- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Jim Fleming 05 Apr '96

05 Apr '96

On Wednesday, April 03, 1996 8:17 PM, Dalvenjah FoxFire[SMTP:dalvenja@ict.org] wrote: @On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote: @ @> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of @> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable @> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed, @> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all @> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would @> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and @> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and @> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please. @ @I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this @question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else @to ask it... @ Most countries are still free...ask what you like...where you like... sometimes you might get replies...which, you may like or not like... @As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24 @to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from @InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next @few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure. @ In my opinion, this notion of the IPv4 address space being exhausted is bogus. There is a lot of life left in IPv4. Social engineering is more of a factor in IP address allocations than technical or resource limits. Too much power is in the hands of too few people. You should ask for at least a /16. If a cable TV company with no subscribers can get most of a /8, I would think a school district would have some clout. (This of course assumes that you have real students and not virtual students :-) The way that you guarantee routability is to get the large "carriers" and ISPs involved in your community activities. Make sure the mayor of your community directly contacts the executives of these commercial companies that are trying to develop market share in your area. Make sure that those executives understand that you want to remain routable and make sure that they send representatives to help with the network engineering plans, etc. Take pictures and invite the press. Make sure that you publicize which companies provided the school district(s) (and libraries) with the support they need at this critical planning stage. Turn this into a positive PR opportunity and make sure that plenty of politicians are involved. (BTW, this is an election year) As for long-term routability... Do you really think large carriers and ISPs are going to cut off your school district if they realize that part of their current and future business comes from the parents of the children in your schools...? @Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools @in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for @internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute @that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this @solution? @ I would not fiddle with anything less than a /16...you might consider reclaiming an unused /16 from one of the belly-up companies in your area...maybe one of the companies in your area that is sitting on a /8 with little usage would be willing to make some headlines about helping the school district(s)... Maybe you should have some of the ISPs and carriers help you develop a "Total Community" Internet Plan (TCIP)...again, make a positive PR experience out of the process...get as many people and students involved as possible... use the Web as a forum...let people know that you are serious about the long-term plans for not only the school district(s) but the community. If you find that ISPs are too busy for this sort of thing, because they are too busy raking in cash...then that might be some clue about how long they intend to stick around once they have enough dollars to retire... @Thanks in advance, and apologies for the 'dumb' traffic. @ @-Sven Nielsen @ @ Dalvenjah FoxFire, the Teddy Dragon (also known as Sven Nielsen to some :) Also...get your local PBS people involved...who knows, if you work hard...you may get national coverage... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hi all - Since we are holding the next NANOG in Washington DC, I thought it might be interesting to see if CSPAN was interested in broadcasting it (a nice alternative/addition to the Mbone I think.) I contacted the CSPAN folks and they tell me that they usually don't decide what event to cover until the day before or so, but if we wanted to make this meeting open to the public (it is) and let them know the agenda, then they can consider it. Does this sound ok? Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Also...if you are not able to get a /16...contact the U.S Congressional Internet Caucus... http://www.house.gov/white/internet_caucus/netcauc.html also check out The Citizen's Guide to the Net... http://www.vtw.org/citguide/citguide.html forget about the traditional ways of getting resources from the chosen few.... ...take it to the people...they will give you the resources you need... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

2 1

MIX
by William Allen Simpson 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

> From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > It really is about time that some of the larger ISP's started following > the lead of folks like netaxs.com and become aggregate providers for > local ISP's in their cities. This way the aggregator can be doubly and > triply homed and deal with all the BGP4 nastiness. The ISP's gain the > benefit of that multihoming to their city and in addition can get some of > the redundancy-in-case-of-failure by buying a T1 and frame relay, or a T1 > and ISDN dialup to their aggregate provider. > > Every ISP wants to have a backup connection and right now most assume > that multi-homing is the only way to achieve this. > > I believe that a middle-tier between the ISP and the NSP is the best way > to achieve this and could very well decrease global routing table size. > These are often called Metropolitan Exchanges. They have been proposed repeatedly in the IETF context. Several of them are operational around the US, but there need to be hundreds of them. How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro? WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

Re: CSPAN at next NANOG?
by sob＠academ.com 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

I have worked with CSPAN before. They also expect the organization providing the event to be willing to cover some of their costs. In DC, that may be zero, but the question needs to be asked. -- 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.

