Mailing List Archive

My lord that article was laughable. Metcalfe really doesn't have a clue.
Yes infrastructure is very strained. Yes the internet is burping and
hiccoughing. Will the *whole thing* collapse? Of course not.

Bob writes: The Internet Society is where to organize the management of
Internet operations worldwide, and to drive the tracking, policy
development, and engineering that would have averted the collapses I've
been whining about since December.

Cook: The ISOC can govern only if it has the allegiance of the
governed. ISOC doesn't have any such allegiance. It had a good
executive director Tony Rutkowskii who is now gone. It had A good
president Vint Cerf who is now doing other things. It has a good new
president Larry Landweber who in the opinion of many I have talked to
represents the interests of the old R&E extablishment. Ask the movers
and shakers of the *COMMERCIAL* internet how many are ready to follow
ISOCs lead. Damned few I hear. For the first part of this year a major
part of ISOCs agenda has been to get Bob Kahn and his CNRI board to give
up his permanent seat on the internet society board of trustees.

Metcalfe: The society has the Internet Engineering Planning Group (IEPG)
for just this purpose. Problem is, the IEPG is not taken seriously
enough. I just read (at http://www.isoc.org) the IEPG's latest reports of
Internet traffic problems. They were dated -- uh-oh -- March 1994.

Cook: Um.... Is it the Internet or intercontinental engineering
ing planning group? Problem is according to Lynch and Rose (1993) this
was a group desgned to provide the planning and coordination necessary to
make the internet work. No where do I see short term planning mentioned.

ISOC has the IEPG for just this purpose? No. Beg pardon. ISOC was
created to give most of the existing internet bodies a legal home as the
commercial internet matured and the federal gov't withdrew. Last traffic
reports march 1994!? Of course! This was the month before the last
gov't funded backbone (NSFnet) was turned off. Since then the traffic
statistics have been the **proprietary** possessions of Sprint, MCI,
UUNET, ANS, etc.

Metcalfe: And NANOG seems not to be grabbing hold and getting them
handled -- alas the collapses.

Cook: NANOG has no power to do any such thing. What does Bob expect it
to do write a nasty letter to Sprint and fine them for not buying 50 new
backbone routers six months earlier!?

Metcalfe: There is still no system of traffic-based settlements among
cooperating Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Cook: Bob has been asking for this ever since the summer of 1993.
Hasn't anyone told him there are some problems with the nature of TCP./IP
that make this highly problematic to attempt. Not to mention the loss of
business that would result for the first provider to try such a stunt.

Metcalfe: ISPs don't report their outages to one another and never to us.

Cook: why in heaven's name should they report them to you!?
The Internet is coping amazingly well with unprecedented growth, if Bob
would listen more carefully to those who are making it work, he'd write
fewer inane columns.

The only way to accomplish what he seems to want is to have the FCC take
over the Internet and run it. All those who want to see a regulated
Internet say "aye!"

*********************************************************************
Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new COOK Report Glossary of Internet terms
*********************************************************************


On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:

>
> Have a look at Bob Metcalfe's Infoworld column this week at
> http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm in which he
> discusses the shortcomings of NANOG, IEPG and ISOC in not taking a more
> aggressive role in managing the operations of the Internet.
>
>
> Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
> Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
> http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
>
>

OOOPS! <blush> you are right.

But, isn't the point two fold? While NSFnet stats were available for
another year is anyone going to seriously blame ISOC for not having them on
display a year after the fact? They are surely available some where.
Many reading this list would likely know where in an instant. I'd turn
to an Altavista search and to the NSF web stite to find them.

second point. For a year now nothing has been available and given the
nature of the new market place, how could one reasonably expect them to
be available except by looking a through put figures at the MAEs. MAE
East in particular.

