- Test - lists.nanog.org

Video tapes of NANOG?
by Nathan Stratton 18 Feb '96

18 Feb '96

I missed NANOG this time, and wondered if anyone had or knows where I can get a video tape of it? Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Your Gateway to the World! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales(a)netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself" Matthew 6:34

1 0

Web Page for the notes
by sob＠academ.com 18 Feb '96

18 Feb '96

The notes will start appearing at this URL Real Soon Now: http://www.academ.com/nanog/feb1996 The agenda page is up. -- 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: Renumbering and the Feb 15-16 NANOG meeting
by Paul Ferguson 18 Feb '96

18 Feb '96

Craig, I think that this would be an opportune time to mention the PIER [Procedures for Internet/Enterprise Renumbering] WG; the issues that you mentioned below fall with PIER's charter to accomplish. I would recommend that anyone interested get involved with PIER; information on the PIER mailing list is available at: http://www.isi.edu:80/div7/pier/papers.html We also have a block scheduled at the LA IETF, tentatively on Wed. March 6. - paul At 06:54 PM 2/17/96 -0800, Craig A. Huegen wrote: > >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. >

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Sean Donelan 17 Feb '96

17 Feb '96

>Yes, so why not take you address space from you upstreem provider and >yes, when you need to change it. We started with 1 /24 then, /23 then >/19, all from Sprintlink. We then added a MCI connection and the Internic >gave us a /18, then we got connected to a NAP, the NIC gave us one more >/18. Yes, we had to renumber off the /24, /23, and are still working on >the /19. > >The point is that the NIC has no idea how long you will be in business, >or if you need the space at all. I am provding access to right now 10 >ISP, that will be gone in a year, and have watch that many die so far. Obviously you don't know the right people. While some startup ISP's get a /19. Other startup ISP's with no customers get a /14. And why renumber if you can get IANA to align an entire /8 before you even have customers? Perhaps there are some unpublished criteria being used to distinguished between these ISP's market projections. The published criteria don't seem to be sufficient to explain these dispararities. Since these allocations happened before these startup ISP companies had any customers, I don't understand what method for evaluating "effective utilization" would lead to these companies getting such large allocations. Other than relying on rosy engineering diagrams and optimistic market studies. The phase of the moon seems to be as good an explaination as any. The backing of a large cable or bell operating company isn't a good predictor of success. Yet these type of companies seem to be getting larger than average allocations for their ISP businesses before having any customers. Whatever happened to all those set-top boxes for interactive television? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by sob＠academ.com 17 Feb '96

17 Feb '96

> At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote: > > > > >How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP? > >"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was > >not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to > >cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves > >out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight > >between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely. > > > > This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership > draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere > in the text. > > This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful. > > - paul I have found that given a good description of the problem and how cooperation can solve it, even the small ISPs (at least in my neck of the woods) will consider cooperation. Some of them will even if they don't see a direct benefit to them. I am not saying that all small ISPs are like that, but I at least know of some that are. -- 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

unsubscribe
by Debbie Fuller 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

Please unsubscribe. debbief(a)internic.net or debbief(a)netsol.com Thank Deborah Fuller

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

At 11:01 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Robert Du Gaue wrote: >> No circularity about it. First, you need customers. Second, if you >> already have enough customers, you get your own IP space. >> >> Until then, you get a small chunk out of somebody else's bigger IP space. > >Yeah right. You try that with a growing business. Then when you finally >get enough users and corporate customers to 'justify' your own 64block and >then give them the news that their entire networks will now need to be >reconfigured how do you think they'll react. If I was that big, the amount >of money it would cost me and my end-users would not be trivial. > 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. This has been suggested on numerous occasions. - paul

8 11

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by Paul Ferguson 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

At 11:38 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Tim 'The Heretic' Bass wrote: > >On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC, >European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes' >in classless blocks and were assigned to the user. Furthermore, >there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing >infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive >and counterproductive. > I agree that address allocations that originated from the various registries pose a different problem, for which there is no clear-cut solution. I imagine that the various ISPs will decide how to handle it themselves, as some already do. Again, we're [collectively] not trying to dictate address allocation or routing policy. What we *are* trying to do is document a Best Current Practices procedural issue, which can be used as reference. If some organizations wish to use it as a basis for policy, that's fine too. I'm not naive enough to believe that this draft, as a BCP, will be viewed as the end-all-be-all policy doctrine, and that if you as an ISP or end-system network do not adhere to the letter of the document you will be flogged with a wet noodle. Bah. This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no longer a luxury that can be expected. Yes, it may be unpopular. Does it actually represent 'Best Current Practice'? I believe it does. Should it instead be moved ahead as 'Informational'? I don't believe so, as Curtis and others do, since it would then give the appearance of levity. - paul

2 1

RE: ATM availibility and reliability
by Jim Browning 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

There is a list of pointers to ATM related sites on our home page (http://www.ATMnet.net) It's not too pretty, but the info is good... -- Jim Browning ---------- From: Justin W. Newton[SMTP:jnewton@hq.mai.net] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 1996 10:17 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: ATM availibility and reliability Sorry if this is somewhat off topic, but I couldn't think of a better place to look. I need to get up to speed on ATM in a relatively short time frame, and as a starting point I need to start looking at its current availibility and reliability on a national scale. That topic seems /somewhat/ germane to this group, but if y'all point me somewhere else that would certainly be fine as well. Justin Newton | jnewton(a)hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now # Justin Newton | jnewton(a)hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now #

1 0

Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
by Paul Ferguson 16 Feb '96

16 Feb '96

At 07:28 PM 2/15/96 -0500, The Heretic wrote: > >The use of terms like 'shameful' are really out of line when discussing >ideas born from different perspectives. We all know that the continuing >deployment of a hierarchical routing model for the Internet means more >routers sold; big ISPs get bigger; etc. ad infinitum. > Okay -- perhaps ludicrous is a more apropos term. Reality check: ISPs already force renumbering. And as several people have already stated [deja vu, many times over], this draft, if moved to BCP, has no teeth. It simply states that the idea of address ownership is null and void, and Joe's ISP decides to pull up stakes and move to another upstream provider [B] for whatever reason, Joe should not be surprised when his [A] provider asks him to return his address allocation so that its doesn't punch holes in his CIDR block. This makes sense to me. - paul

2 1