- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Stephen Sprunk 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Thus spake "Eric A. Hall" <ehall(a)ehsco.com> > I honestly believe that ARIN is funded by stock ownership in NAT > provder technologies. No, ARIN is funded by the ISPs which it doesn't require to follow its allocation guidelines. > They are the primary reason that we have NAT > and RFC 1918 problems on the net everyday. No, the reason we have NAT is because it's a lot easier for novice network administrators to divvy up and route 10/8 than it is 208.x.x/20. Any leaf network can get all the non-portable addresses they want, for a price. 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. S -- Stephen Sprunk "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let CCIE #3723 everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always K5SSS said exactly what pleased me." --Albert Einstein

2 1

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

10 Apr '01

> From: Patrick Evans [mailto:pre@pre.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:22 AM > On the flipside, who is actually less concerned about routing table > size? The multihomed networks on the edges who can use a default if > they want to, and are likely to be carrying less traffic and so have > more resources to deal with routing, or the core networks who have > capacity problems of their own? AFAICT, multi-homing doesn't work unless you also have dynamic routing. Is this wrong?

3 2

Unused IP space (was RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
by Segal, Mark 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

I wonder if a finders fee could be setup by ARIN, ie 50% ofr the allocation :).. I personally know people that have /16, who either haven't routed them or are routing them but using 1-2 IPs... I think the angry mob approach is the best way to deal with the /8 & /16 squatters.. :). Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data and Internet Planning Axxent Corp. Tel: (416)907-2858 > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Levine [mailto:matt@deliver3.com] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:42 PM > To: Kyle C. Bacon; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > Netname: HALLIBURTON > Netblock: 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255 > > > I have a hunch Halliburton oil doesn't need 16 million ips.. > I also have > a hunch that they wont be getting revoked anytime soon ;) > > > __ > Matt Levine <matt(a)deliver3.com> > > "I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ > in my body. > Then I realized who was telling me this." > -- Emo Phillips > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Kyle C. Bacon > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:21 PM > To: mike harrison > Cc: John K. Doyle, Jr.; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > > >>It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they > >>really do not "own" the address space. --Mike-- > > > That is an interesting comment, has anyone ever heard of ARIN > revoking IP's from a entity who no longer meets current ARIN > criteria for a give size allocation? Or is it infact the > case that once you get the IP space as long as you keep paying > for it you get to keep it? in essence you do "own" it as long as > you keep the capitalist portion of ARIN happy and pay your annual > IP bills? (no offense to those ARIN workforce members among us). > > K > > > > > mike harrison > <meuon@higher To: "John K. Doyle, Jr." > <John.Doyle(a)oracle.com> > tech.net> cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Sent by: Subject: Re: Getting a > "portable" /19 or /20 > owner-nanog@m > erit.edu > > > 04/09/2001 > 06:07 PM > > > > > > > > John said: > > Well, you could acquire a company that already has one. :) > > That has been the suggestion from several people. > I've even considered it, especially when one of my local > competitors has a /18, and they are much smaller than we are. > We 'NAT' an incredible amount of dial-up and commercial customers > to reduce our need for public IP's, and trends thankfully went to > customers WANTING to be NAT'd and Proxied for 'firewall' reasons, > with only a few public IP's. > > It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they > really do not "own" the address space. --Mike-- > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

None
by Jim Shankland 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

> No, the reason we have NAT is because it's a lot easier for novice > network administrators to divvy up and route 10/8 than it is 208.x.x/20. Only for novices :-)? And what if the alternative is not a /20, but a /24, or even a /28? > 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. Agreed that NAT does not remove the need for a firewall; but it *does* increase security. I have a machine behind a NAT; its IP address is 192.168.27.111. It has an open telnet port; the root password is "rutabaga". (It's on a completely different network than the one I'm sending this email from, so don't bother trying to deduce anything from the mail headers or my domain name.) I don't believe that I've just compromised its security :-). Jim Shankland

1 0

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Stephen Sprunk 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Thus spake "Kyle C. Bacon" <kbacon(a)fnsi.net>> > Obtaining IP space from ARIN is easy as 1, 2, 3 > > 1) Document your network and force your customers to document > theirs (if you are re-allocating to customers) > 2) Practice responsible allocations as outlines in RFC's & ARIN (force > your customers to do the same) > 3) SWIP Responsible allocation is what got him in trouble in the first place. If he did it like the big providers (assigning a /23 to every customer even if they don't want it), he would have qualified for a /19 long ago. > K S -- Stephen Sprunk "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let CCIE #3723 everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always K5SSS said exactly what pleased me." --Albert Einstein

