Mailing List Archive

> Curtis:
> > There is no need to call it hijacking.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The Heretic Responds:
>
> Why not call it hijacking? That is exactly what it appears to be.
> NANOG nor the IETF has the right to judge the motives of address
> space holders and the holder of the address space has no
> legal nor moral obligation to contact the providers of services.
>
> Hijacking is actually a "kind and polite" term, it seems. What the
> "Self-proclaimed Omnipotent Crusaders and Saviors of the Fate
> of Routing" seem to forget is that they do not control
> the world IP address space; but they sure would like the world to believe
> have been "Blessed with the Right from the Holy Grail of IP" to
> act without remorse "for the cause".
[. ... and so on ... and on ... and on ... and on ... ]


Hi Tim,

Maybe you should reread my entire message to see what I actually
suggested doing.

I suggested some better methods of contacting the owner of the route
based on traceroute and AS path. I also tried to point out (and tried
to clarify in the flame of myself) that if there is no route to
traceroute or get an AS path from there is no need to reclaim anything
for the sake of reducing the routing table size.

So if you keep that in mind and you only reclaim address space for
people who you have been able to contact and agreed to give it back,
then surely you must agree that this is justifiable action.

There is a gray area where you cannot contact someone announcing a
route even going through providers on the path and making public
announcements asking for a contact and sending mail to root and
postmaster, hostmaster, (guest? :), etc. I seriously doubt we will
end up with a lot of these and so ignoring them is probably the best
thing to do. If we do encounter a lot of them and want to discuss
what to do about it you are welcome to call this hijacking if you
like.

Curtis

> Furthermore, there an infinite number of views and ideas that are
> inconsonant between peoples and organizations. Forcing a particular
> philosophy on others in the style of a Crusade is *absolutely wrong*
> and has been proven wrong for the entire span of human history.

There cannot be an infinite number of views unless there is an infinite
number of people with at least one view, or at least one person has an
infinite number of views. The first is certainly not true. The latter is
not likely to be true.


--
Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob@academ.com
Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said:
>On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> > > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now.
>> > > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG)
>> > >
>> > > 60% - invalid or missing contact information
>> >
>> > This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact
>you
>> > and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your
>> > addresses get recycled.
>> >
>> >
>> By addresses not being reachable, are you effectively saying that any
>> enterprise that does not want to connect to the Internet must use
>> RFC1597 address space?
>>
>> Anyone have an idea how much of the address space is used for
>> registered addresses of organizations that do not connect to the Internet?
>
>I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted.
>
>If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all
>those not count?

If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more
than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address
from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.

>
>Unfortunately, I don't think we can base much policy on whether or what %
>of addresses are reachable from the internet.
>
>--- David Miller
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
> one doesn't know what one can't do!
>

Hank

On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said:
> >
> >I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted.
> >
> >If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all
> >those not count?
>
> If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more
> than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address
> from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.

While that certainly sounds nice from the current context, there are
other reasons for wanting unique address space. Things like mergers come
to mind, as well as the expectation of better security in ipv6.

--- David Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
one doesn't know what one can't do!

>
> If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more
> than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address
> from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.
>
> Hank
>
Hank,
Depending on the firewall design, hosts located behind firewalls
can conceivably access the Internet directly for certain services and in
this case unique addresses are required. Your assumption would be valid
when all traffic for that site is handled by proxy servers.

--
T. C. Hu | tchu@sandia.gov
Sandia National Laboratories | Tel: (505) 845-8936
P.O.Box 5800 | FAX: (505) 844-2067
Albuquerque, NM 87111-0807 |

In message <199602021946.AA16364@mail.crl.com>, George Herbert writes:
>
> >> How do Pipex and Dante get global routes right now?
> >
> >Oh.. from a whole bunch of different places.
> >
> > ANS customer routes from ANS
> > MCI customer routes from MCI
> > SprintLink customer routes from Sprint
> > Alternet customer routes from Alternet
> > AUNET routes from EUNET
> > ...
> >
> >You get the idea.
>
> How do they get to Barrnet? SURAnet? Etc?

Suranet is at MeaEast. Barrnet is presently an MCI transit customer.