*********************************************************************
Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new COOK Report Glossary of Internet terms
*********************************************************************


On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 rboivie@VNET.IBM.COM wrote:

> Gordon,
> Small point. The NSFnet backbone service ended on April 30, 1995
> (not '94).
> Rick Boivie
> rboivie@vnet.ibm.com
>
> > commercial internet matured and the federal gov't withdrew. Last traffic
> > reports march 1994!? Of course! This was the month before the last
> > gov't funded backbone (NSFnet) was turned off. Since then the traffic
> > statistics have been the **proprietary** possessions of Sprint, MCI,
> > UUNET, ANS, etc.
>

Gordon,
Small point. The NSFnet backbone service ended on April 30, 1995
(not '94).
Rick Boivie
rboivie@vnet.ibm.com

> commercial internet matured and the federal gov't withdrew. Last traffic
> reports march 1994!? Of course! This was the month before the last
> gov't funded backbone (NSFnet) was turned off. Since then the traffic
> statistics have been the **proprietary** possessions of Sprint, MCI,
> UUNET, ANS, etc.

What is NANOG's role?

I was surprised to read in the March 25 issue of NetworkWorld Alecia Cooper
at Sprint comments that Sprint is just following NANOG's recommendations
to block addresses to minimize the number of router table entries. I
must have missed something, because I don't remember NANOG ever making
any recommendation, of any sort.

Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A
bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else?
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Sean Donelan wrote:

> Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A
> bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else?

It's most definitely something else. Most people are trained from birth
that organizations with acronyms rule the world, thus NANOG and IEPG
and ISOC must be the rulers of the Internet world.

Since most NANOG/IEPG/ISOC people are clueless when it comes to things
like public relations, press releases, spin control, etc... is it any
wonder that the press marches merrily off in their own direction.

There is actually opportunity here for groups like NANOG to have some
influence and communicate with the public in a positive fashion. I
suggest that a good first step would be to release a communique to the
press after every NANOG meeting and a good second step would be to urge
ISOC to spend more money on general educational issues to make people in
general more aware of operational and architectural issues.


Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

After scanning the on-line notes from the NANOG meetings, I did
not find any "recommendations" made by the group. In fact, the
group has mentioned many times that it is inappropriate to set
policy. What the group does is discuss various technical problems,
share work-arounds, fixes, kludges, and as individuals adopt what
is useful.
--Elise

>Sean Donelan writes:
>
> What is NANOG's role?
>
> I was surprised to read in the March 25 issue of NetworkWorld Alecia Cooper
> at Sprint comments that Sprint is just following NANOG's recommendations
> to block addresses to minimize the number of router table entries. I
> must have missed something, because I don't remember NANOG ever making
> any recommendation, of any sort.
>
> Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A
> bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else?
> --
> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
> Affiliation given for identification not representation
>

On the other hand.....

It has been clear over the past (years?..... time sure flies....)
there has been a strong and very vocal pro-filtering Keep
the Routing Table Small at *any* cost, group of advocates and
protagonists in the NANOG mailing list.

It is easy to reach the conjecture that the _perception_ of *others*
is; having many strong and vocal pro-filtering protagonists in NANOG;
and given the fact that the few who warned that selective
route filtering was very problematic were flamed-broiled and
none came to their defense

\Metaphor

.........................after all, if a town in the
days of the Salem witch trials watched as the zealots burned
the heretics, is the town without blood on their hands just
because they remained silent in their comfy homes?

\EndMetaphor


It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG,
the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control
routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the
those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will.

Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by
virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the
group, does bear responsibility for the perception others
view the group.

