- Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG Meeting
by Pam Ciesla 10 Jul '95

10 Jul '95

The next NANOG Meeting will be in Pittsburgh, PA, September 11 & 12. Directions, hotels and other info will follow at a later date. Pam Ciesla

1 0

auto-dbm outage
by Jake Khuon 08 Jul '95

08 Jul '95

There was a failure in the auto-dbm mechanism sometime between tuesday and thursday night. Any objects submitted during that time failed acceptance. The problem has been corrected and Merit is attempting to resubmit objects from the mail logs. This will take some time. However, if you feel that your objects did not make it into the database, please resubmit it to auto-dbm(a)ra.net for auto-parsing. We are sorry for any inconveniences the outage has caused and are taking steps to see that problems such as this do not crop up again. Thank your patience. -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon(a)Merit.Net> ]=====================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | Vox: (313) 763-4907 Fax: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +======[ Suite C, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ]======*/

1 0

Re: Last Call: IPSEC drafts -> Proposed Standards
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 05 Jul '95

05 Jul '95

> > > bmanning(a)isi.edu writes: > > I think that a significant point is not that MD5 is "weak" but that it is > > slow, by almost any standard. RFC 1810 discusses this problem in depth. > > If we, as a community are willing to live with reduced speed networks, then > > the use of MD5 is indicated. If we, as a community require 100Mbps and > > greater services, then MD5 is -NOT- a viable solution and requiring its > > deployment is as bad or worse than no security at all, since people will > > turn it off to get the performance that they have today. > > > > People are generally not willing to sacrifice performance for security. > > Use of MD5 is not required. Implementation of the MD5 transform for > interoperability is required. There is no requirement to run any > security at all at any time unless you like. > then we get the 99% problem indicated earlier. slow protocols are available now, through the use of IP options. Although there, almost no-one uses them due to the processing constraints. This is yet one more case of selecting the least common demoninator, which almost noone will use. Louie, why doesn't your employer use IPsecurity today? It's available via IP options. (Perhaps we should ask operations types if they are willing to accept a security model which robs them of throughput on todays networks and prevents them from using faster transports in the future.) (Note to the NANOG community. Please review the proposed IP Security docs and RFC 1810. Perhaps the IESG would be willing to take input from an operations perspective here.) As for other transforms... Please contact Dr. Joe Touch (touch(a)isi.edu) for a writeup of his efforts in this area. -- --bill

3 2

Re: Last Call: IPSEC drafts -> Proposed Standards
by Sean Doran 05 Jul '95

05 Jul '95

Bill - No offense, but please don't send IETF-related material here; we have real work to do, and probably already have seen it anyway. Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd(a)sprint.net> / <smd(a)icp.net>

1 0

bgp flap dampening
by Sean Doran 02 Jul '95

02 Jul '95

I should point out that there are now a couple of large networks playing around with code derived from the paper Curtis Villamizar presented at the NANOG meeting at NCAR. Initial testing with route-dampening seems to hold out some promise. Probably the main question now will be how aggressively to attack the issues of flapping prefixes. With the current default values, and given that it's not exactly peak usage time, there are some 100 prefixes from essentially all over the Internet being dampened. Sean.

1 0

Re: Bill Manning considered fatal
by fred＠cisco.com 01 Jul '95

01 Jul '95

At 2:37 AM 6/30/95, Tony Li wrote: >The power-off of the last IPv4 network. What, Tony, are you trying to tell me that we have to get rid of all the dumb routers out there now to get rid of dumb routing? That the Shiva Fastpath will not implement OSPF and cost less than $3000? That old copies of FTP Software's PC code that can't deal with non-octet-aligned subnet masks (let alone supernets) are going to be in use by SOMEBODY as long as there is such a benighted nightmare as an IBM PC? Naw, no way, I simply can't believe that. And by the way, ATM is going to take over the world tomorrow, because we all know that computers are going to stop sporting RS-232-C interfaces Real Soon Now. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= If you're looking to find the key to the Universe, I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is -- there is no key to the Universe. The good news is -- it has been left unlocked.

2 1

Re: Bill Manning considered fatal
by Tony Li 30 Jun '95

30 Jun '95

>- There are many networks which are NOT the Internet. CIDR only >applies to the Internet. > You want to loose sleep? Imagine a world wide Novell network! Actually, that scares me a LOT less. Less broken installed base to put up with. Renumbering is infinitely easier. Tony

1 0

Re: Bill Manning considered fatal
by Tony Li 30 Jun '95

30 Jun '95

>- Please recall that the technical savvy of the beginner customer base >has dropped two orders of magnitude in just the last three years. > This is a relative drop. Humans have not gotten dumber, the technology has gotten much more sophisticated! What do we do when we can't find humans that can understand what is going on and how to deal with it? Excuse me, but you miss my point. The technical expertise of the human trying to join the Internet today HAS dropped considerably. And we are not even yet to mainstream PC users yet. You raise a very good question, which I don't have the solution to. We _need_ an entirely self-configuring network. But that's a different discussion. Tony

1 0

IGRP considered fatal
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 30 Jun '95

30 Jun '95

With Appologies to YR. two questions (and a task) for the list(s) 1. Please let me know (by private email) which IGP you are using. Replies to bmanning(a)isi.edu. 2. What will it take to get router vendors to modify default setup to select a classless IGP instead of (RIP,IGRP)? -- --bill

3 3

Re: Bill Manning considered fatal
by nordlund＠databank.com 30 Jun '95

30 Jun '95

> > two questions (and a task) for the list(s) > > 2. What will it take to get router vendors to modify default > setup to select a classless IGP instead of (RIP,IGRP)? > >The power-off of the last IPv4 network. > >You should understand that there are many reasons for this: > >- All of the classful protocols today are incredibly hard to work with >for a beginning user. OSPF has about 3 orders of magnitude more knobs >than it needs. EIGRP (which we tried REALLY hard to keep simple) is >about two orders of magnitude too hard. Both are resource intensive >and require careful hand-holding. RIP2 is less piggish, but still is >two orders of magnitude too messy. > When the world gets complicated, the tools to deal with it get complicated. I am not sure that AI is mature enough to deal with all this. >- Please recall that the technical savvy of the beginner customer base >has dropped two orders of magnitude in just the last three years. > This is a relative drop. Humans have not gotten dumber, the technology has gotten much more sophisticated! What do we do when we can't find humans that can understand what is going on and how to deal with it? >- You don't need classful in a stub network for CIDR purposes. Yes, >it helps for address efficiency IF the user can figure out VLSM. > >- The defaults need to be for the most common case: rank beginner in a stub. > >- There are many networks which are NOT the Internet. CIDR only >applies to the Internet. > You want to loose sleep? Imagine a world wide Novell network! >I sympathize, but this is a case where the intelligent actually must >lose to the tyranny of the majority. > SIGH----- >Tony Dave Nordlund Dir of Technical Svcs Databank, Inc 913/842-6699 1473 Hwy 40 nordlund(a)databank.com Lawrence, KS 66044 "Your Key to the Internet

1 0