- Test - lists.nanog.org

London, England Connectivity
by Ray Burkholder 30 Oct '03

30 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

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

29 Oct '03

> In article > <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0310291228200.29539-100000(a)login1.fas.h > arvard.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 ? You forget the effort required to overcome the inherent inertia of expenditure required to use the 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. CPE devices are already available.. POP gear is available. Dedicated access shouldn't be a problem. Forget dial, what's the point.. The gear that worries me is inbetween the PE and the CPE for broadband connections. ***** "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

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Michel Py 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

> Dave Howe wrote: > IPSec, SIP/VoIP or almost anything that relies on UDP borks > on NAT, doesn't it? I have multiple IPSEC tunnels and also multiple H.323 and SIP phones behind one IPv4 address. Never tried it, but I hear that some forms of e2e IPSEC works over NAT now. Michel.

1 0

MetroPAIX -- 55 Market San Jose
by Matthew Kaufman 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

If anyone on the list is connected to PAIX via the MetroPAIX product from 55 Market St. in San Jose, I'd like to hear about your experience. Please contact me off-list. Matthew Kaufman matthew(a)eeph.com mkaufman(a)dsl.net

1 0

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

29 Oct '03

> The fact that something can be worked around with enough > footwork really doesn't make okay. Sure. Neither is it ok for VPN vendors to pretend as if NAT wasn't a part of daily life and reality. > Consider the congestion related behavior of TCP inside TCP. > Consider the additional perpacket overhead of TCP encap, and > the effect of the additional fragmentation that will happen > since few networks will pass datagrams over 1500 bytes. So? So fragmentation will happen. Look at all the existing DSL etc infrastructures where you do have to live with MTU molestations. Frag happens. So what. It still works nicely. What are we gonna do next? Whine about broken PMTUD? > If networks operators had demanded IPv6 in the past far more > products today would be enabled and the 'upgrades are > expensive' argument would be moot. Simply passing the buck > to the customer is not a globally wise solution. Sure. Simply ignoring present reality isn't a globally wise solutions. Hence we have broken VPN products incapable of dealing with NAT. Some are capable of dealing with NAT just fine, and are readily available. Enough said. VPN vendors incapable of dealing with NAT (which is really a quite simple fix, totally independent of the NAT box) should be terminated with extreme prejudice. ***** "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.61"

2 1

Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Dave Howe 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > And there are workarounds for all those. NAT-T for ipsec is really intended for endnodes only - which is fine if you are doing the NAT yourself (typical medium/large company scenario - internal users shouldn't be using IPSEC, that is done at the gateway/firewall) but sucks if your cable or xDSL ISP decides NAT is the way to go. (usually followed by a "well, you shouldn't need two or more nodes there/want to run a server/care about SIP, a business should pay for a DEDICATED link" for a little three-man sales office in the backend of nowhere) But regardless, all the workarounds are doing is trying to patch the fact that UDP dependent connections are not NAT friendly by special-casing (or app-layer proxying) particular instances of UDP in a way that doesn't drop dead TOO often....

2 1

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

29 Oct '03

Seems several commercial clients (such as Cisco's VPN client) offer workaround for that (tunneling IPSEC in a TCP session). Works great. > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Maxwell [mailto:gmaxwell@martin.fl.us] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:56 AM > To: Avleen Vig > Cc: Simon Lockhart; Dave Howe; Email List: nanog > Subject: Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd) > > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Avleen Vig wrote: > > > Indeed, and IPSec tunnels are frequently done between routers on > > networks, rather than individual hosts on networks (at > least in most > > multi-site enterprises i've seen). > > The most common use of VPN links is the roadwarrior. > IPSEC in this context is broken badly by NAT. Even when the > extensive hackery required to workaround NAT is enabled, it > still can not work in the case where two roadwarriors are > behind a single address connecting to the same VPN gateway. > > > ***** "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"

2 1