Actually, the situation is a bit more complicated than this (in case anyone
really wants to know). It is the case that each of the BBN Planet regions are
MCI transit customers, but BBN Planet also has presence at MAE-East, FIX-East,
MAE-West, and the Pennsauken NAP. We are in the process of finalizing the
peering policy for BBN Planet as an integrated whole. In the near future, we
will send a notice to the provider community that describes our policy and
invites others to establish bi-lateral peering agreements with us.

Vince Fuller, BBN Planet Network Engineering

......... Alex.Bligh is rumored to have said:

] > No they don't. You can ask the RIPE NCC for special PI space to assign to
] > this customer. It seems they have a "chemical waste dump" to satisfy
] > this kind of requests from.

] Ah. That will be the "chemical waste dump" that Daniel K said
] he didn't care about whether it got routed or not (no offence
] Daniel - neither do I), and is all but unaggregatable so presumably
] Sprintlink et al. won't want to waste their CPUs routing it as well.
] What hope for a customer with those IP numbers?

Learn how to renumber. It really is possible, you know.

-alan

Hocus Pocus.

A NAT solves this problem. :-)

- paul


At 08:12 AM 2/5/96 -0700, Tan Chang Hu wrote:

>>
>> If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more
>> than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address
>> from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.
>>
>> Hank
>>
>Hank,
> Depending on the firewall design, hosts located behind firewalls
>can conceivably access the Internet directly for certain services and in
>this case unique addresses are required. Your assumption would be valid
>when all traffic for that site is handled by proxy servers.
>
>--
>T. C. Hu | tchu@sandia.gov
>Sandia National Laboratories | Tel: (505) 845-8936
>P.O.Box 5800 | FAX: (505) 844-2067
>Albuquerque, NM 87111-0807 |
>
>
>

--
Paul Ferguson || ||
Consulting Engineering || ||
Reston, Virginia USA |||| ||||
tel: +1.703.716.9538 ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
e-mail: pferguso@cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s

At 01:11 PM 2/5/96 -0600, Alan Hannan wrote:

>
> Learn how to renumber. It really is possible, you know.
>
> -alan
>

So, Alan, are you volunteering to help us out in PIER? ;-)

- paul

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Bill Manning wrote:
> There may be other incentives
> applied to facilitate the return, but strong-arm tactics
> and coersion, threats and hostile actions are not my favorites.
> I'd prefer to take almost any other action than blacklisting and
> hijacking. To take such actions, while it can be rationalized
> as a technological means to protect a networks internal
> stability, is presumptious and rude at best and legally
> indefensable at worst.

so what you're saying is, if a Government (agency) were to take such
action, it could work..???

but then again, we don't *want* government involved...

where's daddy when you need him ? Love/hate relationship to
say the least.

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Edward Henigin wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Bill Manning wrote:
> > There may be other incentives
> > applied to facilitate the return, but strong-arm tactics
> > and coersion, threats and hostile actions are not my favorites.
> > I'd prefer to take almost any other action than blacklisting and
> > hijacking. To take such actions, while it can be rationalized
> > as a technological means to protect a networks internal
> > stability, is presumptious and rude at best and legally
> > indefensable at worst.
>
> so what you're saying is, if a Government (agency) were to take such
> action, it could work..???
>
> but then again, we don't *want* government involved...

well, then there are a couple of simple rules to be observed

1) dont piss off the international community and declare Internet to US
owned (like the guy who posted 'he is sick of his country to provide
support for others who don't deserve it'.
2) work for seamless interoperability, and this means cast out people or
corporations who do noe
3) don't implement anything that causes friction , is not backwards
compatible, or deprives communities (which can be nations, networks,
religious aggregations or sex maniacs) from expressing themselves
*between themselves* (watch the stars!).

Be conservative in what you receive, leading edge in what you provide

Simple, no?

Mike

(this .sig is really only for id, not for anything else!)







>
> where's daddy when you need him ? Love/hate relationship to
> say the least.
>

----------------------------------------------------------
IDT
Michael F. Nittmann ---------
Senior Network Architect \ /
(201) 928 4456 -------
(201) 928 1888 FAX \ /
mn@tremere.ios.com ---
V
IOS