March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:44 PM > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:20:55PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > ISP specific > > ...works reasonably well if you want to multihome w/ BGP, but cannot > honestly justify a provider-independent IP allocation as per registry > guidelines, assuming some level of common sense is exercised when > planning things. > > > CIDR swamps are not cool. > > Sorry I'm not an authority on what's cool in your book, but why not? Because you can't change your upstream and keep your net-block. 'tis the nature of CIDR, non? BTW, you are SERIOUSLY missing the point. Please pardon my clue-bat. > > It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a market > > differentiator. > > So, encourage the ARIN to offer micro-allocations today, and upstreams > to listen to /24 (or whatever) and shorter out of this space, if and > when it does become available. With the backing of MHSC, I'd imagine > such a task should be effortless. I was answering the point, that there was no particular advantage between one IP addr block and another. I was disproving that statement. Please learn to understand the difference between making a point and advocating a position. BTW, ARIN is perfectly willing to delegate portable /24's, they just won't do you any good because of route prefix filtering, at /20 or greater. This is one clue that you may be missing. Personally, I think there is a problem, but I'm the first one to admit that I may not have the ultimate answer. Extending prefixes to /24's may be AN answer. I wouldn't want to see it longer than that, however. That would be inefficient. Most sites that I work with are perfectly happy with a /24, but may not fit in a /25. Mind you, this does NOT include workstations. A /24 is a good sized data center. You might also catch the clue that, as folks migrate more to RAIC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers) configurations, they will swallow more IP addrs. When I can get a 100 node Linux cluster to do the job of a Sun e6500, for one-tenth the cost, I'll be more than happy to burn the IP addrs. Now, try and renumber/test/redeploy that mess in a day, or even a week. > > BTW, i've been getting comments that some folks are biasing > > evaluations of some clients, based on the ip addrs of the client's > > hosts. > > Oh my. I thought all one needed to be stylin' was a low AS number. > Do tell, which IP blocks are prestigious, and which are not? Actually, investor folk look at some of that for obvious (to everyone but you) reasons. Which co-los are being used, as well as how many of them, make a big statement on robustness. However, too many locations indicate wastage of funds. It also indicates access to bandwidth and scaleability.

2 1

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

We are now getting into areas that are better covered on their appropriate lists; www.icann.org www.dnso.org www.dnso.net www.open-rsc.org Notably, the DOMAIN-POLICY list, run by NSI, it the longest-lived of these and seems to be the central watering hole. Next is the DNSO General Assembly. I strongly encourage you ALL to get involved. If you want your views watered-down, you could buy into the constituency structure and have your representative speak for you (there is an ISP constituency). However, there is value in numbers and your rep can't do a good job on their own. The single biggest problem with the ICANN is the general lack of involvement, by folks that care. This is regardless of their views. -- ROELAND M.J. MEYER Managing Director Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. TEL: +001 925 373 3954 FAX: +001 925 373 9781 http://www.mhsc.com mailto: rmeyer(a)mhsc.com

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> > | Yup, it's all about capitalism, and nothing about technical correctness.*sigh* > > The long-term maximization of ROI requires technical correctness. > Unfortunately there is often alot of arbitrage by people with > very short-term goals. Sadly, some of the worst technologies are > the ones that get lots of short-term interest. > > Sean. > > In case you haven't noticed, today's capitalist is not interested in long term ROI. It's all about put bucks in, churn fast, get bucks out before anyone notices that it's not as good as the hype has everyone believing. That scenario is playing out over and over all over the market and is the source of many of the woes being blamed on day traders, etc. The reality is that the true capitalists, the ones with control of the majority of the capital love the day traders. They get to deliver an innuendo, then watch the day traders create all kinds of momentum behind said innuendo, and proffit from the market moving in the predictable direction as a result. These are the people that put up a lot of the money that went into the internet stocks before they got so high. They're also the ones that sold out early and have been shorting them for the last 6 months. Hopefully, someone will eventually find a way to force a long term ROI to be an important factor to the market makers, but right now, the quick buck reigns supreme, at least in the US markets. This has been to the detriment of society in general, IMHO. Owen

1 0

Re: Reality Check
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 03:07:30PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > The same way people have learned to make sure that a search for "Anna > > Kournikova" (for instance) returns, say, 200 records that are sites/pages > > that have nothing whatever to do with Anna Kournikova, and a whole LOT to do > > with bringing in cash to the sites in question. > > This is self-defeating in the end; if your search site doesn't work, people > will stop using it. > Yes, but it's not the search engines that do it. It's the web sites that have learned how to put stuff in the view of the crawlers the search engines use that will show up when someone is looking for unrelated content. Since they do this in such a way that virtually EVERY search engine finds their bogus content, they don't care how many search engines go out of business, they'll just afflict the next one to come up. > If they stop using it, the advertising dollars will stop rolling in. > > Thus, it's in the best interest of the owner of the search site to fix > the problem. Hence why people are flocking to the latest best technology > they can find, such as Google. > Google is not immune to this, althoug it is better than some. Owen

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:00 AM > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 smd(a)clock.org wrote: > > | Yup, it's all about capitalism, and nothing about > technical correctness.*sigh* > > > > The long-term maximization of ROI requires technical correctness. > > Unfortunately there is often alot of arbitrage by people with > > very short-term goals. Sadly, some of the worst technologies are > > the ones that get lots of short-term interest. > > > Slightly off-topic here, but am I the only one who is concerned by the > fact that virtually all businesses define "ultra long term" > as 5 years or > less? It seems that 5 years is about the limits of Capitalism's > vision... The Internet, while very young, is still 5 or 6 > times that old. It is the limit of anyone's vision. That's simply because our rate of progress has become so high that we can no longer see that far into the future. The crystal ball no longer works reliably more than 12-18 months out. Anyone pitching a 5-year plan at the VC gets laughed at, rightfully so. The markets have become way too volatile. Ages ago, before GM bought Hughes, we had five-year plans that we updated quarterly. Even HAC doesn't do that anymore. Is there a recent update to MegaTrends?

