- Test - lists.nanog.org

Have we started to chop up the B-space into /24's.
by Peter Lothberg 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:50:09 +0000 From: William griffin <wgriffin(a)mci.net> To: insc(a)sprintlink.net Cc: trouble(a)mci.net, pp000314(a)interamp.com Subject: route not being advertised We have a customer with the following address: 164.103.3.0/24 and it seems that you are not accepting our advertising of it. Could you please adv. -- The darkness illuminates the light. William Griffin Network Engineer wgriffin(a)mci.net (800)977-4662

3 2

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by marthag＠MIT.EDU 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

> At 09:36 PM 1/29/96 +1100, Robert Elz wrote: > > > > >That sounds like a perfect place for a dynamic address, however, > >if he had that, it would make life harder for me. With his > >static address I can instal filters to give him more access to > >my system at home (which is basically permanently connected, and > >not a PC) than I allow all the rest of you. (For Tony's > >benefit - no, this is not relying on source address filtering, > >I actually filter the packets that my system sends out, I will > >let it send packets to him that I won't let it send elsewhere, > >which has basically the same effect). > > > > I can certainly understand the need for access control & security, but > with the use of a smart-card one-time password system, this is a moot > point. > > - paul You are ignoring the risks of the session being stolen after the password is given. Outbound filters will help this, strong end-to-end encryption will prevent it. Martha Greenberg marthag(a)mit.edu

1 0

Re: multihoming
by Walter O. Haas 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

The view from the trenches out here is, multihoming to different ISPs is a necessity. Our biggest lossage is SprintLink problems, *NOT* power or the local loop. XMission bought a link to MCInet in Denver to back up the SprintLink connection thru Westnet, and as a result XMission has far fewer lossages than the Westnet sites that are SprintLink only. -- Walt (not speaking for XMission, just a customer)

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by matthew＠scruz.net 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

Original message <4D07037D30(a)hq.mainet.com> From: "Vincent J. Bono" <VBONO(a)hq.mai.net> Date: Jan 26, 20:57 Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations > ... > > How about trying to prevent the static assignment of addresses to > dial-in customers? This chews IP space like there was no tomorrow... > >-- End of excerpt from "Vincent J. Bono" Actually, I suspect that's one of the MOST efficient uses of addresses. We fill a handful of class C equivalents with our static-IP single-address dialup customers, but those are filled to capacity and used daily, whereas most of our small-business customers have an entire class C equivalent each, and only have a dozen hosts, if that, on their LAN so far. I feel much better about using 254/256 addresses serving 254 customers than I do about using 12/256 addresses serving 1 customer. As for the whole routing issue, I'm VERY sad to see so many people in support of address assignment and routing policy that effectively locks out smaller providers. Were we starting today, rather than back in 1993, we'd be stuck with our original provider, or face renumbering if we wanted to switch to a higher-performance provider AND connect to MAE-West, as we've done. If word gets out that going with a small provider == having to renumber your corporate hosts regularly, big providers will have effectively locked small players out of the market... which helps their pocketbooks at the expense of a lot of other people. At this rate we're going to see the policy change to "each RBOC gets a /7 out of the old class A space, and then that's it" -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

7 10

Re: Have we started to chop up the B-space into /24's.
by postel＠ISI.EDU 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

Hmm: Well since the Net 39 experiment proved that it is ok to chop larger class-full address block into smaller class-less address blocks, why not. --jon. From list-admin(a)merit.edu Tue Jan 30 08:19:07 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 16:56:54 MET From: Peter Lothberg <roll(a)stupi.se> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Have we started to chop up the B-space into /24's. Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:50:09 +0000 From: William griffin <wgriffin(a)mci.net> To: insc(a)sprintlink.net Cc: trouble(a)mci.net, pp000314(a)interamp.com Subject: route not being advertised We have a customer with the following address: 164.103.3.0/24 and it seems that you are not accepting our advertising of it. Could you please adv. -- The darkness illuminates the light. William Griffin Network Engineer wgriffin(a)mci.net (800)977-4662 % whois 164.103.0.0 Telecommunications Department of Information Systems (NET-IPAPER) International Paper Southwind Computer Center 3232 Players Club Parkway Memphis, TN 38125 Netname: IPAPER Netnumber: 164.103.0.0 Coordinator: Harrison, Donald R. (DRH37) PP000314(a)INTERRAMP.COM (901) 748-5459 (FAX) (901) 748-5401 Record last updated on 08-Feb-93.

1 0

Re: Have we started to chop up the B-space into /24's.
by Paul Ferguson 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

At 04:56 PM 1/30/96 MET, Peter Lothberg wrote: > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:50:09 +0000 >From: William griffin <wgriffin(a)mci.net> >To: insc(a)sprintlink.net >Cc: trouble(a)mci.net, pp000314(a)interamp.com >Subject: route not being advertised > >We have a customer with the following address: 164.103.3.0/24 and it seems >that you are not accepting our advertising of it. Could you please adv. > >-- >The darkness illuminates the light. > >William Griffin >Network Engineer >wgriffin(a)mci.net >(800)977-4662 > > Hmm. According to WHOIS, 164.103/16 appears to belong to: % whois 164.103 Telecommunications Department of Information Systems (NET-IPAPER) International Paper Southwind Computer Center 3232 Players Club Parkway Memphis, TN 38125 Netname: IPAPER Netnumber: 164.103.0.0 Coordinator: Harrison, Donald R. (DRH37) PP000314(a)INTERRAMP.COM (901) 748-5459 (FAX) (901) 748-5401 Record last updated on 08-Feb-93. 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. - paul

1 0

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by Paul Ferguson 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

At 09:36 PM 1/29/96 +1100, Robert Elz wrote: > >That sounds like a perfect place for a dynamic address, however, >if he had that, it would make life harder for me. With his >static address I can instal filters to give him more access to >my system at home (which is basically permanently connected, and >not a PC) than I allow all the rest of you. (For Tony's >benefit - no, this is not relying on source address filtering, >I actually filter the packets that my system sends out, I will >let it send packets to him that I won't let it send elsewhere, >which has basically the same effect). > I can certainly understand the need for access control & security, but with the use of a smart-card one-time password system, this is a moot point. - paul

4 3

Re: so have nanog and cidrd merged???
by Vince Fuller 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

if so, let's shoot one and reduce the mail i get by half. if not, let's pick one and use it for this discussion and reduce the mail i get by half. Amen to that. I just flipped a coin to decide which list to use and it came up tails, for NANOG. Please send all further followups only to NANOG. --Vince

1 0

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by Paul Ferguson 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

[cc: trimmed to nanog] At 07:50 PM 1/30/96 +1100, Robert Elz wrote: > >I also know that there are attacks that can be made without >requiring return packets at all - those I have to deal with >in other ways (smart card password schemes most certainly >aren't it) regardless of what kind of address (statically >assigned, or dynamically assigned) my brother gets. > Yes, I understand completely. Actually, we could go back and forth like this forever, punching holes in secure access control methods. Let's just agree that without strong end-to-end encryption, its all swiss cheese. :-) - paul

2 1

Re: on a lighter note...
by Kent W. England 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

At 11:49 AM 1/27/96 -0800, Hans-Werner Braun wrote: >Regarding the NANOG meeting. ... so don't leave home without your PCMCIA card. >Though I will only install the access points if people ask for it. >Y'know, people who don't always want to depend on cables. > >By the way, I would also be interested hearing from people having >experience with other wireless products. > > I find that 10BaseT works pretty well for my portable needs. Can you pre-assign us some IP addresses? --Kent

2 1