- Test - lists.nanog.org

last minute addition
by Elise Gerich 14 Feb '96

14 Feb '96

For those of you who are interested, Steve Richardson and Jake Khuon are prepared to give a quick tutorial on how to register in the RADB and how to establish a peering session with the Route Servers. Steve and Jake will offer this tutorial immediately following the last session on Friday, February 16th. More info on this at the NANOG meeting. See you in San Diego. --Elise

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Simon Chan 14 Feb '96

14 Feb '96

> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > > 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. > > It's not only been suggested, but I believe it's been somewhat > implemented. :) Back in September '94, Chris Alan (Electriciti) and a few > others came up with an idea called PCH -- Packet Clearing House. > > The primary concept was, as you suggested, connect a bunch of small ISPs > together using shared resources and address space and peer with the "big > boyz." Unfortunately I haven't been involved with it lately, so hopefully > someone that has can share if it was successful or not. > > > -jh- > > The unfortunate requirement of such scheme to work is that all address space allocated to the small ISP's has to be contiquous so that it could be aggregated to a larger prefix under an autonomous system. Given the completely arbitrary manner adopted by the Internic's address allocation policy, (eg. 4 C's to ISP A, skip a few C's, 8 C's to ISP B where A and B can be 4,000 miles apart) it is safe to assume that the small chunks of C class addresses are geographically dispersed throughout the States with many holes still unassigned or unaccounted for. If you are talking about swamp, this is it. However, a survey for how those chunks of address got broken up into many different places perhaps can help in the direction of finding such solution. If these small IP pieces can be grouped together according to their geographic locations, there is chance that some broken chunks may be pieced together to form large enough piece by pure luck. If such solution exists, I am sure someone would be interested in forming such regional consortiums to help salvage the once lost IP addresses. SC SC

5 4

ISP Domain Auction
by Mark Kosters 14 Feb '96

14 Feb '96

Hi The InterNIC appreciates the concerns of the Internet community about the auction of a block of domain names. Until now, we have maintained the position that we have no oversight responsibility regarding the resale of domain names other than they be actively used on the Internet. If you have any constructive comments about the role that the domain registrar should take in this case, we will be happy to help develop an IANA sanctioned policy to exercise such a role. There is a list already setup to discuss domain policy-related matters - domain-policy(a)internic.net. To subscribe, send a message to domain-policy-request(a)internic.net with "subscribe domain-policy" in the body of the message. Regards, Mark -- Mark Kosters markk(a)internic.net +1 703 742 4795 Software Engineer InterNIC Registration Services

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by kai＠netcom.com 14 Feb '96

14 Feb '96

Sprint's filtering of routes based on prefix-length has made the popular press: Communications Week International, Oct.20,1995 (as far as I can tell from the website). Please take a look at: http://techweb.cmp.com/techweb/cwi/current/153newssprint.html The article unfortunately quotes me completely out of context: I was never asked by the correspondent in question (Christy Hudgins-Bonafield), nor informed that I would be quoted, or things would have been portrayed a little different, as I cannot remember having uttered words that could be interpreted as "Schlichting said Sprint's action disrupted an international conference of 600 government and civilian participants in Kazakhstan late last month." I am somewhat upset that it took using the new big brother tool 'http://altavista.digital.com' to find this reference , today. Needless to say, it came up with other interesting digital footprints of my past. Small fact sheet: - BelCom was a client of a Sprint reseller at the time, and was not victim of Sean's policy, but WOULD have been , if we had been a non-Sprint- connected network at the time - connectivity was impaired by not having an entry of the network (a /22) in the routing registries (who was responsible for this remains unclear, people at ANS and the Sprint INSC were ultimately helpful with this issue) - the conference was a great success, the real-IP connectivity was "The" killer at the conference. Indeed it was so successful, that we decided to present the Internet at the regional Oil&Gas show the week after, with DEC's support and contributions (which shall not go umnmentioned here) Note, that at the time I had full justification for an independent network number block, as the plan was to multi-home said network in both Moscow and New York, with growth expections beyond rationality (confirmed by success and follow-up inquieries resulting from the shows). BelCom (net worth: $25M) has been decapitated by Comsat Corp. (net: $900M) since, in what I call a 'corporate crime in progress' : the failure to successfully usurp BelCom into Comsat's empire has led to an internal power-struggle at Comsat, with Beltway-Lions fighting over the control of a $900M company. Can you say 'chopped heads' , 'body bags' , anyone ? For control over one billion dollars, people will do anything. I have never seen people act so ugly in my life. As one of the managers, I am getting dragged into a mess of lawsuits at this time, with the DC boys and girls sending gov't agencies my way, the whole charade: if you thought COINTELPRO was a joke, think again: DC stands for District of Crime, and Norman Schwartzkopf meant this literally. In most likeliness, we will see a new chapter of the entire filtering issue very soon: I am working on a new New York-Moscow IP link for a new company at this time: same issues, same story, just a different name. To Sean Doran: I was rather impressed by your recent statement, call it commitment to your business: reselling IP wholesale, with the goal of preserving functionality of the network as a whole, and a commitment to what I previously believed to be untrue: not to squeeze the small guys out of the market with arbitrary new filtering rules. Yet, I think it's necessary to not follow this policy indefinitely into the future: - we need faster routers. Cisco does not provide them at this time. Where will they come from ? Take a look at the 'gigarouter' (URL lost right now): it seems to implement what we have been talking about before: a general purpose unix-type engine for route processing, with interface cards with memory to hold complete static routing tables. The two components talk on a separate bus with each other, both can be upgraded independently. MCI uses them for the experimental vBNS. - IPv6 will not solve aggregation issues the way we would like to see it: we will see a greater trade-off for non-optimal routes (number of hops, length) in favour of more aggregation, though. What is growing faster: link speed, or processing power ? We all know the answer. In the end, engineering will prevail over filtering, and when this is reality, I expect the route filtering to disappear: if it doesn't, it will go the way 800 numbers have gone: it took a significant change in technology to accomplish number portability, but it was done because the customers wanted it, and because AT&T (rightfully) feared to lose a lot of business, yet had to cave in to external pressure, and to Judge Greene. If you don't want to see the equivalent of Judge Greene on the Internet, you (major NSPs) will soon dedicate significant resources to solving the problems mentioned here. bye,Kai ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kai Schlichting Independent Telecommunications Consultant Internet Consultancy : Cisco, Livingston, BSDI, SunOS, Linux spoken here New York City, NY kai(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 13 Feb '96