2 1

Routing table growth
by Andrew Partan 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

We are starting to get reports from some of our (multihomed) customers that full routing tables will no longer fit in 32Meg routers. How many others are seeing this? --asp(a)uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)

5 5

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by hcb＠clark.net 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

At 11:04 AM 4/4/96, Tim Bass (PIER) wrote: >Howard states: > >[ ... ] > >> IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay >> routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good >> way to guarantee routable prefixes. > >Yes, there is a good way to GUARANTEE routable prefixes. Intermediate >system address translation which maps to "virtual renumbering".... In the specific case, this might take a new translator box that is not budgeted. Yes, I know renumbering costs staff time, but many organizations find it much easier to justify staff time than capital expenses. There's already a commitment to renumber here. Tim, my major point was that the enterprise here should, when renumbering, install infrastructure that makes possible future renumbering easier. Are you opposed to this? DHCP and such exist today, but I'm not sure I would say fully functional and tested address translators do. They may very well be in the near term. I'll agree that address translation will work in some, but not all situations. The problems are less in pure routing than in network management, DNS (especially reverse mapping), etc. > >The answer my friend.... is blowing in the wind... in the technical >implementation, not "human attitude re-engineering"..... I don't think we are in philosophical disagreement, but what the technical implementation should or can be. > >The attitude, .... "bluntly, there's no good way for man to fly...." >is not unique to written history.... it is alive and well in the >Internet today ;-) There is no good way for man to fly. There is an excellent way for man to be flown in airplanes. There isn't always a need to fly. Requirements analysis can fix things at the end system, with application-dependent solutions ranging from videoconferencing to ICBMs.

2 1

Re: CSPAN at next NANOG?
by William B. Norton 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

At 11:35 AM 4/4/96 CST, Stan Barber wrote: >I have worked with CSPAN before. They also expect the organization providing >the event to be willing to cover some of their costs. In DC, that may be zero, >but the question needs to be asked. I didn't get the impression there was any cost involved here. They told me that they look over the list of public interest events that are going on in Washington, and the night before, they decide which event to tape/broadcast. They don't give advanced warning that they are going to show up; you just let them know the event is occuring. If it turns out that socks, the whitehouse cat, has kittens, they probably won't show up ;-) The compelling reason to let CSPAN know about the NANOG is that the broadcast quality is likely to be *far* better than the MBone. We are in Washington and someone is willing to broadcast it for free. This probably won't happen again for a while. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by hcb＠clark.net 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

Originally posted to the NANOG list. Relevant to PIER as a real-world example of what we have to solve. >On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:> >> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of >> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable >> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed, >> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all >> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would >> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and >> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and >> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please. > Dalvenjah FoxFire <dalvenja(a)ict.org> replied, >I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this >question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else >to ask it... You have legitimate concerns; I'm not sure that you'll like the answers. > >As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24 >to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from >InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next >few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure. IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good way to guarantee routable prefixes. What is reasonable, while you are renumbering, to put in the hooks that make subsequent renumbering much less painful. PIER is ... ahem ... addressing these. Please share your major problems in renumbering with PIER. IMHO, the most important parts are making your end stations easier to renumber, using DHCP (or its predecessors) for end station IP addresses and DNS for server references. Obviously, there are other issues, but these are key. I can send you the draft router renumbering guide that has been posted to PIER but is not yet on the server. > >Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools >in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for >internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute >that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this >solution? > It certainly would be much cleaner, but I still don't think you are going to be able to guarantee you won't renumber in the moderate term. Growth curves are too steep.

2 1

More NANOG info
by Pam Ciesla 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

HLC-Internet will provide lunch on Thursday, 5/30. Lunch will include assorted sandwiches, vegetable pasta salad, cookies and soda or bottled water. Pam

1 0

regional aggregation
by William Allen Simpson 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

> From: Dalvenjah FoxFire <dalvenja(a)ict.org> > I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this > question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else > to ask it... > This is the right place, as you are talking about operational issues. > As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24 > to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from > InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next > few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure. > > Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools > in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for > internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute > that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this > solution? > Yes, you should. If all traffic goes that way, it is the root of the topology. Please renumber topologically. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Internet affiliations (and settlements)
by William Allen Simpson 04 Apr '96

04 Apr '96

> X-Sender: bob(a)kelmscott.com > From: bob_metcalfe(a)infoworld.com (Bob Metcalfe) > >From: jerry <jerry(a)fc.net> > >You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of > >offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit > >kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum > >where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn > >about problems and fix them. > > > Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet > Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? > Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is > IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. > That's a lot of questions. The history is complicated. Briefly, there was a long debate about whether the network operations should be directly affiliated as a seaprate group under the IAB, back when that was the "Activities Board". There appeared to be consensus that this was not the correct direction. And thus, various independent groups have arisen on their own. The ISoc is not involved. Indeed, the IETF is not affiliated with ISoc. The ISoc is currently a separate educational and outreach Internet organization. In some respects, it is beginning to serve a fundraising and administrative role as well, but these are strictly limited at this time. There is considerable trepidation on the parts of the volunteer, engineering, vendor and operators about the extent of this role. This is a current topic for discussion in the Poised WG in the IETF, and you are certainly welcome to participate in that forum. > >Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do > >much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters > >is just plan wrong of the face of it. > >... > Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy > defensive to argue? > Well, several years ago I collected the practical considerations about settlements into "Settlements Considered Harmful". The technical and economic problems are well known. I never got around to polishing and publishing the RFC. I _was_ too busy. Now, if someone would PAY me to write them, more might get finished.... Until then, I'll stick with getting higher priority work done. Sorry. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0