- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing
by NetSurfer 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Proposed charging up to $20,000 for IP addresses - more unsubstantiated rumor? ---------- From: David Stoddard <dgs(a)us.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: jfbb(a)atmnet.net Subject: Re: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 8:29 PM 8< snip 8< snip 8< snip For the sake of discussion, this is the following fee structure that has been proposed by ARIN (see the ARIN proposal page at http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html) Small $2500/year /24 - /19 Medium $5000/year >/19 - /16 Large $10K/year >/16 - /14 X-Large $20K/year >/14 Fees are based on your total allocation for the previous year, plus another $1,000 per year to maintain membership in ARIN. It is safe to say that any ISP able to receive address blocks falls somewhere between Medium and X-Large on this chart. --------- As for an IANA Statement on the subject: http://www.arin.net/iana.html ========================================= IANA Statement on ARIN (1/14/97) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Internet Assigned Nunbers Authority (IANA) views the move by Network Solutions to promote the creation of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) as a non-profit, self-supporting, independent operation as a very positive step and fully supports the general concept. --jon. Jon Postel Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ----------

3 2

Re: Ascend/Netstar GRF 400
by garyz＠savvis.com 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Yes, we are having very good luck with are GRF1600s also, We are now Cisco free, and the GRFs are performing very well. There are some issues, but Ascend is stepping to plate on all issues. We are building a ATM nation wide network using the GRF to get to the internet. These things will melt down a Cisco 75xx router and keep on ticking, and for allot less money. Also, did everyone see the WallStreet this morning. Ascend buys Cascade..... Look out, IP switching is really around the corner for all of us ATMer.... Gary Zimmerman V.P. Network Engineering Savvis Communication Corp. www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 ---------- > From: Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> > To: Chris A. Icide <chris(a)nap.net> > Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Re: Ascend/Netstar GRF 400 > Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 5:33 PM > > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Chris A. Icide wrote: > > > Is anyone successfuly using one of these? I've got one in the labs > > here, and have found some interesting problems. Ascend engineers > > are hot on the problems, but I was wondering if anyone else has any > > experience. > > Yes, our network is now cisco free! We have been using the GRF1600s for > several months in our network. We have found a few problems, but Ascend > has been VERY fast to fix them. So far they blow away the Cisco solution > we were using. > > > Our current problems seem to be related to buffer overruns on the > > ATM/Q card. > > We have not used the ATM/Q card a lot, but I am sure Ascend can fix any > problem you may have. We are using cascade 900s as backbone switches into > the GRF 1600s via HSSI. We plan to move this to OC3 as soon as we finish > testing. > > > Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. > Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 > WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about > itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

2 1

Re: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing
by NetSurfer 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

Earlier I was chastised for stating unfounded rumor about fees of up to $20,000/year yet a similar fee structure for new registrations/services from ARIN is being proposed. Just wanted to point out that I wasn't referencing unfounded rumor but rather a reference that needed qualified i.e. allocation services for organizations requesting address space directly from ARIN. ---------- From: David R. Conrad <davidc(a)apnic.net> >Proposed charging up to $20,000 for IP addresses - more unsubstantiated >rumor? Sigh. Would you *please* read the proposal (http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html, http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html might also be helpful). If you had you would see that the fee is for allocation _services_ and only applicable to organizations requesting address space _directly_ from ARIN.

1 0

Re: BGP4 COMMUNITY attribute
by George Matey 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

At 01:08 PM 3/28/97 -0700, Dave Siegel wrote: >> John W. Stewart II writes: >> > rfc1997. i think there's a GateD with communities >> >> Yup. > >Bay Networks supports them as well, though I'm not sure if it's in the >mainstream code...it might only be in 11.01 (ANS code). > >Dave BGP communities have been in mainline Bay code since 11.00. 11.01 is also mainline code that has recently been released. -- George Matey Network Engineer Internet Service Provider Group Bay Networks

1 0

Re: PC Magazine on Internet logjams
by Justin W. Newton 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

At 01:49 PM 3/30/97 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1607/pcmg0165.htm > >Breaking Up the Internet Logjam (04/08/97) Wow, this article is so phenominally inaccurate hat it is almost silly. I wonder who all of the rest of my peering sessions are with if there are only 20 or so providers connected to NAP's. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large

