- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Certified ISP Engineer program announcement
by Dave O'Leary 20 Feb '96

20 Feb '96

If you send me $2500 and proof that you know what you are doing, and you have at least 5 years experience as an ISP, then I'll send you a nice certificate that says you are a certified ISP. Its cheaper than taking all those CNE classes! dave Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 21:14:12 -0500 (EST) >From: mike <mn(a)tremere.ios.com> Subject: Re: ISP list To: Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> cc: Bharat Ranjan <bharatr(a)microsoft.com>, nanog(a)merit.edu, GAVRON(a)ACES.COM Well, how about then a CIE (certified ISP Engineer) ? anybody volunteer for CIE #1? Mike

4 3

Re: Resources regarding use of RFC 1597 addresses
by Paul Ferguson 19 Feb '96

19 Feb '96

You might want to poll the crowd over on the Firewalls List [firewalls(a)GreatCircle.com] - paul At 10:57 AM 2/19/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >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 >

1 0

Renumbering and the Feb 15-16 NANOG meeting
by Craig A. Huegen 19 Feb '96

19 Feb '96

As I sat in the auditorium listening to the speakers at the NANOG meeting Thursday and Friday, a realization came to me. Almost every speaker there who happened to talk about the problems with space and CIDR and what-not said "renumbering is a fact of life", or "renumbering is a simple method to solving these problems". While contemplating this, I realized that every speaker who said something along these lines really hasn't done massive renumbering to fulfill CIDR plans--they either have this HUGE block (i.e., major provider like SprintLink) that just needs to be aggregated on out-bound or aren't involved in the direct operation of NSP/ISP's. I've seen a specialty provider renumber about 15 class C's _twice_, the first because he changed providers and they urged him to CIDRize. He then had to change again when the first provider didn't live up to the contractual obligations. Because of a lack of planning on his part, he lost 20% of his customer space during/after these renumberings--customers don't want to put up with problems such as a) applications which compute the IP address into an equation with the license number, b) problems with _all_ parameters not being changed in terminal servers and hosts, c) DNS problems with off-site backup servers, and a few others that just generally made his customers not happy. (Keep in mind that "a)" above generally requires you to purchase new licenses from the software manufacturer.) The problem, you ask? I don't see very many resources available which help ISP's to renumber more easily--time line planners, reminder lists with commonly-missed parameters, etc. I realize that renumbering is a fact of life--my last post, however, shows my true feelings regarding most pre-CIDR blocks; that their providers should be willing to allow customers to keep using the space they allocated in the pre-CIDR days. If there are these renumbering resources available, make sure that the small and big providers alike are making them available to the customers who are willing to attempt a re-number. Make sure the customer service of the provider is willing to deal with the complexities of renumbering (and keep in mind it _IS_ a very complex project--EVERYTHING from IP addresses to static routes to applications which are hard-coded). Unfortunately, the ISP that I saw change providers didn't have this help at their fingertips--they could have potentially saved almost all of the customers they lost. My thanks go out to everyone who made this NANOG one of the best--keep up the good work! /cah

6 10