- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Browning 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

It has been suggested that this discussion should be held only on com-priv, as it is global in nature. I am responding to the nanog list only because it is the source of the most recent post.... >From: Andrew Smith[SMTP:awsmith@rip.ops.neosoft.com] > >> >> How many times is it reasonable to ask a customer to renumber? Once is >> >> certainly reasonable. Twice is questionable. More than that and I would >> >> suspect the customer would renumber all right, but as part of shifting to a >> >> different ISP. > >Please tell me how this could happen? I would call this poor planning >on the part of the ISP. Simply request network space from your provider >until you can justify say a /18-16...(if you get a /18, request that >the rest of the /16 is reserved for you and BACK IT UP with documentation) >by noting that you will return ALL of your provider assigned networks >within X amount of time of recieving the delegation from the NIC. This (reserving the /16) sounds like wonderful approach. In our particular case, we promised InterNIC that, if they would reserve a /16 to back up our /18, we would renumber all our customers into that space, returning a directly allocated /19 and two different provider assigned blocks. We are in the process of establishing connections into the NAPs, so having a sufficiently large *contiguous* space is of course very important to us if we are to successfully peer. We invested significant effort in providing what we feel is very adequate documentation. So far, InterNIC has only said that they 'would consider' reserving additional space. Should we proceed with renumbering our customers into a space which *might* have contiguous space reserved??? >This is 1 renumbering. (Not including switching providers if you >so choose...a cost of doing business that you must accept if >it's your choice..although I'll stick my neck out and say this should >happen early when it is least painful...you can usually tell if >you want to leave an provider early on) We are doing our best to avoid 'poor planning', and that is what has created this issue for us. Multiple renumbering will occur only (1) if InterNIC insists on our accepting incremental additions of noncontiguous /18s, or (2) if each of our "small steps" is into a different address space. In the case of (1) we would ultimately have to consolidate these to enable aggregation of our routes. In the case of (2), we would have to constantly renumber. -- Jim Browning

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Brian Brown 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

Perry, You forget one thing. The deep pocket companies CAN buy up all the food or rent ALL the apartments but I can grow more or build more starting today. Show me how I can create more ip numbers today. Brian > > >"David R. Conrad" writes: >> Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please >> explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the >> address space? > >If you start charging for food, what would stop deep pocket companies >from buying up all the food? > >If you start charging rent for apartments, what would stop deep pocket >companies from renting all the apartments? > >Perry > > Brian Brown 703-709-7500 bbrown(a)digex.net

2 1

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Scott Mace 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

> Here's an interesting one: > > crash % whois 166.128.0.0 > GTE Telecommunications Products and Services (NETBLK-CDPD-B) > 245 Perimeter Center Parkway > Atlanta, GA 30346 > > Netname: NETBLK-CDPD-B > Netblock: 166.128.0.0 - 166.255.0.0 > > Coordinator: > Brenner, Robert (RB30) ROBERT.W.BRENNER(a)GTE.SPRINT.COM > (404) 391-8450 > > Domain System inverse mapping provided by: > > NIC.CDPD.NET 198.41.0.20 > NETMAN1.NETSOL.COM 192.153.247.11 > > Record last updated on 18-May-95. > > The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information > (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). > Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. > This was meant to have the following here: Its interesting why @home didn't get something similar to this... Scott -- smace(a)neosoft.com - KC5NUA - Scott Mace - Network Engineer - Neosoft Inc. Any opinions expressed are mine.

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

At 09:36 AM 3/14/96 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Why not use net 10 and leave the NATs in? >> >You can't possibly be serious here. No way NATs scale to multihomed, and they >don't speak BGP. They aren't heavy-duty backbone routers. They're designed >for small to medium sized corporate LANs, not ISP's. > Owen, you're assuming that what is currently the case will continue to hold true. - paul

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

At 11:20 AM 3/14/96 -0600, Scott Mace wrote: > >Renumbering is a fact of life, so live with it and find ways to do it >better and more efficiently. > Thank you for echoing conventional wisdom. :-) I would suggest that anyone with an opinion on this issue [renumbering] obtain and read RFC-1900 ['Renumbering Needs Work'], as well as RFC-1916 ['Enterprise Renumbering: Experience and Information Solicitation'], before firing a salvo over the bow. Renumbering may soon be a fact of life. The PIER [Procedures for Internet/Enterprise Renumbering] IETF Working Group is currently working on documenting renumbering issues to assist organizations in operational aspects of renumbering. Get involved, if this issue concerns you. -paul

