Re: BGP announcements and small providers
At 15:10 26 02 97 -0600, you wrote:
You're making lots of assumptions.
1) That client DNS systems will actually honor such a TTL. Many don't (claim they're broken all you want, but these are the facts).
2) That client SOFTWARE will actually go back and ask again for the IP number. Several won't (Netscrape being rumored to be one of them). TTLs are irrelavent in that case.
Go ahead and try to tell your customer, who purchased web service from you, that you have the right to disrupt their operations at any time and under any pretense and see how many of them you have left.
I would hope that your contract didn't state the customer was guaranteed the same IP for eternity; if so, your legal department needs to be hanged. You can either renumber once into an RFC 1918 block and use NAT, or you can renumber into a new space every time you change providers. Your customers will understand renumbering once, especially if you can find a way to improve services with it. They'll look elsewhere if it happens more than once or twice, or if they get nothing from it. Benefits of NAT? You can allocate as many addresses as you want to each of your customers, regardless of how many you actually advertise. For instance, if you had a provider with a cluster of servers, they could all have the same external IP, and NAT could do load-balancing between them internally (with a bit of hacking). I'm sure there are other benefits I'm missing. You can minimize the effects of renumbering by doing it at "off" hours, by leaving old addresses active for a month, etc. There are plenty of people who are willing to help you make this as painless as possible. If Microsoft wrote noncompliant DNS code in their stacks, that is an issue to be taken up with them, and something that can probably be incorporated into the next service packs. This is not a NANOG issue or even a provider contract issue. As for broken browsers, most applications cache the hostent after the first gethostbyname() call each session. This is not likely to change, and a 1 month compatibility period will easily be sufficient. After all, have you ever seen Netscape run a month without crashing?
At 15:10 26 02 97 -0600, you wrote:
You're making lots of assumptions.
1) That client DNS systems will actually honor such a TTL. Many don't (claim they're broken all you want, but these are the facts).
2) That client SOFTWARE will actually go back and ask again for the IP number. Several won't (Netscrape being rumored to be one of them). TTLs are irrelavent in that case.
Go ahead and try to tell your customer, who purchased web service from you, that you have the right to disrupt their operations at any time and under any pretense and see how many of them you have left.
I would hope that your contract didn't state the customer was guaranteed the same IP for eternity; if so, your legal department needs to be hanged. You can either renumber once into an RFC 1918 block and use NAT, or you can renumber into a new space every time you change providers. Your customers will understand renumbering once, especially if you can find a way to improve services with it. They'll look elsewhere if it happens more than once or twice, or if they get nothing from it.
Tell you what. You get ALL the providers to agree via BCP that all customers must run NAT on their leased line connections. Every one of them. That is, a nice level playing field. Then come back here and let's talk. Or is this a "big guys don't have to" thing again? Because if it is, then you're right back where you started. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Would it make you happier if the "big guys", say MCI, Sprint, and AGIS all agreed to force all their customers to renumber if they ever changed their own upstream providers? The "big guys" don't have an 'upstream provider' so their customers are never inconvenienced by any technical issues surrounding a change of their provider's upstream provider. That's life. There are advantages and disadvantages of small versus large providers. Small providers might change their upstreams. Small providers typically have poorer network monitoring. Large providers tend to be more vulnerable to routing instabilities. And on and on. These are not operational issues though, as far as I can tell. DS On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
Or is this a "big guys don't have to" thing again? Because if it is, then you're right back where you started.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl, Sometimes I think you work for the Yoyodyne Corporation from some movie or another. Tell you what. You watch the capitalist system of our country reward companies that utilize new technology to encourage better service. It really shouldn't be that terribly hard to convince Mr IS director that the hot swap and load sharing functionality benefiting the web server you want to sell him, signficantly outweights the benefit of him having his "own" IP address. Please don't infer that the big providers are evil greedy bastards out to use their will to trash companies who exercise new technology. If you can somehow explain to me/us how using NAT places a company at a disadvantage, I'd love to hear it. -alan
Tell you what.
You get ALL the providers to agree via BCP that all customers must run NAT on their leased line connections.
Every one of them.
That is, a nice level playing field.
Then come back here and let's talk.
Or is this a "big guys don't have to" thing again? Because if it is, then you're right back where you started.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl,
Sometimes I think you work for the Yoyodyne Corporation from some movie or another.
Tell you what.
You watch the capitalist system of our country reward companies that utilize new technology to encourage better service.
