- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: 204.82.160.0/22 invisible
by Hank Nussbacher 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 00:41:31 -0400 you said: >If you are small, you can only get a small network assignment (slow start), >as you will be running into the Great Wall "Internic" even with a request >for a /22, and if you really succeed with your /22 or /20 assignment, >you will have to discover that the conspiracy of the big 6 (laugh!) might >have decided you are not worthy, and to go route what you got to yourself >and don't expect them even wanting to know about it. If, on the other hand, Even being big won't help. I know of a certain multinational company that has just spent $15M on lines and routers covering Europe (30 cities) and was only allowed to get a /19 since that is what one gets when one is new to the block, irregardless of whether you are in one city with a 256kb line to Dante or Ebone and 32 modems or whether you are a planning on being a big player (since, I guess, everyone comes along and shows how they are a *big* player). So this company went out and bought out a European ISP with a class A and has now solved its IP address shortage. >Kai Schlichting >Internet Project Manager, BelCom, Inc. >kai(a)belcom.net Hank Nussbacher Israel

1 0

Re: Peering in the LA region?!?:$
by kbc＠exodus.net 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

We are active in the Los Angeles Area and will be interested in peering arrangements there. Chandra Sekhar Exodus Communications, Inc. 1-800-263-8872

1 0

Re: Peering in the LA region?!?
by feldman＠MFSDatanet.COM 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

I'm sure John Hardie would be happy to talk to you about building an interconnect in LA. He'll be at Interop in Atlanta this week. Steve > Just curious, but after looking around at several sites in LA, I was curious > if ANYONE was actually doing any significant peering in the LA basin? > Currently > we are looking for multiple interconnects down there in the 10mbps/T3 range, > however we can't find anyone... > > We currently have a little >1000sq ft in the One Wilshire building. Is > there anyone else in that building? *SIGH* I was meaning to ask this while > I was at nanog, but other events caused me to forget to ask...

3 2

Peering in the LA region?!?
by Marcos Della 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

Just curious, but after looking around at several sites in LA, I was curious if ANYONE was actually doing any significant peering in the LA basin? Currently we are looking for multiple interconnects down there in the 10mbps/T3 range, however we can't find anyone... We currently have a little >1000sq ft in the One Wilshire building. Is there anyone else in that building? *SIGH* I was meaning to ask this while I was at nanog, but other events caused me to forget to ask... Marcos -- ''' (o o) --------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------- Marcos R. Della Email: mdella(a)InterNex.Net Director, Network Engineering InterNex Information Services Phone: 408/496-5466 http://www.internex.net/~mdella

5 4

Re: Peering in the LA region?!?
by hoodr＠netcom.com 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

> Just curious, but after looking around at several sites in LA, I was curious > if ANYONE was actually doing any significant peering in the LA basin? > Currently > we are looking for multiple interconnects down there in the 10mbps/T3 range, > however we can't find anyone... Is anyone interested in using the PacBell/GTE SMDS cloud down there? I'm pretty sure CERFnet has a connection into the cloud already, and ours is on the way. -- Robert Hood hoodr(a)netcom.com 1-408-551-2160 Manager of Network Operations for NETCOM On-line Communications Services, Inc.

1 0

Re: 206.82.160.0/22
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

From: gih(a)aarnet.edu.au (Geoff Huston) Given the interaction between the costs of renumbering, vs the cost of establishing an entry in the routing tables, vs the cost of dynamic address translation then its not obvious whether pricing policies should apply to address space allocation, routing table entries or both! It's a truism of large-scale system design (in both biology as well as computers :-) that a single mechanism can do two things well at small scales, but not larger ones. This says to me that a pricing policy that attempts to meet a number of goals (e.g. control routing table growth, maximize efficiency of address space usage) by pricing a single thing is just not going to be as effective, overall, at those goals, as a number of separate pricing policies on different resources. (Hmm, maybe that principle above applies to economics as well? Makes sense, economics and biology have close ties...) Of course, two separate mechanisms (or indeed, any at all) are a lot more complexity, administrative overhead, hassle expended in setting policies (look at DNS name charging :-), etc, etc, so you have to step back and ask, overall, if the gains in getting closer to those goals (using either one mechanism or two) are worth what it costs in complexity, etc. None of which is much help in answering the question "should we price none, one, or both". What I suspect is that we will price none until we simply can't go on without charging, which makes sense; the administrative overhead of charging will be a major headache, so the situation will have to be dire to make it worth it. Noel

