- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value )
by Warren Williams 04 Jun '96

04 Jun '96

At 06:08 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >gee bill, accusing AVI of muck raking? must have been confusing him with >me.... > >i think his question is very relevant...... > >how bout phrasing it differently? if ameritech, pac bell, mfs, or sprint >were >initially clueless (greedy?) enough to ask for $60,000 a month I can see >why you might like to decline to embarrass the offender.... - *IF* such >entity has become more reasonable in the meantime. > >so let me rephrase avi's question: > >what is the RA paying each NAP owner now?? this should be publicly >disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me >the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW. Since I've been involved with the NAP project at Pacific Bell, the RA has only been charged for an ATM port ($4,850 mo. flat). There has been no charge for the facilities in which the servers are housed, for reserved rack space, for power, access, whatever... Bill and I have been in discussion about a way to reduce the ATM access fees considerably, and that is merely waiting for some clearance (which I thought would come *much* faster) on my side of the house. Our mission (already accepted, Mr. Phelps) is to reduce the charge to zero. Kind regards, Warren ------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren K. Williams, Director - Network Access Point Pacific Bell Business Communications Services Email: wkwilli(a)pacbell.com Phone: 510.867.9065 -------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

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

04 Jun '96

The interNIC has already stated that allocations can *not* be guaranteed to be 'routable', so it stands to reason that the interNIC (or any other registry, for that matter) need not concern itself with the issue of portability. As you mentioned, this is strictly a matter between the ISP(s) and the customer(s). - paul At 05:35 PM 6/3/96 -0700, Bill Manning wrote: > Please clarify "portable" as used in this context. > > - Routable between different providers > - Transferable intoto between ISPs > - Transferable subsets > - Some other meaning > > No delegation registry can claim any prefix portability if > the first option is the meaning. The second has applicability > to various proposals for a prefix market once a delegation > has been made. (no Internic involvment) The third is strictly > between ISPs and thier clients and has a lot to do with > prefix migration (nee punching holes in CIDR blocks) and nothing > to do with the Internic. And then there is your possible > other meaning... > > For the first three, the Internic has zero sane reason for > issuing any "edict" wrt portability. That is strictly an > ISP issue. The fourth... ??? :) > > >--bill >

2 2

Internet end-to-end routing paper available
by Vern Paxson 03 Jun '96

03 Jun '96

The following paper: End-to-End Routing Behavior in the Internet is now available from: ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/routing.SIGCOMM.ps.Z This paper corresponds to the talk I gave at the February NANOG meeting. A slightly shorter version of this paper will appear in the proceedings of SIGCOMM '96. Abstract appended. Vern The large-scale behavior of routing in the Internet has gone virtually without any formal study, the exception being Chinoy's analysis of the dynamics of Internet routing information [Chinoy93]. We report on an analysis of 40,000 end-to-end route measurements conducted using repeated ``traceroutes'' between 37 Internet sites. We analyze the routing behavior for pathological conditions, routing stability, and routing symmetry. For pathologies, we characterize the prevalence of routing loops, erroneous routing, infrastructure failures, and temporary outages. We find that the likelihood of encountering a major routing pathology more than doubled between the end of 1994 and the end of 1995, rising from 1.5% to 3.4%. For routing stability, we define two separate types of stability, ``prevalence,'' meaning the overall likelihood that a particular route is encountered, and ``persistence,'' the likelihood that a route remains unchanged over a long period of time. We find that Internet paths are heavily dominated by a single prevalent route, but that the time periods over which routes persist show wide variation, ranging from seconds up to days. About 2/3's of the Internet paths had routes persisting for either days or weeks. For routing symmetry, we look at the likelihood that a path through the Internet visits at least one different city in the two directions. At the end of 1995, this was the case half the time, and at least one different autonomous system was visited 30% of the time.

1 0