From owner-pagan Mon Aug 11 12:01:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA15193 for pagan-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:01:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA15186 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:01:46 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 9449 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 02:53:14 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 02:53:14 -0000 Message-ID: <33EE80CC.6DA21C96@tjt.or.id> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:02:36 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pagan@apnic.net Subject: RFC-2050 im Muenchen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Meine Dammen und Herren! Warum ist die Banane krumm ? Bitte send *FOLLOW-UP* information auf RFC-2050 ueber IRE ueber PAGAN or oder Ueber Alles! Danke Schoen und Gesundheit fuer ISOC, tschuess; -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW] From owner-pagan Mon Aug 11 21:14:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA17578 for pagan-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:14:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA17573 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:14:55 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 13789 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 12:06:20 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 12:06:20 -0000 Message-ID: <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:15:37 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John LeRoy Crain CC: pagan@apnic.net Subject: Re: RFC-2050 im Muenchen References: <33EE80CC.6DA21C96@tjt.or.id> <9708110733.AA07801@ncc.ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk John LeRoy Crain wrote: > I know it's about rfc2050 and I know it's in Munich. > Can you translate this into English? > If there is something concerning IRE/Pagan happening here > at the Sheraton I would be interested. Basically, it is just an "Achtung-Achtung fuer Fuehrers!" to not forget the IESG Note in RFC-2050: "By approving this document as a Best Current Practice,the IESG asserts its belief that this policy described herein is an accurate representation of the current practice of the IP address registries with respect to address assignment. This does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of this policy by the IESG. The IESG will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997 taking into consideration the results of the discussions that will be take place in the IRE Working Group between now and then." Especially regarding what is "NOW" and what is "THEN" tararengkyu, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW] From owner-pagan Tue Aug 12 11:02:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id LAA24116 for pagan-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:02:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from verdi.jlc.net (root@verdi.jlc.net [199.201.159.1]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA24111 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:02:02 +0900 (JST) Received: (from john@localhost) by verdi.jlc.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) id WAA13701; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970811220429.05750@verdi.jlc.net> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:04:29 -0400 From: John Leslie To: pagan@apnic.net Subject: Re: RFC-2050 im Muenchen References: <33EE80CC.6DA21C96@tjt.or.id> <9708110733.AA07801@ncc.ripe.net> <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.76 In-Reply-To: <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id>; from Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim on Mon, Aug 11, 1997 at 08:15:37PM +0800 Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Mon, Aug 11, 1997 at 08:15:37PM +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: > > The IESG will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997 > taking into consideration the results of the discussions that will be > take place in the IRE Working Group between now and then." (So far as I know, this remains the successor to the IRE mailing-list.) I'd like to start with the fundamentals: (quoting RFC-2050) ] Internet address space is distributed according to the following ] three goals: ] ] 1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address ] space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet ] Service Providers operating networks using this address space. ] Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the ] Internet address space. ] ] 2) Routability: Distribution of globally unique Internet addresses ] in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability of ] the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure proper ] operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed that ] routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation or ] assignment of IPv4 addresses. ] ] 3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address ] space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure ] uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting ] at all levels. ] ] It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that the ] above goals be pursued. However it should be noted that ] "Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals. All ] the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of ] individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis ] and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an ] appropriate compromise. Do these still represent the goals we should be seeking? For example, what about: - stability of IP addresses - avoiding the expense of renumbering - encouraging multi-homing among ISPs and larger corporations - geographical aggregation (metropolitan exchange points) - allowing for more than one year of growth -- John Leslie From owner-pagan Tue Aug 12 12:00:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA24566 for pagan-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:00:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from liveoak.priori.net (qmailr@liveoak.priori.net [208.202.191.239]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA24561 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:00:10 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 31815 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 03:02:30 -0000 Received: from mg134-107.ricochet.net (HELO foo.priori.net) (204.179.134.107) by liveoak.priori.net with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 03:02:30 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970811200120.0368deb0@priori.net> X-Sender: justin@priori.