Best Regards,

Tim

>
> After scanning the on-line notes from the NANOG meetings, I did
> not find any "recommendations" made by the group. In fact, the
> group has mentioned many times that it is inappropriate to set
> policy. What the group does is discuss various technical problems,
> share work-arounds, fixes, kludges, and as individuals adopt what
> is useful.
> --Elise
>
> >Sean Donelan writes:
> >
> > What is NANOG's role?
> >
> > I was surprised to read in the March 25 issue of NetworkWorld Alecia Cooper
> > at Sprint comments that Sprint is just following NANOG's recommendations
> > to block addresses to minimize the number of router table entries. I
> > must have missed something, because I don't remember NANOG ever making
> > any recommendation, of any sort.
> >
> > Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A
> > bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else?
> > --
> > Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
> > Affiliation given for identification not representation
> >
>

In message <960401212317.3af6@SDG.DRA.COM>, Sean Donelan writes:
> What is NANOG's role?
>
> I was surprised to read in the March 25 issue of NetworkWorld Alecia Cooper
> at Sprint comments that Sprint is just following NANOG's recommendations
> to block addresses to minimize the number of router table entries. I
> must have missed something, because I don't remember NANOG ever making
> any recommendation, of any sort.
>
> Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A
> bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else?
> --
> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
> Affiliation given for identification not representation


Sean,

NANOG is a place where operational issues are discussed. They are not
voted apon and so there is not official decrees from NANOG. I am no
more a spokesperson for NANOG than for Sprint. Here's my opinion if
you want it.

This is just my impression. I think Sprint did act on the belief that
there was a general consensus that blocking longer prefixes was
inevitable and therefore supported. They may also have acted thinking
that their actions were fair since they were blocking only long
prefixes from recent allocations. In reality, the boundary they
picked for taking action corresponded to the "portable address space"
boundary where small providers had been going if they (maybe unwisely)
wanted to avoid the possibility of renumbering if they later dual
homed or changed providers. This meant that in practice Sprint was
accepting /24 prefixes from other large providers but blocking /20 and
/21 prefixes from many smaller providers.

This whole problem reflects the struggle over who gets to do the work
needed to make CIDR aggregation suceed. Some of the large providers
would prefer that all allocations are made according to topology.
Some of those same providers have decided that anyone who moves out of
their CIDR block (or dual homes? - not sure if anyone carries it this
far) must renumber. Some provide a grace period, but insist on
eventual renumbering. Given the current state of renumbering
technology, many have chosen not to take an allocation from their
provider (defeating allocation on the basis of topology) but instead
to take an independent allocation from a pool that is not being
systematically allocated at all. This pool of unallocatable routes
(known within IETF and NANOG as the toxic waste dump or TWD) is
increasingly becoming a problem and is leading to the inevitable
blocking of prefixes in that range.

If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the
TWD would not be growing at its current rate. This is purely my
opinion at this point, though I plan to bring this up at NANOG and
CIDRD (I already have by way of the CIDRD mailing list).

I don't think we should be labelling Sprint's actions as
irresponsible. I think at NANOG and CIDRD we should be looking at
some of the past discussions and the very rough consensus on which
Sprint acted and decide whether that was the best direction to be
headed in. If consensus has changed dramatically (and I don't know if
it has) and a viable alternative is presented, I suspect Sprint will
be interested in cooperating in the best interest of the Internet, and
at least give any new ideas an objective audience.

Curtis

ps - So Sean (Donelan) - got any ideas to fix this? :-)

> it has) and a viable alternative is presented, I suspect Sprint will
> be interested in cooperating in the best interest of the Internet, and
> at least give any new ideas an objective audience.

We have a request in to Sprint to make an exception to their policy.
We will renumber, resulting in a reduced number of route
annoucements. I'd like to think that what you say is correct - we'll
see.

At 11:47 AM 4/2/96, Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) wrote:

> Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by
> virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the
> group, does bear responsibility for the perception others
> view the group.

Tim,

Folks who confuse mailing list or newsgroup discussion with
"representation" deserve any conclusions they might reach.

/John

> To: Sean Donelan <SEAN@sdg.dra.com>
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 12:38:29 -0500
> From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
> [...]
> NANOG is a place where operational issues are discussed. They are not
> voted apon and so there is not official decrees from NANOG. I am no
> more a spokesperson for NANOG than for Sprint. Here's my opinion if
> you want it.
> [...]