2 1

ARIN is A Good Thing
by Jim Browning 31 Mar '97

31 Mar '97

My apologies to those who do not consider this to be an operational issue, however I feel that service providers who believe ARIN represents a positive step should express their support for the proposal, to ensure that it is not slowed by institutional intervention. Should the allocation of IP addresses become mired in the problems we have seen happen with domain names, it will certainly become a major operational consideration... ---------- I am writing this to express ATMnet's support for ARIN (the American Registry for Internet Numbers) in the strongest possible terms. It is of the utmost importance that the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses not be jeopardized by the turmoil currently surround the Domain Name System (DNS), and that immediate steps be taken to move in the direction defined in the ARIN proposal. DNS issues are primarily related to factors such as market leverage, and obtaining any particular domain name can be viewed as something of a luxury. IP Addresses, on the other hand, are of operational concern, and timely and appropriate access to this resource is absolutely required for the continued growth of the Internet. Obtaining consensus on any important Internet related topic is excruciatingly difficult in today's environment. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debates over DNS and IP Addresses. Fortunately, there are stark contrasts between the two issues. The DNS debates are filled with rancor and punctuated by alternative efforts and litigation. While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital function is both necessary and appropriate. Old-timers and newcomers have found some common ground. There are of course those who would like to see things taken in a different direction, as there always will be when something of this nature is discussed. There are also issues which still need to be resolved, and a lot of work which needs to be done. ATMnet is confident that the people trying to accomplish these tasks have the necessary skills, ethics and standing in the community to get the job done right. There is "rough consensus". There is "running code" in the form of the people and systems currently performing the function, and the two similar entities (APNIC and RIPE) which are already in operation under similar charters. It is time for ARIN to move forward unfettered by Federal intervention or oversight. When confronted with change and new alternatives, the appropriate direction to take is not always evident. In this case however, it is clear to ATMnet that ARIN deserves all our support simply because it is the right thing to do for the health of a growing and vibrant industry. -- Jim Browning <jfbb(a)ATMnet.net> CEO, ATMnet <www.ATMnet.net>

15 20

RE: ARIN is A Good Thing
by Jim Browning 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

>From: Ehud Gavron[SMTP:GAVRON@ACES.COM] >Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 1:11 AM > > IF DNS pays for IP and the InterNIC made $60M profit DESPITE > also doing IP, then clearly DNS fees are too high. > > IF ARIN means that IP pays for IP and the DNS funds are unfettered, > then that $60M profit (in one year) would be much more than $60M. As has been pointed out, the numbers you are quoting are fictitious.. -- Jim Browning

4 3

PC Magazine on Internet logjams
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1607/pcmg0165.htm Breaking Up the Internet Logjam (04/08/97) Hank

2 1

RE: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
by Dave O'Shea 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

The original message confused me a little. I could (mis?)interpret it to say that mail that has been given to them, by some outside party, to be relayed to another outside party - since spammers typically attack a mail server outside their (registered via credit card) home provider, who might just whack them with an arbitrary "high message traffic" charge. In this case, so long as AT&T made the policy clear up front (perhaps by having sendmail reference it in it's greeting) I think they would be in the clear. I've been tempted to put a "$1000 per non-local origin/destination" charge message on my sendmail banner, and then have my legal department whack Krazy Kevin with a seven-digit default judgement next time he tries a spam run. Let's see ya get a mortgage with that one on your TRW, pal. Dave O'Shea Manager, Network Operations 713-307-6760 Wiltel Communications Systems Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:sob@newdev.harvard.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:32 PM To: jhc(a)lynxhub.att.com; lon(a)moonstar.com Cc: Brian_Murrell(a)bctel.net; kevin(a)ascend.com; nanog(a)merit.edu; spam-list(a)psc.edu; spam(a)zorch.sf-bay.org Subject: Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet -- Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to screw around with mail that you have accepted for delivery. -- spammers bill of rights? kinda don't think that would have been the aim. Scott

1 0

NAPs - Temperature vs Packet loss
by Alex.Bligh 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

We've noticed an interesting phenomenon with MAE-East. Packet loss corelates nicely to temperature. At first I assumed the relationship was Busy Network => Hot routers and also Busy Network => Packet Loss. But this is not the case. It appears to be Hot Routers => Packet Loss. Boone Boulevard MAE-East is currently running very hot. Intake temp on our router has been up to 40 degrees today, and output at 70. Under these conditions, the router (a 7010) starts dropping a pile of packets occassionally. Mostly these seem to be through the AIP and a clear int a0/0 fixes it. The time it stays fixed for is heavilly corelated with temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter it stays fixed for. Eventually MFS put a fan on the router and it seems a lot better now, intake temperature being down to 36/37 degrees. 40 degrees is Cisco's default "warning" threshold. One would have thought boxes should work OK at 40 degrees. On the other hand one might also have thought a 18-22 degree aircon environment was a prerequisite of running a decent IXP. Is anyone else seeing high temperature and otherwise inexplicable packet loss at MAE-East? Or does anyone else have data to corelate? Alex Bligh Xara Networks

5 4