- Test - lists.nanog.org

IEPG agenda items?
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Howdy, its me again. Coming up in April is the Memphis IETF and the traditional IEPG session on the preceeding sunday. Geoff has asked if I would stick out my neck and ask if there are any specific items from these groups that may have been mentioned in their specific regional meetings that might be of interest to a larger audience. Or more directly, are there items that folks would like to see on the IEPG agenda? --bill

1 0

Re: Final agenda
by sob＠academ.com 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

I need to recruit some helpers to cover the second BOF tracks for the notes. If you are willing and interested, let me know. Thanks. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

RE: FW: OIG Investigates the NSF (revised)
by Jim Fleming 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

On Wednesday, February 05, 1997 10:47 AM, William L. Schrader[SMTP:wls@psi.com] wrote: @ Jim, @ @ Thank you for your summary. I don't know you or your company, but as a member @ of the Internet community for many years, it is not often that I find people @ who see how truly biased the NSF has been, and are willing say what they think @ openly. You kindly gave the NSF the benefit of doubt. I disagree with that @ assessment. @ Bill, Thanks for your comments. I am glad that you took the time to draft a response to my comments. It is nice to see that the leader of one of the major Internet Service Providers (PSINet) is willing to use the Internet to openly discuss these important issues. You may not know me or my companies because I have been at this a long time. Since 1976 I have been designing on-line information systems. I was fortunate to work at AT&T Bell Laboratories in the early days of Videotex and I hold some of the patents on the early protocols, including the ANSI Standard NAPLPS used to launch Prodigy. I have given the NSF the benefit of the doubt because I have worked closely with governments and the private sector for many years. I truely believe that government administrators want to do the right thing, but they often get stuck serving a group with a short-sighted, and monopolistic agenda. Fortunately, most government systems have built in checks and balances which do not allow one group to dominate for a long period of time. It is interesting that the Internet has not yet matured to discover the wisdom of "term limits", it is still in a Wild West stage of development. @ The NSF not only allowed this monopoly architecture to develop, but encouraged @ its development by the original contract design. While members of NSF's @ former management (which set this up) may claim plausible deniability, I @ believe that it was their ultimate intent to have a monopoly (a monopoly is @ much easier for the government to control). The same approach was used a few @ years earlier by the same NSF managers when the NSFNet was transferred from @ NSF ownership to ANS (IBM&MCI) with neither payment nor open debate. @ Fortunately for both the U.S. taxpayers and the Internet industry worldwide, @ the NSFNet was shut down. @ I agree, but we have to be careful to treat the disease and not the symptoms. In my opinion, the disease is "rooted" in the Internet administration which is controlled by a tight circle of Internet Politicians who are trying to slowly expand their ranks while at the same time developing what amounts to a parallel form of world-wide government complete with taxes and corruption. For some reason, these largely socialistic Internet Politicians think that they will be able to create this government on the fly without the governments that represent the people taking note or taking control. They have skillfully used the existing governments when convenient, they hide behind university administrators for protection, and they hold their hands out for more federal grants to pay for servers, routers, and jet setting around the world. The National Science Foundation has been an obvious agency to use. Many of the NSF administrators float in and out of academic circles and the average tax payer does not feel a direct impact of their programs or the $250 million they disperse each year. As the Internet grows, and as more people use it in various aspects of their lives, this will change and government funding of Internet/Intranet and "GoverNet" projects will become more clear to people. In my opinion, the disease has to be treated in three ways: 1. More government officials need to become educated about the technology, the costs, the potential, and the need to fund a broad cross-section of their constituencies as opposed to the same old circle of friends that live off the NSF. They are not going to get this education from the Internet Politicians and therefore companies and indpendent people will have to help. 2. Companies need to provide a stronger presence in the R&D community and the Internet Infrastructure arena via the dedication of people, servers, routers and networks to help support the transition of the Internet FROM the small group of Internet Politicians TO the real politicians of the world and the real governments. 3. Taxpayers need to become better educated that the continued funding of Internet Politicians is not in the best interest of the taxpayers, because the Internet Politicians are attempting to use that money to duplicate many of the same government structures that already exist and the taxpayers are going to end up paying twice for the same functions. @ Given the government's interest in controlling the destiny of the Internet, I @ doubt very much that the OIG has much influence in the government's actions. @ The White House and now the FCC appear to have very clear agendas. It is my @ hope that ISOC might become independent of its government ties and listen to @ that portion of the Internet industry which is NOT beholden to the U.S. @ government for their clout and financing. @ In my opinion, the ISOC is moving "off-shore" with respect to the U.S. and I do not see any trend that the ISOC is addressing #1, #2, or #3. Based on the results of the IAHC/IANA activity <http://www.iahc.org>, the ISOC is rapidly being absorbed by much larger international bodies that have very little experience with the Internet such as the ITU, WIPO, etc. The ISOC derives its funding from corporate sponsors and from the enormous demand from developing countries hungry to learn more about the early stages of the Internet as opposed to the more mature stages the U.S. now faces. In my opinion, the ISOC will have very little to say about how U.S. networking evolves. Because the U.S. has a strong government (#1), a huge base of corporations (#2) and educated and vocal taxpayers (#3), I do not think that a generic "international template" can be placed on the U.S. by the ISOC/ITU/WIPO group. It will not fit. As was seen in the IAHC deliberations, Network Solutions, Inc. skillfully avoided becoming subject to ISOC governance. That would be 10 steps backward for them. In my opinion, the U.S. now has the advantage of "going it alone". A close cooperation of the government, corporations, and taxpayers is all that is now required to really accelerate progress in the U.S. In essence, the IPv4 "experimental" Internet can be viewed as an academic prototype and now the serious money will step into the picture to move the playing field to a different level. @ Many of the lambs have been silent while great but insidious activity has been @ undertaken over several years by our government. We have a chance to force @ the government to once again back away from selecting and promoting winners @ and losers. Lets get NSI's monopoly removed gracefully, thank the NSF for @ their "assistance" over the years, and let industry take the lead. @ @ Bill Schrader @ Chairman, President, CEO and Founder @ PSINet Inc. @ Yes, industry needs to take the lead. In my opnion, industry needs to lead government. U.S. companies need to get together to make specific proposals to the U.S. government to "assist" the NSF out of the picture and as a replacement better more reliable systems and services need to fill the void. I have written many suggestions with specific steps that can be taken by the industry to get this ball rolling. One area which needs immediate attention is the area of Root Name Server deployment and organization. Many companies have been working for years on testing and deploying experimental servers in anticipation of the need to replace the 9 popular Root Name Servers controlled by the National Science Foundation. The NSF needs to recognize those efforts and to step forward with proactive programs to phase out their servers in favor of solid, stable, secure, servers. If the NSF continues to operate their Root Name Server collection with closed policies and allowing only certain companies to participate, then they are actively making a statement that they do not intend to accept the help of the industry in "gracefully" bowing out of the picture. The ball is clearly in the NSF's court. The current investigation of the NSF by the Office of the Inspector General will hopefully help to show that the NSF (and the FNCAC) have been giving indications for years of wanting to get out of the hot seat with regard to control of the Root Name Servers, but they have not taken any steps to accept people's offers to assist them. Instead, they continue to bow to the pressure of the Internet Politicians who keep a tight lock on the keys to those servers. @ > @ > @ > ---------- @ > From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net.] @ > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 1997 11:26 AM To: 'New @ > Newdom' @ > Cc: 'ckuehn(a)nsf.gov'; 'lsundro(a)nsf.gov' Subject: @ > OIG Investigates the NSF (revised) @ > @ > @ > The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of @ > the primary leaders in the development of information technology. @ > The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects @ > and without the security, stability, and staying power of the @ > U.S. Government the large number of Internet users around the world @ > would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. @ > @ > Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. @ > The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a @ > one dollar bill). @ > Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the @ > IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* @ > organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs @ > the Internet. @ > @ > Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have @ > helped to move the Internet forward and to provide the @ > representative government needed on the Internet for people to safely @ > make investments in time and money with the knowledge that a @ > democractic and capitalistic group of people are in control. One of @ > the primary agencies helping to fund the Internet has been the @ > U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation (NSF). @ > <http://www.nsf.gov> @ > @ > The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the @ > clout for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. @ > The InterNIC was originally made up of three companies, General @ > Atomics, AT&T, and Network Solutions, Inc. These three companies @ > were supposed to work together in various capacities to provide a @ > variety of services including the important clerical duties @ > commonly called "registrations". @ > @ > In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of @ > NICs and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF @ > was supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, @ > many NICs would have been developed through education programs and @ > the Internet Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State @ > of Virginia and the few companies originally contracted to be part of @ > the cooperative agreement. That has not occurred. @ > @ > The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented @ > and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, @ > Network Solutions, Inc. @ > suggested that they should do the entire job. Jon Postel and @ > Joyce Reynolds of the IANA, are listed on the original Network @ > Solutions, Inc. bid as subcontractors to Network Solutions, Inc. @ > As history has shown, the IANA, working in conjunction with the @ > "InterNIC" (Network Solutions, Inc.) has helped to continue to @ > promote Network Solutions, Inc. to a point where most people consider @ > NSI to be the InterNIC. @ > @ > Throughout the evolution of the InterNIC from a three-company @ > cooperative to a one company monopoly, the NSF has apparently been @ > caught like a deer in the headlights of a car, frozen in indecision @ > but providing mass when needed to allow a few individuals and companies @ > to leverage themselves into positions of great wealth. The NSF has @ > been skillfully used to provide the U.S. Government seal of @ > approval, while policies are enacted by private parties who openly @ > claim that the NSF is "backing" their agendas. @ > @ > Many companies operating within the United States under Federal and @ > State laws, have been shocked over the past few years at how their @ > tax dollars are used to fund the NSF which in turn funds @ > Internet infrastructure with apparently no control over the @ > outcome. Furthermore, despite repeated efforts for other companies @ > to participate in and make investments in the Internet infrastructure, @ > the NSF has stood by and allowed plans and systems to be developed @ > which lock certain companies out while others are given a free pass and @ > in some cases millions of dollars to jump start their business. @ > @ > The recent IAHC <http://www.iahc.org> activity is an excellent example @ > of how a private company (ISOC) <http://www.isoc.org>, with less @ > members than many ISPs, is provided an NSF representative, Dr. @ > George Strawn, <http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ncri/Georgehome.html> @ > for credibility, while they develop a plan to sell what amounts @ > to Internet Domain Registration Franchises to companies willing to @ > pay large fees to fund the private ISOC. @ > @ > Another example is the recently proposed ARIN <http:// @ > www.arin.net> organization which claims to have strong support from @ > the NSF to charge fees for IP addresses. The proposed Board of Direcors @ > of ARIN are mostly people funded directly, or indirectly, by the @ > National Science Foundation. @ > <http://www.arin.net/arin_board.html> @ > @ > @@@@@ <http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html> @@@@@@@@@ "Network Solutions @ > is leading the ARIN proposal based on a mandate from the @ > Internet community reached in rough consensus with strong support from @ > the National Science Foundation and the Internet Assigned @ > Numbers Authority (IANA)." @ > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ > @ > Fortunately, the U.S. Government had the wisdom to set up an agency @ > within the NSF to provide some of the checks and balances needed @ > to regulate the NSF. That agency is the Office of Inspector General @ > (OIG) <http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm>. OIG is headed by the @ > Inspector General (IG), who reports directly to the President (via the @ > NSB) and to Congress. @ > @ > ---- Inspector General ------- @ > @ > name: Sundro, Linda G. @ > email: lsundro(a)nsf.gov @ > directorate: Office of Inspector General @ > phone: (703)306-2100 @ > office_phone: (703) @ > fax: (703)306-0649 @ > address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S @ > : Arlington, VA 22230 @ > @ > -------------------------------------- @ > @ > In a recent discussion with Ms. Sundro, she indicated that the NSF @ > Office of Inspector General has been investigating the matters @ > surrounding the InterNIC and a Report to the Deputy Director is about @ > to be published. @ > Ms. Sundro indicated that Ms. Clara Kuehn, a physicist AND ATTORNEY, @ > has been assigned to handle the investigations and can provide @ > information on the status of the report. @ > @ > -------------------------------------- @ > @ > name: Kuehn, Clara @ > email: ckuehn(a)nsf.gov @ > directorate: Office of Inspector General @ > phone: (703)306-2001 @ > office_phone: (703)306-2001 x 1505 @ > fax: (703)306-0649 @ > address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S @ > : Arlington, VA 22230 @ > @ > ------------------------------------------ @ > @ > Ms. Sundro also noted that the e-mail address (oig(a)nsf.gov) listed on @ > the Office of Inspector General as an "Electonic Mail Hotline" is @ > not useful in contacting her office. She indicated that Ms. Kuehn @ > will welcome input from people on all topics related to these matters @ > and that the above e-mail address (ckuehn(a)nsf.gov) should be used. @ > @ > In summary, I think that U.S. citizens should be proud that their @ > great country developed much of the technology and infrastructure for @ > the Internet. I also think that the world population should be aware @ > that the hundreds of years of government development in the U.S. @ > has resulted in a system that has the proper agencies to not only help @ > to foster increased growth of the Internet but also to help ensure @ > that citizens around the world are able to compete in this @ > marvelous advancement on a playing field that is fair and level. @ > @ > @ > -- @ > Jim Fleming @ > Unir Corporation @ > @ > e-mail: @ > JimFleming(a)unety.net @ > JimFleming(a)unir.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) @ > @ > @ > @ > @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Final agenda
by Susan R. Harris 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Greetings - here's the final schedule. --------------------------------------------- North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) Agenda Monday, February 10 Time Topic Presenter(s) 9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, Bill Norton, Merit Future Meetings 9:30 a.m. Common Metrics for Exchange K. Claffy, NLANR, Points moderator 10:30 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. InterNIC Update Mark Kosters and Kim Hubbard, InterNIC 11:30 a.m. Internet II: Pragmatic Steve Corbato, Views from Higher Education Univ. of Washington Dave Meyer, Univ. of Oregon 12:00-1:30 Lunch p.m. 1:30 p.m. Blocking in the GIGAswitch Stephen Polit, Digital 2:00 p.m. End-to-End TCP Packet Vern Paxson, Lawrence Dynamics Berkeley Lab 2:45 p.m. TCP Response Under Loss Curtis Villamizar, ANS Conditions 3:15 p.m. Report on Inter-Provider Randy Bush, WNA Cooperation 3:30 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m. Introducing Trawhoisd Xin Liu, Merit 4:00 p.m. AS Object Editor WeeSan Lee, ISI 4:15 p.m. Using the IRR to Assist Curtis Villamizar, ANS With Aggregation 4:30 p.m. Consideration of Policy: Laura Cunningham, MCI What's Needed and Can RSVP Help? Tuesday, February 11 9:00 a.m. RA Update Bill Norton, Merit Bill Manning, ISI 9:30 a.m. Internet Routing Rob Malan, Univ. of Mich. Instability 10:00 a.m. Squid Update Duane Wessels, NLANR 10:30 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. Non-BGP Multihoming for Web Paul Vixie, CIX Sites 11:15 a.m. What can be Done About Curtis Villamizar, ANS HTTP and Small TCP Flows? 11:30 a.m. How to be a Good MBone Bill Fenner, Xerox PARC Neighbor 12:00-1:30 Lunch p.m. BOFs: Track 1 1:30-2:30 Exchange Point Engineering Bill Manning, ISI p.m. Issues 2:30-3:30 Flow Switching Analysis John Hawkinson, BBN Planet p.m. Daniel McRobb, ANS, moderators BOFs: Track 2 1:30-2:30 Route Server Peering at the Jake Khuon and p.m. IXPs: Procedures, Policy, Abha Ahuja, Merit and Connectivity 2:30-3:30 MLPAs: All for One, One for Bill Woodcock, Packet p.m. All Clearing House, moderator 3:30 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m. Controlling Network Abuse Paul Vixie, CIX Using BGP-4 4:15 p.m. Closing Remarks Bill Norton, Merit 4:30 p.m. Adjourn

