September 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Ameritech Service Quality Report
by Sean Donelan 06 Sep '00

06 Sep '00

The Michigan Public Service Commission has launched an investigation into Ameritech's service quality. According to Ameritech, in August the estimated average repair time will be 115 hours (almost 5 days). Significantly up over previous years' average repair times of about a day (25-28 hours). http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/comm/ameritech.htm What I find interesting isn't Ameritech's long repair times, but how do providers promise 4 hour repair times when the dominant local loop provider takes over a day to fix something on a good day.

15 17

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Ben Ryan 06 Sep '00

06 Sep '00

> -----Original Message----- > From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2000 11:19 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting > > > > Bennett; > > > > Same goes for ftp as far as I know. > > > > ftp can't be name-virtual-hosted. It is also such a wretched > > protocol that it urgently needs to be retired in all settings for > > all purposes. > > > The only real excuse I'd argue for keeping IP virtual hosts is > > Excuse? Why? > > I'm afraid some of you, including ARIN, are assuming, that IPv4 > address space will last forever, if ARIN allocate the space > cautiously. > > But, IPv4 address space will be used up, sooner or later certainly > before anonymous ftp become obsoleted and, perhaps, a lot sooner > than most of you expect and > > Note that there is no requirement to preserve IPv4 address > space forever > and the only requirement is to preserve IPv4 address space > until we are > ready for IPv6. > > However, the effort not to allocate enough IPv4 address space to > satisfy ISP requirements make name virtual hosts and NAT popular, > which, then, let people think IPv4 address space last forever, > which motivate ISPs delay the deployment of IPv6. > > So, when we really use up the IPv4 address space, ISPs will not > be ready for IPv6. > > The only reasonable solution for the problem, it seems to me, > is to assign a lot of IPv4 address space to good ISPs (good > means various things including that they are ready for IPv6) and > let all the ISPs realize the space will be used up soon. > I feel compelled to comment on this issue, there seems to be a lot of discussion on IP resourcing. Much of which I propose is obsolete. If you're interested in other views regarding not how we allocate remaining space, but how we DETERMINE how much space is REMAINING in our finite IP real estate, take a quick look. (btw, there is a lot of good sense in Masataka's opinion with regard to IPv6 takeup, but that's not what I am dealing with here so consider that viewpoint to be supplemental...) HOW IS 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 DIVIDED UP CURRENTLY? WHAT DO WE HAVE TO PLAY WITH? (RFC1917) (heh these figures are very vague and are not authoritative up to the minute stats, but for current info, ask an expert where to find the info - that's not me, btw :)) 25% of the Class A address space remains unallocated (Class A is 50% of total IPv4 address space) ~25% of Class B remains unallocated (25% of total IPv4 space) ~70% of Class C remains unallocated (class C is ~12% of IPv4 space) ~50% of Class D is 'reserved' for 'future applications', whatever that means (6.25% total IPv4 addresses) RESERVED SPACE: Sort of like half filling the car's fuel tank, *just in case* there's a cheaper fuel servo down the road... We have huge reserves of "reserved" space. It is naive to say they will never be used, but there are bigger issues at stake here than some academic atruistic plans to leave enough empty space to readdress the whole internet if it becomes technically necessary (or whatever other contingencies such a large 'reserved' space could be necessary). Anybody in the numbering authorities actually understand that the addresses are there to be used? While growth is incredibly strong, with a sensible management policy IP utilization can be nicely balanced off against customer need and convenience - everybody's happy, and we don't need to bitch to our software companies that X address-minimsation technique with the mail server/ftp server/web server doesn't work properly, etc etc etc. UNALLOCATED SPACE: Panicking that one has only 1/2 tank left, and hell, they're still 10 minutes away from their destination.. Quick! Turn the engine off down hills, pump the tyres up to reduce rolling resistance, throw a few kids out, etc :) Come on. IPv6 is rolling out quite well AFAIK, and while it will still be some time before it becomes the default addressing scheme for new services, take a look at the unallocated IPv4 space we have to play with in the meantime. That's not to say we should return to the bad old days of throwing a /16 at anything that moved - on the contrary, now that we're all used to it and there aren't any real technical issues remaining unsolved, CIDR/VLSM is an essential part of good IP strategy and is a requirement to maximise addressing efficiency without causing undue pain to engineers/customers. GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes. IPv4 *will* be exhausted, someday. No, IPv6 isn't yet the default addressing method. Yes, growth in IP allocation is still enormous, and shows no sign of slowing. But to those predicting doom and gloom, you're being shortsighted. Think laterally - yes, according to our current IP plan, we will be in trouble soon if orgs like ARIN don't implement draconian addressing guidelines. But step back and look at the big IP picture. Sure, we might be looking shaky with the way we've divided up the whole space 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255. But by using common sense and remaining compatible with current reservations and planning for "likely" reserved requirements, we can increase the available space by a relatively HUGE amount. While this doesn't mean we can go back to the wasteful ways we were used to, with our current smart addressing guidelines we can maximise () Customer flexibility () Simplicity - virtual means more complex, means more variables = less reliable () Money - it's a lot easier to throw an IP at a site, set up an FTP on that IP and bind the mail server to it than to go thru the virtual rigmarole.. "err, you have to put this special, non-standard username to access this site etc" () Management - managing sites by discrete IP address is a whole lot easier from many points of view () Security - Ever tried to implement IP ACL's via Host Headers? Didn't think so... It's quite possible I have missed a whole lot of the picture here in terms of reservations - I don't claim to be a large-scale network engineer, nor am I always involved with the latest technologies. But from my understanding, much of what is reserved is a "what-if" reservation, and that which remains unallocated is just that - unallocated. Please let me know if I have made any grave technical errors in assumptions, understanding or expression. But if it's the opinion you disagree with, that's what the whole idea was - to challenge conventional wisdom on how we allocate the (finite) space we have. thanks for your time, all in all, just $0.02. regards ben ________.-~-.________ Ben Ryan Network Engineer Kiandra Systems Solutions Pty Ltd Level 9, 455 Bourke Street Melbourne, Vic. 3000 Australia Cellphone - +61-(0)417-502-061 Work - +61-(0)3-9600-1639 Fax - +61-(0)3-9600-1656 email: - ben(a)kiandra.com URL: - www.kiandra.com FOOTNOTE: Refer RFC2036, Observations on Class A Utilisation RFC1917, Appeal to greedy companies hogging unused address space RFC1466, IP Management guidelines (Other RFC's relevant, I'd be preaching to the converted telling nanog what a great resource they are, but if you haven't given them much attention, take a stroll - http://www.rfc-editor.org/ )

