May 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RFC for common shared IP for easy roaming
by Paul Mansfield 19 May '98

19 May '98

I've begun a mailing list here for this, picked out all names which were interested in pooling ideas and/or reviewing it all. I think its clear that there is a need for something simple, effective, and easy for ISPs to do before IPv6/v8 and other auto-DNS over PPP etc are available. Briefly, ideas so far are to have a fixed nameserver in the "swamp" of IPs, and then have hosts like relay.mail.local and so on, as well as to pre-allocated IPs for common standard services. I'll gladly accumulate ideas until all interested parties have "registered". Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***

1 0

Re: renumbering and roaming
by Paul Mansfield 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Daniel Reed wrote: > ) Nah, good idea, but too many useful services with port numbers > 255, so I think this seems nice, but gets complex, and as said breaks things, although you could use the full range of a /16. However, we'd really want TWO of everything, on different networks if possible to give resilience, hence why I proposed x.y.z.2 -> resolver x.y.z-1.2 -> resolver Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***

1 0

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Michael K. Smith 19 May '98

19 May '98

Michael Dillon said on 5/17/98 6:13 AM >On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > >> agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades >> itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account. > >I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they >tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that >they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space. > >I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a >renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't >remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember >hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business >because of renumbering. > We have renumbered out of two /20's and 2 /19's and, although we haven't lost any dedicated customers, our time investment in the process has been unreal. In several instances we had to go onsite and do the renumbering for them. Of course, the first time you go onsite, the tech guy isn't there, so that's half a day for two people lost. Then, the next time you go, he doesn't have the passwords to the server, so you have to come back again... And, because this is something we are requiring them to do, we can't charge them for it. Let's not forget to mention the 10,000 dialup customers who have to change their DNS numbers. We have sent snail-mail and e-mail over and over again, yet only about 1/3 of that 10k have actually made the change away from the old numbers. How many of those customers do you think we'll lose when we officially turn off the old ip's? Mike Michael K. Smith Senior Network Administrator - Northwest Link http://www.nwlink.com mksmith(a)nwlink.com 1-800-390-1270 Extension 103

14 23

Laptop console
by Pete Ashdown 18 May '98

18 May '98

>(Of course neither of these is a substitute for doing the telnet from >your trusted laptop) Speaking of, does anyone have a recommendation for a simple VT100 capable laptop? I currently use this PowerBook 5500 which takes forever to boot and currently has a bad battery that goes to sleep all the time. 99% of the time I'm using it, I'm using it in Z-Term. I wish there was a laptop with a nice keyboard that did just serial terminal access.

10 9

RE: DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like
by Chad Skidmore 18 May '98

18 May '98

The TTC T-Berd 224 would be a good choice for DS1 testing. The T-Berd 310 is a similar unit for DS3 level testing. The TTC units have several different software options that you may or may not need (ISDN, various loop codes, etc). The price is often times higher than $3-$6k. You can plan on spending $10k or more for a well configured test set. --------------------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. http://www.nwnexus.com 1-888-NWNEXUS > -----Original Message----- > From: Marko Bukvic [mailto:marko@pfmc.net] > Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 2:53 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like > > > Can anyone recommend DS1 diagnostic equipment? Something > similar to what the LEC > would use when you ask them to test the line.. I am aware > that these units > range around $3K-$6K each and that you would want to get 2 of them. > > Thanks. > > Marko Bukvic > marko(a)pfmc.net >

