- Test - lists.nanog.org

Address allocation stats
by Paul Ferguson 17 Jun '96

17 Jun '96

Would anyone have a pointer for recent v4 address allocation statistics? I'm aware of the Frank's [solensky(a)ftp.com] presentation material which he talked about in Los Angeles, but I was looking for something a bit more recent, and perhaps HTML'ized. Raw figures welcome. For what its worth, links to Frank's .ps files are located at: http://research.ftp.com/~solensky/cidr.html Thanks, - paul

3 2

The FCC wants you!!!
by Michael Dillon 15 Jun '96

15 Jun '96

If you know American ISP's who don't normally hang out on ISP mailing lists or if you have any contacts in the educational system who are concerned with the cost of technology, then please forward this message to them. Here is the opportunity for direct political action that really can make a difference without requiring well-funded intermediaries and lobbiests... Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:13:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Dave Hughes <dave(a)oldcolo.com> Reply-To: inet-access(a)earth.com To: inet-access(a)earth.com Subject: Re: Accuracies of My Own Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:14:53 -0500 (CDT) Resent-From: inet-access(a)earth.com Jack Rickard says: > > In any event, my perception is that Dave is always early to the table, and > by the time the world is ready to buy something, he's already moved on. I > was vaguely aware of his wireless activities, and somewhat more interested > in them with the recent NIIBand proposals. There ARE some issues and I do > hope Dave is successful in steering this toward the 15 km version as > opposed to the limited range Wireless LAN version some of the big guys seem > to be determined to push through. > > In fact, this is actually a rather key issue specifically for Internet > Service Providers and more specifically for those in rural areas. As a > newbie to the mailing list, I may be reintroducing something that has > already been done to death. But this NIIBand could be a huge advantage for > small ISP's in rural areas (not JUST academia and K-12 Dave) if done right, > and another fiasco if done wrong. The FCC has this open for comment now. > If Mr. Hughes would provide info on docket numbers and where to write, you > all could have a significant impact. On the one hand, you can offer 24 > Mbps links by radio at 10-15 km. On the other, 3COM can do wireless LAN > inside a building for about 1000 feet. All from a stroke of the FCC pen. > > Yes, this is a far more significant issue than most ISPs realize - whether the FCC, in both responding to the Apple-WINForum proposal to allocate 350Mhz of spectrum in the 5Ghz bands for what the FCC dubbed the "NII/SUPERNET" Band for 'no licence' wireless - will do that in BOTH the 'wireless lan' segment AS WELL AS the requested '15 km' segments and thus permit anyone, including ISPs to have no-comm cost bandwidth up to 2Mbps between two points, or, with relay, 1Mbps (above and below T-1) for the cost of the radios. Spread spectrum technology which is a revolution in radio communications (wide band, digital processor controlled low power - with no practical interference versus traditional narrow frequency band high power - with so much interferecne, the frquencies have to be licenced and highly controlled). And yes I, and a too-small handful of others are deep into the issues at the FCC level as the decision hangs in the balance. Because I am the Principal Investigator on the $375,700 'Wireless Field Test for Education Project' I was invited to a roundtable with FCC Commissioners nominally debating 'wireless for education' two weeks ago, and, using our real-world wireless project going on in the San Luis Valley (one school being relaibaly connected now 15 miles at 115kbs, bypassing US West, from NT-Lan router to Cisco Router at the POP. Zero local loop cost) and reporting on the other projects we have examined (8 Belen, New Mexico Schools, conected T-1 between each other in a WAN - up to 10 miles across the district. Zero local loop cost (which would normally run $84,000 a year wiht telco T-1 between schools). We made an impression, but know what giant forces we are up against. Some FCC staffers want to 'auction' the longer range (even 15km) stuff. Some big communications companies, led by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn - CTIA, would like all 'no-licence' that can compete with them to be killed. Our arguements, that got a few thinking anyway, was that IF the FCC rules permit radios to be made which go 15-45 miles, no licence, no interference, and solve the problem of the 16,000 school districts whose biggest problem is the cost of bandwidth *between* school building of a district first, then the cost from the main hub to the POP, second, then between the student and/or teacher at home to the school, at 56kbs or above, THEN the problem of 'community' networking will also be solved. For school districts are coincident where people live and log on from. (ditto ISPs) We turned a few heads when I showed my calcuations that, if the 14 School Districts of the SanLuis Valley are connected to the one central POP at T-1 by US West, it will cost $1.2 million over 10 years. If by T-1 25mile radios (yeas they exist now) it will cost $173,000 for the same 10 years. Now if ISPs want to strike a blow for economic telecom freedom, you can start by accessing our NSF Wireless Field Test web site, http://wireless.oldcolo.com and go into the Regulatory section where you will find direct documents, links to the FCC, the Belen Paper, and my long but piercing piece 'The Case for Public Spectrum' (and if you are a skeptic about the technology, read the Paul Baran short papers - the invetor of packet switching) Then all you have to do to sumbit public comments o the NIIBand matter is to email: 96-102(a)fcc.gov and that is the email address for the Docket Item. You *must* comment before July 15th, or yours will not be considered. (but under the law and regulation, if you *do* comment, your comments must be summarized by the staff and presented to the COmmissioners with the staff views. You do NOT have to comment on all the heavy duty technical issues. Right from the chief FCC Engineer who drafts the rules, and was the father of the original Spread Spectrum rules in 1985 he says that your statemnt of what you NEED, and why, would be much appreciated. As simple as 'I am an ISP who needs T-1 from my site, 8 miles to the nearest POP, no licence/cost wirless, with a radio I can afford' is to the point. (of course the more you show your technical economic need in sophisticated terms the better it will be received. The FCC engineers are no dummies and political handwaving doesn't impress them (it only impresses the COmmissioners whenthe handwavers are called AT&T or Congress) I can just about assure you the FCC staff doesn't even know you exist, as a class, (small ISPs) or what function you serve in the food chain, or why you shouldn't just pay $650 a month for your local loop T-1 like anybody else. And unless you email them (and they now have a policy that email must be taken as seriously as formal paper mail filings), your colective case won't even be mentioned when the likes of Motorola, AT&T, CTIA, the NSA (who gets gas pains when secure wireless is mentioned) are testifying. All will not be totally lost if this NPRM does not fly (new spectrum) for we still have the more congested Part 15, 1 watt bands. And the 4 NSF types who attended the FCC rountable were impressed enough with our case that we spent a day with them and they are about to fund a 'developmental' project that will be done by TAPR, that may bring you that $500 T-1 plug and play radio, with range. (by licencing the guts to mfgrs). Matter of fact I will be in Washington DC at the NSF Monday on this (being carrie dby my sidekick in radio engineering matters) and two other matters. One of which will (their idea, not ours) see part of our team in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia in August, linking 8 sites to the satellite Spintlink downlink site run by Mongolian engineers in an old Soviet lab. (web page at www.magic.mn already - but they can't get the signal across town, so crappy is their phone system). So by September you willbe pinging systems in Mongolia, the last 10km of which will be wireless. I always wanted to help set up the Ghengis Khan BBS in a Mongolian yurt, running OS2 (cause IBM is everywhere), with NAPLPS character sets (Chinese, Cyrilli Russian, and Mongolian - none of which are ascii), solar powered, and with spread spectrum radios linking China to Russia. With nary a Telco in a hundred miles. And I got a hunch I will have that done before ISPs in NYC do it. Dave Hughes dave(a)oldcolo.com Oh yeah, if you http://192.160.122.3 you will reach, by wireless, the OS2 system in my home. Not blazingly fast beacause I am trying out a different set of radios. And teh wired 56kbs frame relay to which it is attached is actuallythe slowest link in the chain. But its been running 160kbs for almost a year now, for $0 cost from me to my own Internet service.

