- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

16 Mar '01

> From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:stuart@mfnx.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:53 AM > > > IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of > 16.1.16.1; I don't > > think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of > the scandal > > remained relatively small. > > > > (The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.) > > Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course. HEX:=="313631313631" Leet:="ELEBELELEBEL" Sorry, I just don't get it ... Is there another coding overlay?

6 6

Gee, operational content: IPv6 routing issues
by Timothy Brown 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

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

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting domain names, people worry less about having an interesting IP address, especially if they know it will be portable. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > the session. > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > translation today so it would first require a > > protocol definition. > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address portability > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just described DNS, > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > Joe >

2 1

Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@cybernothing.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:29 AM > to change the fact that these alternative root server > networks exist and > that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree > it's always a little broken.) That is an understatement (a little broken). I have just been introduced to one of those broken areas, the hard way. Given: 1. Prefix filtering at /20. 2. Most small busineses limited to /24, by policy/procedure. 3. Multi-homing requirements for multi-office businesses (many SOHO's). 4. Impending business failure of many DSL ISPs. 5. Total lack of responsibile behavior among DSL access providers. It is next to impossible for a small business to have reliable internet connectivity without moving into a large co-lo. Even if they can afford the multiple T1's, they can't get portable IP addresses that will be advertised reliably. Many of them need, at most, a pair of /24's and ARIN, knowing this, will not issue them portable blocks larger than /24 without severe justification requirements. Many of you might think that is okay, but what if their upstream dies off (as recently happened to MHSC). In the current day and age, business stops until they get reconnected. This disconnect is at minimum, 4-6 weeks, under the best of circumstances. As one vendor recently pointed out in their adverts, most businesses, down for more than 14 days, will never survive. More importantly, such an outage flat-lines the revenue picture for that entire fiscal quarter, for the unlucky victim. What we have today is a manufactured dependence on a single upstream provider and no way to multi-home. Even co-lo boils down to single-home dependency. Yes, there are a bunch of hacks to work around this problem. But, that is exactly what they are ... hacks. They are not something I could build a sustainable business around. Any business needs: 1. to be able to change upstream providers without having to renumber. 2. to be able to change access providers without having to suffer multi-month down-times. 3. to be able to have its net-block(s) visible regardless of which ISPs they are currently using. Currently the only ones that can do that are those that; 1. Are large enough to justify a /20 (begging the question of how they got that large). 2. Can afford their own datacenter. It looks like our technical solutions are raising unreasonable barriers to entry for small businesses.

8 10

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

16 Mar '01

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. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM > To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > > Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting > domain names, people worry less about having an > interesting IP address, especially if they know it > will be portable. > > Prabhu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > > To: Kavi, Prabhu > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > > the session. > > > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > > translation today so it would first require a > > > protocol definition. > > > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address portability > > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just described DNS, > > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > > > > Joe > > >

2 1

Reality Check
by Timothy R. McKee 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let's have a reality check here. Our job as **OPERATORS** is to provide our subscribers with simple and reliable access to what they consider as the Global Internet. They have the following 2 reasonable expectations: 1) That they can access any publicly acessible web, ftp, email, etc server anywhere in the world by using the destination's published textual address. Without, I might add, having to know that certain locations require loading a special plug-in, changing their resolver, or artificially padding the name. 2) That their customers or prospective customers can access any server OF ANY TYPE that they declare to be public by means of a single published textual address, usually in URL format. Again, with the same caveats as item 1. ************************************************* ** I challenge anyone to prove to me that ** ** their actual customers DON'T expect this!!! ** ************************************************* Remember that, regardless of theoretical arguments, _WE_ are the ones that have to deal with the messes that result from things like this... _WE_ are the ones who will have to pay for the increased NOC and Tech Support staff and phone charges... Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOq+znRRIXzEQLahvEQLjwQCg9TRKv6/zUrD6LAChoqUPNT0yzAUAoKjZ MHVyzwga/VMrkQ0tu7rSfMbE =xFJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 10

