- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Chiappa blows his brains out (was Re: Policy Statement)
by Scott Huddle 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

Joel_M_Snyder(a)Opus1.COM writes > GIVEN that there exists some set of organizations who want to purchase > multiple T1s from multiple independent suppliers for purposes of > reliability and load sharing yet have need for less than 255 unique IP > addresses, and GIVEN that certain extremely popular software products (such > as Netscape Navigator) which are important to these organizations were > developed by programmers who seem to have no knowledge of either efficiency > or the way that the Internet works, and GIVEN that I have sufficient > knowledge about routing as is necessary to fully understand every technical > issue involved, and GIVEN that I have a rudimentary and imperfect > understanding of the political and economic issues regarding IP numbering > and the propagation of routes thereunto, HOW do I resolve the conflict > between justifiable corporate service requirements and the expressed > statements on these mailing lists the past few weeks which seem to imply > that anyone who does not consume at least a /18 worth of address space is > not worthy of being globally routed? > > I am asking, I suspect, not for a technical answer (there being none other > than Chiappa's "it's gonna cost"), but the most politically correct answer > to give the organization (which is not Netscape). You present a hard edge case that isn't particularly well met by the current infrastructure and it can't necessarily be done well or even done at all. (Sean's tricky chocolate-consulting hack excluded). Probably the best thing that be currently supported is getting two diverse connections to a single provider that can globally aggregate your network. The connections should go to different POPs and should follow seperate physical paths. This should provide you the desired reliability and load sharing. -scott

2 1

RE: Chiappa blows his brains out (was Re: Policy Statement)
by lodge＠houston.omnes.net 30 Jan '96

30 Jan '96

Scott, >You present a hard edge case that isn't particularly well met by the current >infrastructure and it can't necessarily be done well or even done at all. >(Sean's tricky chocolate-consulting hack excluded). Probably the best >thing that be currently supported is getting two diverse connections to >a single provider that can globally aggregate your network. The connections >should go to different POPs and should follow seperate physical paths. >This should provide you the desired reliability and load sharing. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is exactly the kind of pragmatic advice I was looking for. Saying "don't do it" or "multihoming costs" is not helpful -- this sort of answer is. Regards, Mathew

1 0

REMINDER NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

If you are planning on attending the NANOG Meeting February 15 & 16 in San Diego please register ASAP. You can do this either by e-mail or using the registration form on the Merit Web Page. Thanks Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

>No, this isn't necessarily true. Many providers assume that just >because they received a /19 or whatever from its upstream ISP they >will automatically receive a larger block from the InterNIC with >no questions asked. ISPs must show they've utilized any previously >allocated blocks (whether from the InterNIC or from its upstream) >efficiently to receive additional addresses. Once they do this >than there's no problem receiving additional space. If they have >not shown proper utilization than in some cases they will receive >a smaller block to start. I'm glad to hear the NIC has changed their policy on this since we asked last year. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by matthew＠scruz.net 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

Original message <MAPI.Id.0016.00657465726420204333343130303138(a)MAPI.to.RFC822> From: Peter Dawe <peterd(a)dial.pipex.com> Date: Jan 28, 18:46 Subject: Static IP addresses for Dial-up > > Demon Internet Services provide an IP address for every dial-up > customer. Most other ISPs have taken the view that this is a waste of > valuable IP space and allocate IP addresses dynamically. > > How should our industry respond to ISPs who behave selfishly and do > not take into account the good of the network? The access-control argument has been beaten to death already. We offer our customers static IP addresses for some additional reasons: - ability to receive mail by SMTP instead of POP - ability to run a part time WWW or BBS service at a fixed address - support for systems that don't easily support dynamic addresses (some Unix machines with hand-coded dialup scripts) and most importantly - ability to do disconnect-and-redial without breaking connections, which is particularly useful with ISDN. You can telnet somewhere, get idled out of the ISDN server, hit return and your ISDN adapter auto-redials and connects and your packet goes through, and you're still on the same address so everything works. Customers on flakey dialup lines (28.8k from up in the mountains during bad weather) appreciate this too. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0

Kudos to Sprint
by Kent W. England 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

Dick; It's nice to hear someone recognize Sprint's early understanding of how to approach the commercial Internet market with a two-pronged high/low strategy. Too bad the one who figured it out is no longer associated with SprintLink. --Kent At 01:03 AM 1/29/96 -0500, Dick St.Peters wrote: > >Were it not for Sprint, I wouldn't exist. > ... >Thanks in part to Sprint, that side business has grown into a network >of four POPs bringing the Internet to NY State's Adirondack region. >There's no fortune to be made here, but there's a living in it. It's >what I wanted to do, and I couldn't have done it without Sprint. > >Sean Doran's recent posting about how the Sprints aren't out to squash >us little guys but in fact are dependent on us was remarkably like the >way I used to explain Sprint's position during the CIX filtering war >in summer of '94. In fact, I think he stole those ideas from me :) > >Sprint is big, and they're busy, and it can be damnably hard to get >their attention (hence my posting), but I'm here because they helped >me when I needed help and backed me politically and operationally when >I needed backing. Out here in the woods, things like that still >matter. > ...

