- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by smd＠clock.org 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)martin.fl.us> writes: | > Aggregation buys time, that's it. Aggregation does not make the | > current routing methods any more scalable. | | In IPv4 yes, because you can't have perfect aggregation, too much network | multihoming and old prefixes and it's to painful to change address blocks. | | In IPv6, if implimented right aggregation provides for virtually limitless | scalability for unicast traffic. Perfectly aggregated networks are star-shaped. Any more complicated topology cannot be perfectly aggregated. In real networks, aggregation at best follows a "reasonable" trade-off between optimizing and stabilizing route selection. Not everyone will agree on what is a "reasonable" balance. Result: some people unhappy about suboptimal routing ("my packets to my neighbour across the street go through another country") and some people unhappy about too-great dynamicism ("damn, time to upgrade to a faster processor, more memory, faster memory, etc etc etc"). This is a result of the CIDR addressing architecture and is INDEPENDENT OF THE NUMBER OF BITS IN AN ADDRESS. Sean.

2 1

RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Roeland Meyer 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

> From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:20 PM > Please let me know when your Linux box is capable of doing > line rate forwarding on an OC-192. I actually saw a Linux box capable of doing this. It was on IBM S/390 hardware. Admitedly, that would be a waste of horsepower. OC-192 is far to slow to keep that box busy. <GRIN>

4 3

MultiBind Testers Wanted
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new version called MultiBind. MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root networks on the internet by allowing the specification of more than one root.cache file. Cache files are processed in order of sysadmin-specified preference. When looking for a TLD, MultiBind searches each of the RSNs until a match is found. MultiBind will also allow the sysadmin to specify RSN-TLD preferences so that control is not just at the root server level. We are looking for testers - anyone who would like the code, please respond here. The beta release will be ready on May 1, 2001 http://www.nic.lion

6 5

RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Roeland Meyer 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

> From: Christopher A. Woodfield [mailto:rekoil@electro.semihuman.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:15 PM > Oh, and when you can > > (a) have Linux shut down a failing interface card on the fly and keep > humming along, > > and > > (b) be able to replace said card without shutting down, > > lemme know. IMHO, you are being short-sighted. Linux doesn't just run on PC boxen. That was my point earlier about the S/390. You assume too much. BTW, let's see you do the same thing with Sun gear, even Netras. How about hot-swapping a blade in a Cisco Catalyst 6509(not sure, here. I usually shut 'em down to do that.)? BTW, if you can find the hot-swap gear you want to run then I can probably get Linux to run on it (it just takes a while). Linux runs everywhere from Pal Pilots to S/390s (has any one seen it on a Sun e10K yet?) In this day and age, such absolute statements are a little hazardous. Their shelf-life, even if true, is measured in micro-secs. -- The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

2 1

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Richard A. Steenbergen 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, mike harrison wrote: > > They do not compare on the same scale as purpose built hardware and > > OS's like the Cisco's, Lucent, Ascend... equipment. Anyone that thinks > > that they compare directly is delusional, as I was. > > Can't exactly run down to the local Wal*Mart or Fry's and pick up a spare > Cisco power supply, ram, or 100mb ethernet card though... > > Never quite understand how Cisco can charge $1800 for a $1.25 10/100 PCI > ethernet controller, either... Don't be silly, a good 10/100 PCI ethernet controller costs $10 retail, or about $3 in parts... (I have to admit to being a fan of the netgear FA31x as well, it has never done me wrong and for the price if it ever does it goes to the parking lot for Bryan Blank to run over). -- 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)

1 0

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Richard A. Steenbergen 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 05:28:21PM -0400, Henry Yen wrote: > > > .. actually, if only the PCI bus were faster, I'm sure someone > > could build a GigE linerate router running under FreeBSD or Linux. > > > > OC192 would probably want something a little more dedicated than > > a PCI bus. But then, thats what a Juniper is for, right? :-) > > i always thought the JUNOS was basically FreeBSD with the routing table > code re-written. the remarks about freenix being able/unable to > run at these speeds (hardware bus notwithstanding) seem out of place, > as i think the real sleight-of-packet happens on hardware blades; > the supervisory operating system doesn't play much of a part here. Ignoring the (incorrect) Juniper references for now because they are trying to do bigger and better things (if you want to fill a box with OC192 or 10GigE this is not an option), the only flatout "limitation" really is bus speed. There is no reason you can't do sufficient longest prefix match lookups to route a gigabit, or process packets fast enough. Infact if you were really serious, the Netgear GA620 card is really an Alteon Tigon 2 and the firmware code is open source. There is absolutily no reason you can't do packet processing on the card itself, and DMA the packet data directly to another card. You could implement near linerate filtering, duplicate dCEF on the card itself, and lots of other nifty tricks... None of these things are technically or programably unfeasable. Of course you would probably immediately take this little box which cost you next to nothing to produce and sell it for the same obscene amounts that most imbedded FreeBSD systems go for, to people who didn't understand the technology. Like I said, just because YOU don't know how to do it with the OS you've always installed and a perl script does not mean it can't be done. -- 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)

