>Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 18:45:38 +0100 } >> } >>First in a series! Collect them all! [snipping for brevity] } Unfortunately this spam was a forgery done for revenge by the real } spammer and the responses have caused Joe Doll to close his site. } } Be very careful of these inflammatory spams they are often forgeries } intended to cause real trouble for the person being forged. See: alt.lets.kill.yuri.rutman I recently saw this new NG pop up and posted asking who Yuri Rutman is. Someone wrote back saying he was the forger of the Joes.com (and another minoxidil <sp?> spam). Jeremy J. Olson <olson(a)ici.net> \ / http://www.ici.net/cust_pages/olson/olson.html U /O\ Mors ad Spammers!

1 0