- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Jessica Yu 16 Apr '94

16 Apr '94

Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:02:57 -0400 From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff(a)us.psi.com> And is only downside is that anyone not doing BGP4 he won't be able to talk to at all. If an AS does not do BGP4 but defaults to a CIDR capable AS, he can still reach it. Only the ASs which does neigher BGP4 nor default will have problem. Maybe you could help him a little bit and tell him who that might be. About 1000 more specific routes have been withdrawn from the Internet during the past two weeks. Have not heard any complain yet. If you know anyone who does neigher CIDR nor default and therefore will have reachability problem when specific routes withdrawn,please let us know. --Jessica

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering)
by t.c.streater＠dante.org.uk 16 Apr '94

16 Apr '94

Renumbering workstations in principle *is* a no-brainer. But there are always wrinkles. And if those workstations are running a particle accelerator (as when a year or so ago I coordinated some renumbering at SLAC), you better have a damn good reason for doing it. A $20M facility running 7*24 expects good reasons for you to possibly screw it up, and their operational philosophy is to assume you will. I was able to renumber two largish groups of machines (200 or so in each), with quite a bit of coordination needed, and because of the various overlapping schedules it took a while before I could even start. Then, for each group I had to assemble numerous experts (Macs, Amigas, PCs, Next, RS/6000, Sun, Ultrix, VAX, Cisco). Luckily we had a good database of workstations so that I could tell the platform experts which machines were going to be involved. In some cases changes had to be backed out a couple of times because of something the platform experts forgot (or didn't know about). Now, can you imagine the conversation I might have had if still working there and SLAC agrees to exchange its class B (with about 1k out of 64k addresses assigned) for some number of class C: Me: SLAC has to renumber! Users: Again? OK Tim - but why? And what's in it for us? Me: (explanation of routing overload deleted) Users: So you are saying that of the 20k or so addresses in routers, SLAC renumbering saves just one entry? Me: Err, yes. Users: Don't ring us, we'll ring you! As Marty says, there is (unfortunately) no carrot - and users resent the stick. You apply the stick too often and you are out the door, either as an external provider or internal expert. Users barely (in some instances) know what an IP address is. They expect the network to be like the phone or power outlets; you just plug in where you happen to be. If we expect renumbering and provider-based addressing to be feasible, it seems to me that w/s vendors need to provide powerful tools to enable *transparent* *on-the-fly* renumbering - else it won't happen. And even if they do (and where's the carrot for *them*?), it will be quite a while before such tools are ubiquitous enough to make the process always easy. Should we be working with vendors in this area? Now will you all *go* *home* - it's the weekend, damnit! Tim Streater, DANTE. t.c.streater(a)dante.org.uk +44 223 302992

6 6

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Vadim Antonov 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>>you have no plan... >Would you be so kind as to tell us whether you have a plan ? "Mister Fiks, do you have a plan?" "Do I have a plan? Do I have a plan? I have two sacks of plan!" :-) --vadim

1 0

egregious waste of bandwidth...
by Robert E. Seastrom 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Hmmm, the regional-techs and bgpd lists are looking a lot like com-priv these days... ---Rob

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Vadim Antonov 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Not, Marty; the "market reality" is that you do CIDR or people will stop getting PSI's routes. By not doing it you already got screwed routing; the next step is loss of global connectivity, i guess. God bless your customers. Your analogy with 800 portability and IP renumbering is more than artificial. The whole debate about 800 portability rotated around retracting published numbers and loss of investments in advertisements. So far i didn't hear anyone publishing IP numbers in their ads. Changing providers *always* involves some expenses and probably disruption of service. Also, nobody was really interested in renumbering technology in pre-CIDR times; now market will force software vendors to provide network number discovery as a standard feature. The host portability problem is not new -- the mobile communications folks worked on it for quite a time; but it wasn't anywhere near the interest field of regular TCP/IP community. Now it is -- as well as IPNG, video and security. New times, new problems. --vadim

1 0

Dups
by bmanning＠is.rice.edu 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

I am getting a lot of these.... Perhaps this is the carrot to dump an AS or two. :) -- Regards, Bill Manning

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by Walt Haas 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>The problem is that there are many things that can be easily >overlooked. I believe if done right, renumbering 20 workstations in a >single department is a no-brainer. However, what it would require is >some cheat sheet of things that can be easily overlooked. Some recipe >of how to do it right. Exactly my point, the recipe could be defined in an RFC and implemented in code, so that the execution cost would be very low. This might be an easier problem to solve than the problem we are trying to address with CIDRizing. -- Walt -------

2 1

20402 routing entries
by yakov＠watson.ibm.com 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

Ref: Your note of Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:39:45 -0400 Marty, >We will have to incent (carrot) people to do the right thing... Would you be so kind as to share with the rest of us what that "right thing" is. >you have no plan... Would you be so kind as to tell us whether you have a plan ? Comrades Yakov&Peter

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by hoodr＠netcom.com 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>Robert Hood writes: >> I tried. They told me that the forms and policy for removing more >> specific routes were not in place yet, and that there would be an announcement >> about it in a week or so. (I tried to remove 150 routes). I've got >> a few hundred more to do next week. >> >Why dont you just stop announcing them ? I did, but BGP didn't want to let them go (the other end never recieved a network unreachable event). I tried finding a way to remove the routes without reseting the BGP link, but couldn't, so I just reset the links. I hate doing that. Can we change the subject to 20252 routes now? :) BTW: I just sent another set of CIDR NACRs to Merit. I hope to remove another ~350 routes by the end of next week. -- Robert Hood hoodr(a)netcom.com 1-408-983-1510 System/Network Administrator for NETCOM On-line Communications Services, Inc.

1 0

Re: 20402 routing entries
by hoodr＠netcom.com 15 Apr '94

15 Apr '94

>According to NSF/ANSNET data, 23 aggregates ALONG with its covered 898 specific >routes are co-exist in the routing table now. If the ASs withdraws all these more >specific routes, the routing table could be reduced by 898. Given the urgent >need of reduce the routing table size, would these ASs withdraw those specific >routes as soon as possible? I tried. They told me that the forms and policy for removing more specific routes were not in place yet, and that there would be an announcement about it in a week or so. (I tried to remove 150 routes). I've got a few hundred more to do next week. -- Robert Hood hoodr(a)netcom.com 1-408-983-1510 System/Network Administrator for NETCOM On-line Communications Services, Inc.

5 4