13 Feb '96

At 10:54 AM 2/13/96 -0800, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU wrote: >> >> CIDR is a hell of a lot more than a band-aid. It extends the life of >> IP v4 for an indiscriminate amount of time, and while v6 may be just > indeterminate <-- Intended? Okay. Busted. :-) >> around the corner [according to some sources], the same type of CIDR >> mechanisms will still be needed. >> > > Heck of a BandAid... like a heart transplant. > Now if we could just get brain transplants.... :) > >--bill > What would we do with them if we had them? - paul

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 13 Feb '96

13 Feb '96

Simon, That's what CIDR is all about; the geographical allocation of addresses/prefixes at the point of Internet connectivity for the purposes of aggregation. If there is no sanity in address allocation, we cannot solve the problem. - paul At 01:15 AM 2/13/96 +0000, Simon Chan wrote: >The unfortunate requirement of such scheme to work is that >all address space allocated to the small ISP's has to be contiquous so that it >could be aggregated to a larger prefix under an autonomous system. >Given the completely arbitrary manner adopted by the Internic's >address allocation policy, (eg. 4 C's to ISP A, skip a few C's, 8 C's >to ISP B where A and B can be 4,000 miles apart) it is safe to assume >that the small chunks of C class addresses are geographically >dispersed throughout the States with many holes still unassigned or >unaccounted for. If you are talking about swamp, this is it. >However, a survey for how those chunks of address got broken up into >many different places perhaps can help in the direction of finding >such solution. If these small IP pieces can be grouped together >according to their geographic locations, there is chance that some >broken chunks may be pieced together to form large enough piece by >pure luck. If such solution exists, I am sure someone would be >interested in forming such regional consortiums to help salvage the once lost >IP addresses. > >

4 3

please add
by Q*Bert 13 Feb '96

13 Feb '96

subscribe Noah ****************************************************************************** Noah Wallach qbert(a)access.digex.net Silver Spring, Maryland ******************************************************************************

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Paul Ferguson 13 Feb '96

13 Feb '96

At 12:18 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Jon Zeeff wrote: > >> purposes of aggregation. If there is no sanity in address allocation, >> we cannot solve the problem. > >Let's not forget that the problem is poor router/protocol design and that >it can be solved. CIDR is a band-aid. > CIDR is a hell of a lot more than a band-aid. It extends the life of IP v4 for an indiscriminate amount of time, and while v6 may be just around the corner [according to some sources], the same type of CIDR mechanisms will still be needed. Let's not be naive. - paul

2 1

Re: ISP Domain Auction
by Paul Ferguson 13 Feb '96

13 Feb '96

At 07:15 PM 2/12/96 -0800, Craig A. Huegen wrote: > >I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or >DIE!". At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're >not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable >within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal >connectivity to any particular site. > >The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share >information. It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where >most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we >help this group? They're customers of ISP X!" > That's all weel and good, but it certainly doesn't scale. Which is the entire problem. Sigh. - paul

1 0

Re: More on MTU discovery...
by Jamshid Mahdavi 13 Feb '96

13 Feb '96

> i would be one of those two sites, and i responded tonight. the mtu problem > you found (and matt found it because he worked for this particular customer > this weekend) was on the customer end of one of our links. i couldn't quite > figure out what you wanted me to do about it. i'll just say for the record > that it seems to be a problem between the customer's vendors' router and our > router :) the customer is aware of the problem and is following up with their > vendor. i was a little taken back by your note which basically sounded like: > > "you've got an obvious problem, you need to fix it quick as everyone depends > on this resource" > > that may not be what you meant, but it sounded that way. Oops, definitely not what I meant. I just wanted to point out to the people on this list that some people depend on MTU discovery to work right, and in the thick of everything else going on, it is easy to forget about checking. I would be interested in seeing a more complete description of the problem when you get one, because anything which causes a router to send back a packet directing me to use a 63kB MTU can't be good! I think I also jumped the gun on who I sent the report to, because the name and IP address for the router in question were in the MCI block, although I see now the router is in fact not owned by MCI. Sorry for the misleading mail. --Jamshid

1 0