- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:00 AM > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 smd(a)clock.org wrote: > > | Yup, it's all about capitalism, and nothing about > technical correctness.*sigh* > > > > The long-term maximization of ROI requires technical correctness. > > Unfortunately there is often alot of arbitrage by people with > > very short-term goals. Sadly, some of the worst technologies are > > the ones that get lots of short-term interest. > > > Slightly off-topic here, but am I the only one who is concerned by the > fact that virtually all businesses define "ultra long term" > as 5 years or > less? It seems that 5 years is about the limits of Capitalism's > vision... The Internet, while very young, is still 5 or 6 > times that old. It is the limit of anyone's vision. That's simply because our rate of progress has become so high that we can no longer see that far into the future. The crystal ball no longer works reliably more than 12-18 months out. Anyone pitching a 5-year plan at the VC gets laughed at, rightfully so. The markets have become way too volatile. Ages ago, before GM bought Hughes, we had five-year plans that we updated quarterly. Even HAC doesn't do that anymore. Is there a recent update to MegaTrends?

1 0

RE: Gee, operational content: IPv6 routing issues
by Irwin Lazar 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Have a look at the following: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ngtrans-charter.html http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html http://www.ipv6forum.com/ Irwin Timothy Brown <tcb(a)ga.prestige.net> wrote: > > At the last NANOG, I asked a question regarding issues with prefix growth and > routing policies as we transition to IPv6. The answer I was given was that > IPv6 had several issues wrt adoption from the community. Can someone provide > pointers on where these issues were discussed and what material I could read > to shed light on these issues, without the time necessary to make a thorough > analysis of the IPv6 protocol and associated routing protocol efforts? > > What are the most troubling issues with IPv6 that members of the community > have noticed? > > Best, > Tim >

2 1

I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Chris Davis 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

I downloaded their plug-in and then: ping www.bull.shit here's what happened std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for searchpages.newdotnet.net response NS is searchpages.newdotnet.net, IP 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 So, I pinged a nonexistent domain name and got replies from test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com, 64.208.49.135 C:\>ping asldj.asogh.asdlfj Pinging test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com [64.208.49.135] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135 Let's role play: German Customer: "I can't access the Bank of America site. I get something called Google" NOC: "Can you ping www.bankofamerica.com?" German Customer: "Yes" { pinging www.bankofamerika.kom } NOC "Well, you have connectivity since you can ping it. Let's see what else could be wrong. You get Google, you say???" Now, tell me that's OK.

13 15

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:19 AM > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:25:08PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > Good, then you won't mind paying for my renumber then ... > BTW, having gone > > through this excersize a number of times, you are wrong. I > depends on what > > types of services you are ruinning on how many hosts and > the complexity of > > your distributed clusters. The ones that gave me the > greatest heartburn is > > my Oracle DB cluster. > > Why, exactly, does your Oracle DB cluster need to be in > routable address > space? Are people connecting to it from outside of your company? BTW, the short answer is; Because I designed it that way, to meet requirements that you haven't seen and about which you have no clue whatsoever. I am also not paying you to critique the design, nor are you paying me to deliver the design. The requirements are ... the requirements, as far as you're concerned. I've about decided that your attitude doesn't deserve the long answers and I don't need your uninformed value-judgements, nor the bad attitude, nor your abuseive behavior. AFAIC, your under-informed speculation underwrites your credibility.

2 1

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:19 AM > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:25:08PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > Good, then you won't mind paying for my renumber then ... > BTW, having gone > > through this excersize a number of times, you are wrong. I > depends on what > > types of services you are ruinning on how many hosts and > the complexity of > > your distributed clusters. The ones that gave me the > greatest heartburn is > > my Oracle DB cluster. > > Why, exactly, does your Oracle DB cluster need to be in > routable address > space? Are people connecting to it from outside of your company? Aha! I remember you now ... Say "multi-site distributed cluster". Other sites have to talk to it. > > But, my root zone cluster was almost as bad, followed > > closely by my web cluster and my Win2K AD/DDNS domains. Of course, > > re-engineering a /24 onto a /27 ate a bunch of time. Oh > yeah, since the > > revenues were flat-lined, I couldn't afford to pay the SA > staff and I had to > > do it myself, whilst also fending off the legal notices of > those excersizing > > their software escrow clauses and others whom were P-O'd > about my TLS > > servers being suddenly off-line. 60% of that /24 are > various forms of server > > cluster. > > You decided to run a business on DSL, and now you're paying > the price for > that. You really have nothing to complain about except your own bad > judgement. Why is this thread still going? Now, the last I looked, DSL was SUPPOSED to be sold to businesses. The poor consumer is stuck the cable. BTW, the DSL worked fine, right up until Covad cut it off. Do you always blame your sister for getting raped?

