Mailing List Archive

At 10:17 PM 4/3/96 -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>
>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
>

I think that its a fair description.

And honestly, I don't think a substantial percentage of end-networks
will renumber if there are not substantial incentives. If renumbering
becomes less-painful, with time & better tools, perhaps more will
renumber, but again I personally don't foresee a substantial number
doing so without some incentive(s).

The scenario that was previously described by Michael Dillon, I believe,
was one in which a singularly-homed [to provider 'a'] end-network [x]
moved to another provider [provider 'b'] and wanted to take their
provider [a] allocated address(es) with them. This is a case where, if
a larger aggregate is being announced by [a], then a specific component
announced from the [a] CIDR block would be announced by [b].

Of course, this happens anyway if [x] is dual-homed. I think we can all
agree that the peace-of-mind obtained by [x] in becoming dual-homed is
less than optimal for the Routing Table Watchers (tm). :-)

This just happens to be a Catch-22 with multihomed end-networks.

- paul

Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Unless they have a real plan & need to get about 128 buildings full of
>100 machines/building online, it's a lost cause. You already need a
>/18 to be heard from Sprint in >= 207/8. Unless you're a customer of
>Sprint.

And if you're a customer of Sprint you'll get aggregated in something
like /14.

The proxy/firewall solution for schools is probably the best.

--vadim

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote:

> And honestly, I don't think a substantial percentage of end-networks
> will renumber if there are not substantial incentives.

This is true. One incentive could be peer pressure created by industry
magazines publishing how-to articles with tools being readily available
and the stigma of toxic waste dumps attached to those who don't renumber.

Of course, use of RFC1918 addresses like 10/8 coupled with proxy
firewalling solves the renumbering problem quite handily but ISP's who
are trying to justify /16 allocations would be loathe to recommend
use of RFC1918 to their customers. Negative incentives, eh?

> The scenario that was previously described by Michael Dillon, I believe,
> was one in which a singularly-homed [to provider 'a'] end-network [x]
> moved to another provider [provider 'b'] and wanted to take their
> provider [a] allocated address(es) with them. This is a case where, if
> a larger aggregate is being announced by [a], then a specific component
> announced from the [a] CIDR block would be announced by [b].

One problem ISP's run into is that if they allocate addresses to customer
networks and then move to another provider they either need to keep their
IP allocation or force their customers to renumber. Many customers may
choose to switch ISP's or other nasty things, therefore the ISP would
like a way to keep the allocation. I'm not sure my idea was terribly
great, the real solution is probably to keep the old T1 for the old
customers and buy a new T1 for expansion with the new NSP and a new set
of addresses. It's not neccessary to run BGP4 in order to have two T1's
from two providers with two different CIDR blocks.

Has anyone ever proposed this as a solution to an ISP?

> This just happens to be a Catch-22 with multihomed end-networks.

It really is about time that some of the larger ISP's started following
the lead of folks like netaxs.com and become aggregate providers for
local ISP's in their cities. This way the aggregator can be doubly and
triply homed and deal with all the BGP4 nastiness. The ISP's gain the
benefit of that multihoming to their city and in addition can get some of
the redundancy-in-case-of-failure by buying a T1 and frame relay, or a T1
and ISDN dialup to their aggregate provider.

Every ISP wants to have a backup connection and right now most assume
that multi-homing is the only way to achieve this.

I believe that a middle-tier between the ISP and the NSP is the best way
to achieve this and could very well decrease global routing table size.

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

sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.

> 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.

At the SD NANOG, all of us NAP operators said we would look into a format
for making raw figures available. This would give us at least some starting
point to start making at least a US-based over-all traffic growth metric.

I'm less concerned with inter-backbone traffic...that will always be
signifigant, but with providers coming up at different exchanges, and
adjustment of routing policy, traffic get's sloshed from one exchange to
another, and then pulled away when private exchanges get added, etc.

If the other NAP operators are out there listening, can you send me some
email so we can get organized?

Dave

--
Dave Siegel Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking
(520)623-9663 Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.