2 1

RE: renumbering and roaming
by pflores＠wcg.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In message <19980518135928.37530(a)mcs.net>, Karl Denninger writes: > > >> After several discussions, we came up with this solution > that we think > >> works well to support standard services for roaming users: > >> > >> Support a .local. root domain in your DNS servers. Examples of DNS > >> hostnames would be mail.local., ntp.local., news.local., > etc. When a > >> roamer dials up he generally uses the DNS servers assigned > by the NAS; > >> these addresses would be authoritative on a provider-by-provider > >> basis. If all networks supported this schema all users > could simply > >> have these addresses coded into their client software and would > >> connect to the proper machines as they differ on various networks. > >> > >> iPass is currently building an Internet-Draft specifying > the details > >> of this approach. What do you think? > > >That doesn't work; too many of those things must be > hard-coded numbers > >(specifically, the DNS servers). > > What has to be hard-coded besides the DNS servers? Once you have a > DNS server assigned (which is typically done by the NAS anyway) the > rest is simple. Ass-umeing (never ass-ume, right) that the NAS supports the LCP extensions. > > In our experience, well over 90% of roaming users (which > excludes UNIX > and Mac users) use dynamically-assigned DNS servers. Clearly this > approach won't work for those clients that don't support the LCP > extensions, but we consider this "Best Current Practice." Okay, that is reasonable. Why not take the extra step of reserving some 'internal' IP space, and make it work with 100% of the clients? > Those > clients that can't use dynamic DNS server assignment will have to use > the home ISP's services. Combine a non-advertised, reserved subnet with the .local TLD. (I might point out, that clients not using the the local .local assignments, will get the 'home ISPs' services addresses. I am not quite sure if you meant all their services or just DNS, but that is an important distinction to make here) I would also point out that ANY failure of the local DNS would render everything useless to the roamer. If you had a combination of both, you could actually put the hardwired IPs/ .local domains in a host file on the roamer's machine. You would sacrifice some flexibility, but would probably solve a few nagging details this way. (on second thought, this is probably not such a good idea... :> ) > We consider it important to make sure as many NASes and PPP clients as > possible support dynamic DNS. About the only major obstacle to that > is OT/PPP (MacOS) and, to a lesser degree, UNIX. > > >.LOCAL along with defined addresses, declared as > "non-routable" (ie: local > >only) *DOES* do the trick. > > Routability and IP address definitions are secondary to the problem > we're discussing here--the ability for roamers to use local services > provided by the POP provider. Exactly. Why does it matter if you use DNS, private IP space, or a combination of both. IMHO, both provides the most flexibility. > Let DNS do the work for you. I don't > see the need to force IP assignments on the Internet community. Force? I don't think force is the word. No one forces people to use reserved IP space for their private networks. To me, this is simply an extension to 1918, with the addition of some very sensible service layer options for Service Providers. Paul Flores Williams -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNWCkd71al1suqRKtEQLLHwCdGyvWzGRTDepkJvnQ4MFKCQSFjggAoI1H 7onUFl+f5cSU/MrbFL158t/q =yEDK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NANOG and ARIN
by Jim Fleming 18 May '98

18 May '98

How come all of these discussions about ARIN are not on the ARIN mailing list(s) ? Could it be because some of the ARIN mailing lists are not available to the public ? Why is that...? Or...Is it because these are really IANA discussions and there is not a public IANA discussion list ? Will that be one of the first things that the new IANA Inc. does...??...(i.e. create an open discussion list)... === By the way...since there appears to be interest from NANOG members in these topics....here is my 2 cents... 1. People have been suggesting for years that /19 allocations should be easy to get and totally free of subjective decision making. I and others have suggested that TWO signed affidavits from upstream providers that will be providing the ISP with at least DS1 connections should be all that is required to obtain the allocation. If the ISP goes out of business, the registry gets to recover a larger block that can be easily recycled. Having many different sizes costs more in administrative costs and requires companies like ARIN to spend more money and therefore charge more. 2. It should be clear to everyone that the IPv4 address space is a mess and the IPv4 core transport network will eventually be replaced. There are a variety of strategies for how to do this. Which protocol is used is not the major issue. The Address Management Plan is more critical. The IPv4 plan is the result of years of strife, there is no IPv6 plan, and the IPv8 plan is oriented toward the ideas that some NANOG members have expressed here about NAT and RFC 1918 10.x.x.x networks behind proxy/firewalls. It is encouraging to see that NANOG members are moving in that direction. It is a shame they are being forced there because the IPv4 policies are so onerous and biased toward large telcos, ISPs and the regional registries like ARIN, RIPE and APNIC who are taxing everyone with millions of dollars in fees for a very minimal service. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

3 2

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 18 May '98

18 May '98

> > agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades > > itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account. > > I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they > tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that > they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space. > > I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a > renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't > remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember > hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business > because of renumbering. > The example above is realistic, and they go to the next provider saying "we know we have to renumber this time, but we want space we won't have to ever renumber again." Guess what.... There are some larger providers out there that can (and do) accomodate this type of customer. As a result, smaller providers are on the losing end of this. It's real. Owen

1 0

ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Mark D. Nagel 18 May '98

18 May '98

One of our customers was recently allocated a /20 netblock from ARIN. I had just been ass-u-ming it was a /19 until I cross-checked our announcement update with the request from the customer. Is this a change in policy (I thought they only allocated /19 or bigger) or did I miss something? If the former, are NSPs like Sprint planning to update filters to route these new smaller blocks? Mark -- Mark D. Nagel <nagel(a)intelenet.net>, CCIE #3177 in|tele|net communications; 18101 Von Karman Ave, St 550; Irvine, CA 92612 949/851-8250, 949/851-1088 FAX, http://www.intelenet.net/ Cisco Systems Silver Certified Partner

12 20

cpu impact of netflow export ?
by Dave Curado 18 May '98

18 May '98

Does anyone have any data points they'd share regarding the impact of netflow export on cpu load? I'd like to capture all of my netflow stats, but I'm worried about scalability. Thanks, davec

2 1