June 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: RFC-1918, NATs and games
by David Bannister 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

At 03:50 PM 6/9/97 -0700, Justin W. Newton wrote: >At 04:24 PM 6/9/97 GMT, William Allen Simpson wrote: >>Speaking as the designer of the network portion of a couple of those >>popular games, the applications are _not_ broken. Sending the IP >>addresses is the only working method to dynamically join and redirect >>multiplayer games. > >This is getting off-topic, but is there any reason that src address in the >packet header doesn't work? Most (yes, all, I'm being silly) packets have >the src address set in the header, and it seems as if it would be a >reliable way to determine the uniqueness of a stream, seeing as that is how >this strange proprietary protocol named IP does it. What am I missing? > In the cases he is referring to addresses are passed at the application level from the client initiating the call. For example, here is a list of popular programs that pass addressing information at that level: ftp cuseeme irc real audio quake NAT can break these applications and special handling must be done to make them work. > > >Justin W. Newton >Senior Network Architect >Priori Networks http://www.priori.net >ISP/C, Director at Large http://www.ispc.org > > <<<This Space Intentionally Left Blank>>>

1 0

RE: NSP ... New Information
by Jim Fleming 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

On Monday, June 09, 1997 5:40 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob@academ.com] wrote: @ Jim, @ Do you have a reference on the FTC site that confirms your claim? @ @ I note that you cite a number of other references. I was wondering why you @ have not cited the one that contains the FTC announcment. @ @ -- @ Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com @ Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob @ Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. @ @ According to the people at the FTC meeting today, the DNS Notice of Inquiry will be issued in 1-2 weeks. I am sure that your input and the input of all NANOG members will be welcome. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

RA Whois
by Randy Bush 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

Sorry to insert operational content, but ... Is it a problem here, or is the RA whois server on holiday? randy

1 0

RFC-1918, NATs and games
by William Allen Simpson 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

Speaking as the designer of the network portion of a couple of those popular games, the applications are _not_ broken. Sending the IP addresses is the only working method to dynamically join and redirect multiplayer games. I'm reasonably familiar with DNS, DynDNS, and DHCP. :-) And the lack of deployment thereof. :-( And GreenDragon runs its own ISP (WaterValley.Net) which I built, so I'm extremely familiar with the operational side, too. ---- In general: I've checked passing the DNS name. I've experimented with a generic URL-style syntax. If both the forward and inverse DNS is not updated properly, then these methods fail to work. In my experience, they fail to work almost everywhere in the current Internet, including at such unimportant locations as Apple.Com. Very hard to get paid by the client, when they can't test the game at the vendor's main software platform testing site. ---- Specifically: The users should not need and do not want to enter their own DNS names. They must be dynamically discoverable from the inverse. Many inverses are not properly maintained. Worse, many inverse addresses at dial-up networks don't map to a unique DNS name that forward maps to a unique address. Until such maintenance is automatic and universal, there is no DNS name to pass. Thus, the address must be passed. Even if I included the DNS name in the discovery data, the DNS forward needs to be resolvable by the prospective peer on the other network. In my experience, RFC-1918 exterior forward DNS is not dynamically updated with the NAT translation address. Since DNS name passing won't work, and passing RFC-1918 addresses won't work, the result is that RFC-1918 sites simply don't work. ---- Conclusion: My advice is to never use RFC-1918 for connected networks. NAT was a terrible kludge. Demand DHCP with Secure Dynamic DNS from your vendors! > From: Joel Gallun <joel(a)wauug.erols.com> > On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Edward Fang wrote: > > This is all great and dandy, but then why does it appear that anybody with > > a cable modem this side of the sun are using static IP's. Granted that > > the Nic probably didn't allocate the current /8 (or the next one), but I > > don't see any (and didn't see any prior) 'investigation' to make dynamic > > allocation possible (or using RFC1918 addresses). Are they looking at > > DHCP or RFC1918 as a solution for their userbase ? > > > > We're doing cablemodems out of RFC1918 address space using PIXes in > several communities and it hasn't been fun. Many of the latest-n-greatest > network apps (games, video, voice, what have you) are broken by NAT. They > seem to like to transmit the client's address at the application layer. > This of course doesn't work, since the client's address is 10.x.x.x... > > You can dismiss this problem by saying the apps are broken (which they > are), but the simple fact is our customers want to use these apps. > > I'd recommend DHCP. In communities where we've used it, it has worked > fine and not caused any of the problems that NAT does. > 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