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

16 Mar '01

We passed the hat around. We came up with a battered copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a mini-maglite, and a bag of Orville Riddenbacher Popcorn (only partially popped and scorched - the rest is usable). How much will that buy? K :: -----Original Message----- :: From: Chris Davis [mailto:chris.davis@computerjobs.com] :: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:35 PM :: To: 'David Schwartz' :: Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. :: :: :: :: HOWDY! HOWDY! :: :: I AM SELLING I.P. ADDRESSES! :: ARIN HAS HELD THEM FOR "PRIVATE" USE TOO LONG! WHO DO THEY :: THINK THEY ARE? :: NOBODY IS USING THEM ON THE INTERNET! :: :: BARGAIN PRICES! CASH ONLY!!!! :: :: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 :: 172.16.0.0 - 172.32.255.255 :: 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 :: :: RESERVE YOURS NOW! GOING FAST! :: :: :: :: :: :: -----Original Message----- :: From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] :: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:12 PM :: To: Stephen J. Wilcox :: Cc: Jeff Workman; Chris Davis; nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. :: :: :: :: :: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Schwartz wrote: :: > :: > > Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you use? :: > > And you can :: > > continue to use the same nameservers no matter what :: provider you use. :: > :: > Why do nanog threads always repeat themselves fifty times :: before they die? :: :: Because people don't read what other people write. :: :: > Not wishing to repeat myself either but.. :: > :: > Why is choice so important to you? :: :: Who said it was? I'm just saying that it's unreasonable :: for you to :: complain :: about me having a choice. :: :: > OK, I just created Wilcox's law of customer support.. :: > :: > this states that for every choice you give users the :: number of potential :: > problems increases proportianally. :: :: Then don't give your users the choice. See, no problem. :: :: > You give them different operating systems, different :: browsers, different :: > providers now you give them different DNS roots.. :: > :: > You just doubled the number of ways in which a (dumb) home :: user can break :: > their systems and get all confused over why when they just :: installed the :: > new Opal Internet software all the web pages they are used :: to using are :: > different... :: :: Then don't give your customers that choice. Nobody is :: forcing you :: to. :: :: > simple to me, you and everyone on this list, but to a :: (dumb) home user :: > thats 15 minutes to explain the problem, 15 minutes to :: discuss the details :: > of the DNS system and 15 minutes to once again explain how :: this affects :: > them because they dont understand a word you are saying and cant :: > understand why typing in www.yahoo.com now resolves to a porn site! :: > :: > Following me so far? Sure, you are free to choose, very :: good have the :: > "land of the free" feeling of excitement. But I'm :: suggesting its a really :: > bad thing to make this decision for people who are not :: going to understand :: > this and cause all of us nice people problems. :: :: If giving your customers a choice causes you a :: headache, then don't :: give :: them a choice. If you are selling them unfiltered Internet :: access, then give :: them that. If you give them flat-rate support, then give :: them that. If you :: don't support some services, then don't. :: :: DS ::

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Kavi, Prabhu 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Roeland, This thread was about "If IP portability was MANDATED, (like telephone local number portability was mandated), how could it be implemented without blowing up the routing tables?" Hence the qualifier: If all IP addresses will be portable because of the above referenced mandate, there will no grab for interesting addresses. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 PM > To: 'Kavi, Prabhu'; 'Joe Abley' > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > 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. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM > > To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > > > Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting > > domain names, people worry less about having an > > interesting IP address, especially if they know it > > will be portable. > > > > Prabhu > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > > > To: Kavi, Prabhu > > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > > > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > > > the session. > > > > > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > > > translation today so it would first require a > > > > protocol definition. > > > > > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address > portability > > > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just > described DNS, > > > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > >

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

DNS cache poisoning as adequately prevented by making your zone servers non-recursive. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:03 PM > To: David Schwartz > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. > > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:59:28 PST, David Schwartz said: > > Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you > use? And you can > > continue to use the same nameservers no matter what > provider you use. > > Unless the ISP is security conscious and has allow-query and > allow-recurse > ACLs for his netblocks only, to help combat DNS cache poisoning. > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Operating Systems Analyst > Virginia Tech > >

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> So tell me when I type in the word "apple" where exactly do I > want to go? Apple Records, of course (sez an old hippie). On the TM front, Apple Computer only retains their name because of a contingent agreement with Apple Records, the primary trademark-holder of the term "Apple". Apple Computer is prohibited from entering the music recording and distribution business. Wow, does this mean that Apple could never support Napster or MP3.ORG?

2 1