Mailing List Archive

larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
>The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
>your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)

Oh, baloney.

The point of a larger address space is ease of deployment. The current thinking is, "We don't want it to be easier if it wastes numbers. Work a little harder."

Besides, if you think for one minute that the customers of most ISPs give a hoot about larger address space, or that being multi-homed will GUARANTEE a dialup customer will go to them, then you'd be interested to hear about my real estate ventures...

Carl
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Carl Payne wrote:

> >The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
> >your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)

> The point of a larger address space is ease of deployment. The current
> thinking is, "We don't want it to be easier if it wastes numbers. Work a
> little harder."

How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.

> Besides, if you think for one minute that the customers of most ISPs
> give a hoot about larger address space, or that being multi-homed will
> GUARANTEE a dialup customer will go to them, then you'd be interested to
> hear about my real estate ventures...

I have no interest in your real estate, but I *KNOW* that customers of
most, if not all ISPs care about the reliability of their network, ergo,
the connectivity that their ISP has to its neighbors and that IS a
selling point.

If your sales people (for all of you small ISPs out there that don't have
connections to 3+ NAPs) aren't using the "We are connected at TWO points
where [insert rival network name here]'s network is only connected to
ONE!" pitch, you have the wrong sales people.

BTW, I'm not talking about dialup clients. I would not do a dialup ISP
for all the AOL/GNN customers in the world. Now, talk ISDN & T1, I
might.. just maybe... NAH...

-abc

PS: can you format your text for 80 columns next time so that I don't have
to do it in my reply?

PPS: can you explain your train of thought on 'larger address spaces are
easier to deploy' so that I can attempt to follow it?

\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
\ <http://www.gateway.com/>
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote:

>
>How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
>"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
>not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
>cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
>out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
>between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
>

This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership
draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere
in the text.

This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.

- paul
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote:

[lack of cooperation example removed]

> This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership
> draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere
> in the text.
>
> This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.

I agree, and do not support it in any way (please, don't flame *ME*) I
just have this ..er.. funny feeling that cooperation among small ISPs that
are fighting with everyone else for that smaller and smaller piece of the
pie is not going to be the easiest thing to make work.

I agree.. creating small groups of ISPs that cooperate on addressing in
geographic areas connecting to major service points would be the best
thing in the world. If we could agree to cooperate, we would not have the
quagmire that we have now, agreed?

Business nature (and dog-eat-dog economics) force non-cooperation at the
low (and high) end. Middle men are left to themselves.

-abc
\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
\ <http://www.gateway.com/>
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
>How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?

Y'know, I almost answered this, and decided against it. After reading this whole note, I realized it wasn't conversation, it was argument, and I almost came underdressed.

>"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
>not my argument.

Your argument was that:

> >The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
> >your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)

And I'm telling you with fairly solid certainty that the point of address space of any kind has NOTHING to do with position on the totem pole or being "better than your competition." Based on your last note, we should wantonly acquire larger blocks and one-up GenericISP because doing so is an available weapon prescribed by the IANA.

>Ever seen a nasty catfight between small local ISPs?

Do you realize who you're talking to?

The problem is the users, not the ISPs. Any user worth two cents of online time can pick the liars out of the mix and go to the superior provider. We don't have many "low-end" AOL types, virtual domain wanna-be-in-business-on-the-Internet yahoos because the morons across town do a better job of downright LYING to them. Try and tell one of those clowns you're multi-homed, or have Cisco 7000s over 2501s, tell them you're connected to NAPs, not the larger provider on the other end of town, and tell them you've been doing IP for almost 10 years. They don't know the difference, and they don't care. They see the schmooze, and they hear the speel, and they see the price is lower. Y'know what? They buy it. Fine. I'm not in this business to keep other people from making money. I wish the opposite were true too.

I don't hold my competitors nearly as responsible for this as I used to. The fact is, the lusers can't even appreciate the argument. There are just too many customers and too many greedy ISPs with sights set on getting money from all of them.

Can you imagine what this world would look like if there were ANY other industry with as many clueless consumers as clueless vendors? I can just see the automobile market now, or the airline industry. Hell, a restaurant.