2 1

RE: NSP ... New Information
by sob＠academ.com 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

Jim, Do you have a reference on the FTC site that confirms your claim? I note that you cite a number of other references. I was wondering why you have not cited the one that contains the FTC announcment. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

RE: NSP ... New Information
by Jim Fleming 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

On Monday, June 09, 1997 3:13 AM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden@texoma.net] wrote: @ At 09:47 PM 6/8/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: <snip> @ @ >The one sure thing on the net is that the newbie influx is sufficient to @ >keep the majority of mailing list traffic repeating itself. @ @ Last year's answers to last year's problems are not necessarily the best @ answers to this year's problems given the current high rate of change. @ @ Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Larry, The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just announced that it will be starting a process to resolve the domain name issues. Evidently, they plan to start with a clean slate and of course their charters will guide their actions. Here are some excerpts... @@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/history1.htm "The Federal Trade Commission enforces a variety of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Commission seeks to ensure that the nation's markets function competitively, and are vigorous, efficient, and free of undue restrictions." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/bc/mission.htm "The FTC's antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition, seeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition. As a result, purchasers benefit from lower prices and greater availability of products and services." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Evidently, the FTC's actions are being applauded (literally) by many commercial Internet companies that realize that these actions are now necessary in light of the actions of some of the so-called, Internet leaders, during the past few years. I have a feeling that the FTC's activities will flow into all areas concerning the fair allocation of Internet resources. If you are not able to get the Internet resources you need, it is probably because you are talking to the wrong people. Keep in mind that there are many people who have no concern about the law and will run you in circles with beauracratic word games. Keep in mind that the InterNIC is "currently" managed by the U.S. Government via the National Science Foundation. If you are not getting the service you expect from the InterNIC you should contact the NSF. Here are some starting points. National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz(a)chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro(a)nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn(a)nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane(a)nsf.gov <http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/lane/quscipol.htm> Juris Hartmanis - jhartman(a)nsf.gov <http://www.cise.nsf.gov/oad/jhartman.html> George Strawn - gstrawn(a)nsf.gov <http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ncri/Georgehome.html> Don Mitchell - dmitchel(a)nsf.gov <http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ncri/Donhome.html> ======= -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

router monitor/configuration tool (fwd)
by Dave Scrivens 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

I was wondering about this myself, has anyone seen the Linmor NMS system. This system has been chosen by MCI after extensive evaluation of existing Network Management Systems to manage there ATM Hyperstream Network. This Network Management Provides several other interesting functions such as Object Oriented Class for an object. It also has a Web Page which can list all objects & the traffic statistics for each link. As well it can do the below. From it a QOS of service report can be generated indicating the health of of your Network. Reports on the Uptine of your BGP routing process as well as OSPF & EIGRP can be generated. It also has the ability to Monitor Unix machines & " Mission " critical processes such as NAMED or mail & News processes. You can actually get an indication that the memory on the Unix box is low & that is the problem. & Unlike HP Openview, Autodiscovery works very nicely on a large Network. Instead of crashing your Network, you get a pretty nice map infront of you. It is also a distributed system architecture where you can have multiple Data Collectors spread out through your Network talking to each other, exchaning information about the Health of the Network. & you can function in Hot Standby mode where if one of your Data Collectors goes down, another will take up the load. I have seen a SPARC IPC manage over 1500 Network Router Objects including including Cisco 7000's & Cisco 7513's. So even though this is alot for a little SPARC Server, it worked pretty good. It is not highly recommeneded to run your Network like this but as a test .... You can also run reports on your Network & figure out where your facilities such as the Memory on Core & Border Routers need to be upgraded or where you are running out of bandwidth & need to add more. As well, remote site customer management where the customer can be given an account to actually monitor his connection with his provider, from his provider, works good. A check for the customer to ensure that he is getting good service from his provider. & since you can get remote site access, you can actually get a Network Management Station from another site. This is a Really neat product, atleast from what I have seen. Has anyone else encountered it ? Anyway check it out ..... WWW.LINMOR.COM They have some really neat stuff.. thanks, Dave Scrivens, iSTAR Internet. > > based on a recent email about bgp peer monitoring and others over the > last few months, we thought this would be a good time to release a tool > called rtrmon (router monitor) that we've been working on with vixie > enterprises. > > please see: www.vix.com/rtrmon > > vixie enterprises provided the development expertise and based the design > on the needs of genuity initially. it's fairly generic and extensible. > currently it: > > - monitors bgp sessions and reports failures > - monitors cpu usage and reports failures > - monitors ospf neighbors > - downloads, diffs, and archives cisco configs > > it's all cisco oriented as that's our primary platform. we'll start a > mailing list soon for discussion (next week) but in the short interrim > please send mail to myself or danny mcpherson (danny(a)genuity.net) for > questions or problems. we'll have this hosted on our own web site(s) > sometime next week as well. enjoy. > > -brett >

