April 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

>> There are companies that connect to thousands of other companies (see the >> financial markets) that require unique addressing between companies with >> non-colliding address ranges. 10.x.x.x doesn't quite cut it. > This is not an acceptable excuse to burn PI space. >There are plenty of other Iana-L available... try using an obscure one. I would be extremely interested if others on the list support this type of address space hijacking. The only public instance of this that I know of is WIANA http://www.wiana.org which has hijacked 1/8. Also, if other organization want to hijack IANA addresses to ensure global uniqueness, I think that it will be necessary to maintain some sort of alternative registry since many of the companies involved may connect their internal networks to more than one network using hijacked address space. It would not work if two organizations hijack the same block. I work for a company that operates a global network connecting companies in the financial services industry and we use registered IP addresses to ensure uniqueness. We have also considered hijacking the 126/8 range however I think I've managed to get that idea sidelined for the foreseeable future. Basically, none of our registered space is announced on the Internet although our network is connected very tenuously to the outer edges of the Internet. Of course, if there is support for address space hijacking, we may have to review our position. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6.

1 0

RE: 60 Hudson
by Drew Weaver 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

This might explain why fiber net went out of business and sold to cogent?? -Drew -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Meltzer [mailto:jeffrey@villageworld.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:32 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: 60 Hudson Quick followup, apparently the current issue i'm having with them is a "bad oc48 card" (again, shocker), and they don't have one in stock, and had to put a "rush order" in for a new one...You'd think a carrier would keep this sort of thing in stock. Went down late yesterday afternoon, and with this being Friday, i'm sure this won't be fixed until late Monday. Use this as an indicator before choosing FiberNet :) Jeff -- Jeffrey Meltzer Network Services Manager ICS/VillageNet 631.218.0700 On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:42:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Meltzer wrote: > > As someone who uses FiberNet in 60 Hudson (and ethernet link back to 25 > Broadway) i'd say avoid them like the plague. In the ~6 months that i've > had this circuit (aparently it's provisioned over an OC48), it's gone down > at least 4 times, possibly more, sometimes for upwards of 12 hours at a time > (starts at 10% packet loss, then just keeps growing). Their answer every > times has been "bad OC48 card". I don't know whether that's just the line > they're feeding me (I have a feeling it is), or their hardware vendor is > just garbage, but they don't appear to have the ability to keep this circuit > up for more than 3 weeks at a time. > > At one point they sold us on upgrading it from Ethernet to FastE, we said ok > maybe that will be better. However, they took down the 10M link at around 9pm > on a Friday night, and by 7pm Sunday night they hadn't had the 100M link up > yet so we just told them to forget it... > > Since the circuit is just backup, i've been testing FiberNet as fo late. > Yesterday, after I started seeing packet loss I waited at least 2 hours to > call them, to see if they'd notice the issue themselves. Of course as usual > they didn't. > > I'm fairly sure i'm the only customer they are providing this > service to between 25B and 60H, otherwise for sure they'd know by know > (unless they are dedicating a full OC48 to my 10M link, which would be a > whole other story itself). > > I'm unsure, however, if this is how they provision service inside (suite to > suite) 60 Hudson, it'd be fairly strange if they did, but FiberNet is > turning out to be a fairly strange company. > > ..just my experience :) > > JEFF > > -- > Jeffrey Meltzer > Network Services Manager > ICS/VillageNet > 631-218-0700 > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > > Speaking to Level3, they're saying that the Fibernet suite on the 1st floor > > is the best place for interconnects to other suites in the building.

3 2

RE: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Temkin, David 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Except it's impossible to know today who you'll need to connect to 2 years from now and know whether or not your space will collide, especially if you're connecting to ~1000 such companies. -----Original Message----- From: Niels Bakker [mailto:niels=nanog@bakker.net] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:11 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp * stephen(a)sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) [Tue 29 Apr 2003, 00:50 CEST]: > N companies can have up to N(N-1) interconnections, which requires > either: > a) double NAT, with a single address range for all interconnects > b) no NAT, with a unique address range for each interconnect > c) very careful management of the RFC1918 space such that no two companies > talking have a collision > d) globally unique addresses for each participant using RIRs > > (c) simply doesn't work in reality, (b) is no better than (d), and (a) > is beyond ugly not to mention incompatible with many apps. d) is basically having the Internet community pay - both in real money for staffing at RIRs and in scarce IP address space - for no benefit in return at all for a function that those N companies should have an institution perform for them via c). Regards, -- Niels. IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.

1 0

RE: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Temkin, David 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

What if Company A uses Iana-L space A, and Company uses Space A & B... What then? And don't say NAT - it's not the universal savior. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Irving [mailto:rirving@onecall.net] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:18 PM To: Temkin, David Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; Daniel Golding; Kai Schlichting; North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp Temkin, David wrote: > And something else a lot of people tend to forget - just because space > isn't in the tables doesn't mean it's not in use. True. > > There are companies that connect to thousands of other companies (see > the financial markets) that require unique addressing between > companies with non-colliding address ranges. 10.x.x.x doesn't quite > cut it. This is not an acceptable excuse to burn PI space. There are plenty of other Iana-L available... try using an obscure one. > -DT > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen@sprunk.org] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:01 PM > To: Daniel Golding; Kai Schlichting > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > Subject: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking > to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp > > > > Thus spake "Daniel Golding" <dgold(a)FDFNet.Net> > >>ARIN needs to repo any space that has [not] been advertised for a >>reasonable length of time, and reissue it. > > > So you're claiming that ARIN should revoke any allocations, including > those made before it came into existence, simply because the addresses > aren't in the global tables? > > If that's the position of the community, that's a drastic change from > assertions made in the IETF WGs and may affect address allocation > guidelines and even some protocol work. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking > > > IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its > attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, > please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete > this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, > disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an > unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor > any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, > solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other > financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any > of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the > completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or > that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses. > > IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.