"Oh, can you tell me about your food, please? Filet mignon? Well, the place that sells food over there has some for a tiny fraction of your price. No, they call theirs a Big Mac. Your beef is range-bred and USDA Grade A? No, theirs is farm-grown, frozen; I don't know for how long. Well, I can buy fifty of their Big Macs and resell them, but by the time I get just two of yours sold they'll go rotten and be no better than theirs. Seems theirs has a longer halflife."

Or health care:

"Yes, I'd like your prices on medical attention, please."
"Sure, how can I help you?"
"I require medical attention. The place across town offers it for X"
"Oh, we're MUCH cheaper than that. Our overhead is VERY low, and we pass on the savings to you."
"Well, I think I'm going to need to make a decision immediately."
"I can have our complete line of medical facilities ready to deploy in fifteen seconds."
"Well, they said they were AMA rated, had something called "doctors" on staff, and said they accepted all kinds of insurance."
"That's just marketing. You're here now, we're ready now, we can take care of you now and for a lot cheaper. Trust me: those people can't give as good service as we can because they're too big for their own good."
"Well, they said they had an operating room, "surgeons," and something called an intensive care unit. What do you have?"
"We have these brand new Zee first aid kits! And, we have TEN of them!"
<patient drops dead of the heart attack that started before he even walked in>

It doesn't stop there. We have twenty-station hands-on labs in two counties and have a pretty extensive set of courses Internet and non-'Net related. Our turnout is about even with the guys with the weekly free seminars.

And people wonder why the dropouts have such a bad taste in their mouth and decry the Internet's success.

>I have no interest in your real estate, but I *KNOW* that customers of
>most, if not all ISPs care about the reliability of their network, ergo,
>the connectivity that their ISP has to its neighbors and that IS a
>selling point.

Please rephrase this wordy sentence using the English Language.

>If your sales people (for all of you small ISPs out there that don't have
>connections to 3+ NAPs) aren't using the "We are connected at TWO points
>where [insert rival network name here]'s network is only connected to
>ONE!" pitch, you have the wrong sales people.

Then thank God you have them all.

>PS: can you format your text for 80 columns next time so that I don't have
> to do it in my reply?

It is. BTW, you're set to 60

While we're on the topic, why did you CC me if I'm on the list? Do you think so highly of your words that you feel I need two copies? Or three? Before you know it, I'll be in the CC line of every replicated reply. STOP CCing ME IF I'M ON THE LIST!


Carl
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
Paul states:

>
> This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.
>
> - paul
>

The poster is beginning to sound like a member of a political
party in a European country of the first half of this century whom
believes that if you do not "believe in the party line" that you
are shameful and should be banished from the party.

I quote from another Milan Kundera book:

" .. I became aware of the magic qualities of the circle. Leave a row and you
can always come back to it. The row is an open formation. But once a
circle closes, there is no return. It is no accident that the planets
move in a circle and when a stone breaks loose from one of them it is
drawn inexorably away by centrifugal force. Like a meteorite broken loose
from a planet, I too fell from the circle and have been falling ever since.
Some people remain in the circle until they die, others smash to pieces
at the end of a long fall......"

Milan Kundera
The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, pg 65-64


The use of terms like 'shameful' are really out of line when discussing
ideas born from different perspectives. We all know that the continuing
deployment of a hierarchical routing model for the Internet means more
routers sold; big ISPs get bigger; etc. ad infinitum.

There are other ways to deploy a hierarchical routing model than forcing
end users to renumber their IP addresses. The problem is that it
requires more work and energy from those above the end-user level; and
the problem of developing a more robust hierarchical routing
infrastructure at the expense of the user of the technology, and not
the supplier, is what people are not in agreement with.

At I have pointed out before, opposing views are antipodic and draw energy
from each other like a magnet, forming the quintessential element of
human society. It is very dioramic to view the world or others viewpoints
as 'shameful' just because you and your circle happen to disagree.

Take Care,

Tim

(The Heretic)


+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass | |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | "... the fates of men are bonded |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | one to the other by the cement |
| | of wisdom." |
| http://www.silkroad.com/ | Milan Kundera |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
At 07:28 PM 2/15/96 -0500, The Heretic wrote:

>
>The use of terms like 'shameful' are really out of line when discussing
>ideas born from different perspectives. We all know that the continuing
>deployment of a hierarchical routing model for the Internet means more
>routers sold; big ISPs get bigger; etc. ad infinitum.
>

Okay -- perhaps ludicrous is a more apropos term.

Reality check: ISPs already force renumbering.

