- Test - lists.nanog.org

What to do?
by jprovo 04 Aug '96

04 Aug '96

What would one do if they tripped across Net 10 [or other private nets] used & routed by an organization on the Greater Net? This isn't a case of waltzing through someone's firewall, either... Joe Provo Network Operations Center UltraNet Communications, Inc.

2 1

Re: totd
by Vincent J. Bono 04 Aug '96

04 Aug '96

> The biggest problem with using non-routable ip addresses on numbered interfaces > whether point to point or frame or atm or whatever, is that you lose outside > connectivity from those interfaces. We tried this, but the essential > traceroutes from our core routes are too important when debugging BGP > problems to the outside. > > Robert Bowman > Exodus Communications Inc. > I agree. I can't see how a lot of debugging functions would be possible from the unmanned POPs if we used private ips. -vin

3 2

Pricing of Internet Addresses and Routing Announcements
by David R. Conrad 02 Aug '96

02 Aug '96

[Sincere apologies for duplicates] Hi, Back at the Montreal IETF, there was a BOF with the above title that generated significant "discussion". At the time, there seemed to be interest in discussing an experiment to see what would happen if the current restriction imposed by the registries that attempts to prohibit transfer of addresses between organizations were to be removed. APNIC offered to host a mailing list/archive for discussions aimed at coming up with a proposal for such an experiment and that mailing list is open for business (actually, has been for a while but was never announced for political and/or other reasons). Because I feel this topic is of value to the operational community (and maybe because I think the current registry restriction is insane :-)), I am announcing the mailing list being open even though I'm not one of the chairs of the maybe-someday-if-it-is-acceptible-and-the-lawyers- don't-whine-too-much-PIARA-WG-of-the-IETF-or-maybe-some-other-more- appropriate-organization. My apologies if this is felt to be in bad taste or whatever. In any event, the mailing list info: To subscribe: body of "subscribe" to piara-request(a)apnic.net To comment: body of useful flameless content to piara(a)apnic.net To unsubscribe: body of "unsubscribe" to piara-request(a)apnic.net The list is managed by majordomo, standard stuff applies. Let me know if you run into problems. Regards, -drc

1 0

False Advertising
by Ehud Gavron 02 Aug '96

02 Aug '96

A customer of mine owns a cidr block they haven't been using. They've asked me to advertise it. I note that this block is being advertised by an ALTERNET customer. The nic / radb agree with my customer: HEARTS:[GAVRON.INTERNET]_whois 204.193.128.0 B3 Corporation (NETBLK-B3NET-EC) 2521 W. Arnold St. Marshfield, WI 54449 Netname: B3NET-EC Netblock: 204.193.128.0 - 204.193.159.0 Note that the ``unscrupulous other isp'' has gotten inverse: Domain System inverse mapping provided by: NS.CYBERCONNECTION.COM 204.193.128.253 RADB says: route: 204.193.128.0/19 descr: US Cyber (sm) descr: 2451 W Arnold Street descr: Marshfield descr: WI 54449, USA origin: AS4136 comm-list: COMM_NSFNET advisory: AS690 1:4136 mnt-by: MAINT-AS4136 changed: nsfnet-admin(a)merit.edu 950505 source: RADB But the route is being annouced by ``cyberconnection'' out of AS701. Ideas? Should I just advertise this and to hell with the backbones? Alternet? Ehud

4 3

Re: False Advertising
by Daniel Kalitsi 01 Aug '96

01 Aug '96

Ehud, We will discuss this offline. I don't think the nanog list is the appropriate place to ask such a question. Dan Cyber Connection NOC A customer of mine owns a cidr block they haven't been using. They've asked me to advertise it. I note that this block is being advertised by an ALTERNET customer. The nic / radb agree with my customer: HEARTS:[GAVRON.INTERNET]_whois 204.193.128.0 B3 Corporation (NETBLK-B3NET-EC) 2521 W. Arnold St. Marshfield, WI 54449 Netname: B3NET-EC Netblock: 204.193.128.0 - 204.193.159.0 Note that the ``unscrupulous other isp'' has gotten inverse: Domain System inverse mapping provided by: NS.CYBERCONNECTION.COM 204.193.128.253 RADB says: route: 204.193.128.0/19 descr: US Cyber (sm) descr: 2451 W Arnold Street descr: Marshfield descr: WI 54449, USA origin: AS4136 comm-list: COMM_NSFNET advisory: AS690 1:4136 mnt-by: MAINT-AS4136 changed: nsfnet-admin(a)merit.edu 950505 source: RADB But the route is being annouced by ``cyberconnection'' out of AS701. Ideas? Should I just advertise this and to hell with the backbones? Alternet? Ehud

