- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Walter O. Haas 22 Feb '96

22 Feb '96

> > Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could > > easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each > > ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix. > > But, this would require working with your direct competition in your > local geographic area. > > Ain't gonna happen. > > No way, No How. Why not? We already have competing TV stations sharing an antenna site, and competing newspapers sharing a printing press and distribution mechanism. I don't see why ISPs couldn't do something similar where it's in everybody's interest. -- Walt

5 5

None
by jroberts＠teir.com 22 Feb '96

22 Feb '96

help

2 1

looking for suggestions on a PD work ticketing system to give to ISPs
by scharf＠vix.com 21 Feb '96

21 Feb '96

In my CIX work I have identified the need to provide a public domain or otherwise freely redistributable work ticketing system. Since many of the people using this will be ISPs, I thought I would ask this group for any recommendations that people may have on this, I hope this message isn't to far afield of what the list is for. Please send all responses/flames just to me. Thanks, Jerry

7 7

Re: NANOG Announce: CIX NANOG Date Changes!
by sob＠academ.com 21 Feb '96

21 Feb '96

The notes page for the last meeting does have the correct dates on it. -- 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

Resources regarding use of RFC 1597 addresses
by Michael Dillon 21 Feb '96

21 Feb '96

I've been experimenting with 10/8 addressing on m home LAN connected to the Internet via a single static IP address. So far I've verified that it is possible to use such a scenario for a small corporate LAN which mainly needs basic WWW access and email, but I would like to find out how far I can go with this. So, does anyone know of any resources on the net for building firewalls using RFC1597 addressing? 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

3 3

Re: NANOG Announce: CIX NANOG Date Changes!
by pj＠place.org 21 Feb '96

21 Feb '96

>> Hi all - >> >> Looks like the next NANOG dates have been changed and finalize (see note >> below). The next NANOG is now scheduled for May 30-31. >> > A strong showing for our communities disregard for > US holidays! How many other nanog'ites have nothing > else to do on Memorial Day (real)? That doesn't bother me as much as dates jumping around... Can the nanog webpages be updated with a 'future nanog' page listing future dates and sites? --Paul

1 0

Re: NANOG Announce: CIX NANOG Date Changes!
by Randall S. Benn 21 Feb '96

21 Feb '96

At 07:51 AM 2/21/96 -0800, you wrote: >> >> Hi all - >> >> Looks like the next NANOG dates have been changed and finalize (see note >> below). The next NANOG is now scheduled for May 30-31. >> >> See you there. More detailed logistics to follow.... >> >> Bill >> ------------------ >> >Bill, >> > >> >Unfortunately I received word today from George Washington University >> >that the May 23-24 dates are wrong, and the correct dates are May 30-31. >> > >> >Apparently we had a major miscommunication! May 30-31 are absolutely >> >the correct dates and I hope that you will be able to communicate this >> >to the people in San Diego today. We will update our members. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A strong showing for our communities disregard for > US holidays! How many other nanog'ites have nothing > else to do on Memorial Day (real)? > >-- >--bill My calendar for 1996 shows Monday, May 27 as Memorial Day. Randy Benn

1 0

Re: NANOG Announce: CIX NANOG Date Changes!
by bbrown＠access.digex.net 21 Feb '96

21 Feb '96

Bill, May 30-31 is not Memorial Day weekend. I actually think CIX chose the dates they did to avoid the US holiday issues. Brian nanog(a)home.merit.edu > >> >> Hi all - >> >> Looks like the next NANOG dates have been changed and finalize (see note >> below). The next NANOG is now scheduled for May 30-31. >> >> See you there. More detailed logistics to follow.... >> >> Bill >> ------------------ >> >Bill, >> > >> >Unfortunately I received word today from George Washington University >> >that the May 23-24 dates are wrong, and the correct dates are May 30-31. >> > >> >Apparently we had a major miscommunication! May 30-31 are absolutely >> >the correct dates and I hope that you will be able to communicate this >> >to the people in San Diego today. We will update our members. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A strong showing for our communities disregard for > US holidays! How many other nanog'ites have nothing > else to do on Memorial Day (real)? > >-- >--bill > > Brian Brown 703-709-7500 bbrown(a)digex.net

1 0

unsubscribe
by Srinivasarao Mulugu 20 Feb '96

20 Feb '96

unsubscribe ========================================================= Mulugu Srinivasarao Tel : 703/904-2013 SprintLink Engineering Fax : 703/904-2292 Sprint, GSD Bldg. (1/19) "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

1 0

Thoughts on charging for route announcements
by Alan Hannan 20 Feb '96

20 Feb '96

NANOG, I enjoyed Yakov's presentation on charging for network route announcements. However, I seem to have a rather significant problem with it. According to Yakov, increasing the cost of network routing announcements will decrease the overall number of routes, and increase aggregation. Introducing dollar-fixed cost to network announcements would provide a fair and equitable system in which desire would not run rampant, but be tied to a fixed sum, ie money. In a standard capitalistic model, when supply is fixed, cost will create an inverse relationship with demand. However, the 'supply' of network routes is not fixed. One could make a good point that it is fixed by saying 'Oh yes, for so many dollars routers can only handle X number of routes in their table optimally'. If we were to buy this (which I actually do) then we would ask 'Who is it that determines what percentage each provider/nsp gets of those X routes?' If there were an autonomous 'Internet Company' that 'owned' the abilities of the Internet, and could claim ownership of 'routing' then they could determine that routing was worth 1 Frobozz. This would determine that a 'valid' router could handle X number of routes, therefore each route cost 1/X Frobozz. However, we've not such a standard, nor a body to enforce it. Akin to Lothberg's argument, we've not a supply, governed by an entity, or set of entities. While the routing tables of the internet connections points are analagous to gold in many ways, in supply and control, they are not. How would this be enforced in today's system? -alan

1 0