October 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0310291228200.29539-100000(a)login1.fas.harvard.edu>, Scott McGrath <mcgrath(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >And sometimes you use NAT because you really do not want the NAT'ed device >to be globally addressible but it needs to have a link to the outside to >download updates. Instrument controllers et.al. I don't understand. What is the difference between a /24 internal NATted network, and a /64 internal IPv6 network that is firewalled off: only paclets to the outside allowed, and packets destined for the inside need to have a traffic flow associated with it. As I see it, NAT is just a stateful firewall of sorts. A broken one, so why not use a non-broken solution ? We can only hope that IPv6 capable CPE devices have that sort of stateful firewalling turned on by default. Or start educating the vendors of these el-cheopo CPE devices so that they will all have that kind of firewalling enabled before IPv6 becomes mainstream. Mike.

7 8

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
by Sean Donelan 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Fred Baker wrote: > Personally, I don't ask my ISP or my IT department to randomly change the > configuration of my computer. I am very happy for them to suggest changes, > but *if* I agree, *I* want to install them when it is convenient for *me*, > not when it is convenient for *them*. There is a difference. In most cases the corporate laptop is owned by the corporation, not the employee. Shouldn't the corporate organization be able to change its own computers whenever it chooses, regardless of the desire of its employees. On the other hand, the ISP does not own the customer's computer. And despite EULA which say it not sold only licensed to the customer, most people view their computer as their property not the ISP's.

3 2

Re: ISPs' willingness to take action
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

>* But customers of broadband ISP aren't going to want to pay more than $40 a >month for any such thing you add, You are right about the average customer. But this mythical beast is composed of some less than average customers who just want plain vanilla cheap service and some more than average customers who are ready and willing to pay for a service that adds value. Let's foist this problem off on the marketing department and ask them why we don't have a plain vanilla unprotected Internet service for advanced users and a deluxe high priced service including filtering and free AV software for the segment that is willing to pay for value add? >"You >let that virus come into my computer" ... "It came over YOUR network!!!!". Do people phone up the city to complain because the burglar drove over municpal roads to get to their house? I'm surprised that a first level support department isn't equipped with a set of "correct" analogies to help educate (and calm) the customers. >We had some users that were happy we had cut them off, and told them that >they had a problem (virus or otherwise). That is becoming the norm. Filtering port 135 or 92 byte pings is a service that customers don't want. They are justified in complaining if you implement such a service. But when the customer starts to violate the AUP (even unknowingly) they are disrupting other users and should be shut off. The correct analogy is when disruptive customers get ejected from a bar by the bouncer. Or when the police give a traffic ticket to the little old lady doing 30 mph on the freeway. --Michael Dillon

3 2

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Greg Maxwell 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > Excuse my rambling and what some may consider heresy even :), but.. > One question to ask is whether IPv6's approach is the right one, furthering > a particular way of doing things rather than really reinventing itself. Do > I really need global awareness of address space? Why isn't address space a > tool, services is what you're really after, and why not build an those who do not understand end-to-end are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.

8 8

peer/transit circuits
by ning.shi＠bell.ca 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

Hi folks, I am looking for some advice on how to place the peer/transit circuits on the edge routers. Would like to find the best practice that would provide enough diversity without having an operation nightmare. e.g. putting peer and transit circuits on different routers will make the routing policy easier since peer and transit will have different policies. however, if I lost the transit router then all transit is gone. Any advice/reference would be appreciated. Regards, -ns

2 1

Fed. Govt and IEEE ban contributions to/from Cuba, Libya, Iran, Syria
by Eric Kuhnke 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

The only effect this will have is to further alienate many skilled engineers and promising students, who are already at a great disadvantage due to language barriers. http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=jesse&D=1&O=D&P=4946 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/oct03/1003ofac.html "Treasury Department ruling puts IEEE on the spot, but could affect other groups, too 15 October 2003On 30 September, the U.S. Treasury Department (Washington, D.C.) informed the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) that it must continue to limit membersrights in four countries embargoed by the United States: Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The ruling means, among other things, that the IEEE, the worlds largest engineering association (and the publisher of this magazine), cannot edit articles submitted by authors in those countries, making it effectively impossible for most such work to appear in IEEE publications. " ============================================ Excerpt from the second URL: It is noteworthy to mention that at least in the case of Iran, where this ban has had the most effect; Iranian IEEE members submit dozens of papers for publication to IEEE publications on an annual basis. Since the establishment of the first Student Branch in 1997 in Iran, much effort has been made to introduce IEEE and its goals to the Iranian community. Iranian Student Branches have been very successful in organizing technical activities. More than 50 conferences, workshops, and short courses have been organized during the last few years, all of which are well attended by students and professionals. ========================================== "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

1 0

London, England Connectivity
by Ray Burkholder 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

I'm looking for colo services, point to point E1's, and PSTN connectivity in the London, England area. Would interested parties able to provide these services please get in touch with me off list. Thanx. Ray Burkholder ray(a)oneunified.net http://www.oneunified.net 704 576 5101 -- Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.