1 0

Re: I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )
by sob＠academ.com 30 Jul '96

30 Jul '96

I would suggest adding "hostmaster" for DNS issues (and suggesting that this be the address listed as the contact in DNS SOA records). -- 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.

7 10

Re: ATM Wide-Area Networks
by salo＠msc.edu 30 Jul '96

30 Jul '96

>From: Sean Doran <smd(a)icp.net> >To: pferguso(a)cisco.com, salo(a)msc.edu >Subject: Re: sell shell accounts? >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 01:43:30 +0100 > >| o Given that each link is rather expensive, it behooves the >| NSP to try to avoid needlessly moving a packet back and >| forth across a DS-3 local loop just because my ATM >| provider can't provide me with any more PVCs. >| (Which was my major point, by the way.) > >Interestingly enough, the NSPs I observe moving large amounts >of traffic around are set up in such a way that their routers >are generally colocated with carrier transmission gear, and >so there *is* no local loop to speak of, as an added cost to >an outside supplier. > [...] Hopefully, my thinking is clearer than my writing... What I originally called "local loop B," now relabeled "This Thing Here," is probably comprised of: o a port on the ATM switch/service o a connection between the router and the switch, (usually a wide-area link, given that most wide-area ATM services backhaul traffic to a few ATM switches) o a port on the router A short-cut VC would avoid needlessly passing packets back and forth across "This Thing Here." That would seem to be a good thing in most circumstances, inasmuch as some or all of the components of "This Thing Here" cost something and may potentially become a bottleneck. -tjs | ________ _______________________ ________ | | Router | loop A | | loop C | Router | | | A |=========| Wide-Area ATM Service |========| C | | |________| |_______________________| |________| | | | | <=== This Thing Here | | | ________ | | Router | | | B | | |________|

1 0

Re: Ping triangulation
by Peter Lothberg 29 Jul '96

29 Jul '96

> They use the ping times to figure out which server would be closest. > All the servers are not located in the same place. The idea is that > european users may receive better service from a european server. > > Roy > > > The network topology and geography does not match very well, I would guess that the network center of Europe is likely to be somwhere on the US Eastcoast. Only Stockholm have multiple international E3 links.... --Peter

3 2

Re: ATM Wide-Area Networks
by salo＠msc.edu 29 Jul '96

29 Jul '96

> > I am not quite sure how an ATM switch becomes a "packet shredder," or > > even what a "packet shredder" is... > > An ATM switch shreds a 1500 byte IP packet into 29 ATM cells of 53 bytes > each. At the risk of being excessively pedantic, the host ATM interface, not the switch, segments the SDU into cells. My point was that the term "packet shredder" doesn't seem to have any very precise meaning beyond perhaps the writer's desire to use a catchy phrase to indicate an attitude towards ATM. Some people use it to describe the segmentation function of ATM interfaces, other use it to describe switches which don't do packet discard. > If an ATM has a 5% loss, i.e. 1 in every 20 cells is lost, then 0% > of the IP traffic will get through. ... Most anything with 5% loss is broken. -tjs

2 1

Re: Why aren't ISPs providing stratum 1 NTP service?
by dgaudet＠hotwired.com 29 Jul '96

29 Jul '96

In article <hot.mailing-lists.nanog-Pine.BSI.3.93.960719091042.14736C-100000(a)sidhe.memra.com>, Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote: >And heavily used WWW servers are another thing that could benefit from >aligning themselves with the topology. The protocols don't support this cleanly. So far nothing I've seen would allow a single URL to be used to access the "nearest" server. Until something like that exists (i.e. the end users don't need to know a thing about network topology) it seems pointless to align WWW servers with the topology. Your suggested use of redirects just complicates things -- consider how the URLs would end up looking in a search engine. Dean

12 16