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

>What's been bothering me is that Sprint is filtering at /19 in 206/8 >but just allocated me a /21 out of 206/8. Since my largest customer >is leaning on me to multi-home, and since I view Sprint's filtering as >indicative of what others are likely to do RSN, I begged Sprint to >allocate a block the size of the smallest block they would route if I >had gotten it from another NSP. > >Is it unfair to ask Sprint to make allocations based on its own >filtering policies? > >When I multihome and Pennsauken is down, will Sprint's filtering cut >me off from access to other Sprint customers via my alternative path? Ah, a reason why Sprint's filters are self-defeating. You would be better off leaving sprint now, and going to a different provider. Use a /21 out of another provider's CIDR block. If at a later date you decide to multi-home with sprint, sprint's filters only effect small inbound blocks. Sprint is more than happy to spew little blocks (so much for 'saving the global Internet'). I've hear of a lot of crazy ideas from other NSP's, but not a peep of any other NSP following Sprint's lead on filtering. But suppose other NSP's did decide to start filtering in the future, that's another reason to get your own CIDR blocks from the InterNIC ASAP. If you hadn't waited this long, you could have gotten a block in 192/8 - 205/8, and wouldn't have to worry about Sprint's filtering in 206/8. Yes, it is perverse that the people most harmed are those that patiently follow the 'rules.' It is unfortunate that the IANA and NIC policies seem to be creating a system that encourages people to jump to the front of the line. But folks, there seems to be nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by being a good net citizen. You don't get any brownie points for being a nice guy. You just get ignored. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

3 2

Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
by Paul Ferguson 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

At 05:18 PM 1/29/96 +0100, Piet Beertema wrote: > 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. >Huh? How are you going to stop a system from "illegally" >(in the sense of the provider, contracts, or whatever) >acting as -say- www, ftp, or whatever server with such >a one-time password system? You'll need access control >*based on IP addresses* to reach that goal! > > No, no, no. The concept of access-filtering based on source address is easily spoofed, where the OTP password systems that I'm referring to are based on a concept of authentication-based access, which is much more reliable than a [possibly fake] source address. This is not a new concept. - paul

1 0

so have nanog and cidrd merged???
by Mike O'Dell 29 Jan '96

29 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. -mo

1 0

Re: value of co-location
by Curtis Villamizar 29 Jan '96

29 Jan '96

In message <96Jan23.111533-0000_est.20608+185(a)chops.icp.net>, Sean Doran writes : > > | If ATM is being used in VBR without the V mode, essentially providing > | point to point connections between routers at above DS3 rate, then > | there is no need for complex reassembly or any form of congestion > | control. That may turn out to be the way ATM is used by ISPs. > > Ok, so in order to do VBR without the V mode, one effectively > has to either *really* trust one's ATM network provider not > to have any congestion which could lead to cell loss as we > have seen pretty clearly that even very minimal, occasional > cell loss is deadly -- or one has to do the UUPSI hack: > purchase clear-channel L0 circuits and run ATM as a L1 > protocol on top of it. > > That is, the only ATM switches are the ones at the end points > and owned by the NSP. That's not true. VBR without the V means setting PCR and SCR tot the same value and reserving a VC and traffic shaping your output so as to never exceed that value. This would allow you to nail up a X Mb/s pipe (where DS1 << X << DS3 might be cost effective, or DS3 < X << OC3 might also be cost effective). The is no opportunity for multiplexing gain if numerous telco customers do this (ie: are forced to do this if ATM buffering and congestion mechanisms are not improved), but does provide lossless service (unless something isn't working). The UUPSI hack works just as well if you need more than DS3 and either can't get ATM service from your provider or VBR minus V service is not cost effective relative to OC3 SONET. In that case PPP over SONET would be a technically better choice if you can get it. I won't comment in public on the likelyhood of this. > It is my prediction that by this spring, the only reasons why > anybody would want to run ATM for connecting pieces of the > Internet would involve unavailability of SONET/SDH from one's > carrier(s), the desire to save money on point-to-point > circuits by letting one's carrier(s) sell one VCs over some > unknown fabric rather than real circuits over their > transmissions infrastructure, an already-installed ATM > fabric, or general insanity. I mostly agree if you constrain "everybody" in the statement above to mean the major ISPs. I think you still may be missing the point that VBR without the V is supposed to be lossless, not like UBR (currently highly lossy under congestion by design :) or ABR (high vapor preasure, as of yet unproven, but still might just work). ATM doesn't solve everything, but it also isn't comkpletely useless. As George Clapp points out, some people are using ATM successfully. IMO just don't believe everything you read or hear about ATM without thinking about how it will work in your application (not you Sean, anyone's application, whether ISP or LAN or otherwise). Curtis ps - Regarding Kent's comments. There are other routers on the horizon (beside Netstar and Vadim's deep secret and Ipsilon's "we're not saying what it is").

1 0