Nice summary.

-tjs

Tim writes:
> It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG,
> the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control
> routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the
> those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will.
>
> Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by
> virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the
> group, does bear responsibility for the perception others
> view the group.

You say the "vocal majority" in the first paragraph and then the "few
dominate voices" in the second paragraph. Which is it? If you had said
a "vocal minority" in the first paragraph, it would make your comments
much more consistent.


--
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.

> It has been clear over the past (years?..... time sure flies....)
> there has been a strong and very vocal pro-filtering Keep
> the Routing Table Small at *any* cost, group of advocates and
> protagonists in the NANOG mailing list.

Its just as clear that there is a group opposed to this policy/practice.
(And I thinks fair to say they are vocal as well)

> It is easy to reach the conjecture that the _perception_ of *others*
> is; having many strong and vocal pro-filtering protagonists in NANOG;
> and given the fact that the few who warned that selective
> route filtering was very problematic were flamed-broiled and
> none came to their defense

No one who spoke out against the various proposed filtering
solutions was prohibited from speaking. Not one individual was told
"We have voted and NANOG believes X so you should do X and just shut up."
Those who did not believe the pro-filtering vocal group continued and still
do continue to speak up. Any one who examines the archives can see those
open discusssions

.... pointless and slanted metaphor deleted
>
> It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG,
> the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control
> routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the
> those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will.

It may not be a strong leap of imagination but its certainly sloppy
thinking. It is also not true that just because a fraction of a group
supports a thing - the GROUP supports it. The sum of the parts does not
always equal the whole. The NANOG group has made numerous efforts to
let people know what things that the GROUP does and does not endorse.

> Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by
> virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the
> group, does bear responsibility for the perception others
> view the group.

Who is preventing you or any other person from expressing your views?
The cold hard truth is that any fraction that wants to can speak
and attempt to sway people to their view. If you come up with a real
solution to the problem, this is an extremely competative market. Some
one would love to have a way to keep their router up and running at the
point a Cisco or Bay box is puking its guts out.

I have listened to your proposals and points of view because frequently
when a paradigm shift occurs it is indeed an outsider who brings it to
the world. However that does not mean that just because one is an outsider
one has the new truth. The pro-filtering group has presented alot of
hard data and solutions. Yes there is pain in those solutions but I prefer
it to hand waving.

bjp@eng.umd.edu | Disclaimer: Can you be sure I even
uunet!eng.umd.edu!istari | exist: Let alone represent anyone
Brad Passwaters (Network Ronin) | or anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we are. Born to be kings. We're the princes of the universe.
Here we belong, fighting to survive in a war with the darkest power.
Network Manager's Theme Song (QUEEN)

On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Elise Gerich wrote:

> After scanning the on-line notes from the NANOG meetings, I did
> not find any "recommendations" made by the group. In fact, the
> group has mentioned many times that it is inappropriate to set
> policy. What the group does is discuss various technical problems,
> share work-arounds, fixes, kludges, and as individuals adopt what
> is useful.

Sounds like a recommendation to me. Just rewrite that in some flowery
language alonmg with a few technical details and you will have a press
release for the next NANOG meeting that you can feed to the journalists.

I'm serious; something like this could be done....

At the ??? 96 NANOG meeting the important issue of widgets was discussed.
Widgets are the framistams that make the Internet's frogistor wave
synchronise with the widgimajiggers at each of the main exchange points.
Several proposals were made to solve the problem of widget wave induction
and the group generally agreed to implement the best of these proposals
and report back on results at the next meeting. Members were generally
confident that the proposed solutions will alleviate the problem.

Note that this short press release explains the items being discussed and
why they are important to the Internet's operations. It also includes
some background material to help journalists understand the situation
even if they were not previously aware that the Internet relied on
framistams. And there is a strong statement of confidence that things are
OK, routine, being taken care of, not to worry, etc...