I would recommend that the PIER group work with providers on this; PIER
would be a great organization to take the huge ACTIVE table of /24's and
mail the listed contacts for the network to offer tools, easier renumbering
methods, etc., to minimize impact to the network's customers. Once
all the mails are sent out and a semi-generous grace period is set, PIER
should recommend a date providers should stop listening to /24 announcements.

Granted, ISP's wouldn't have to follow this recommendation and could cut
off such announcements at any given time; they follow the risk of more
impact to their customers as Paul mentions above.

I would ALSO recommend to ISP's who wish to implement this that they not
be hypocritical. We've heard the ISP stories where particular ISPs want
to filter out routes for larger prefixes, but are GLAD to advertise a /23
if it gains that particular ISP money.

/cah

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.

You don't risk collusion lawsuits by announcing that you are considering
this action and strongly urging people to look at RFC1918 and renumbering.
You could probably even get away with something like:

"NANOG agrees that the only way to avert the pending
collapse of the Internet (see From The Ether, Infoworld, Apr 1 1996)
is to stop routing the old Class C networks to reduce
global routing table sizes. To this end NANOG is strongly
urging organizations using Class C addresses to either switch
to using RFC1918 private network addresses or to renumber
their Class C address into a provider aggregate. By doing this
you will maintain uninterrupted global connectivity. Action
to cease carrying the old Class C addresses is contemplated
to begin Sept 1st 1996. If you are unsure whether you Class C
addresses are part of a provider's CIDR aggregate we suggest that
you contact your provider immediately.

Before the explosive growth of the Internet occurred 3 years ago
many people felt that Internet network addresses could be
assigned permanently and stay with an organization even if it moved
from one provider to another. Unfortunately the sheer size of the
Internet is now outpacing the capabilities of state-of-the-art
routing equipment. NANOG has for some time been encouraging
new network number allocations to be made out of topologically
based aggregates so that the global routing tables need only
maintain a single route pointing towards a local provider. This
has helped slow down routing table growth, but it is not enough.

The Internet already has periodic outages caused by the size of the
global routing tables and more drastic action needs to be taken.
NANOG is recommending that major network providers limit the
size of the routes they carry. This means that they would no
longer carry routes to the smaller networks which currently take
up 70% of the global routing table space.

Information on how to plan for and accomplish renumbering of
your network is available at http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/
You may prefer to renumber using private network addresses
http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1918.txt
in order to avoid renumbering in the future."

Did I say anything that indicates collusion?

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 Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.

I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this
question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else
to ask it...

As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24
to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from
InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next
few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure.

Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools
in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for
internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute
that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this
solution?

Thanks in advance, and apologies for the 'dumb' traffic.

-Sven Nielsen

Dalvenjah FoxFire, the Teddy Dragon (also known as Sven Nielsen to some :)
dalvenjah@dal.net --- dalvenjah on IRC
Remember: if you're not on DALnet, you're on the wrong IRC server!!
(/serv irc.dal.net 7000 or telnet telnet.dal.net to try it out)
--
____ _ _ _ "I had the dagger in my hand, and he has
| _ \ __ _| |_ _____ _ _ (_)__ _| |_the indecency to start dying on his own!"
| |_) / _` | \ V / -_) ' \ | / _` | ' \ --Ambassador G'kar, Babylon 5
|____/\__,_|_|\_/\___|_||_|/ \__,_|_||_| FoxFire -- dalvenjah@dal.net -- (SN90)
|__/

> On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> > sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
> > the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
> > destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
> > the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
> > stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
> > be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
> > aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
> > lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.

If that happens, at least some businesspeople who read articles or the 'net
will simply start demanding /23s and will shop around until they find someone
willing to give one to them, even if they have 2 hosts.

> I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this
> question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else
> to ask it...
>
> As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24
> to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from
> InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next
> few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure.

Unless they have a real plan & need to get about 128 buildings full of
100 machines/building online, it's a lost cause. You already need a
/18 to be heard from Sprint in >= 207/8. Unless you're a customer of
Sprint.

