- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Paul Ferguson 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

At 07:30 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >> >Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK >> >you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI >> >via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our >> >aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for >> >a fee. >> >> And the global routing table grows. > >If this is done with a private two-party exchange point, then can't it >also be done without any change in the global routing table? > I'm not sure this is practical. In any event, this why people have been bitching about people punching holes in large CIDR blocks. - paul

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Sean Donelan 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

What is NANOG's role? I was surprised to read in the March 25 issue of NetworkWorld Alecia Cooper at Sprint comments that Sprint is just following NANOG's recommendations to block addresses to minimize the number of router table entries. I must have missed something, because I don't remember NANOG ever making any recommendation, of any sort. Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

7 8

Re: vocalizing majors, etc, etc.....
by Paul Ferguson 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" :-) - paul At 08:11 PM 4/2/96 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote: > >"Do you now, or have you ever attended meetings of the Global > Routing Conspiracy?" >

1 0

RE: NANOG
by sob＠academ.com 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

Bob writes: > Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 > engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that > they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which > is half our problem. Actually, there has been some work done on this. There was a NSFNET Trouble Ticket standard developed by the RAC. The report is available as a pdf file from this URL: ftp://ftp.academ.com/pub/misc/troublet.pdf. Unfortunately, shortly after this work was done, the NSFNET ceased to exist. > So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to > whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops > ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how > store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? I'd like to encourage you to discuss this issue specifically. I am writing an Internet-Draft on end-system management issues in the face of the explosive growth of the Internet and this is one of the ones I am writing about. Your views would be most welcome in developing this document. -- 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.

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by salo＠msc.edu 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

> To: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)sdg.dra.com> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 12:38:29 -0500 > From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis(a)ans.net> > [...] > NANOG is a place where operational issues are discussed. They are not > voted apon and so there is not official decrees from NANOG. I am no > more a spokesperson for NANOG than for Sprint. Here's my opinion if > you want it. > [...] Nice summary. -tjs

2 1

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by sob＠academ.com 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

Tim writes: > It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG, > the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control > routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the > those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will. > > Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by > virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the > group, does bear responsibility for the perception others > view the group. You say the "vocal majority" in the first paragraph and then the "few dominate voices" in the second paragraph. Which is it? If you had said a "vocal minority" in the first paragraph, it would make your comments much more consistent. -- 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

RE: NANOG
by David C. Kovar 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

We have a business plan in place for doing exactly this, and a lot more. It's pretty simple to do, with the right setup. We have no intention of sellings ads on the page, though. -David >This is a good point. If there were a list somewhere which collated all >of the trouble reports from all of the ISP's then some entrepreneur could >set up an Internet traffic report WWW site and make all the mass of >trouble reports palatable for end users, including stories about ladies >in Lincolns. > >This entrepreneur could get rich selling ads on their WWW site and >everyone would know what is going on. > >> 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. > >Even though I know how all this came about and how groups like NANOG >operate (what group!) I still don't believe it when people say that NANOG >doesn't set policy and NANOG is not affiliated with anybody. The fact is >that NANOG appears to set policy and NANOG appears to be affiliated with >somebody and that appearance is what counts until NANOG pipes up and >states what their official policy and official affiliations are. > >> Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy >> defensive to argue? > >Settlements are contrary to NANOG policy. It is also contrary to NANOG >policy to engage in long drawn out debates about things which have >already been decided, like "settlements are wrong". The policy is >unwritten and to a certain extent, non-verbal, but it is policy nevertheless. > >> So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to >> whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops >> ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how >> store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? > >I have had to explain to ISP's how to do email relaying so that their >customers can get email back and forth from fringe locations. It's >usually an asymmetrical problem so it shows up when a person can receive >email but cannot send a reply. > >BTW, the trick is to address it like this joe%farawayplace.com(a)majorhub.com > > >Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 >Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com > > >

1 0

vocalizing majors, etc, etc.....
by mo＠uunet.uu.net 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

"Do you now, or have you ever attended meetings of the Global Routing Conspiracy?" "Huh?? I went to a NANOG meeting a few times to see what went on there." "So you ADMIT that you have attended SEVERAL meetings of the Global Routing Conspiracy?" "I said I went to a NANOG meeting a few times." "But since you weren't utterly REPELLED by what you heard and saw at your first meeting of the Global Routing Conspiracy you must at least be a SYMPATHIZER with this insideous Global Routing Conspiracy!" "What are you talking about, Senator? What do you mean by Global Routing Conspiracy?" "Now you try to play stupid, eh? It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the Global Internet is controlled by the Global Routing Conspiracy and they regularly plot to maintain their control, thereby squeezing our Precious Bodily Fluids out onto the ground!!! ADMIT YOUR COMPLICITY and then if you name your co-conspirators, maybe the Inquisitors will deal with you swiftly!" "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? All I did was go to a meeting to discuss registry issues and now I'm testifying before a Senate Subcommittee!" "So now you admit that you went to learn how to register OTHERS in the Global Routing Conspiracy! That's enough for me! I believe the other members of this Committee will agree that we should just send this one over straight away for any other information to be EXTRACTED from him!" "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

1 0

Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
by Bradley J. Passwaters 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

> It has been clear over the past (years?..... time sure flies....) > there has been a strong and very vocal pro-filtering Keep > the Routing Table Small at *any* cost, group of advocates and > protagonists in the NANOG mailing list. Its just as clear that there is a group opposed to this policy/practice. (And I thinks fair to say they are vocal as well) > It is easy to reach the conjecture that the _perception_ of *others* > is; having many strong and vocal pro-filtering protagonists in NANOG; > and given the fact that the few who warned that selective > route filtering was very problematic were flamed-broiled and > none came to their defense No one who spoke out against the various proposed filtering solutions was prohibited from speaking. Not one individual was told "We have voted and NANOG believes X so you should do X and just shut up." Those who did not believe the pro-filtering vocal group continued and still do continue to speak up. Any one who examines the archives can see those open discusssions .... pointless and slanted metaphor deleted > > It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG, > the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control > routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the > those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will. It may not be a strong leap of imagination but its certainly sloppy thinking. It is also not true that just because a fraction of a group supports a thing - the GROUP supports it. The sum of the parts does not always equal the whole. The NANOG group has made numerous efforts to let people know what things that the GROUP does and does not endorse. > Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by > virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the > group, does bear responsibility for the perception others > view the group. Who is preventing you or any other person from expressing your views? The cold hard truth is that any fraction that wants to can speak and attempt to sway people to their view. If you come up with a real solution to the problem, this is an extremely competative market. Some one would love to have a way to keep their router up and running at the point a Cisco or Bay box is puking its guts out. I have listened to your proposals and points of view because frequently when a paradigm shift occurs it is indeed an outsider who brings it to the world. However that does not mean that just because one is an outsider one has the new truth. The pro-filtering group has presented alot of hard data and solutions. Yes there is pain in those solutions but I prefer it to hand waving. bjp(a)eng.umd.edu | Disclaimer: Can you be sure I even uunet!eng.umd.edu!istari | exist: Let alone represent anyone Brad Passwaters (Network Ronin) | or anything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here we are. Born to be kings. We're the princes of the universe. Here we belong, fighting to survive in a war with the darkest power. Network Manager's Theme Song (QUEEN)

1 0

Re: New Internet Routing Statistics
by Sean Doran 02 Apr '96

02 Apr '96

No, Gordon, Sprint did not refuse to cooperate. It is quite likely that if we were asked, it was asked of me personally and promptly buried four hundred items deep on my todo list. Sean.

2 1