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:01:20 -0700 To: John Leslie , pagan@apnic.net From: "Justin W. Newton" Subject: Re: RFC-2050 im Muenchen In-Reply-To: <19970811220429.05750@verdi.jlc.net> References: <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id> <33EE80CC.6DA21C96@tjt.or.id> <9708110733.AA07801@ncc.ripe.net> <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 10:04 PM 8/11/97 -0400, John Leslie wrote: >On Mon, Aug 11, 1997 at 08:15:37PM +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: >> >> The IESG will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997 >> taking into consideration the results of the discussions that will be >> take place in the IRE Working Group between now and then." > > (So far as I know, this remains the successor to the IRE mailing-list.) > > I'd like to start with the fundamentals: (quoting RFC-2050) > >] Internet address space is distributed according to the following >] three goals: >] >] 1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address >] space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet >] Service Providers operating networks using this address space. >] Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the >] Internet address space. >] >] 2) Routability: Distribution of globally unique Internet addresses >] in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability of >] the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure proper >] operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed that >] routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation or >] assignment of IPv4 addresses. >] >] 3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address >] space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure >] uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting >] at all levels. >] >] It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that the >] above goals be pursued. However it should be noted that >] "Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals. All >] the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of >] individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis >] and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an >] appropriate compromise. > > Do these still represent the goals we should be seeking? > > For example, what about: > >- stability of IP addresses >- avoiding the expense of renumbering >- encouraging multi-homing among ISPs and larger corporations >- geographical aggregation (metropolitan exchange points) >- allowing for more than one year of growth > >-- >John Leslie I think that there are some other goals that need to be added as well, such as: Minimizing the number of total announcements necessary in the global routing table (whatever that is). ************************************************************** Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Legislative and Policy Director, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ************************************************************** From owner-pagan Tue Aug 12 12:32:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA24832 for pagan-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:32:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA24827 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:32:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA25743; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:20:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BCA6A6.47695A80@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:31:15 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCA6A6.47695A80@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'John Leslie'" , "pagan@apnic.net" Subject: RE: RFC-2050 im Muenchen Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:31:13 -0500 Encoding: 38 TEXT Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Monday, August 11, 1997 9:04 PM, John Leslie[SMTP:john@jlc.net] wrote: @ On Mon, Aug 11, 1997 at 08:15:37PM +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: @ > @ @ Do these still represent the goals we should be seeking? @ @ For example, what about: @ @ - stability of IP addresses @ - avoiding the expense of renumbering @ - encouraging multi-homing among ISPs and larger corporations @ - geographical aggregation (metropolitan exchange points) @ - allowing for more than one year of growth @ You might also add... -encouraging allocations which can not be fragmented and which must be returned as a block in the event of a business failure. -encouraging recycling and reclamation efforts by rewarding applicants for identifying blocks which can be aggregated and allocated with the new restrictions which will help to bring order to the chaos of the IPv4 address space which is going to be around a long time. -encouraging policies which take into account evolution to other address spaces, such as the IPv8 address space, and the evolution to more circuit switched technology and advanced routing technology to help reduce the "routing problem" which is far more significant than the address space exhaustion problem. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-pagan Tue Aug 12 12:50:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA25009 for pagan-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:50:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [199.166.24.1]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA25004 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:50:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from mbv1-ipl-ri33.kos.net(really [206.186.41.73]) by vrx.net via sendmail with smtp id for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:52:37 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.92 1997-Feb-9 #2 built 1997-Apr-8) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:52:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: richard@vrx.