1 0

RE: FW: IAHC/IANA Verdict
by Jim Fleming 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

On Wednesday, February 05, 1997 1:57 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 12:49 2/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >In the "darwinian" world of the Internet, it is important for the @ >entire Internet community to select only the "best of the net", as @ >the net expands. @ > @ >In the interest of making progress and getting people to focus on @ >the large administrative and technical tasks facing everyone that @ >really operate the Internet, I suggest that we debate which of the @ >above names have merit and have registries standing behind them @ >ready to support them. @ > @ >In my opinion, only the .WEB Top Level Domain qualfies for @ >consideration at this time. If people know of other registries @ >that have stepped forward to support any of the other TLDs, @ >please speak up. @ @ Jim, @ @ I don't know if I qualify as one of the folks who @ "really operate the Internet", but I'd like to point @ out that we have customers who would like to have @ a readable, logical domain name and willing to be @ outside of ".com". Each of these domains seems to @ be well-thought out and I don't think they will be @ any shortage of users or candidate registries. @ @ If you need to know that there will be a registry @ for each new gTLD, then I'm willing to run any of @ them that cannot otherwise find a home. @ @ /John @ @ @ @ That is fine. I assume that you are saying that BBN Planet intends to participate in the IAHC "lottery" or to run CORE. That is your company's choice. If and when you do that, and if and when you develop a new TLD to the point of maturity as a .COM, .NET or a .WEB, then you might be able to "step up to the next" level. Until that time, you are at square one, like all of the other people that hope to host a TLD registry. In summary, I know BBN can talk the talk, now you just have to walk the walk...that should not be hard... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

FW: IAHC/IANA Verdict
by Jim Fleming 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net.] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 1997 10:58 AM To: 'New Newdom' Cc: 'Donald Heath'; 'postel(a)iana.org' Subject: IAHC/IANA Verdict After several months and much deliberation, the IAHC/IANA has finally handed down its verdict. The seven names that have been selected for their elaborate registry system are shown below. The rest of the IAHC/IANA proposal has very little to do with the Root Name Server owners and operators and appears to be mostly of interest to the members of the ISOC and the IAHC/IANA. @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html 3.1 Recommendations New gTLDs will consist of strings of three to five letters each. gTLD names should have general, contextual meaning, i.e. the gTLD should suggest a connection with the Internet, with business or with personal uses. Seven, new gTLDs are specified here. It is expected that no further allocations will be made until April, 1998. .firm .store .web .arts .rec .info .nom @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ In the "darwinian" world of the Internet, it is important for the entire Internet community to select only the "best of the net", as the net expands. In the interest of making progress and getting people to focus on the large administrative and technical tasks facing everyone that really operate the Internet, I suggest that we debate which of the above names have merit and have registries standing behind them ready to support them. In my opinion, only the .WEB Top Level Domain qualfies for consideration at this time. If people know of other registries that have stepped forward to support any of the other TLDs, please speak up. These are the open forums where history should be written. If the owners and operators of the Root Name Servers agree that .WEB is a candidate for recognition, then I will assign it the IPv8 Mapping of S10.G0 as shown below: IPv8 Mappings S0.G0 - .NET (or .ARPA which is deprecated) S1.G0 - .GOV S2.G0 - .MIL S3.G0 - .EDU S4.G0 - .ORG S5.G0 - .COM S6.G0 - .INT S7.G0 - .NIC S8.G0 - .USA S9.G0 - .CORP S10.G0 - .WEB If anyone has any comments, additions, corrections, etc. Please post them to the "newdom" list <http://www.newdom.com/lists>. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Request for mail Group
by george estes 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Please enter my mail address in the list to receive mail gestes(a)concentric.net Thanks

1 0

RE: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability
by Robert Wilson 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

I din't see an answer on this one.... >---------- >From: Andrew Partan[SMTP:asp@partan.com] >Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 10:55 PM >To: feldman(a)mfst.com >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability > >> In response to requests from several customers for a filtering solution >> at MAE EAST and MAE WEST, MFS WorldCom is developing an automated >> system to enable ISPs to control traffic destined for their own routers >> and networks. > >Are you going to post the list of permitted/denied addresses? > >Operationally it would be *very* useful to know what addresses are >blocked. > --asp(a)partan.com (Andrew Partan) >

7 7

FIX-West.
by Esteban-CEAP Network Operations 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Hello- Does anyone know a URL for FIX-WEST information? Thanks. -Esteban Gutierrez

5 6

prefix aggregation
by Bernard.Tuy＠urec.fr 05 Feb '97

05 Feb '97

Hi, In many places yet we're discussing prefix aggregation for at least 193/8, 194/8 and 195/8 IP blocks. I was told since a while that some US carriers -such as SprintLink- have decided to filter (id. no more route) prefixes longer than /19. My questions is : - is this impleted yet ? - if yes, who does it, for which class(es) of prefixes of which length ? - if no, when do you intend to have this filtering operational ? As I'm acting as a "consultant" for the french academic network (Renater) I'm interesting in knowing what policy every ISP -specially in the US of A- intend to implement in the near future. Thanks for your help and time, Regards, +Bernard Tuy.

2 1