1 0

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Stephen Sprunk 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Thus spake "Eric A. Hall" <ehall(a)ehsco.com> > The example blocks/domains are useful for what they are, but their > scope of usefulness is much smaller than real blocks/domains when > it comes to documenting the detailed interactions between hosts and > networks on the public Internet. They weren't intended for that purpose. If you need to show several networks connected to each other, RFC1918 space should suffice for nearly any example. For examples demonstrating NAT, you can use 192.0.2/24 on the outside and RFC1918 on the inside. Or, as at least one vendor does, you can use your own IP space in your examples. Given you only wanted a single /24 for your book (per your own statement), it's hard to imagine that one of the above address blocks couldn't be used. S -- Stephen Sprunk "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let CCIE #3723 everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always K5SSS said exactly what pleased me." --Albert Einstein

1 0

RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Jade E. Deane 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

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

4 3

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by mike harrison 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

John said: > Well, you could acquire a company that already has one. :) That has been the suggestion from several people. I've even considered it, especially when one of my local competitors has a /18, and they are much smaller than we are. We 'NAT' an incredible amount of dial-up and commercial customers to reduce our need for public IP's, and trends thankfully went to customers WANTING to be NAT'd and Proxied for 'firewall' reasons, with only a few public IP's. It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--

4 3

Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 (fwd)
by John Fraizer 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > > >>> Actually, the last I heard is that they will sell down to a /24. > > >> "The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /20." > > >> Also, they don't have any special-case handling that I am aware of. > > That was the point. It's against their policy and they don't have any > mechs in place for reasonable requests within their policy framework. My > specific needs are irrelevant to the point and were only provided for > illustration purposes. If you can sweet talk a /24 out of them, more power > to you. > ARIN will gladly assign a /24 you you. It's called a MICRO-ALLOCATION. It's NOT going to be seen by the ENTIRE internet because some (Hi Randy!) providers filter teeny-tiny allocations like that. Perhaps if ARIN participated in the IRR beyond running an IRRd, as in registering objects whenever they assigned address space, we could ALL filter based on registered objects. That is a different thread/battle though. > > Well, to me it sounds like you wanted your own /24, came up with an > > excuse, and they saw right through it. > > I have more addrs than I need. Your second guessing proves nothing. You wanna swip some to us? I'll send you my maintainer ID. Thanks! > > > I mean, if you need IP space for your book, 192.168/16 and 10/8 are > > popular choices. > > There are a bunch of protocols and services that need fully-connected > addresses. > > But that's all beside the point. You can't get /24 from ARIN, and that's > the point. From: http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html "Micro-allocations ARIN makes micro-allocations no longer than a /24 to critical infrastructures of the Internet, including public exchange points, gTLDs, ccTLDs, RIRs, and ICANN, as well as all named servers of the domain. So that these allocations will not be announced on the public Internet, ARIN's List of Micro-allocations is kept up-to-date to apprise ISPs which addresses should not be filtered. Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of two), ASN, and contact information. ISPs receiving these micro-allocations will be charged according to ARIN's Fee Schedule under the section titled ISP Subscriptions for IP Bulk Registrations. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from requesting address space under other policies." You CAN get a /24 if you _NEED_ it. If the readers of your book are too stupid to realize that they shouldn't announce 192.168.0.0/24 to the world and as such you want your own allocation, perhaps you need to release a second addition outlining that what you provide are EXAMPLES and are NOT for use in real world situations. (Have your favorite internet savvy attorney word it for you. I'm an engineer, not a stupid attorney!) I think I'm going to have to publish "RFC1771 for Dummies" as I think it sales will underwrite our world-wide buildout. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

1 0

RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
by Jade E. Deane 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

That's a wonderful monolithic UUNet view on the world. Practical IP addressing and assignments is being taught in room 104b down the hall. Jade -----Original Message----- From: Kyle C. Bacon [mailto:kbacon@fnsi.net] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:43 PM To: Segal, Mark Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu; owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Obtaining IP space from ARIN is easy as 1, 2, 3 1) Document your network and force your customers to document theirs (if you are re-allocating to customers) 2) Practice responsible allocations as outlines in RFC's & ARIN (force your customers to do the same) 3) SWIP K "Segal, Mark" <Mark.Segal@Corp. To: nanog(a)merit.edu Axxent.Ca> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 owner-nanog@merit .edu 04/09/2001 06:10 PM With comments like that too a public list which ARIN reads.. :).. Have fun requesting your next allocation. :). Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data and Internet Planning Axxent Corp. Tel: (416)907-2858 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jade E. Deane [mailto:jade.deane@HelloNetwork.com] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:31 PM > To: 'mike harrison'; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 > > > > 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 > > >

2 1