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: John Leslie From: "Richard J. Sexton" Subject: Re: RFC-2050 im Muenchen Cc: pagan@apnic.net, postel@isi.edu, dmitchel@nsf.gov, brian@reid.org Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk >] 3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address >] space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure >] uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting >] at all levels. >] >] It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that the >] above goals be pursued. However it should be noted that >] "Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals. All >] the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of >] individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis >] and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an >] appropriate compromise. > > Do these still represent the goals we should be seeking? > > For example, what about: > >- stability of IP addresses >- avoiding the expense of renumbering >- encouraging multi-homing among ISPs and larger corporations >- geographical aggregation (metropolitan exchange points) >- allowing for more than one year of growth I'd like to see something like ip-registry.int where one can quickly "get to" the various ip registries. As we get more registries our ability to remember things like "well, let's see, in Canada it's either U of T, InterNIC or ARIN, in Europe it's, uhh what was it, oh yeah, RIPE, and then there's japnip, not thats not right, umm, it's close thouh, um, lesse, uh". Giving registries random names wasn't the brightest idea and the above scheme may add a bit of cohesion and clarification to an area that is both becoming more complex and must be used by increasingly less technical poeple. Jon, is that ok with you as an .int name? From owner-pagan Tue Aug 12 13:38:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA25445 for pagan-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:38:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail.texoma.net (root@mail.texoma.net [205.229.106.3]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA25440 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:38:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from ceo-w95 (ppp116-074.texoma.net [206.65.116.74]) by mail.texoma.net (8.8.6/CNET_TOP_500) with SMTP id XAA21109 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:40:56 -0500 (CDT) Posted-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:40:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970811234043.011db100@texoma.net> X-Sender: ldv2@texoma.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:40:43 -0500 To: pagan@apnic.net From: Larry Vaden Subject: Re: RFC-2050 im Muenchen In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970811200120.0368deb0@priori.net> References: <19970811220429.05750@verdi.jlc.net> <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id> <33EE80CC.6DA21C96@tjt.or.id> <9708110733.AA07801@ncc.ripe.net> <33EF0269.561A4278@tjt.or.id> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 08:01 PM 8/11/97 -0700, Justin W. Newton wrote: > >I think that there are some other goals that need to be added as well, such >as: > >Minimizing the number of total announcements necessary in the global >routing table (whatever that is). Is the following an indication that sometimes the CIDR blocks handed out are too small? Largest number of cidr routes: 510 announced by AS3561 From owner-pagan Tue Aug 12 16:39:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA26718 for pagan-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:39:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (mail3.geocities.com [204.7.246.133]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA26713 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:39:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from yapcs-r2 (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA01284 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33F01363.246C6AB0@geocities.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:40:19 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MILIS PAGAN Subject: Some technical question in IPv* Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thank you very much in advantage, if I someone would like to enlighten me on these following technical aspects. It may not be applicable to IPv4, IPv6, IPv8; however, it maybe for the g eneration after. 1. What is the current average packet size in the NET ? What is the current percentage of ACK packets in the NET ? Is 128 bit an optimum IP address size ? Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? what RFC ? 2. Why do we mix the issue of "uniqness" and "routable" ? What will be the problem is we separate an address in two: "a unique ID" and "a routable ID" ? Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? what RFC ? 3. Why everything has to be "absolute" ? Eg. IPv4=32 bits; IPv6=128 bits. What is the problem to have variable segments with fixed size for addresses ? Eg. V8L1 = 0XXX XXXX ( 8 bits) V8L2 = 1XXX XXXX 0XXX XXXX (16 bits) V8L3 = 1XXX XXXX 1XXX XXXX 0XXX XXXX (24 bits) .................................... V16L1= 0YYY YYYY YYYY YYYY (16 bits) V16L2= 1YYY YYYY YYYY YYYY 0YYY YYYY YYYY YYYY (32 bits) Yes, we may need beacons, however even they do not need to be absolute. The consequence is that everything will be relative to each other. Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? 4. Why is the root TLD-"." absolute ? What is the problem to have Super-Root, Super-Duper-Roots, etc? If two parties can not agree to be in a same root ".", let them be in separated roots. As long we are in the same root, we can use the "short" address form. Otherwise, we have to add the super-domain, etc. (like the phone numbering system). 5. Last month, John Leslie wrote: > Really, we've been down this road before: "Well, it's not > IP space we're running out of right now, it's _routable_ IP > space." "What's limiting routable IP space?" "Well, really, > it's routing table space." "Isn't memory cheap enough?" > "Well, it's really not table space so much as it's route > flap." By then somebody changes the subject... Can someone tell me the frequency of route flapping ? What causes routing flap ? Congestion ? 6. What is the advantage of an "END to END" flow control protocol like TCP ? 7. If we can solve those problems, we may not need humanoid registries in future. Live may be as easy as it used to be ?! cheers, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.. all good children go to heaven [LennonMcCartney]- From owner-pagan Wed Aug 13 18:25:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA06665 for pagan-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:25:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from farley.cisco.com ([204.179.2.54] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA06660 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:24:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from kiwi.cisco.com (kiwi [199.35.98.98]) by farley.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id CAA26142; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com by kiwi.cisco.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/StrataCom-GCA-SunClient-LOCAL-931101) id AA17887; