- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: The questions stand
by Rob Wilson 20 May '98

20 May '98

David... You'll probably never get concensus on any of the questions posed, as they are religious debates. Just peer privately.... rw -----Original Message----- From: Pickett, David [SMTP:dpickett@northc.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 10:56 AM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: The questions stand My objectives are far more pedestrian than any effort to confuse or divide the Internet community. I'm working at getting a handle on what about the NAPs does and does not work. I've seen some discussion on frames vs cells in the NAPs, and that's an interesting albeit religiously charged subject. I've heard speakers soap-boxing about the need for a decent policy-free L2 interconnect. Are we there yet? Who's heading in the right direction? Does the current NAP model meet your needs as ISPs? Do we just light more fibre or do we need a better solution? Reply to the list or to me directly. I'm all ears. David R. Pickett Northchurch Communications Inc 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA 01080 978-691-4649

1 0

RE: Fwd: FW: Removal from APNIC lists
by Jim Fleming 20 May '98

20 May '98

On Wednesday, May 20, 1998 12:42 PM, Eric Germann[SMTP:ekgermann@cctec.com] wrote: @My point is no one gives a shit about your politics. Since my routers are @designed as magnets to attract packets from the AP region, I could really @care less about their allocation policies, funding, etc. As long as their @addresses are magnetic, I'll take them in. :) @ You obviously did not understand the question. Let me put it in simpler and more specific terms. If someone goes to the APNIC (or RIPE for that matter) and they obtain a block of IP addresses, let's say a /16. Can they have that block advertised in North America and have packets routed to hosts located in North America ? Do any NANOG operators allow that ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

2 1

RE: Fwd: FW: Removal from APNIC lists
by Jim Fleming 20 May '98

20 May '98

On Wednesday, May 20, 1998 10:29 AM, Eric Germann[SMTP:ekgermann@cctec.com] wrote: @North America != Asia Pacific @ Are you saying that no router located in North America advertises routes to blocks in any of the following ranges ? In other words, if someone were to block the entire 202.x.x.x range they would be assured they would not lose any contact with North America ? http://teckla.apnic.net/annual_reports/1997/resource_status.htm#c4_1 Percentage Used ------------------------- 0% 61.x.x.x <-------- April 25, 1997 0% 169.208.x.x 0% 169.209.x.x 0% 169.210.x.x 0% 169.211.x.x 0% 169.212.x.x 0% 169.213.x.x 0% 169.214.x.x 0% 169.215.x.x 80% 202.x.x.x 80% 203.x.x.x 12% 210.x.x.x 12% 211.x.x.x ========== Do 100% of the NANOG members refuse to advertise blocks in the above ranges from facilities located in North America ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

2 1

a little thought on exchanging traffic
by black＠bleep.ishiboo.com 20 May '98

20 May '98

Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture? Multiple data centers interconnected over ATM in a single metro area run by indepdenant entities who are free to provide any level of service or value add they wish. Thoughts? Ben black(a)ishiboo.com

8 8

SKYWORD OK
by Martin, Christian 20 May '98

20 May '98

All, I just sent a test message to myself (1:30 AM EST). All seems OK. Chris

2 1

RE: a little thought on exchanging traffic
by Pickett, David 20 May '98

20 May '98

> The fundamental problem is there are no magic pixie dust in this business. > Sure, some people like to put out press releases saying how they've solved > all the worlds problems using the Magic Frambulator. But what they've usually > done is ignored half the problem. So, just how would the members of this group characterize this problem. I am among the people who are "putting a lot of thought into this", and would like a fresh re-hash of the issues. > Or...they have designed systems that have the wrong goals... > For example, some people design routers to "attract packets" > like magnets. They design protocols for routers to tell other > routers what packets to send them. Why on earth do people > and companies want packets ? Processing packets costs > time and money. Imagine a world where routers tell other > routers what NOT to send them. Curious angle. Have route tables near the core of the network gotten so large that it would be easier to advertise what NOT to send? I am dubious. The fundamental job of an L3 forwarding agent is to apply a forwarding policy to traffic that flows through it. Whether this policy is applied as positive or negative logic makes no difference in terms of forwarding performance. By advertising which packets you DO want, you are implicitly telling a forwarding engine which packets you DON'T want at the same time. > Routers should be designed to "repel packets" and to quickly > get rid of the ones they have. By telling your neighbors that "I only want packets that meet this specific criteria" are you not actively repelling all of this packets that don't meet the criteria? > They should also be designed > to send them as quickly as possible to the place they belong > and not to some black-hole called a NAP so that people can > puff out their chests about their NAP being bigger than the > next NAP. I doubt that anyone would take issue with your requirement that L3 forwarding agents, forward traffic as quickly and accurately as possible. In the same breath, you address the highly complex and very different issue about how to interconnect these L3 devices. L3 Forwarding devices implement policy. The policies, in their most basic form, tell the forwarding agents where, when, and how to handle various classes of traffic. What happens when competitive entities need to interconnect their L3 devices in order to build a larger network? Does the current NAP model work well? Do peering agreements, as we understand them today, work and scale well? Thoughts? dp David R. Pickett Northchurch Communications Incorporated 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA 01810 978-691-4649

2 1

Re: SkyTel 2Way pagers DOWN all US
by John Fraizer - Administrator 20 May '98

20 May '98

>Interesting. Of course, we know from the OJ saga that Cellphones can be >located well enough to find a moving vehicle... Anyone who thinks they can hide or have a private conversation for that matter and owns a cellular phone is sadly mistaken. The fact of the matter is that it is possible to send commands to the phone from the MTSO and cause it to turn on the hands-free mic and transmit on channel xxx at a power level of yyy with a SAT tone of zzz. It is then trivial to put one of the scanning receivers in each of the cell sites in the area surrounding the LKA of the phone into receive on that channel, voting S/N on the SAT tone to get the best audio from the best receiver and piping the audio to a test jack on the switch which has a recorder/speaker/whatever connected. While we're at it, since we know you're on transmitting on channel XXX, it is trivial to DF you based on foreign-carrier-detect alarms alone within about 1000 yards. Beyond that, anyone with the most antiquated DF equipment could find you in minutes. Of course, I've never done this. Especially not with an EMX-2500. And most definitely not in Charlotte, NC while working for the B carrier there. Still, very big-brotherish. ------- John Fraizer (tvo) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:tvo@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

2 1

Fwd: FW: Removal from APNIC lists
by Eric Germann 20 May '98

20 May '98

There is a God. >From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming(a)unety.net> >To: "'ietf(a)ietf.org'" <ietf(a)ietf.org> >Subject: FW: Removal from APNIC lists >Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 04:34:06 -0500 >Encoding: 20 TEXT > > > >---------- >From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] >Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 3:13 AM >To: Jim Fleming >Cc: apnic-talk(a)apnic.net >Subject: Removal from APNIC lists > >Jim Fleming, > >At the request of the chair of the APNIC Executive Council, you have been >removed from APNIC related lists due to your disruptive behavior. > >Regards, >-drc > ============================================================================ ==== Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider

3 2

RE: Fwd: FW: Removal from APNIC lists
by Jim Fleming 20 May '98

20 May '98

On Wednesday, May 20, 1998 9:17 AM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] wrote: @ @Eric Germann writes: @> There is a God. @ @Now if only someone could get him off of the IETF and nanog lists, and @maybe a few others... @ @.pm @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

1 0

Re: renumbering and roaming
by William Allen Simpson 20 May '98

20 May '98

> From: "Michael S. Fischer" <otterley(a)iPass.COM> > In message <19980518135928.37530(a)mcs.net>, Karl Denninger writes: > >That doesn't work; too many of those things must be hard-coded numbers > >(specifically, the DNS servers). > > What has to be hard-coded besides the DNS servers? Once you have a > DNS server assigned (which is typically done by the NAS anyway) the > rest is simple. > Ideal World: Nothing should be hard coded. Every NAS should support DHCP and DHCP INFORM. Each roaming user simply sends a DHCP multicast / broadcast packet, which is intercepted and forwarded by the NAS (serial link) or the local router (LAN), and recieves a list of services, including DNS. This is the direction that many of us in the IETF have been advocating for about 11 years.... Real World: Although all the early (circa '89-92) NAS's supported BOOTP/DHCP relaying, more recent shoe-string NAS vendors are missing it, and clients have not universally implemented DHCP. We have to tell our customers the list of local DNS (and other) servers for them to type into their configuration (or we use a standard install CD). For this latter scenario, a few default universal hardcoded numbers would be a great idea! It would help with legacy clients, it would help roaming, and would not hurt as DHCP gets installed base. I look forward to reading the internet-draft. It should require no changes to client or server software. > In our experience, well over 90% of roaming users (which excludes UNIX > and Mac users) use dynamically-assigned DNS servers. Clearly this > approach won't work for those clients that don't support the LCP > extensions, but we consider this "Best Current Practice." Those > clients that can't use dynamic DNS server assignment will have to use > the home ISP's services. > Speaking as the author of "LCP Extensions", there is no such LCP extension as "dynamically-assigned DNS servers". There is a bogus, NDA'd, Mircosoft-only, NetBEUI extension to PPP IPCP, using numbers stolen from the high end of the option space without registering with IANA, which is marginally applicable to DNS. This approach has been officially rejected by the IETF. It is not a "best current practice". It only works with NT servers, which no sane and stable ISP would use. > We consider it important to make sure as many NASes and PPP clients as > possible support dynamic DNS. About the only major obstacle to that > is OT/PPP (MacOS) and, to a lesser degree, UNIX. > AFIAK, Dynamic DNS is _only_ supported by Unix, but I have high hopes to see it on MacOS, now that Vinnie is back at Apple. I have no idea why it would be supported by a NAS or PPP client. I think you have your terminology wrong.... WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

6 6