- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

15 Mar '01

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 Ben Browning 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

At 11:21 PM 3/14/2001, Vadim Antonov wrote: >And so does any web browser and even all popular e-mail software. The >point is: you don't _remember_ e-mail addresses with their FQDNs, you look >them up in the address book. I remember FQDN's. I know where to email when I want to reach abuse(a)some.isp too. I also know how to tell someone over coffee what my address is, or my mom's email address. For that matter, she remembers my email address, FQDN and all. This is a woman who labeled every port and every cable with matching labels like "a", "b", etc, just to move her desktop to a different room in the house. Labels have an intrinsic value that goes far beyond the scope of the internet, and even beyond the scope of language. A name. What is a name? A rose by any other name... Wouldn't be a rose anymore, would it? We place immense value in names. When you are sick, the first thing you want to know is the name of the disease. When you see someone, someone that stirs the ancient hormonal need to breed, what do you want to know? A name. When something is discovered, be it molecule or star, organism or crystalline formation, what do we do to mark the occasion? We name it. And then we name the day we named it, so we can celebrate that name. Trying to divorce names from our thought processes (even if only in this one area) would be painful (if possible at all) to the general populace. Not to mention the damage it would do to marketing campaigns (print, radio, and TV). >Long-term memory is _much_ better remembering gestalts than precise ASCII >strings. I'm exchanging e-mail with my colleague nearly every day, but >i can't remember what exactly variant of spelling is used for his name >(there's at least sixteen ways to spell his name in English, each as good >as any other :). Methinks he needs a shorter alias. >What i learned so far - if technology aims to change human nature, it >fails. It is very naive to assume that brotherhood of technologists will >stay cooperative when real money gets in. I do not like it any more than >any other techie, but let's face reality. The control of domain name >space is passing from technologists to lawyers and politicos. Only if we bend over and lube for it. >What i am proposing is to remove the contention point. When "names" do not >have intrinsic value, nobody'll fight over them. Do you see many scandals >around people who own cool IP addresses? :) No, but I bet you would see a mad dash for 123.123.123.123 and the like if your proposal were to take hold. > > There's a lot of other stuff behind that, but, I think that you get the > > point. > >The Internet is successful precisely because it is decentralized. There >is absolutely no reason to make the few "natural" central points >vulnerable by having them to dispense what is considered intrinsically >valuable property. (Thanks God, NAT made IP address allocations somewhat >less critical). The Internet is only useful because of standardization (IP, TCP, UDP, SNMP, ICMP, the list goes on forever). Otherwise, we are left sitting in a dark room with 200 other people... all speaking different languages. Let's just ditch this whole "Internet" thing and go back to BBSes, shall we? ~Ben, blah blah speaks for himself blah not reflect blah blah employer --- Ben Browning <benb(a)theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com

2 1

RE: Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Sorry, I misaddressed a message

1 0

Recall: Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Roeland Meyer would like to recall the message, "Inane ... even for NANOG.".

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by smd＠clock.org 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

| How long will it be before they mandate IP address portability? If ISPs collectively mandated trivial site renumbering technology, it would never need to happen. Unfortunately most ISPs are quite happy to let migrating customers retain holes from other ISPs' PA blocks. Also, not enough people point out that this technology is just as lacking in IPv6 as in IPv4. This is the crux of the problem, and will hurt everyone. Sean.

2 1

RE: Inane ... even for NANOG.
by Roeland Meyer 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:35 AM > To: Roeland Meyer > Cc: 'Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu' > Subject: Re: Inane ... even for NANOG. > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > > > > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:57 AM > > > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:22:52 PST, Roeland Meyer > > > <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com>said: > > > > > 16.1.16.1; I don't > > > > > Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course. > > > > > > > HEX:=="313631313631" > > > > > > I think the intended value was 0x10011001 > > > > And the signifigance of this bit pattern is ...? > > > > [from too many decades doing assembly level communications > drivers to handle > > both ASCII/EIA and EBCDIC. Nothing there is either special > or amusing, > > anymore. Not for decades.] > > > > so ... who is Fifi? > > 15 in hex is x'0f'. 16 is x'1f'. 15.1.15.1 would be fifi. > 16.1.16.1 is > something else. 15 = 0x0f 16 = 0x10 011001011001 it still makes no sense.

1 0

.xxx conflicts - new.net has competition :-)
by Hank Nussbacher 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42373,00.html Hank

2 1

RE: .xxx conflicts - new.net has competition :-)
by Dee McKinney 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Pardon me for being a skeptic but believe it when you see it :) -----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:16 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: .xxx conflicts - new.net has competition :-) http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42373,00.html Hank

1 0

UUNet / ATT peering meltdown?
by Travis Pugh 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Not to open up any potential disputes, but has anyone heard what is going on between UUNet and AT&T on the east coast? We've been seeing this kind of performance for a week ... standard UUNet NOC response was "it's ATT's problem, call them" which doesn't do me a whole lot of good since we're not an ATT customer. UUNet --> ATT 6 POS6-0.BR3.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.24.97) 9.212 ms 9.633 ms 10.363 ms 7 137.39.52.74 (137.39.52.74) 9.642 ms 12.967 ms 12.137 ms 8 gbr3-p50.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.1.122) 418.555 ms 416.419 ms 419.819 ms ATT --> UUNet 8 ggr1-p370.attga.ip.att.net (12.123.20.253) [AS 7018] 20 msec 24 msec 20 msec 9 att-gw.atl.uu.net (192.205.32.130) [AS 7018] 396 msec 396 msec 392 msec 10 179.at-6-0-0.XR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.82.190) [AS 701] 388 msec 388 msec 388 msec Thanks. -travis

3 2

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

15 Mar '01

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. Then it require changes in edge network infrastructure and/or client software, depending upon where the translation makes the most sense. This change, if ever attempted, would be highly painful, just like LNP was. But if you are forced to go through the pain, might was well try to solve the resulting routing problem too. Prabhu -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:37 AM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:59:53AM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before > > the phone call is connected, a translation is made between > > the logical number and the actual number. The actual > > number is based upon geography, and consists of > > country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then > > physical port number. As a result, the routing tables > > in telephone networks are small. For example, if you > > are in the US and need to call the UK, the network > > only needs one entry for all telephone networks in > > the UK (plus a few more for redundancy). > > This translation/lookup function is only necessary once per call > in a circuit-switched network. > > In a packet-switched network, it's required once per packet. > > For this reason, number portability on the internet and in the > PSTN are quite different problems. > > > Joe >

2 1