2 1

mae-east atm latency
by Leo Bicknell 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

A couple of times over the weekend I did some diagnosis of problems across mae-east ATM. Each case consisted of brief periods of high latency (200-400ms) across the fabric. This seemed to affect multiple, but not all providers at the same time. Has anyone else seen this sort of thing lately? I can't see anything wrong with all the tests I've done other then latency. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

3 3

PI or PA?
by Ray Davis 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

A customer needs a /24 which is to be announced by us and other ASes (including uunet). Should we just give them a /24 out of our space or would it be better to apply for a /24 PI space? Thanks, Ray

2 1

Sidgmore to Join MicroStrategy
by Mohamed Hirse 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

FYI, I guess this means UUNET will finally be devoured by WorldCom. Those of you interested, the following link has the full press release by MicroStrategy. http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/000905/n0428432.html Mo

2 1

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by Randy Bush 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

>>> * The IETF makes the standards (for good or ill) and the quality of those >>> standards, and, indeed, the decision about what to standardize has an >>> impact on operations. By attending, you can help avoid disasterous >>> standards and help shape useful ones. >> >> my candidate of the season is rfc 2547,mpls vpns. consider what it will >> do to your bgp table and the load on the PEs when you have say 100k vpns. >> and we have customers who want over 1k vpns each. > > Sorry to get off the subject, but to answer your question wrt > "what it will do to your bgp table and the load on the PEs" > please (re)read section 15 of draft-rosen-rfc2547bis-02.txt. no problem. scalability just might be of interest to providers. i am far from convinced that route reflectors will be sufficient. in a few years, just about every dedicated customer will want multiple vpns, some will want many, and most vpns will cross inter-provider boundaries. the root mis-design here is that it is telco-style, putting the complexity in the core network. this means the core bears the burden of scaling. the internet style, smart edges and simple core, scales sooooo much better. hence my mention of ipsec. but mpls vpns will sure sell hardware. randy

