- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: May 1996 notes appearing
by hcb＠clark.net 07 Jun '96

07 Jun '96

>The notes from the May 1996 are starting to appear at this URL: > http://www.academ.com/nanog/may1996 > >Enjoy. I like the part about starting to appear, but I worry now they might disappear periodically. Is this a special case of route flapping? Do we need notes dampening? :-)

1 0

Re: Canadian routes with BGP no-export communities
by Sean Donelan 07 Jun '96

07 Jun '96

>Since the prefix originator is the one who's routing >is breaking, and if they can just register in the RADB to >fix things, I don't really see a problem. That statement isn't true in this case. The more specific networks are registered in the IRR, but what people do and what's in the IRR aren't always related. $ whois -h whois.ra.net 198.53.145 RADB: AS1800, the Sprint 192/2 "default" route object ANS: AS2493, a route object for the specific network with a community ANSIGPONLY AS5765, a route object for the specific network MCI: AS2493, a route object for the specific network AS5765, a route object for the specific network DRA has offices in Canada, so I try to keep up with what's happening with the Canadian networks. I must have missed the announcement about IStar's plans. Since the BGP no-export moves the affect/effect of a broken announcement two AS's away, this might be a good time to bring up the transitive nature of inter-provider NOC communications. What's the value of paying a backbone NOC if the trouble tickets get closed with "not our problem, call A->B->C's NOC yourself." -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

MAE-West is up again
by Jake Khuon 07 Jun '96

07 Jun '96

The RS2 machine at MAE-West is once again up. The second machine should be up as well sometime next week. There is still plenty of cleanup to be done and disruptions of service may occur although I will do my best to make sure that does not happen. I would like to personally thank Lance Tatman at NASA, Louis Bamberger and the folks at Sun, and all the rest of those who stayed up through the night for their help in this ordeal. If there are any problems or questions, please feel free to page me at 1-800-635-1868. -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon(a)Merit.Net> ]=====================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | Vox: (313) 763-4907 Fax: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/

17 32

Re: Address allocation stats
by Paul Ferguson 05 Jun '96

05 Jun '96

Thank you, kind sir. This is exactly what I was looking for: [may '96 figures] Grand Total (Allocated and Assigned Combined) Class A - 127 Class B - 10150 Class C - 764202 Percentage Allocated (Allocated and Assigned Combined) Class A - 100.00% Class B - 61.95% Class C - 36.44% No, back to your regularly scheduled programming. :-) - paul At 10:47 PM 6/4/96 -0400, Mark Kosters wrote: >> 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. > >The the most recent raw-data report that Frank has based his work on is >available at: > ftp://rs.internic.net/netinfo/ip_network_allocations > >They are generated on a monthly basis and filenames are in the form: > ftp://rs.internic.net/netinfo/ip_network_allocations.YYMmm > >Regards, >Mark > >-- > >Mark Kosters markk(a)internic.net +1 703 742 4795 >Principal Investigator InterNIC Registration Services >PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48 >

3 4

NEWSFLASH: Joint Venture Announced
by Tim Bass 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

>From HPWire: UCSD & GENERAL ATOMICS AGREE TO SUBMIT UNIFIED NSF PROPOSAL ============================================================================= San Diego, Calif. -- The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and General Atomics (GA) have reached agreement to submit a single, unified proposal by Sept. 3, 1996 to the National Science Foundation program, Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI). The announcement, issued last night, appears to resolve recent differences over the future of the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), a national center for computational science and engineering funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). (credit: HP Wire Service)

1 0

Advertisements for 128.167.0.0/16
by Alec H. Peterson 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

Has anybody else noticed the fact that SURAnet seems to be advertising a whole bunch of /24s inside of 128.167.0.0/16? Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - chuckie(a)panix.com | Panix Public Access Internet and UNIX| |Network Administrator | New York City, NY | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

2 2

Portability of 206 address space
by mike＠cortland.com 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

Hi, Anyone know whether Internic has issued an edict mandating non-portability of provider obtained 206 address space, such as /18's within this block? Thanks, Mike --------------------------------------- Mike Levy, PhD, PE (206)217-0158, fax:282-9445 Cortland Electronics Corp. mike(a)cortland.com 1509 Queen Anne Ave N., Suite 274 http://www.cortland.com Seattle, WA 98109

4 3

Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
by sob＠academ.com 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

Michael, I guess I missed this when it was originally posted, but if you could put some attribution around it, it would be more helpful. -- 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.

6 11

Re: Portability of 206 address space
by Paul Ferguson 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

Tim, This stemmed from a 'what *is* portable?' discussion. I believe its relevant in NANOG, regardless of overlap into an IETF WG topic. In any event (and to open old wounds), I *liked* the addr-ownership draft and believed it should've been advanced as BCP, but I digress. Whether or not there was consensus that it should have been adopted and advanced is not relevant; the topics it discussed surely are. - paul At 10:50 PM 6/3/96 -0400, @NANOG-LIST wrote: >> >> The topic is discussed in more detail in >> draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt: [snip] >If you could contain this discussion, for the moment in the PIER-WG >and out of the radar range (i.e. NANOG) for a while it would be >appreciated, I think. But then again, you are certainly free to >do PIER-WG work in NANOG... but why? >

1 0

Re: Portability of 206 address space
by Paul Ferguson 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

At 09:48 PM 6/3/96 -0400, Avi Freedman wrote: > >I think portable wrt the NICs may be: > >(1) The 'Portable' vs. 'Non-Portable' marker on the ISP IP request template > >(2) The 'Portable' vs. 'Non-Portable' marker on whois queries that says: > > ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE > >Now, as to what it *means*, it probably means that if you asked the NIC >in question, they'd say 'touch luck' if you wanted to contest a SWIPping >away from you of the space, I suppose. > >Of course, since the NIC refuses to delegate > /16s worth of in-addr.arpa, >unless you have a <= /16 from your provider, you're not going to get useful >in-addr.arpa from your old provider if they don't want you to. > >Avi > It would appear, then, that a better definition for 'portable' needs to come in existence. Which is why I particularly liked draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt. After re-reading draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt, its not readily apparent what 'portability' really means; I'm not so sure that it was the goal of the authors to define portability. It does state, however, that: [snip] 2) Routability: Distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability of the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure proper operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed that routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation or assignment of IPv4 addresses. [snip] Hence my earlier comment. The topic is discussed in more detail in draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt: [snip] Since the Internet does not constrain its topology (or allowed topology changes), we can either have address ownership for everyone or a routable Internet, but not both, or we need to develop and deploy new mechanisms (e.g., by decoupling the address owned by the end users from those used by the Internet routing, and provide mechanisms to translate between the two). In the absence of new mechanisms, if we have address ownership ("portable" addresses) for everyone, then the routing overhead will lead to a breakdown of the routing system resulting in a fragmented (partitioned) Internet. Alternately, we can have a routable Internet, but without address ownership ("portable" addresses) for everyone. [snip] - paul

2 1