March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

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

16 Mar '01

> From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:14 PM > > [ On Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 17:09:14 (-0600), Stephen > Sprunk wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > Renumbering PCs is a trivial task. Reconfiguring hundreds (or > > thousands) of routers, firewalls, etc. to account for the > moved PCs is > > not trivial. Renumbering servers is not trivial. > > For _small_ networks (where this discussion started) even manual > reconfiguration of all the hosts (including servers) in an > office, on a > floor, or even in a small building, would take less time than this > discussion has gone on for! 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. 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 either have too much money or you haven't been there. That arm-chair is nice and cushy ... isn't it?

2 1

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

16 Mar '01

> From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:47 PM > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > > > You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, > if someone were to > > offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to > ask where you > > wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling > upon delivery. > > > > Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than > domain names. > > > Yes -- but no one IP is any more or less desirable than any other IP, > assuming both are portable, routable, and routed. Not so with domain > names. Anyone want to guess how much sex.com would sell for? > As opposed > to, say, jkl.cx ... Wrongo, a routable portable IP block is MUCH more desireable than a non-routable one. This usually means legacy space. ISP specific and CIDR swamps are not cool. It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a market differentiator. Rather, I pointed one out. In the DNS world, it's specific string, in the IP-block world, it's the attributes associated with the particular block. 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. They know which ones are in AboveNet, ELI, etc co-lo's.

2 1

RE: Reality Check
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon@eiv.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:09 PM > If they stop using it, the advertising dollars will stop rolling in. You really ought to read you friendly neighborhood news paper. Just what do you think is causing the dot-com crash? The advertising dollars are running out, even with high visitation rates. Users are simply not clicking on banners as hoped. The free-ride is over folks.

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Richard A. Steenbergen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:19:03PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > What Vadim is trying to explain to you is that this does not scale(or at > least not with the current system.) When I type in the world "apple" do I > want information on the fruit, the computer company, or the record > company(or something else that contains/is related to the string "apple"?) > > Add to this the complexity of multilingualism, where a string of > characters can have a reasonably deterministic meaning or set of meanings > in one language, and a completely different set of meanings in > another. > > > Search engines are horribly inaccurate for trying to reach any > > single particular page, unless it's so bizarre that you only get a dozen > > search results. I would definitely not advocate search engines to replace > > the current DNS system, unless a whole new generation of search engines > > was created that could effectively deduce exactly where the user _really_ > > wanted to go, accurately, every time (which is what DNS currently does). > > So tell me when I type in the word "apple" where exactly do I want to go? Ok this is getting downright rediculous. There is a reason we HAVE search engines, to find the links between content names and destination names. If I want to order an apple I don't goto www.apple.com. These levels of naming exist for a reason. If you want to find content about apples you goto Google and search for apples, if you want to goto Apple Computer you type www.apple.com, and if you want to goto a specific server you type 17.254.0.91. If you cannot figure out what to type or where to type it, this is not my problem. If this thread stops right now I will pay everyone who participated in it up to this point $1000 US each. Thank you. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

2 1

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

16 Mar '01

> From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:stuart@mfnx.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:53 AM > > > IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of > 16.1.16.1; I don't > > think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of > the scandal > > remained relatively small. > > > > (The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.) > > Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course. HEX:=="313631313631" Leet:="ELEBELELEBEL" Sorry, I just don't get it ... Is there another coding overlay?

6 6

Gee, operational content: IPv6 routing issues
by Timothy Brown 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

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

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting domain names, people worry less about having an interesting IP address, especially if they know it will be portable. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > the session. > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > translation today so it would first require a > > protocol definition. > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address portability > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just described DNS, > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > Joe >

2 1

Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@cybernothing.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:29 AM > to change the fact that these alternative root server > networks exist and > that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree > it's always a little broken.) That is an understatement (a little broken). I have just been introduced to one of those broken areas, the hard way. Given: 1. Prefix filtering at /20. 2. Most small busineses limited to /24, by policy/procedure. 3. Multi-homing requirements for multi-office businesses (many SOHO's). 4. Impending business failure of many DSL ISPs. 5. Total lack of responsibile behavior among DSL access providers. It is next to impossible for a small business to have reliable internet connectivity without moving into a large co-lo. Even if they can afford the multiple T1's, they can't get portable IP addresses that will be advertised reliably. Many of them need, at most, a pair of /24's and ARIN, knowing this, will not issue them portable blocks larger than /24 without severe justification requirements. Many of you might think that is okay, but what if their upstream dies off (as recently happened to MHSC). In the current day and age, business stops until they get reconnected. This disconnect is at minimum, 4-6 weeks, under the best of circumstances. As one vendor recently pointed out in their adverts, most businesses, down for more than 14 days, will never survive. More importantly, such an outage flat-lines the revenue picture for that entire fiscal quarter, for the unlucky victim. What we have today is a manufactured dependence on a single upstream provider and no way to multi-home. Even co-lo boils down to single-home dependency. Yes, there are a bunch of hacks to work around this problem. But, that is exactly what they are ... hacks. They are not something I could build a sustainable business around. Any business needs: 1. to be able to change upstream providers without having to renumber. 2. to be able to change access providers without having to suffer multi-month down-times. 3. to be able to have its net-block(s) visible regardless of which ISPs they are currently using. Currently the only ones that can do that are those that; 1. Are large enough to justify a /20 (begging the question of how they got that large). 2. Can afford their own datacenter. It looks like our technical solutions are raising unreasonable barriers to entry for small businesses.

8 10

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, if someone were to offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to ask where you wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling upon delivery. Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than domain names. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM > To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > > Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting > domain names, people worry less about having an > interesting IP address, especially if they know it > will be portable. > > Prabhu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > > To: Kavi, Prabhu > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > > the session. > > > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > > translation today so it would first require a > > > protocol definition. > > > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address portability > > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just described DNS, > > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > > > > Joe > > >

2 1

Reality Check
by Timothy R. McKee 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let's have a reality check here. Our job as **OPERATORS** is to provide our subscribers with simple and reliable access to what they consider as the Global Internet. They have the following 2 reasonable expectations: 1) That they can access any publicly acessible web, ftp, email, etc server anywhere in the world by using the destination's published textual address. Without, I might add, having to know that certain locations require loading a special plug-in, changing their resolver, or artificially padding the name. 2) That their customers or prospective customers can access any server OF ANY TYPE that they declare to be public by means of a single published textual address, usually in URL format. Again, with the same caveats as item 1. ************************************************* ** I challenge anyone to prove to me that ** ** their actual customers DON'T expect this!!! ** ************************************************* Remember that, regardless of theoretical arguments, _WE_ are the ones that have to deal with the messes that result from things like this... _WE_ are the ones who will have to pay for the increased NOC and Tech Support staff and phone charges... Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOq+znRRIXzEQLahvEQLjwQCg9TRKv6/zUrD6LAChoqUPNT0yzAUAoKjZ MHVyzwga/VMrkQ0tu7rSfMbE =xFJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 10