1 0

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by Sean Donelan 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

On Mon, 04 September 2000, smd(a)clock.org wrote: > The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between > the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who > have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too. I think its great some organizations allow/encourage its employees to participate in activites such as the IETF. However, there is a postive feedback loop. What is the return on investment of an operator sending folks to the IETF? Most major operators already get private presentations and submit individual requirements to the vendors to incorporate in their products. If UUNET needs some operational feature in a protocol, they call up their Cisco engineer and say jump. Presto, in the next release train, feature X shows up. Who needs rough consensus? I think the IETF is valuable, but what do you tell investors when they ask what's in it for them?

6 5

Request for assistance
by John Smaling 05 Sep '00

05 Sep '00

-- This is not intended to be SPAM, but a legitimate request for advice. An organization I work for, holds a registered full class 'B' address range. Since we are moving to an RFC 1918 based addressing scheme, we are looking to "sell" the rights to utilize our class 'B'. Having no experience with this, I can only assume that perhaps a secondary tier ISP may have an interest in this, but I have no idea where to begin, or if this has value at all. Can someone provide me with some advice relative to what types of organizations might be interested in such a purchase, who they might be, and any other pertinent information. I'm aware that ARIN provides this type of thing for a price, that they publish on their Web site. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not looking for buyers through this forum, but advice on how I might go about pursuing this. end

6 7

Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
by smd＠clock.org 04 Sep '00

04 Sep '00

| I don't know | if operators are finding the IETF less useful The IETF has at least since CIDRD not really been on the best of terms with operators. It is very clear that there is essentially no conversation happening between operators and the IPNGWG, for example, and there are other working groups which are nearly as out-of-touch with operators' realities. Moreover, the IESG and the IAB have generally also been bereft of much operator input. Volunteering for NOMCOMM and making sure operators have a chance to influence the selection of the IESG and IAB may help bring at least those bodies half a clue, and ideally help make the IETF a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect". The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too. Sean.

3 2

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting (fwd)
by Brandon Ross 04 Sep '00

04 Sep '00

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 owen(a)exodus.net wrote: > This makes the assumption that it is in the best interests of the internet > for only profitable or business organizations to control the address space, > and that the almighty (insert your favorite currency) is directly tied > to the common good. That is the assumption. While certainly not perfect, it's a much better assumption than [insert your favorite government or government like institution here] knows what's good for you or your organization better than you do. > This assumption is false. Capitalism suffers from a similar derivation of > the root problem of socialism. In socialism, there is little or no > incentive to achieve, thus productivity suffers. In capitalism, there > is lots of incentive, but nothing ties that incentive to the common > good or a long-term perspective. Thus, you end up with things like > the polution in TX, supposed environmental groups killing fish to > keep them on the endangered list, etc. I currently provide free services > to a number of non-profit organizations. I would not be able to afford > to do that if my address space were commodotized. So you are saying that I and thousands of other organizations around the world should be forced to provide you resources whether or not they agree with your opinions, goals, or mission? If your for-free services are so compelling, surely you wouldn't have any problem getting contributions without resorting to governmental style force. > The Internet is not a business. The Internet is a tool used by and provided > by several businesses and other non-business organizations. Wrong. There is no "Internet". There are only hundreds of organizations connected together under various arrangements to create a large interconnected infrastructure. A vast majority of those organizations are for-profit businesses. > Many other resources are not simply traded on the open market either. > In fact, government rationing of scarce resources is hardly a new thing. So since it has been proven not to work, we should continue to do it because we fear change? Brandon Ross 404-522-5400 EVP Engineering, NetRail http://www.netrail.net AIM: BrandonNR ICQ: 2269442 Read RFC 2644!

1 0