1 0

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Majdi S. Abbas 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:32:03PM -0600, Aaron Dewell wrote: > Memory and CPUs are not really that expensive, it just depends on how > much certain router manufacturers think they can milk out of you for > overpriced hardware. Considering that you can build a router with a > PC and Linux for better performance, better stability, and better > scalability than a 7200 for about a tenth the price, I fail to see why > any of those boxes continue to be sold... It just requires actual > quality PC hardware. Please let me know when your Linux box is capable of doing line rate forwarding on an OC-192. Thanks! --msa

5 4

RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Roeland Meyer 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Actually, the last I heard is that they will sell down to a /24. They just warn you that it may not be very usable. The interesting thing is that, last I looked, they had the same price-tag as a /20 or /19. The price isn't the issue, though ... routing *is*. Qualifying for a /20, when you only really need a /24, is a PITA (not to mention, leaving you feeling a bit sleazy). > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Dewell [mailto:acd@woods.net] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:50 PM > To: Jade E. Deane > Cc: 'Roeland Meyer'; 'James Thomason'; 'mike harrison'; > nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > > But also if you want just slightly over a /21, but not enough > to make a /20, > then they still don't want to talk to you. That's the > project I'm currently > working on. > > Last word I got is "if you only need a /21, please contact > your provider". > Unfortunately, most providers don't have a /21 just lying around doing > nothing, and the current folks say "call ARIN, they can give > you addresses." > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jade E. Deane wrote: > > Two points for hitting the nail on the head. > > > > Jade > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:13 PM > > To: 'James Thomason'; Jade E. Deane > > Cc: 'mike harrison'; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > > > > The problem comes from when you only need a /24 and it has > to be portable > > and multi-homed. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Thomason [mailto:james@divide.org] > > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:55 PM > > > To: Jade E. Deane > > > Cc: 'mike harrison'; nanog(a)merit.edu > > > Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > > > > > > > > > > Gee, I followed the guidelines and procedures outlined by > ARIN - and > > > what do you know!? > > > > > > We got address space! Try it! You might like it! > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jade E. Deane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sure... knee pads and a copy of the communist manifesto, to > > > put you in the > > > > proper ARIN mindset. > > > > > > > > Jade > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: mike harrison [mailto:meuon@highertech.net] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:40 PM > > > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > > > Subject: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the demise of Winstar/good.net locally, > > > > and us having to renumber anyway, I am getting > > > > started on the idea of getting a 'portable' > > > > /19 from Arin. We are currently using a non-portable /20 > > > > and a couple of /24's. > > > > > > > > Any words of advice as we start this process? > > > > I'd like to do this right the first time > > > > and could use an experienced viewpoint. > > > > > > > > Mike Harrison -- ASN 3901 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

14 20

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Majdi S. Abbas 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:22:45PM -0600, Aaron Dewell wrote: > Well, I did say up to a 7200, and a 7200 won't exactly forward an OC-192 > line rate. No interface cards either. Precisely my point...no interface cards. Yes, you can route ethernet, and maybe even a T1 or two...you can't do serious T1 or DS3 aggregation or anything larger than an OC-3 or so with that PC. It's fine for people in colo or with a couple of LANs to route about but it isn't a practical solution for those of us with real networks to run. So, will you and everyone else who brings this up, please stop. If it were as practical as you claim, a lot more people would be doing it. > Of course, a GSR won't forward it at line rate either, AFAIK. It pretends > to nicely, though... I think you'll need to be more specific than GSR when making this statement. --msa

1 0

RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Roeland Meyer 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

> From: Greg Maxwell [mailto:gmaxwell@martin.fl.us] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:46 PM > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > There's also a general perception that NAT increases security; some > > "security" companies go so far as to say NAT removes the need for a > > firewall. It's amazing how many network admins believe this. > > Some also say that firewalls/nats remove the need to secure > your systems. They would also be wrong. Picture one user, with a wireless port or direct-dial modem, also attached to your internal LAN. NAT or no NAT, FW or no FW, your data is toast unless you trust them explicitly. This includes 100% of your internal users. FALLACY: NAT, Firewalls, and bastion-hosts, make your LAN secure.

1 0