But Sprint/Sean's position is that other providers should do the same
thing (filter on routes in new address space to preserve status quo but
stomp on the growth of the announcement of routes which are "not worth"
the expense vs. reachability tradeoff of being inserted in every router
with "full routes").

> -Sven Nielsen

Avi

Well, some folks at ISI have already been involved in a project similar
to this, contacting folks who have been allocated bits-n-pieces of *the*
TWD, 192/8. Suzanne Woolf gave a presentation at LA/IETF on the progress
of 192/8 address reclamation, complete with precentages of 192/8 users
who were willing to give up the allocation, users who were unwilling to
give up the allocation, and so forth. I thought that she was going to
put this data up on the web at ISI, but I couldn't find it this morning
when I looked there.

In any event, I'm not sure this is a valid project for PIER. Its really
within our scope of work or within our charter.

- paul


At 12:38 AM 4/4/96 -0800, Craig A. Huegen wrote:

>
>I would recommend that the PIER group work with providers on this; PIER
>would be a great organization to take the huge ACTIVE table of /24's and
>mail the listed contacts for the network to offer tools, easier renumbering
>methods, etc., to minimize impact to the network's customers. Once
>all the mails are sent out and a semi-generous grace period is set, PIER
>should recommend a date providers should stop listening to /24 announcements.
>

Originally posted to the NANOG list. Relevant to PIER as a real-world
example of what we have to solve.

>On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:>
>> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
>> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
>> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
>> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
>> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
>> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
>> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
>> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.
>

Dalvenjah FoxFire <dalvenja@ict.org> replied,

>I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this
>question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else
>to ask it...

You have legitimate concerns; I'm not sure that you'll like the answers.
>
>As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24
>to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from
>InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next
>few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure.

IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay
routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good
way to guarantee routable prefixes.

What is reasonable, while you are renumbering, to put in the hooks that
make subsequent renumbering much less painful. PIER is ... ahem ...
addressing these.

Please share your major problems in renumbering with PIER.

IMHO, the most important parts are making your end stations easier to
renumber, using DHCP (or its predecessors) for end station IP addresses and
DNS for server references. Obviously, there are other issues, but these
are key.

I can send you the draft router renumbering guide that has been posted to
PIER but is not yet on the server.
>
>Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools
>in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for
>internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute
>that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this
>solution?
>

It certainly would be much cleaner, but I still don't think you are going
to be able to guarantee you won't renumber in the moderate term. Growth
curves are too steep.

> It really is about time that some of the larger ISP's started following
> the lead of folks like netaxs.com and become aggregate providers for
> local ISP's in their cities. This way the aggregator can be doubly and
> triply homed and deal with all the BGP4 nastiness. The ISP's gain the
> benefit of that multihoming to their city and in addition can get some of
> the redundancy-in-case-of-failure by buying a T1 and frame relay, or a T1
> and ISDN dialup to their aggregate provider.

Not just netaxs.com...
Also tlg.net in CA
And cais.net in Baltimore/The DC area
And new-york.net in the NY/Jersey area

Of course, all of us are selling these connections, so it's not strictly
that we're waking up in the morning saying "We need to be aggregate providers
for all of the local ISPs to preserve global routing table space". I think
the motivation is more to:

a) Enhance reachability to local content/customers by slapping them on
our network;
b) Make it easier (as you say) for new/existing ISPs to get most of
the advantages of being multiply-connected to the 'net without
paying the cost or having to buy or earn the clues;
c) Support the infrastructures we'd like to/need to have; and
d) Yes, even make some money.

> Every ISP wants to have a backup connection and right now most assume
> that multi-homing is the only way to achieve this.

When someone connects into us with a dedicated line we encourage them to
get a 56k or T1 frame mapped into us for use strictly as a backup - and
preferably from another LEC.

> I believe that a middle-tier between the ISP and the NSP is the best way
> to achieve this and could very well decrease global routing table size.
>
> Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
> Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
> http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

Avi

Howard states:

[ ... ]

> IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay
> routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good
> way to guarantee routable prefixes.
>

Yes, there is a good way to GUARANTEE routable prefixes. Intermediate
system address translation which maps to "virtual renumbering"....

The answer my friend.... is blowing in the wind... in the technical
implementation, not "human attitude re-engineering".....

The attitude, .... "bluntly, there's no good way for man to fly...."
is not unique to written history.... it is alive and well in the
Internet today ;-)

Best Regards,

Tim

At 11:04 AM 4/4/96, Tim Bass (PIER) wrote:
>Howard states:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay
>> routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good
>> way to guarantee routable prefixes.
>
>Yes, there is a good way to GUARANTEE routable prefixes. Intermediate
>system address translation which maps to "virtual renumbering"....

In the specific case, this might take a new translator box that is not
budgeted. Yes, I know renumbering costs staff time, but many organizations
find it much easier to justify staff time than capital expenses.

There's already a commitment to renumber here. Tim, my major point was
that the enterprise here should, when renumbering, install infrastructure
that makes possible future renumbering easier. Are you opposed to this?
DHCP and such exist today, but I'm not sure I would say fully functional
and tested address translators do. They may very well be in the near term.

I'll agree that address translation will work in some, but not all
situations. The problems are less in pure routing than in network
management, DNS (especially reverse mapping), etc.
>
>The answer my friend.... is blowing in the wind... in the technical
>implementation, not "human attitude re-engineering".....

I don't think we are in philosophical disagreement, but what the technical
implementation should or can be.
>
>The attitude, .... "bluntly, there's no good way for man to fly...."
>is not unique to written history.... it is alive and well in the
>Internet today ;-)

There is no good way for man to fly.
There is an excellent way for man to be flown in airplanes.
There isn't always a need to fly. Requirements analysis can fix things at
the end system, with application-dependent solutions ranging from
videoconferencing to ICBMs.

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote:

Anybody want to recommend a list (or create one) to discuss this kind of
thing on? I'll join it, promote it and leave NANOG alone for a while.

> As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24
> to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from
> InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next
> few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure.

No. Read RFC1918 and use those addresses in conjunction with a proxy
firewall. You'll neve need to renumber again and you gain the added
benefit that nobody can contact the outside world without going through
your proxy which can block the kiddies from http://www.penthouse.com et al.

> Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools
> in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for
> internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute
> that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this
> solution?

Doesn't matter if you use a *COORDINATED* scheme for allocating RFC1918
addresses. As long each school in the county uses different blocks from
10/8 there will be no problems going it alone today and merging at some
future date.

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

Howard,

Quite frankly, I am not opposed to *anything* very much, EXCEPT
for blanket statements that clearly state that the *only*
solution is end-user-renumbering.

NAT boxes, are not 'my-cup-o'-tea' as well, but it does offer a
new commercial market for hardware vendors, and does help
bandaid some problem areas.

The *better* approach, IMO, is router configuration parameters
in that do the translation:

ip translation .... .....
^Z
write mem
write net

.....

No matter and irregardless of the exact implementation, there
are numerous opportunites for aggregating IP routes in
routers.... hopefully it will not become a marketing scheme
to sell everyone NATs ..... and hence the mantra....

CIDR, renumber, NAT or DIE..... (please, not again...!!)

It is not rocket science to do address translation in YFRM
routers..... but there is not a lot of money in it.

The hooks to make it work in the Big I is not impossible
as well.......

My only point is.... kindly stated..... there are more ways than
one, in the Southern venacular, to 'skin a cat'....

See ya'll later :-)

Tim

On Wednesday, April 03, 1996 8:17 PM, Dalvenjah FoxFire[SMTP:dalvenja@ict.org] wrote:
@On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:
@
@> sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
@> the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
@> destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
@> the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
@> stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
@> be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
@> aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
@> lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.
@
@I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this
@question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else
@to ask it...
@

Most countries are still free...ask what you like...where you like...
sometimes you might get replies...which, you may like or not like...

@As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24
@to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from
@InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next
@few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure.
@

In my opinion, this notion of the IPv4 address space being exhausted is
bogus. There is a lot of life left in IPv4. Social engineering is more of a factor
in IP address allocations than technical or resource limits. Too much power
is in the hands of too few people.