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

I've moved my response and this thread to CIDRD, since it appears to be more appropriate in this venue. - paul

1 0

routing tables decreased
by Rebecca L. Nitzan 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

Hi: In case you were wondering, routing tables are back down to ~34K. -- Becca Rebecca L. Nitzan ESnet - Energy Sciences Network Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory phone: 510-423-4055 fax: 510-422-1482 nitzan(a)es.net

1 0

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

The UN is fine with me... No matter what happens...the following can not continue... 1. One person at the InterNIC playing Jesus Christ with the IP addresses... 2. One person at IANA playing God the Father with IP addresses... 3. Network Solutions, Inc. (and SAIC) competing against ISPs... 4. Selected ISPs being given huge blocks of the address space... There has to be a democratic process...of the people, for the people and by the people... ...not just for John, Paul, George and Ringo....even if John is the Pope... Jim Fleming Naperville, IL P.S. Where has IANA documented the following allocation....??? $ whois NETBLK-ATHOME @Home (NETBLK-ATHOME) 385 Ravendale Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 Netname: ATHOME Netblock: 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 Coordinator: Mockapetris, Paul V. (PM1) pvm(a)HOME.NET 415-944-7200 415-944-7221 (FAX) 415-944-8501 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: TELLER.HOME.NET 206.15.25.1 NS1.GEO.NET 192.231.42.2 Record last updated on 24-Jan-96. The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. ---------- From: bmanning@ISI.EDU[SMTP:bmanning@ISI.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 10:51 PM To: Jim Fleming Cc: dorian(a)cic.net; kovar(a)NDA.COM; com-priv(a)psi.com; jfbb(a)atmnet.net; nanog(a)merit.edu; nathan(a)netrail.net; nic-registry(a)internic.net Subject: Re: Allocation of IP Addresses > > > Here are some people that might be interested in these issues... > > Jim Fleming > Naperville, IL > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > There always will be disadvantages of being small. This is true in every > market. > > > Do you truly believe there is no way to avoid the forced renumbering > > problem for the smaller ISPs? > > There is no way to avoid renumbering. Every other plausible proposal I've > seen have been renumbering under a different guise. > > -dorian > Jim, old buddy, you forgot the European Union delegates, South America, Africa, CIS, China and the AP nations. Better punt the whole darn thing right to the UN right now. Since when did the global internet get to be regulated by the US government? -- --bill

3 2

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by David C. Kovar 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

>Yes, well there is no other way of doing it. The days of starting a ISP >out of your house and in a few years be a Sprint is falling away. ISP's >will just need to get space from there upstream provider and renumber. > >> How many times is it reasonable to ask a customer to renumber? Once is >> certainly reasonable. Twice is questionable. More than that and I would >> suspect the customer would renumber all right, but as part of shifting to a >> different ISP. > >As many as it takes, This is just something you are going to need to deal >with. We started with small blocks and had to renumber several times so >far. It is just part of growing, until you are a large NSP connected to >all the NAPs you will just need to start will small blocks and renumber >over and over until you get /18 or smaller. This strikes me as being discriminatory against the smaller ISPs. The customers are looking for stability and, from their point of view, being forced to renumber several times along with the ISP is unstable and costly. They'll look to ISPs who will not force them to renumber, the ones with a /18 or smaller already. Do you truly believe there is no way to avoid the forced renumbering problem for the smaller ISPs? -David

9 10

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

Would you PLEASE stop sending huge, unsolicited messages to the mailing list? Its annoying enough if it were one mailing list, but you are sending this to multiple lists. - paul At 01:17 AM 3/14/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > >INTERNET-DRAFT K. Hubbard > InterNIC > M. Kosters > InterNIC > D. Conrad > APNIC > D. Karrenberg > RIPE > November 1995 > > > > > INTERNET REGISTRY GUIDELINES > draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-00.txt > >

1 0