1 0

BBN's class As [was RE: Address allocation stats]
by Kent W. England 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

At 10:15 AM 6/7/96 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: >I couldn't help but notice how much address space BBN has: > >>4 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (SATNET) >>8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBNCCNET), listed as "temp" since 1992 >>46 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) > >It would be nice if they (BBN-Planet) would renumber into a much smaller >block. As one of their customers who renumbered to get a larger block, I >find it hypocritical that they are asking their customers to renumber when >they have not done it themselves. > >Bob > Perhaps BBN is waiting for the Internet Draft <draft-ietf-cidrd-mktbased-alloc-00.txt> to become an RFC. [Come to PIARA BOF at IETF to discuss.] If so, these As could be worth millions of $. Best to let them alone for now. --Kent

1 0

RE: Address allocation stats
by hinden＠ipsilon.com 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

I couldn't help but notice how much address space BBN has: >4 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (SATNET) >8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBNCCNET), listed as "temp" since 1992 >46 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) It would be nice if they (BBN-Planet) would renumber into a much smaller block. As one of their customers who renumbered to get a larger block, I find it hypocritical that they are asking their customers to renumber when they have not done it themselves. Bob

4 3

Better Late than never
by bmanning＠isi.edu 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

Hi, I've finally updated the exchange point pages again. New sites are: St.Louis Mo. USA Israel Singapore I received a list of providers in Colombia and there are a bunch of hyperactive ISPs in Metro Manila who might soon have the MM-MAP operational. As always, if you know of an operational exchange, either public or private, that would like to be added to these pages, let me know. http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/naps.html -- bill

1 0

A third lawsuit against NSI by a domain name owner to save its domain name
by Carl Oppedahl 12 Jun '96

12 Jun '96

NSI has stated that its July 1995 domain name policy was designed to avoid getting sued. It is thus of interest to see a third case in which NSI wrote to a domain name owner saying that their domain name would get cut off in 30 days, and in which the domain name owner says it wasn't infringing anybody's trademarks (which is of course no defense under the present NSI policy), and finds itself with no choice but to sue NSI to avert loss of the domain name. First lawsuit - Roadrunner v. NSI background at: http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht complaint at: http://www.patents.com/nsicpt1.sht Second lawsuit - DCI v. DCI and NSI background at: http://www.patents.com/dci/dci.sht complaint at: http://infolawalert.com/source/src061496_dc_complaint.html Third lawsuit - Giacalone v. NSI et al. complaint at: http://zeus.bna.com/e-law/cases/giac.html --- Carl Oppedahl, oppedahl(a)patents.com Oppedahl & Larson, patent law firm http://www.patents.com/ is a web server with frequently asked questions and answers on patent law and other intellectual property subjects

1 0

Routing Statistics
by Justin W. Newton 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

At 09:49 AM 6/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > I went to NANOG meeting in Wash. DC a couple of weeks ago . > It didn't specifically address these issues , but there > was a presentation with following in-depth :) class on > peering with RS at MAEs/NAPs.Also lots of interesting stuff > were delivered by Merit ppl ( such as BGP peering stats etc). > The whole thing in general was very useful. > > Rashid I am still somewhat curious as to why exactly withdrawls are sent out for routes that aren't announced. I know its according to spec, but /why/ is it speced that way. It seems to me that the spec states that you should withdraw routes which you do not announce then we may want to base route instability only on the number of announcements you send and /not/ on the number of withdrawls (as you are not creating instability by announcing withdrawls which are passed on to you, only redistributing it). In my somewhat less than humble opinion having a large number of withdrawls, but not a large number of announcements only means that you are exceedingly well connected and are hearing routes from just about everyone and are therefore are passing on all of their routing instabilities. Justin "I hope that was coherent" Newton Justin Newton Internet Architect Erol's Internet Services

1 0

Re: Routing Tutorial - Just Wondering
by Christian Nielsen 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Is there anything you'd like the InterNIC to speak on? If so, let Maybe speak on the future of IPs... Let ISPs know why they NEED to SWIP. > > If there were to be a two day routing/peering tutorial for sysadmins here > > in D.C. With say, a twelve router MAE model, a frame relay simulator, > > presentations by a couple of smaller "big" guys (i.e. not MCI, Sprint, or > > UUnet, etc...), how many would be interested? Oh yeah, free (lunch included). Sounds cool. I would like to go, even us from the old west. Why not do it with Nanog... Christian Nielsen Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen(a)vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953 Private Email - Christian(a)Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen(a)one.dot PS :)

2 1

RE: Address allocation stats
by Joel M Snyder, bucket o' bits 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

Although the 0-127 nets are allocated 100%, they are hardly heavily used. The table I made up here is a few months old, but I suspect there has been little change. In fact, only about 1/3 of the available space is assigned from this range. 3 General Electric Company 4 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (SATNET) 6 Army (YUMA-NET) 8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBNCCNET), listed as "temp" since 1992 9 IBM Corporation 11 DoD Intel Information Systems 12 AT&T Bell Laboratories 13 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 14 Public Data Network 15 Hewlett-Packard Company 16 Digital Equipment Corporation 17 Apple Computer Incorporated 18 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 19 Ford Motor Company 20 Computer Sciences Corporation 21 DDN-RVN (Army, not US) 22 Defense Information Systems Agency 24 Being partitioned; 24.0 -> 24.3 "@Home" 25 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 26 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) 28 DSI-North 29 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) 30 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) 32 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) 33 DLA Systems Automation Center 34 Halliburton Company 35 MERIT Computer Network 36 Stanford University 38 Performance Systems International 40 Eli Lilly and Company 43 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) 44 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) 45 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) 46 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) 47 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) 48 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49 Joint Tactical Command, Control, and Communications Agency (NET-JITCNET1) 50 Joint Tactical Command, Control, and Communications Agency (NET-JITCNET2) 51 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) 52 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) 53 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) (Deutches Bundespost?) 54 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) 55 Boeing Computer Services, RCAS 56 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) 57 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques 1 Reserved 2 Reserved 5 Reserved 7 Reserved 10 Reserved 23 Reserved 27 Reserved 31 Reserved 37 Reserved 39 Reserved 41 Reserved 42 Reserved 58 through 126 Reserved 0, 127 Reserved by RFC1812; cannot ever be used jms Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One

2 1

Re: Routing Tutorial - Just Wondering
by malice＠epix.net 11 Jun '96

11 Jun '96

Reply-to: inet-access(a)earth.com Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:54:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen(a)vii.com> To: inet-access(a)earth.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Routing Tutorial - Just Wondering On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Is there anything you'd like the InterNIC to speak on? If so, let Maybe speak on the future of IPs... Let ISPs know why they NEED to SWIP. > > If there were to be a two day routing/peering tutorial for sysadmins here > > in D.C. With say, a twelve router MAE model, a frame relay simulator, > > presentations by a couple of smaller "big" guys (i.e. not MCI, Sprint, or > > UUnet, etc...), how many would be interested? Oh yeah, free (lunch included). I would also be interested in attending.. Please let me know details

1 0