- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Whoa; the 3 network?
by Randall Pigott 28 Dec '97

28 Dec '97

At 06:11 PM 12/23/97 +0000, some abusive halfwit wrote: >> >GE is heavily firewalled; i'm not suprised you didn't get any >answers. > >stupid experiment, really. And a stupid comment, really. No wonder GE no longer wants his services. Look, gang, the reason to do a public ping is that in the last analysis, GE only needs public IP addresses for those infrastructure machines that need public exposure and contact with the public internet. Granted, there are some exceptions. However, a ping -a should bring up at least every valid router on their network that sits in front of a firewalled virtual private network element, plus the firewall host itself. Most everything else sits behind a firewall. By definition, then, those machines can and should be proxied for external public internet connections and can use private network numbers. Those that are not behind the proxy and firewall can keep their public numbers. Despite transit across segments of the public internet, as Mr. Bono of GE so rightly pointed out, only the machines exposed to the public internet need public numbers. The goal here is only to find publicly pingable IPs in use, not to count all hosts behind firewalls. So much for the ex-GE contractor. It is apparent that GE had no more use for his comments than I do, since he is proud to still be able to at least call himself an ex-GE contractor. Mr. Bono, on the other hand, did state useful facts. He is a part of GE, and thus is limited to only pointing out facts that serve GE interests. What he did not point out is that number of employees <> number of needed public static IP addresses. First, the majority of GE employees are blue-collar clock-punchers in factories both in the US and especially overseas. They are not allowed time by the assembly line supervisors for internet access even if they did have the knowledge and desire to establish a permanent presence on the public internet. Second, assume for the moment that leaves maybe 300,000 or those 1.7 million workers eligible for having a white collar AND an office AND a desk with a static address PC on it. How many of these pee cees really have direct exposure to the public internet and are NOT behind a firewall? The one useful comment Mr. Ex-GE Contractor came up with is that GE is heavily firewalled. That means less than 5 percent or so actually see the internet without the blockage of a firewall. Those 5 percent or less are predominantly small offices with small one-segment LANs that do not need a firewall and do not justify a full period private leased line. Of course, back when there *was* a GEIS doing a viable public dial-in ISP business, all that was different. But no more. So let's say less than 60,000 static public IPs are needed for the entire 1.7 million employee GE. That is being generous, BTW. How then can you justify needing more than a single Class-B, or at most two or three worldwide? Only if you admit you use it inefficiently. You cannot convincingly argue that a heavily-firewalled corp needs 100 percent public IPs behind that proxy firewall. Equally, there is no defensible position from which to argue that those users cannot be proxied for virtually all external access from behind that firewall. Sure, if done all at once this would be a time-intensive renumbering process, but other major corps have completed renumbering plans within their normal pee cee workstation refresh cycles and have done so at minimal additional marginal cost over a 12 to 18 month period. GE should not be so bloated and ineffective that their IT staff cannot follow the lead of other corps and do this for the public good. I challenge GE to say that this is not so, and provide pertinent and defensible facts and figures to back it up. I believe that if the truth were know, Jack Kelly and gang are guilty of definitely warehousing hundreds of thousands and almost certainly millions of unneeded public IP addresses because they think they can get away with it and for no other reason. We through ARIN and others should be reallocated this address space for the public use of our subscribers. OK, even though the horse ran away long ago, that's a good tilt at a windmill anyway for ya........Happy Holidays to ALL Randall

10 13

Modem testing software..
by Young M. Park 28 Dec '97

28 Dec '97

Hi, Can anybody recommend me a good modem testing tool? It will be used on customer side to check how stable the connection is and what rate of speed it's actually getting. Thanks in advace for any responses. Young Park ______________________________ / _____) / Associate Engineer (___________________________________________ / Intranet Engineering | / \ Data Engineering | Address: 12502 Sunrise Vallery Dr. / \ Sprint International | Mailstop: VARESA0104 / \________________________| Reston, VA 20191-5606 \ | Phone: 703-689-6723 \ |__________________________________________\ email: ypark(a)sprint.net ypark(a)igate.sprint.com y.park(a)sprint.sprint.com

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 26 Dec '97

26 Dec '97

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Dec 26 12:00:00 PST 1997 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 26Dec97 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 191297 46949 201297 46969 211297 46910 221297 46996 231297 47516 241297 47566 251297 47463 261297 47433 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 1662 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 778 (143 cidr, 635 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 121 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 583 announced by AS1 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 26Dec97 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS4293 201 102 99 49.3% IMCI AS72 84 36 48 57.1% Schlumberger Information Network AS719 505 460 45 8.9% LANLINK autonomous system AS174 298 258 40 13.4% Performance Systems International AS271 80 46 34 42.5% BCnet Backbone AS1 583 551 32 5.5% BBNPLANET AS1257 296 265 31 10.5% SWIPnet Swedish IP Network AS701 473 443 30 6.3% Alternet AS2493 97 73 24 24.7% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS5381 58 36 22 37.9% PowerTech Information Systems AS AS8517 75 55 20 26.7% ULAKNET-ASN AS6822 37 19 18 48.6% SuperOnline autonomous system AS6663 35 17 18 51.4% InterComp Bucharest AS3663 25 7 18 72.0% NETNET-NET AS3563 59 41 18 30.5% Pilot Network Services, Inc. AS2048 45 28 17 37.8% LaNet AS2561 36 20 16 44.4% Egyptian Networks AS6897 32 17 15 46.9% Global-One Spain AS3564 29 15 14 48.3% Microserve Infromation Systems In AS2907 110 96 14 12.7% SINET AS1239 268 254 14 5.2% SprintLink Backbone AS6846 30 17 13 43.3% UKRPACK.NET AS1785 162 149 13 8.0% NYSERNet Backbone AS5666 35 23 12 34.3% Omnes - A Schlumberger and Cable AS4000 74 62 12 16.2% Global IP AS2752 38 26 12 31.6% THOMSONCA-AS AS549 93 82 11 11.8% ONet Backbone AS3577 30 19 11 36.7% PREPnet-WEST AS2686 46 35 11 23.9% Autonomous System number for IBM AS816 54 44 10 18.5% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4) For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

test Nets being routed?
by Matthew D. Lammers 25 Dec '97

25 Dec '97

Happy Holidays To You All! Am I the only one seeing the 192.168.0.0 test net going somewhere? RFC 1918 mandates 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 [192.168/16] for private networks (testing), right? Inc.net seems to have some problems... >From 206.183.227.10, I can get to them via telnet...These are definately NOT my hosts, either... :) ====== zeus% telnet 192.168.1.2 Trying 192.168.1.2 ... Connected to 192.168.1.2. Escape character is '^]'. ComOS - Livingston PortMaster login: ====== And this one: ====== zeus% traceroute 192.168.1.2 1 gw0-core0-ser1-eth0.Hilliard.netset.com (206.183.227.1) 1 ms 1 ms 4 ms 2 core1-hssi1-NETSET.Columbus.fnsi.net (206.183.239.73) 5 ms 4 ms 4 ms 3 aads.nap.net (198.32.130.39) 17 ms 27 ms 19 ms 4 aads.atm.inc.net (198.32.130.68) 25 ms 39 ms 21 ms 5 baryon.atm.inc.net (207.67.1.3) 21 ms 21 ms 24 ms 6 border-233.noc.inc.net (204.95.160.233) 31 ms 24 ms 30 ms ====== Just wanted some other expertise and input.... Regards, -Matt. -- Matthew D. Lammers -- NetSet Internet Solutions, Inc. http://www.netset.com/

9 18

Re: Whoa; the 3 network?
by Randall Pigott 24 Dec '97

24 Dec '97

At 07:08 AM 12/23/97 -0500, you wrote: >Funky discovery... question is, why does GE need such massive addr space? >:) > >-=asr snip >> >> [root@newspeer1 /root]# whois 3.0.0.0 >> General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) >> One Independence Way >> Princeton, NJ 08540 >> >> Netname: GE-INTERNET >> Netnumber: 3.0.0.0 The Princeton address is the same as the old RCA company division that did DARPA and ARPA gov't contracting, so that address space once belonged to RCA "in the beginning". I have personal experience in a past life doing military DARPA work with RCA, nearly twenty years ago, long before they formed RCA Astro and built communications satellites. This address space was given to RCA for DARPA work *only* way back then or earlier. RCA was one of the *first* contractors in the TCP/IP address space, and we worked on the very first gov't. task at the inception with them. No such work has been done for years, and there is no reason for RCA/GE to have this address space anymore. Perhaps the real issue is - now that RCA was swallowed up years ago by the mighty GE in a lengthy acquisitions process, and no longer has any defensible need for this much address space, why do they still have it? It is damn sure not being used for what it was originally intended, nor is it being used to anywhere near 80% of its capacity. I did a casual sequential-countup scripted "ping -a" on a small slice of 3.0.0.0, and found almost no working domains within this address space. Ever wonder? How can they get away with keeping this much address space and NOT be using it, when we all jump through hoops to get our own little blocks of net numbers allocated? Just challenging the status quo again, (gave up tilting at windmills because my horse ran away.....) Randall

9 8

RE: Whoa; the 3 network?
by Bob Bownes 24 Dec '97

24 Dec '97

Gotta deal with it in a historical perspective as well. GE has had IP space almost since the epoch. Much of their network dates from well before well understood subnetting. Heck some of it dates back to the time of the IMP. (Think about every network you've ever inherited...None of them were ever 'right' were they? Now picture one 20+ years in the evolutionary making.) No reason it could not be further optimized, but renumbering hundreds of thousands of machines is not a trivial exercise. And we are talking about > 10^6 machines. Research & Development, a site I formerly worked at, was well over 2K machines alone. 1000 sites with 100 machines is not unimaginable. Toss in subnetting and the fact that, as I recall, there is little central administration of the space, and it becomes a non-trivial issue to re-address it all. GE certainly isn't the only /8 holder out there, nor are they the only one with this kind of problem. I think there are a lot more wasted /16's out there than we may realize, particularly with corporate consolidation being what it is. I can think of several folks with 3 or more /16's resulting from corporate consolidation, all of which could be consolidated into one, but the pain of doing so is high compared to the pain of hiding or refusing to deal with the problem. You gonna move folks with a carrot or a stick? But it's probably time to remove this thread from NANOG. Bob ---------- From: Cameo Davine[SMTP:cameo@netsys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 10:08 AM To: Bono, Vinny (CAP, ITS, US) Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Whoa; the 3 network? All acquired companies. Does that include the /18 of MAI Network Services since that was acquired by GE as well? On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Bono, Vinny (CAP, ITS, US) wrote: | |Well, GE is the largest corporation in the world. The total employees |in all seven divisions and their components is just over 1.7 million. |That is a lot. Add in all the IP devices in NBC's network alone and |you've got a huge number of justifiable space right there. Further, |they, uh sorry, we, :-) are renumbering all acquired companies into the |3.0.0.0/8 range and returning the historic class B's (i.e. Ameridata, |Bodan, etc.). | |Vincent J. Bono |Comstor Corporation |A GE Capital Service Company - P.800.311.4219*C.703.867.4357 cameo.d.wood

1 0

Impact of paying for address space
by Phil Howard 24 Dec '97

24 Dec '97

With there being a fee structure coming into place for obtaining address space, businesses are going to end up being more conservative with their space requests. Maybe. I suspect many will. If you expect to assign a /17 worth of space over the next year, why ask for all /17 of it now. Why not get a /19 each quarter as needed. With the fee structure in place, there would be less panic about space becoming too scarce. Now if this does take place, and I believe it will although I am not sure to what scale, that will mean that each business and ISP will have more smaller prefixes. That means more BGP announcements and larger tables and an impact on routers. Thoughts? -- Phil Howard | w4x4y7z4(a)lame0ads.org stop7it6(a)no15ads1.edu no7way47(a)spam6mer.com phil | stop7ads(a)noplace9.net crash317(a)nowhere4.com no42ads2(a)noplace7.edu at | end0it76(a)spammer8.edu blow9me4(a)s9p4a3m3.com end0it61(a)noplace0.edu milepost | eat56me7(a)spammer8.org stop8944(a)no2where.com die3spam(a)noplace4.net dot | stop5ads(a)lame7ads.net suck1it0(a)anyplace.net w8x9y7z9(a)s4p0a5m4.org com | die4spam(a)dumbads4.com end2ads1(a)nowhere2.edu ads7suck(a)anywhere.edu

5 4

Broadcast pings.
by Jamie Scheinblum 24 Dec '97

24 Dec '97

Has anyone seen an increase of broadcast pings, where the source route appears to be from a nameserver? We took a look through our access-list logs, and it seems all of the attempted attacks during the last few days have had an IP-source of a nameserver. Just thought it was curious. Best regards, Jamie Scheinblum - FASTNET(tm) / You Tools Corporation jamie(a)fast.net (610)954-5200 http://www.fast.net/ FASTNET - Business and Personal Internet Solutions

7 7

Re: Impact of paying for address space
by Paul Ferguson 24 Dec '97

24 Dec '97

At 08:29 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote: > >However, looking at the high fees imposed by ARIN for address assignment, >I really hope this practice will not remain in its current form. As >anyone can clearly see, the fees are extremely high, and will surely cause >a raise in costs that are incurred by the end user in one way or another. Listen, many of us have already lived through the e-mail Jihad on the ARIN mailing list, so I really don't want to see this thread perpetuated here. Please, subscribe to the naipr list and have a blast, but please, not here. I would suggest that you take a little time, read the 'recommended reading' list assembled on the ARIN web pages, surf the naipr mailing list archives, etc. I would also suggest that you examine the fact that the Internet community in the European (RIPE) and Asia Pacific (APNIC) communities have been living with similar *service* models for a few years. > >Put simply, I would LOVE to hear some justification for the high fees >imposed by ARIN (in terms of administrative work on their end that is, not >considering the whole scarcity of addresses factor). They are a not-for-profit organization which must be self-sustaining. 'Nuff said. Happy Holidays, - paul

1 0

Re: Whoa; the 3 network?
by Ravi Pina 23 Dec '97

23 Dec '97

> That's SNAFU not snaffoo. > > SNAFU stands for Situation Normal All Fouled Up. > I was pondering that for several minutes and started to get a headache. Good to know tho... thanks! -ravi -- Ravi H Pina * "There are only two way to live your life. One is as ravi(a)iagnet.net * though nothing is a mairacle. The other is as though DID:216.523.2615 * everything is a miracle." NOC:800.424.3223 * -- Albert Einstein

1 0