I happen to like that model. A lot. The problem is, lots of people like to slant the playing field so that only the guys on the top of the money pile can play in the same theatre, and everyone else is relegated to the bottom. There are some benefits of size that really are honestly earned. Then there are those which are just plain improper (at minimum). The trick is to differentiate between them. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl, Will you please explain to me how it is that the evil greedy conspiring bastards use their size dishonestly to slant the playing field? Please list the set of differentiated dishonest benefits. Besides, I was always under the impression that it wasn't the size of the money that mattered, but rather how you moved it. -alan
Karl,
Sometimes I think you work for the Yoyodyne Corporation from some movie or another.
Tell you what.
You watch the capitalist system of our country reward companies that utilize new technology to encourage better service.
I happen to like that model. A lot.
The problem is, lots of people like to slant the playing field so that only the guys on the top of the money pile can play in the same theatre, and everyone else is relegated to the bottom.
There are some benefits of size that really are honestly earned. Then there are those which are just plain improper (at minimum).
The trick is to differentiate between them.
Keep the ad-hominen and invective out of the discussion. I will return to talk about this when you have restarted your question with an understanding of the above. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl,
Will you please explain to me how it is that the evil greedy conspiring bastards use their size dishonestly to slant the playing field? Please list the set of differentiated dishonest benefits.
Besides, I was always under the impression that it wasn't the size of the money that mattered, but rather how you moved it.
-alan
Karl,
Sometimes I think you work for the Yoyodyne Corporation from some movie or another.
Tell you what.
You watch the capitalist system of our country reward companies that utilize new technology to encourage better service.
I happen to like that model. A lot.
The problem is, lots of people like to slant the playing field so that only the guys on the top of the money pile can play in the same theatre, and everyone else is relegated to the bottom.
There are some benefits of size that really are honestly earned. Then there are those which are just plain improper (at minimum).
The trick is to differentiate between them.
I will restart my question as such: It is my understanding that; One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest. Please define and expound. I'm tired of people on the net running around blaming things on conspiracies and anti-trust, and never taking the time to defend their outrageous assertions. Your assertions are bunk. Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"? -alan
Keep the ad-hominen and invective out of the discussion.
I will return to talk about this when you have restarted your question with an understanding of the above.
I will restart my question as such:
It is my understanding that;
One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest.
Please define and expound.
My principal objection to NAT is that it breaks lots of things, including some servers, that customers want to put on their networks. At the PROVIDER level, especially at the level we run at, there is no NAT box made fast enough to do the job regardless of price.
Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"?
-alan
As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with prefix filtering at the /19 level. The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators of space refuse to give ISPs /19s. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger wrote : |-> > I will restart my question as such: |-> > |-> > It is my understanding that; |-> > |-> > One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are |-> > motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest. |-> > |-> > Please define and expound. |-> |-> My principal objection to NAT is that it breaks lots of things, including |-> some servers, that customers want to put on their networks. |-> |-> At the PROVIDER level, especially at the level we run at, there is no NAT |-> box made fast enough to do the job regardless of price. |-> Not true. I doubt that your links comprise much more than 100Mb or so (which the existing PIX does OK) and you could certainly make something like a fast PC perform NAT at *lots* of pps or Kbps. The only thing with NAT is that you need some memory, but again, the PIX has a limit of ~16,000 *simultaneous* conversations and doesn't have much RAM to play with. |-> > Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life |-> > hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"? |-> > |-> > -alan |-> |-> As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with |-> prefix filtering at the /19 level. |-> |-> The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators |-> of space refuse to give ISPs /19s. |-> I've had a wonderful time... ...but this wasn't it.
I see that you've no interest in defending the accusations you so wildly make. I'll go back to my life of ad-hominen attacks and mistyping of access lists. At least I'm honest about it. -alan
I will restart my question as such:
It is my understanding that;
One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest.
Please define and expound.
My principal objection to NAT is that it breaks lots of things, including some servers, that customers want to put on their networks.
At the PROVIDER level, especially at the level we run at, there is no NAT box made fast enough to do the job regardless of price.
Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"?
-alan
As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with prefix filtering at the /19 level.
The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators of space refuse to give ISPs /19s.
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators of space refuse to give ISPs /19s.
I don't think either of these is in danger of happening. I certainly don't hear anyone complaining that their Ciscos are going to fall over due to routing table growth and as we all know, there are other big router boxes very near release that won't have this problem. As for allocation policies, these are pretty much in the collective hands of the network operators now. This means it is extremely unlikely that they will do something that is dumb from an operational point of view. Note that the only significant event related to this was when RIPE's allocation policies conflicted with Sprint's filters and it was worked out to the general benefit of network operators. The main problem with filters right now is that there isn't enough of them, i.e. we need more widespread deployment of bogon filters. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (6)
-
alan＠mindvision.com -
David Schwartz -
Karl Denninger -
Lyndon Levesley -
Michael Dillon -
Stephen Sprunk