And as several people have already stated [deja vu, many times over],
this draft, if moved to BCP, has no teeth. It simply states that the
idea of address ownership is null and void, and Joe's ISP decides to
pull up stakes and move to another upstream provider [B] for whatever
reason, Joe should not be surprised when his [A] provider asks him
to return his address allocation so that its doesn't punch holes in
his CIDR block.

This makes sense to me.

- paul
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
Paul kindly replies:

>
> And as several people have already stated [deja vu, many times over],
> this draft, if moved to BCP, has no teeth. It simply states that the
> idea of address ownership is null and void, and Joe's ISP decides to
> pull up stakes and move to another upstream provider [B] for whatever
> reason, Joe should not be surprised when his [A] provider asks him
> to return his address allocation so that its doesn't punch holes in
> his CIDR block.
>
> This makes sense to me.
>
> - paul
>

Granted, CIDR space from ISPs allocated by ISPs to users should be
stated in the services contract to be on loan from the ISP for
services.

On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC,
European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes'
in classless blocks and were assigned to the user. Furthermore,
there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing
infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive
and counterproductive.

Thanks for a reasonable reply, BTW; especially on an issue that tends
to supercede logic and reason and stimulate emotion and conflict.

Tim

(The Heretic)


+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass | |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | "... the fates of men are bonded |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | one to the other by the cement |
| | of wisdom." |
| http://www.silkroad.com/ | Milan Kundera |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
At 11:38 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Tim 'The Heretic' Bass wrote:

>
>On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC,
>European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes'
>in classless blocks and were assigned to the user. Furthermore,
>there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing
>infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive
>and counterproductive.
>

I agree that address allocations that originated from the various
registries pose a different problem, for which there is no clear-cut
solution. I imagine that the various ISPs will decide how to handle
it themselves, as some already do.

Again, we're [collectively] not trying to dictate address allocation or
routing policy. What we *are* trying to do is document a Best Current
Practices procedural issue, which can be used as reference. If some
organizations wish to use it as a basis for policy, that's fine too.
I'm not naive enough to believe that this draft, as a BCP, will be
viewed as the end-all-be-all policy doctrine, and that if you as an
ISP or end-system network do not adhere to the letter of the document
you will be flogged with a wet noodle. Bah.

This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address
lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no
longer a luxury that can be expected.

Yes, it may be unpopular. Does it actually represent 'Best Current
Practice'? I believe it does. Should it instead be moved ahead as
'Informational'? I don't believe so, as Curtis and others do, since
it would then give the appearance of levity.

- paul
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
{ continuing Paul,Tim .... }

>
> This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address
> lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no
> longer a luxury that can be expected.

Hmmm. In actuality, there is nothing 'simple' about the concept of
address ownership and address portability; and to label the issue
'simple' is to obfuscate a multidimensional issue.

Anyone who as been either in the middle of the CIDR-renumbering
debate or enjoying from the sidelines is fully aware that the
issues are not just 'harmlessly forwarding meaningless documents',
so let's 'just do it and forget about it'....

The fact remains that there are numerous other possibilities; such
as fixing DNS and introducing NAT technology at the NAP level
that allow aggregation at the provider level of the hierarchy and
not at the user level. This imposes, however, the problem and
solution on the providers and not the end-user; which BTW is
the correct approach, and it is a drain of energy and resources
to continue down this 'beat up the end user' path choosen by
the WG in question.

So we oscillate between 'complexity and simplicity'. The issues
are complex and controversial on a full moon ; simple and clear
another phase. This should clearly signal a red flag when
protagonists of renumbering change position based on the audience
and phase of the moon.

Best Regards,


Tim

'The Heretic'



+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass | |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | "... the fates of men are bonded |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | one to the other by the cement |
| | of wisdom." |
| http://www.silkroad.com/ | Milan Kundera |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... [ In reply to ]
> At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote:
>
> >
> >How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
> >"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
> >not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
> >cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
> >out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
> >between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
> >
>
> This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership
> draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere
> in the text.
>
> This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.
>
> - paul

I have found that given a good description of the problem and how cooperation
can solve it, even the small ISPs (at least in my neck of the woods) will
consider cooperation. Some of them will even if they don't see a direct
benefit to them.

I am not saying that all small ISPs are like that, but I at least know
of some that are.


--
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.