You should ask for at least a /16. If a cable TV company with no subscribers
can get most of a /8, I would think a school district would have some clout.
(This of course assumes that you have real students and not virtual students :-)

The way that you guarantee routability is to get the large "carriers" and ISPs
involved in your community activities. Make sure the mayor of your community
directly contacts the executives of these commercial companies that are trying to
develop market share in your area. Make sure that those executives understand
that you want to remain routable and make sure that they send representatives
to help with the network engineering plans, etc. Take pictures and invite the press.

Make sure that you publicize which companies provided the school district(s)
(and libraries) with the support they need at this critical planning stage. Turn
this into a positive PR opportunity and make sure that plenty of politicians
are involved. (BTW, this is an election year)

As for long-term routability...
Do you really think large carriers and ISPs are going to cut off your school district
if they realize that part of their current and future business comes from the
parents of the children in your schools...?

@Granted the best solution would be go to our provider (all the schools
@in Santa Clara County, CA go through the county office of education for
@internet access) and have them get an /18 or something and distribute
@that, but they don't seem to want that. Should I push them for this
@solution?
@

I would not fiddle with anything less than a /16...you might consider reclaiming
an unused /16 from one of the belly-up companies in your area...maybe one
of the companies in your area that is sitting on a /8 with little usage would be
willing to make some headlines about helping the school district(s)...

Maybe you should have some of the ISPs and carriers help you develop a
"Total Community" Internet Plan (TCIP)...again, make a positive PR experience
out of the process...get as many people and students involved as possible...
use the Web as a forum...let people know that you are serious about the long-term
plans for not only the school district(s) but the community.

If you find that ISPs are too busy for this sort of thing, because they are too busy
raking in cash...then that might be some clue about how long they intend to stick
around once they have enough dollars to retire...

@Thanks in advance, and apologies for the 'dumb' traffic.
@
@-Sven Nielsen
@
@ Dalvenjah FoxFire, the Teddy Dragon (also known as Sven Nielsen to some :)


Also...get your local PBS people involved...who knows, if you work hard...you may get
national coverage...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hi all -

Since we are holding the next NANOG in Washington DC, I thought it might be
interesting to see if CSPAN was interested in broadcasting it (a nice
alternative/addition to the Mbone I think.) I contacted the CSPAN folks and
they tell me that they usually don't decide what event to cover until the
day before or so, but if we wanted to make this meeting open to the public
(it is) and let them know the agenda, then they can consider it. Does this
sound ok?

Bill

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
William Norton <wbn@merit.edu> (313) 936-2656
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Also...if you are not able to get a /16...contact the U.S Congressional Internet Caucus...

http://www.house.gov/white/internet_caucus/netcauc.html

also check out The Citizen's Guide to the Net...

http://www.vtw.org/citguide/citguide.html

forget about the traditional ways of getting resources from the chosen few....
...take it to the people...they will give you the resources you need...


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

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Thursday, April 04, 1996 5:04 AM, Tim Bass (PIER)[SMTP:pier@dune.silkroad.com] wrote:
@Howard states:
@
@[ ... ]
@
@> IMHO, I don't think you can guarantee that almost anything will stay
@> routable, certainly anything less than an /18. Bluntly, there's no good
@> way to guarantee routable prefixes.
@>
@

See #5 below...

@Yes, there is a good way to GUARANTEE routable prefixes. Intermediate
@system address translation which maps to "virtual renumbering"....
@

See #6a below...

@The answer my friend.... is blowing in the wind... in the technical
@implementation, not "human attitude re-engineering".....
@

See #12 below...

@The attitude, .... "bluntly, there's no good way for man to fly...."
@is not unique to written history.... it is alive and well in the
@Internet today ;-)
@

See #3 below...

@Best Regards,
@
@Tim
@
@@@@@@@@ From RFC 1925, April 1996 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Network Working Group R. Callon, Editor

The Twelve Networking Truths

(1) It Has To Work.