1 0

[arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Andy Dills 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

I love this. ARIN publicly states, "Whatchoo talkin about, Willis?" (see announcement below) So, by extrapolation, if we've collectively used 20 /8s over the past 5 years, and we have 90 left, that's over 20 years of IPv4 growth we have left. Some would ask, "What about increasing address usage?" I would ask, "What evidence do you have that usage is increasing?" Technologies like NAT and efforts to reclaim poorly assigned address space have a large negative pressure on the increase of IP utilization. As more and more "appliances" need IP addresses, people will realize more and more that the last thing they want is those "applicances" on public IP space. Does anybody have statistics for assigned-but-not-announced space? I'd be willing to bet there will be more and more dead space over the years, and in fact quite a bit of "increasing usage" is just churn. What does any of this matter? I think there is a huge financial incentive for NSPs to ignore IPv6 until the situation arrives where they are at a competitive disadvantage to NOT deploy it. I also don't think that time will ever come, as I expect new technology to trump IPv6 by the time it's actually needed (some would argue that NAT has already accomplished this). How about a protocol that eliminated the need for BGP, while simultaneously making every address portable? That, to me, would be The Answer. Not that it seems possible given what we currently know, but 20 years is a long time :) Try to think backwards 20 years, and you see how impossible it is to conceive of the next 20 years. (Yes, I realize that statement neuters the basis of my argument. But I'm not really stating the future demand for IPs as fact, just assumptions to be debated.) Does anybody honestly think companies will commit the capex needed to implement IPv6? I know this thread keeps on coming up...but I don't see any positive momentum for IPv6, and if the people of this Esteemed Forum can't agree that IPv6 is something that must happen ASAP, how will the PHBs (those who control the money) and the customers (those who control demand) ever be convinced? Hell, I can't even convince myself that IPv6 is neccessary. Is anybody out there totally sold on IPv6, enough to evangelize it to anybody willing to listen? I mean, IPv6 is no CIDR... Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 --- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:48:17 -0500 (EST) From: Member Services <memsvcs(a)arin.net> To: arin-announce(a)arin.net Subject: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space There have been press articles posted over the past year that make statements about the remaining pool of IPv4 address space. A recent article states there is a shortage and that Internet Protocol Numbers will run out some time in the year 2005. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not themselves make predictions about when the remaining IPv4 address space will be depleted. They do, however, report on the rates of RIR allocation of IPv4 address space and on the state of the remaining pool of unicast IPv4 address space. The RIRs report statistics regarding IPv4 allocation on their respective web sites and present a "Joint Statistics" report at each of the RIR meetings and at other Internet industry meetings several times yearly. The most recent presentation on this subject can be found at the following location. http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html This report states that the RIRs have collectively allocated 19.59 /8 equivalents between the dates of January 1999 and June 2003 (4.5 years). It also identifies that there are 91 /8 equivalents held by the IANA in reserve for future allocation by the RIRs. The RIRs will continue to report this information on a regular basis and will work closely with the IANA to ensure the efficient management of the remaining IPv4 address space. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

14 18

The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem
by William B. Norton 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

Hi all - I've been working on documenting some of the significant disruption from and aftermath of the Telecom collapse of 1999/2000, focusing specifically on the operations community and the Peering Ecosystem in particular. I spent a lot of time speaking with Peering Coordinators to document the first order effects and some of the second order effects of the bankruptcies. I found some pretty interesting and fundamental changes in how the Internet is interconnected. Several new players have had a huge impact on what I call the "Internet Regional Peering Ecosystem." I presented a draft of this research at the GPF VII in Ashburn, Virginia last month and would love to have a few more reviewers give it a read and provide feedback. I pasted the abstract below. Thanks! Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract A new Internet Peering Ecosystem is rising from the Ashes of the 1999/2000 U.S. Telecommunications Sector crash. Global Internet Transit Providers have gone bust and a critical broadband infrastructure provider has failed, leaving in their wake a large set of Internet players to fend for themselves to provide their customers with Internet services. A broad set of Service Providers that were once focused only on growing their market share (at any cost) now are bending down to shave pennies off of their cost structure. Those who can not prove the viability of their business model while satisfying their customer demands are out of business. In this paper we share research carried out over the last four years with hundreds of Peering Coordinators to document the recent chaotic evolution of the Peering Ecosystem. We do this by first defining the notion of an Internet Peering Ecosystem, an Internet Region and Interconnection Region. We find in each Internet Peering Ecosystem three distinct categories set of participants, each with their own sets of characteristics and corresponding motivations and interconnection dynamics. We describe four classes of Peering Inclinations as articulated in Peering Policies. The bulk of the paper however focuses on the Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem. Several key players, some abandoned by their service providers, have entered into the Peering Ecosystem and caused a significant disruption to the Ecosystem. Peer-to-Peer application traffic has grown to represent a significant portion of their expense. We describe five major events and three emerging dynamics in the Peering Ecosystem that have had and continue to have a disintermediation effect on the Tier 1 ISPs. In the appendix we share a simple mathematical Internet Peering Model that can be used to demonstrate this Peering Ecosystem evolution. While not complete or by any means precise, it does allow us to demonstrate the affect of these disruptions in the Peering Ecosystem. /* William B. Norton <wbn(a)equinix.com> 650.315.8635 Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc. */

2 1

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Kuhtz, Christian 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

> In a message written on Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 02:24:54PM > -0600, Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > > Isn't that the whole point of running a VPN connection? > > Yes. What I'm saying is network operators are slowly forcing > everyone to run _everything_ over a VPN like service. That's > fine, but it makes network operators unable to act on the > traffic at the same level they can today. How do they act on it today? If you want a diff served VPN or anything done to something in it, you're going to have to sign up for a service that can do that.. Or mark your vpn streams on the outside accordingly... You can do that with IPSEC in TCP by marking the wrapper if you wish.. ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.60"

1 0