- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

> Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> writes: > > >>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide > >>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. > > >What wide-scale implementation? > > Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing" > IPv6? Be sure to check: > > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html > http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/ > > Thomas > Wide scale IMPLEMENTATION is different from VENDOR DEVELOPMENT. I think the statement was more of "What wide-scale DEPLOYMENT" than saying that major vendors were not implementing. Owen

1 0

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by Paul Ferguson 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

I'm quite aware of v6 implementation efforts; my point was that the *scale* at which v6 is actually being implemented is by no means, 'wide'. I suppose, however, that this is quite a subjective statement from both perspectives. I also hesitate to mention that there is a significant part of the industry that still questions the immediate need for IPv6, or perhaps has not been convinced that IPv6 actually fixes any existing problems, but that is another can of worms altogether and is better discussed in another venue. - paul (not representative of cisco Systems, Inc.) At 08:57 AM 1/4/97 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: >>>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide >>>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. > >>What wide-scale implementation? > >Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing" >IPv6? Be sure to check: > > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html > http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/ > >Thomas >

1 0

Re: Film at 11:00
by Tony Li 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Looks like the 45k mark was reached: Folks with 7000's and SSE's should start monitoring their memory utilization via "show sse summary". Tony

7 17

BGP and memory size
by Hank Nussbacher 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory: ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process. Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem. Hank

4 5

NO silly Non-profit IP Registry please
by Matthew E. Pearson 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

At 09:57 PM 1/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should >be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether >those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they >should all play a role. > Sounds logical..... >To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund >a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry >for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to manage the IP address space for the >territories it currently administers, similar to the APNIC and RIPE >regional IP registries. This organization will be a non-profit >spin-off of the current InterNIC IP group. > Ok... now how does this put control of IP space in the hands of users? NSI is just another bunch of suits and engineers... NOT end users...... interesting concept here.. I completly fail to see the logic. I DO however agree with the non-profit seperate entitly idea... I would hate to wake up and read the news to find that Network Solutions Inc. was bought up by some Telco or ISP who now has complete control over address space!! YIKES! >Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed >and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable, >self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership >dues, registration and maintenance fees. > Now here is a plan.... but I see a few flaws... Firstly, does this mean that we can simply throw $100k at Internet and buy op several "B" blocks (or CIDR) even though we only need a class C?? Or does it mean we pay HUGE ammounts of money to STILL deal with the fascist IP space assignment policy that InterNIc has currently? (ie you have to give a persons name, address, and home phone to just if every host on your network). Either way... this is TOTALLY unaccpetable and if IANA allow it.. IANA should be disbanded as well... So here are the ways this could work.... 1. You can simply buy up unused address space by lobbing cash at these guys, meaning some ISP will lob a few million at it, but EVERY available address and resell it at even HIGHER rates than these folks... 2. You pay LARGE ammounts of money for the continuation of the great service we all know and love. Meaning you have to justify practically down to the end user to get address space assigned in any reasonable size block. 3. You pay LARGE ammounts of money and have these folks lighten up the rules on assigning addresses and LOTS of address space is wasted because larger than nescessary blocks are assigned simply because the user had the cash for a larger block... (ex: a /16 instead of a /18 because they had a few extra grand and the restrictions have been lightened up a bit) This is a LOSE LOSE LOSE situation.... I am not saying I have the solution.... but I do know that this seems ridiculous.. Remember what happened with the promises from the NIC that once they charged for domain name registrations, they could 1/2 the registration time, and add real customer service... still 4 weeks... still 30 min on hold and when you get someone they cant help you unless they get a supervisor to call you back in 5 days... Given the choice of evils... I would prefer to continue with the current plan.... at least NOBODY is getting ripped off for money and getting a lack of service.... and the ip assignment restrictions are tight... but that is needed until we somehow impliment IPv6 addressing (now who is administering that one!)on the net. ------------------------------------------------- Matthew E. Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com

2 1

URGENT: Operational Integrity Problem with IQ-INTERNET.COM
by Barry Shein 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Reference: Sprint Customer Larry Host Domain: IQ-INTERNET.COM Problem Summary: Out of control mail loop 1. For the past 48 or so hours all e-mail from the domain IQ-INTERNET.COM has been blocked from our domain, STD.COM. All such email is refused with an immediate error message by our (std.com) server. 2. The account lhost(a)iq-internet.com, owner or adminstrator of this iq-internet.com domain, has been informed of this many times in this period. Messages have been left on their answering machine. Sprint personnel attempted to relay this message to him though I do not know if they were successful. Sprint security personnel have publically and privately (to me) acknowledged the problem. 3. Electronic mail continues to be sent (as of 17:17 EST) from iq-internet.com to world.std.com at a rate of several messages per minute, each one refused. THIS IS NOT A POLICY PROBLEM -- THIS IS A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. There is no reason for a host to send thousands of email msgs each being refused long after being informed of this state of affairs except: a) maliciousness b) severe technical failure or error, or gross operating negligence. I informed Sprint of this several hours ago, I reported it as a *TECHNICAL* problem although apparently Sprint network personnel continue to infer that they can read the system owner's mind and intuit that he is doing this for relatively innocent or purposeful reasons such that Sprint can not get involved. I assert this judgement by Sprint network personnel is a serious error and Sprint is ignoring a severe technical problem to the active detriment of the world-wide internetwork. There is a knowing dereliction of TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL responsibilities occurring here, and this abrogation of administrative responsibility is causing my business palpable damage, with full knowledge of authorized Sprint network operational and security personnel and more than sufficient time for them to have responded. xc: Sprint Legal Dept, Software Tool & Die Counsel -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989

9 16

RE: tcg and cerf.net?
by Vadim Antonov 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

MFS and UUNET were in cooperation long before the merger. It came as no surprise. --vadim

1 0

NAIPR List
by Rodney Joffe 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

Anybody got any idea what happened to the NAIPR mailing list? Seems to have died at 11:30est after Kim's email......

1 0

RE: tcg and cerf.net?
by Danny Stroud 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

MFS bought UUNET. Was that any different a match? ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Brett D. Watson Sent: Friday, January 03, 1997 11:08 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: tcg and cerf.net? i've heard something in the press about tcg buying cerfnet... anyone heard the same or can verify that? just curious. it seems like an odd match. -brett

1 0

RE: tcg and cerf.net?
by Danny Stroud 04 Jan '97

04 Jan '97

MFS bought UUNET. Was that any different a match? ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Brett D. Watson Sent: Friday, January 03, 1997 11:08 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: tcg and cerf.net? i've heard something in the press about tcg buying cerfnet... anyone heard the same or can verify that? just curious. it seems like an odd match. -brett

1 0