1 0

Re: 206.82.160.0/22
by gih＠aarnet.edu.au 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

At 5:06 PM 26/9/95, David Conrad wrote: >>I'm arguing that economics have to enter the picture for any application >>for IP address space a registry receives. > >See RFC 1744 for more details. Note that option c is theoretically >not available -- according to current and likely future guidelines, >buying/selling of addresses is essentially disallowed, addresses >should be returned to the orgininating registry to be reallocated as >criteria are met. I would be very interested in hearing people's >opinions regarding this aspect of current allocation guidelines. I would observe that option c) happens today - its just that the parties involved don't inform the InterNIC (becuase if you try to undertake the transfer of title the InterNIC simply takes the address space away. The picture is somewhat complex in so far as IP address space has intrinsic value _as long as it is routeable_. Given the interaction between the costs of renumbering, vs the cost of establishing an entry in the routing tables, vs the cost of dynamic address translation then its not obvious whether pricing policies should apply to address space allocation, routing table entries or both!

1 0

Re: 206.82.160.0/22
by Sean Doran 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

However, that aside, I think your policy is reasonable, and just hope it helps cover your costs. Sean.

1 0

Re: 206.82.160.0/22
by Sean Doran 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

>I would be very interested in hearing people's opions ?regarding this aspect of current allocation guidelines. It's a joke. Moreover, it's a stupid joke that will wreck the value of registries as sources of accurate information. If the contact person or an officer of the contact organization tells me that a prefix is now to be used by another party, whether it's bought or traded or inherited or sold or whatever, I don't care, I'll route it, provided it's aggregatable into something reasonably short. And if the registries don't update to the new contacts, so what? Sean.

1 0

Re: 206.82.160.0/22
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 26 Sep '95

26 Sep '95

From: Nick Williams <nmw(a)haven.ios.com> If a registries' actions or lack thereof hurt someone else's business they may end up being liable in court for it Oh, great, let's put the registries out of business. I mean, who needs the aggravation, and the threat of being sued? I urge registries to consider charging for their address space delegation services This is absolutely not the solution. This still does nothing to slow the growth of the routing tables, which is the *real problem*, &^%!@$*#&^%! I mean, how is it going to stop me moving from provider A to provider B and wanting to take my addresses with me if I had to pay for the addresses? The only charging scheme that I can see working is to charge people for advertising routes, with the charge related to the scope over which the advertisement is seen. That way, there's a direct relationship between the amount of resources consumed, and the amount charged, which is utterly fair. Note that if you have a "fully" "portable" address (i.e. one advertised over a global scope), your monthly bill will go up as the Internet gets larger, under this scheme... If registries can make decent allocation decisions ... then I argue that routing table growth will be curbed and that IPv4 address space utilization effeciency will rise. First, you're talking about two completely separate problems. Let's keep address space utilization out of it for now, OK? Second, even if registries did allocate addresses optimally, what happens when those sites move around, something the registries have no control over? > "Sorry, we are only able to provide you with partial Internet service > at the moment because Sprint doesn't like the addresses we assigned you". It is costly, as the solution is to become a client of Sprint. So, everyone, can we find a solution? That may solve it for Sprint, but suppose you have the same problem with otehr major providers? Do you have to get a link to each of them? When does this cease to become distinguishable (costwise) for charging for routes - actually, the latter would probably be less expensive. Noel

4 3