You may not like the eyes of the world to be looking at you, but the fact
is that those eyes are going to be looking at you more and more as the
Internet grows in importance and people get curious at how it really works.


Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the
> TWD would not be growing at its current rate.

Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI
via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our
aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for
a fee.


Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>
>> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
>> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the
>> TWD would not be growing at its current rate.
>
>Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
>you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI
>via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our
>aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for
>a fee.
>


And the global routing table grows.

- paul

Stan asks:

>
> You say the "vocal majority" in the first paragraph and then the "few
> dominate voices" in the second paragraph. Which is it? If you had said
> a "vocal minority" in the first paragraph, it would make your comments
> much more consistent.
>

Actually that is a good question, but I disagree that the comment
is inconsistant, but maybe unclear.... here is why

IMHO only, most list forums such as this fine one and others are often
dominated by a few very active participants.... this is what I
referred to as the "vocal majority". You are right, this term
is misleading, but now we are discussing symantics and not ideas.

Back to ideas......

It is suprising to learn, however, that NANOG does not support
selective route filtering.... it has always been my perception,
based on the strong words of support and the 'void of support'
for the small opposition, that the majority (what and whoever
that is) of NANOG supports selective route filtering and
those who spoke in opposition were 'few' and 'isolated'.


Take care,

Tim

Tim wrote...
Sean wrote:
>> I am no
>> more a spokesperson for NANOG than for Sprint. Here's my opinion if
>> you want it.
>> [...]

>Nice summary.

Not so fast, Tim. Hey Sean, is SPRINT going to continue with
the Fridays Are Free thing? Can I still call anywhere for
a dime? Do I get a polaroid with Murphy Brown in it?

>-tjs

Ehud

>
> Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by
> virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the
> group, does bear responsibility for the perception others
> view the group.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tim
>
Tim,

I do not understand what you mean. NANOG is only a mailing list.
Does this mean I am supposed to ask your opinion before posting?

;)

Larry Plato
I speak only for myself

At 07:30 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:

>> >Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
>> >you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI
>> >via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our
>> >aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for
>> >a fee.

>>
>> And the global routing table grows.
>
>If this is done with a private two-party exchange point, then can't it
>also be done without any change in the global routing table?
>

I'm not sure this is practical.

In any event, this why people have been bitching about people punching holes
in large CIDR blocks.

- paul

On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote:

> At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> >
> >> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
> >> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the
> >> TWD would not be growing at its current rate.
> >
> >Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
> >you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI
> >via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our
> >aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for
> >a fee.
> >
>
>
> And the global routing table grows.

If this is done with a private two-party exchange point, then can't it
also be done without any change in the global routing table?

Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

I use a simple rule that seems to work somewhat in regards to renumbering.
I control the Israeli /16s blocks - i.e. 192.114-118.0.0/16. An
organization that uses a /22 or more (and use means more than 50% of the
IP address space is being used), is allowed to move around with it from
ISP to ISP (i.e. portable). If you have 500 machines - it is painful to
renumber (not impossible). If you have 30 machines and a /24, then
renumber - and I have reclaimed dozens of /24s in this fashion.

Hank

On Monday, April 01, 1996 4:10 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote:
@On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Sean Donelan wrote:
@
@> Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A
@> bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else?
@
@It's most definitely something else. Most people are trained from birth
@that organizations with acronyms rule the world, thus NANOG and IEPG
@and ISOC must be the rulers of the Internet world.
@

Yes, as more people from various walks of life get involved in the Internet,
there is going to be confusion because these "new" people are going to
assume that there is something behind these fancy acronyms...
when they find out that the Internet is like a large "movie set" they may
get very upset...or at least disoriented...they will find that the net is not
an Information Superhighway but rather a parking lot with carnival rides...

...this will probably send many people BACK to their families, churches,
schools, governments, corner barber shops and neighbors to try to find
something "real" in their life...in this respect, the Internet may cause people
in local areas to become "better connected" because much of the net is
very socially disconnected...