1 0

Re: NSP ... New Information (really)
by Larry Vaden 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

At 11:39 AM 6/9/97 PDT, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >Load on the routing system could be reduced if you would take a block >of addresses from UUNET, and a block of addresses from ACSI, number >some of your customers out of the UUNET block, some of your customers >out of the ACSI block, and then use something along the lines of "auto >injection" (see draft-bates-multihoming-00.txt) to handle fallback >connectivity. > >Yakov. Yakov, thanks. I'll take your suggestion and ask Kim Hubbard if this meets the "no favored connection" guidelines. At 02:24 PM 6/9/97 CDT, Stan Barber wrote: >ftp://ftp.sesqui.net/pub/internet-drafts/draft-bates-multihoming-00.txt.Z >should get you a copy of this draft. SESQUINET maintains a mirror of >all Internet Drafts. >-- >Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com >Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob >Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. Stan, thanks for the URL, as well as for the sesqui.net news feed also. Regards, Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571

1 0

Re: NSP ... New Information
by Larry Vaden 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

At 01:55 PM 6/9/97 -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote: > >In message <3.0.1.32.19970608231642.00d49e1c(a)texoma.net>, Larry Vaden writes: >>At 10:54 PM 6/8/97 -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote: >>>This means that you should use renumbering technology as much as >>>possible, so that when you can justify a /19 you can get one, >>>until then, find an ISP that is multi-homes and can provide you >>>the IP addresses you need, and consider two connections to them, >>>giving you the benefit of being multi-homed without the cost of >>>the routers needed for full BGP, or needing to justify a /19. >> >>A quick question: >> >>What is the immediate utilization rate required for an ISP's first /19? >> >>Please provide a basis in RFC2050 et al relevant documents for your answer. > >The /19 is required to be utilized in 6 months, as part of slow start. >(Under Internic guidelines, under ARIN this could be changed.) >Check out www.arin.net, www.ripe.net, and www.apnic.net for the >indivdual registries polices. > >--- >Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry(a)fc.net >PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 >http://www.fc.net Jeremy, that's the way I read it also, but Kim Hubbard of InterNIC says an ISP applying for their first /19 must show 100% immediate utilization of a /19 to obtain one from InterNIC. I don't see the part of RFC2050 which supports Kim's interpretation, especially for a currently multi-homed ISP. Do you or others? Dr. Jon Postel has also been silent in regard to pointing out the authority for the 100% immediate utilization rate. Thanks, Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571

2 1

Re: NSP ... New Information
by Larry Vaden 09 Jun '97

09 Jun '97

At 11:39 AM 6/9/97 PDT, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >Larry, > >> Are you saying that a /19 wouldn't put less load on the _system_ than the >> current situation + another block? >> >> Our /23 and /21 are from UUNET, our primary provider. ACSI is secondary >> provider. >> >> Teach me (read: offer your constructive criticism). I'm willing to learn. >> > >Load on the routing system could be reduced if you would take a block >of addresses from UUNET, and a block of addresses from ACSI, number >some of your customers out of the UUNET block, some of your customers >out of the ACSI block, and then use something along the lines of "auto >injection" (see draft-bates-multihoming-00.txt) to handle fallback >connectivity. > >Yakov. Yakov, Thanks for the constructive input. I'll try to locate the full URL and we're interested in evaluating and following your suggestion. Will this meet the InterNIC guidelines of "no favored connection"? Regards, Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571

1 0