1 0

RE: Gee, operational content: IPv6 routing issues
by Irwin Lazar 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Have a look at the following: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ngtrans-charter.html http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html http://www.ipv6forum.com/ Irwin Timothy Brown <tcb(a)ga.prestige.net> wrote: > > At the last NANOG, I asked a question regarding issues with prefix growth and > routing policies as we transition to IPv6. The answer I was given was that > IPv6 had several issues wrt adoption from the community. Can someone provide > pointers on where these issues were discussed and what material I could read > to shed light on these issues, without the time necessary to make a thorough > analysis of the IPv6 protocol and associated routing protocol efforts? > > What are the most troubling issues with IPv6 that members of the community > have noticed? > > Best, > Tim >

2 1

I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Chris Davis 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

I downloaded their plug-in and then: ping www.bull.shit here's what happened std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for searchpages.newdotnet.net response NS is searchpages.newdotnet.net, IP 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 So, I pinged a nonexistent domain name and got replies from test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com, 64.208.49.135 C:\>ping asldj.asogh.asdlfj Pinging test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com [64.208.49.135] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135 Let's role play: German Customer: "I can't access the Bank of America site. I get something called Google" NOC: "Can you ping www.bankofamerica.com?" German Customer: "Yes" { pinging www.bankofamerika.kom } NOC "Well, you have connectivity since you can ping it. Let's see what else could be wrong. You get Google, you say???" Now, tell me that's OK.

13 15

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:19 AM > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:25:08PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > Good, then you won't mind paying for my renumber then ... > BTW, having gone > > through this excersize a number of times, you are wrong. I > depends on what > > types of services you are ruinning on how many hosts and > the complexity of > > your distributed clusters. The ones that gave me the > greatest heartburn is > > my Oracle DB cluster. > > Why, exactly, does your Oracle DB cluster need to be in > routable address > space? Are people connecting to it from outside of your company? BTW, the short answer is; Because I designed it that way, to meet requirements that you haven't seen and about which you have no clue whatsoever. I am also not paying you to critique the design, nor are you paying me to deliver the design. The requirements are ... the requirements, as far as you're concerned. I've about decided that your attitude doesn't deserve the long answers and I don't need your uninformed value-judgements, nor the bad attitude, nor your abuseive behavior. AFAIC, your under-informed speculation underwrites your credibility.

2 1

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:19 AM > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:25:08PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > Good, then you won't mind paying for my renumber then ... > BTW, having gone > > through this excersize a number of times, you are wrong. I > depends on what > > types of services you are ruinning on how many hosts and > the complexity of > > your distributed clusters. The ones that gave me the > greatest heartburn is > > my Oracle DB cluster. > > Why, exactly, does your Oracle DB cluster need to be in > routable address > space? Are people connecting to it from outside of your company? Aha! I remember you now ... Say "multi-site distributed cluster". Other sites have to talk to it. > > But, my root zone cluster was almost as bad, followed > > closely by my web cluster and my Win2K AD/DDNS domains. Of course, > > re-engineering a /24 onto a /27 ate a bunch of time. Oh > yeah, since the > > revenues were flat-lined, I couldn't afford to pay the SA > staff and I had to > > do it myself, whilst also fending off the legal notices of > those excersizing > > their software escrow clauses and others whom were P-O'd > about my TLS > > servers being suddenly off-line. 60% of that /24 are > various forms of server > > cluster. > > You decided to run a business on DSL, and now you're paying > the price for > that. You really have nothing to complain about except your own bad > judgement. Why is this thread still going? Now, the last I looked, DSL was SUPPOSED to be sold to businesses. The poor consumer is stuck the cable. BTW, the DSL worked fine, right up until Covad cut it off. Do you always blame your sister for getting raped?

2 1

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Michael Shields 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

In article <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFAEBNCFAA.mathias(a)koerber.org>, "Mathias Koerber" <mathias(a)koerber.org> wrote: > Because it does not matter whether it's network byte order or not? 16.1.16.1 is sensitive to network byte order; this program demonstrates that: #include <stdio.h> #include <arpa/inet.h> #include <netinet/in.h> #include <sys/socket.h> int main(void) { struct in_addr sin; if (inet_aton("16.1.16.1", &sin) < 0) { perror("inet_aton failed"); exit(1); } printf("Host byte order: %10lu 0x%08lx\n", sin.s_addr, sin.s_addr); printf("Network byte order: %10lu 0x%08lx\n", htonl(sin.s_addr), htonl(sin.s_addr)); return(0); } On IA32 this outputs: Host byte order: 17826064 0x01100110 Network byte order: 268505089 0x10011001 and on sun4c: Host byte order: 268505089 0x10011001 Network byte order: 268505089 0x10011001 This occurs because the MSB vs. LSB conversion reorders at byte units, but the mental reordering we perform while looking at a hexadecimal representation occurs at the four-bit unit represented by one hex digit. 16.1.1.16 would be a palindrome at the byte level (0x10010110), and so htonl() will be a no-op on it even on a little-endian machine. I hope this clears things up. Let's run some networks now. -- Shields.

1 0