...virtual is fun but when the rubber hits the road...people buy ($$$) real...

@Since most NANOG/IEPG/ISOC people are clueless when it comes to things
@like public relations, press releases, spin control, etc... is it any
@wonder that the press marches merrily off in their own direction.
@

I am not sure they are clueless, they may have just chosen to live in a
different world where the traditional press has little meaning....keep in
mind that Dolphins do not get involved much in the world of Cats and Dogs...

@There is actually opportunity here for groups like NANOG to have some
@influence and communicate with the public in a positive fashion. I
@suggest that a good first step would be to release a communique to the
@press after every NANOG meeting and a good second step would be to urge
@ISOC to spend more money on general educational issues to make people in
@general more aware of operational and architectural issues.
@
@
@Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022

Maybe people that live largely in the Internet (and other places) are going to
discover what the other 99% of the people on planet earth already know....

In order to get people working in a common direction you have to have some
common purpose, some common goals and a reason and benefit for an individual
to be associatted with an entity.

Having a short, catchy acronym is not enough. Most humans do not join clubs
or help promote a cause simply because it exists. One or more of the basic
human motivators need to be in place. (education, money, power, entertainment,
self-fullfillment, social status, peer acceptance, pleasure, etc.)

The Internet is currently going through a transition...many of the traditional groups
that have been formed in the "real world" (whatever that is) are moving some or
part of their member communication to the Internet. Most of it shows up in the
World Wide Web...little by little, traditional groups will discover some of the
other "services" available on the net. When this occurs these groups will likely
overshadow the tiny groups that helped to build the net.

I suggest that "net people" give up on the idea of building more and more "movie sets"
and instead, join with the real people and help facilitate their increased involvement
with the net. This involvement is inevitable and as they say..."If you can't beat them...
join them"...By joining with existing groups, netizens can have a significant impact
on how those groups merge into the increasing traffic on the Information Parking Lot...

--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

In message <199604030045.QAA03247@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
> At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> >
> >> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
> >> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the
> >> TWD would not be growing at its current rate.
> >
> >Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
> >you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI
> >via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our
> >aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for
> >a fee.
>
> And the global routing table grows.
>
> - paul


Paul,

Provider X takes on some number of customers N that want prefixes and
think they may later dual home or want to leave the option of changing
providers without renumbering open. Substitute for X as you see fit.

If provider X insists that small providers or small to medium business
customers must renumber to leave a CIDR aggregate the smaller
organization go off and get "portable" address allocations which put
them in the unaggregatable toxic waste dump (TWD). If so, they will
also try as hard as they can to get a /19.

Some of the small prefixes go out of business. Some grow and become
dual homed. Some switch providers. Most just don't change.

In either case, TWD allocation or out of a provider aggregate, a dual
homed customer requires an additional prefix (to get routing right).

If a small prefix changes providers and is TWD allocated, they already
have a unique route. If they were allocated from a large provider
aggregate, one more prefix is needed. If they were allocated from a
large provider aggregate and are given a generous grace period, some
will renumber quickly, some not at all (continuous requests to extend
the grace period). Lets assume they are never forced (grace period
extensions are granted).

If the number of small prefixes that resort to the TWD as a result of
strong renumbering policies exceeds the number of small prefixes that
move out of aggregates without eventually renumbering, then there the
strong renumbering policy actually promotes more growth in the routing
table size.

In the short term, the difference may not be all that substantial.
Longer term, if the provider community can cooperate to aggregate
better then many of the extra routes caused by prefixes changing
providers can be aggregated back together over a multple AS
aggregation boundary.

Since you made the comment "And the global routing table grows", do
you feel what I described above is invalid? If so, what assumptions
are you making differently? Do you feel people will never renumber if
given a grace period, even if renumbering becomes easier with time?

Curtis