2 1

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Michael Shields 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

In article <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFAEBNCFAA.mathias(a)koerber.org>, "Mathias Koerber" <mathias(a)koerber.org> wrote: > Because it does not matter whether it's network byte order or not? 16.1.16.1 is sensitive to network byte order; this program demonstrates that: #include <stdio.h> #include <arpa/inet.h> #include <netinet/in.h> #include <sys/socket.h> int main(void) { struct in_addr sin; if (inet_aton("16.1.16.1", &sin) < 0) { perror("inet_aton failed"); exit(1); } printf("Host byte order: %10lu 0x%08lx\n", sin.s_addr, sin.s_addr); printf("Network byte order: %10lu 0x%08lx\n", htonl(sin.s_addr), htonl(sin.s_addr)); return(0); } On IA32 this outputs: Host byte order: 17826064 0x01100110 Network byte order: 268505089 0x10011001 and on sun4c: Host byte order: 268505089 0x10011001 Network byte order: 268505089 0x10011001 This occurs because the MSB vs. LSB conversion reorders at byte units, but the mental reordering we perform while looking at a hexadecimal representation occurs at the four-bit unit represented by one hex digit. 16.1.1.16 would be a palindrome at the byte level (0x10010110), and so htonl() will be a no-op on it even on a little-endian machine. I hope this clears things up. Let's run some networks now. -- Shields.

1 0

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:14 PM > > [ On Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 17:09:14 (-0600), Stephen > Sprunk wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > Renumbering PCs is a trivial task. Reconfiguring hundreds (or > > thousands) of routers, firewalls, etc. to account for the > moved PCs is > > not trivial. Renumbering servers is not trivial. > > For _small_ networks (where this discussion started) even manual > reconfiguration of all the hosts (including servers) in an > office, on a > floor, or even in a small building, would take less time than this > discussion has gone on for! Good, then you won't mind paying for my renumber then ... BTW, having gone through this excersize a number of times, you are wrong. I depends on what types of services you are ruinning on how many hosts and the complexity of your distributed clusters. The ones that gave me the greatest heartburn is my Oracle DB cluster. But, my root zone cluster was almost as bad, followed closely by my web cluster and my Win2K AD/DDNS domains. Of course, re-engineering a /24 onto a /27 ate a bunch of time. Oh yeah, since the revenues were flat-lined, I couldn't afford to pay the SA staff and I had to do it myself, whilst also fending off the legal notices of those excersizing their software escrow clauses and others whom were P-O'd about my TLS servers being suddenly off-line. 60% of that /24 are various forms of server cluster. You either have too much money or you haven't been there. That arm-chair is nice and cushy ... isn't it?

2 1

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:47 PM > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > > > You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, > if someone were to > > offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to > ask where you > > wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling > upon delivery. > > > > Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than > domain names. > > > Yes -- but no one IP is any more or less desirable than any other IP, > assuming both are portable, routable, and routed. Not so with domain > names. Anyone want to guess how much sex.com would sell for? > As opposed > to, say, jkl.cx ... Wrongo, a routable portable IP block is MUCH more desireable than a non-routable one. This usually means legacy space. ISP specific and CIDR swamps are not cool. It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a market differentiator. Rather, I pointed one out. In the DNS world, it's specific string, in the IP-block world, it's the attributes associated with the particular block. BTW, i've been getting comments that some folks are biasing evaluations of some clients, based on the ip addrs of the client's hosts. They know which ones are in AboveNet, ELI, etc co-lo's.

2 1

RE: Reality Check
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon@eiv.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:09 PM > If they stop using it, the advertising dollars will stop rolling in. You really ought to read you friendly neighborhood news paper. Just what do you think is causing the dot-com crash? The advertising dollars are running out, even with high visitation rates. Users are simply not clicking on banners as hoped. The free-ride is over folks.

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Richard A. Steenbergen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:19:03PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > What Vadim is trying to explain to you is that this does not scale(or at > least not with the current system.) When I type in the world "apple" do I > want information on the fruit, the computer company, or the record > company(or something else that contains/is related to the string "apple"?) > > Add to this the complexity of multilingualism, where a string of > characters can have a reasonably deterministic meaning or set of meanings > in one language, and a completely different set of meanings in > another. > > > Search engines are horribly inaccurate for trying to reach any > > single particular page, unless it's so bizarre that you only get a dozen > > search results. I would definitely not advocate search engines to replace > > the current DNS system, unless a whole new generation of search engines > > was created that could effectively deduce exactly where the user _really_ > > wanted to go, accurately, every time (which is what DNS currently does). > > So tell me when I type in the word "apple" where exactly do I want to go? Ok this is getting downright rediculous. There is a reason we HAVE search engines, to find the links between content names and destination names. If I want to order an apple I don't goto www.apple.com. These levels of naming exist for a reason. If you want to find content about apples you goto Google and search for apples, if you want to goto Apple Computer you type www.apple.com, and if you want to goto a specific server you type 17.254.0.91. If you cannot figure out what to type or where to type it, this is not my problem. If this thread stops right now I will pay everyone who participated in it up to this point $1000 US each. Thank you. -- 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)

2 1