(2) No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
you can't increase the speed of light.
(2a) (corollary). No matter how hard you try, you can't make a
baby in much less than 9 months. Trying to speed this up
*might* make it slower, but it won't make it happen any
quicker.

(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead.

(4) Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational
network.

(5) It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems
into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases
this is a bad idea.

(6) It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
the problem to a different part of the overall network
architecture) than it is to solve it.
(6a) (corollary). It is always possible to add another level of
indirection.

(7) It is always something
(7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't
have all three).

(8) It is more complicated than you think.

(9) For all resources, whatever it is, you need more.
(9a) (corollary) Every networking problem always takes longer to
solve than it seems like it should.

(10) One size never fits all.

(11) Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.
(11a) (corollary). See rule 6a.

(12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there
is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

They save the best for last...in my opinion, #12 is where the answer is...
we have to make things simpler and focus new technical solutions
on solving the real problems...unfortunately #8 above comes into play...
as well as the all of the other 12 Networking Truths...


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

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:

> You should ask for at least a /16. If a cable TV company with no subscribers
> can get most of a /8, I would think a school district would have some clout.
> (This of course assumes that you have real students and not virtual students :-)

now, correct me if I am wrong, But, I heard that they are or have
asked for a /6... That is a little more, well ok, a lot more than a /8.
Plus could they not do fine using the 10.0.0.0?? and get a bunch of NAT
boxes?

Or as Bullwinkle said:

"No doubt about it, I gotta get another hat!"


For my money, the solution is IPv6 with 8+8 addresses, so the
routing goop can be changed without impacting the transport
machinery. this will allow essentially transparent "renumbering"
if done right.

And rule (13):

"Often the easiest way to resolve a problem is to simply
agree not to have it."

-mo

In message <9604041959.AA10553@butler.ncube.com>, Vadim Antonov writes:
> Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >Unless they have a real plan & need to get about 128 buildings full of
> >100 machines/building online, it's a lost cause. You already need a
> >/18 to be heard from Sprint in >= 207/8. Unless you're a customer of
> >Sprint.
>
> And if you're a customer of Sprint you'll get aggregated in something
> like /14.

Not if you are a customer looking for portable address space.

> --vadim

Number of prefixes covered by 205/8 to 208/8 with length >18
advertised to AS1673 (preferred route only - I think this will come
down to AS path length):

number AS Number > 19: Number > 20:
1 293
2 2685 1 293 1 293
3 3407 2 2685 2 2685
15 1740 14 1740 14 1740
23 1324 23 1324 23 1324
25 174 25 174 25 174
27 2551 27 2551 27 2551
64 1 64 1 60 1
109 1665 109 1665 107 1665
458 701 432 701 406 701
716 690 686 690 676 690
950 1239 763 3561 720 3561
1095 3561 926 1239 897 1239

Look how comes out announcing the most long prefixes in the TWD. At
least the other providers that announce them accept them from their
peers. There were 3795 prefixes covered by 205/8 to 208/8 and
growing, mostly small very difficult or impossible to further
aggregate prefixes.

Curtis

ps- Number of TWD prefixes with length <= 18 by border AS:

1 1664
1 1665
1 3407
2 1324
4 174
4 1740
6 2551
10 1
28 701
54 690
78 1239
118 3561

Gordon, I don't have any thoughts to share re: the posting or non-posting
of traffic stats. I just wanted to correct the point regarding the
termination of the NSFnet backbone service.
Thanks,
Rick Boivie

>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.
>
>
>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.
>>

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:

> Not just netaxs.com...
> Also tlg.net in CA
> And cais.net in Baltimore/The DC area
> And new-york.net in the NY/Jersey area

Add ixa.net in the Seattle, Wa area, and rain.net in the Portland, OR
area. I'm sure there are others in both cities selling resellable
connections, but these are the ones I know for sure.

Christopher E Stefan http://www.ironhorse.com/~flatline
System Administrator Home: (206) 706-0945
Ironhorse Software, Inc. Work: (206) 783-6636
flatline@ironhorse.com finger for PGP key