2 1

RE: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by McBurnett, Jim 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Better IDEA: Rob can you add them to the BOGON Filters? What a wakeup call that would be.... Maybe... J -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen@sprunk.org] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:01 PM To: Daniel Golding; Kai Schlichting Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp Thus spake "Daniel Golding" <dgold(a)FDFNet.Net> > ARIN needs to repo any space that has [not] been advertised for a > reasonable length of time, and reissue it. So you're claiming that ARIN should revoke any allocations, including those made before it came into existence, simply because the addresses aren't in the global tables? If that's the position of the community, that's a drastic change from assertions made in the IETF WGs and may affect address allocation guidelines and even some protocol work. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

2 1

RE: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Daniel Senie 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

At 06:08 PM 4/28/2003, Temkin, David wrote: >And something else a lot of people tend to forget - just because space isn't >in the tables doesn't mean it's not in use. > >There are companies that connect to thousands of other companies (see the >financial markets) that require unique addressing between companies with >non-colliding address ranges. 10.x.x.x doesn't quite cut it. Which gets us back to a very basic issue. Are the RIRs, and ARIN for that matter handing out numbers for use on the public Internet, or are they handing out numbers for use with the Internet Protocol? Use of the Internet Protocol extends far beyond the public, routable Internet. Such use is fair, reasonable and from the earliest days was not only permitted, but encouraged. Companies are able to register well known port numbers even if the applications associated are never used on the public Internet. Is that sensible? I'd argue it is. Addresses are just one more data item used by the Internet Protocol. Dan

2 1

Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Brandon Butterworth 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

> a german steel mill from some god- > forgotten swamp in Panama. Like: that steel mill must have moved, yeah. Sure, you can have a steel mill in your garden too - http://www.dovebid.com/Auctions/AuctionDetail.asp?auctionID=1298 brandon

1 0

Re: Selfish routing
by Mike Lloyd 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

alex(a)yuriev.com wrote: > Having capacity *always* makes a network better. True enough; given massive over-capacity, you'll have a hard time finding any congestion. (Of course, you also won't find optimality without applying some kind of measurement.) But curiously, adding some incremental capacity to a network can, under some conditions, actually make it worse! Leo Bicknell wrote: > I mean, really, the fact that a secondary path is worse than a primary > path with no capacity is a no brainer, couldn't these people be doing > something more useful? Roughgarden's point (as I see it) is that Braess' paradox applies. Most people find it obvious that adding more capacity to a network will always help, but as it happens, that's not true. That is not to say that adding capacity is always wrong. It's usually right; it's just of some interest to note that there are conditions where harm can result, especially when independent actors act "selfishly". The basic result is quite old, as Roughgarden observes; the same phenomenon exists in road networks, and he gives a nice example of strings and springs in his paper, which Jeffrey Arnold cited earlier: <http://wisl.ece.cornell.edu/ECE794/Apr2/roughgarden2002.pdf> This contains a good deal more detail than the NY Times writeup that started this thread :-) As Jeffrey observed, the assumptions in the model don't map well to the Internet we all know and love, but results like Braess' paradox come up again and again. If you want an optimal network, you can: 1/ sit in the middle and play at being the God of TE 2/ have the various actors optimize "selfishly" 3/ count hops and assume that's close enough (Oh, and if you're into that sort of thing, I suppose you can try dropping some packets to speed things up.) Roughgarden's result is that 2/ is not quite as good as 1/ at making fully optimal networks, but in a bounded way. I think the bound is a really nice result, although it's a pity the model assumptions aren't all that close to the operating nature of the Internet. alex(a)yuriev.com wrote: > However, claims "we have a special technology that magically > avoids problems in the networks that we do not control" is the > egineering religion. And I wouldn't evangelize that faith, as stated. I do happen to believe in "special" (or if you prefer, "selfish") technology that measures problems in networks I do not control, and if they can be avoided (say by using a different network or a different injection point), avoid them. In practice, that extra "if" doesn't change the equation much, since: Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Random good luck just by having lots of paths to choose > from and a way to detect which one "works"... it's possible. Quite so. I won't comment on the degree of effectiveness, since that would be marketing :-) Nobody should be surprised at what I'd say about that anyway. Mike

10 21

RE: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by McBurnett, Jim 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Yes, That is VERY TRUE.. I put a block on 4 /8s of the 11 blocks I know are APNIC blocks and cut my spam load by 70%. But it is unmanagable.... J >Out of the frying pan, into the fire. A significant number of >endpoints >block all APNIC /8's due to spam. Perhaps RIPE? > >S > >Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein >CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the >K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking > >

1 0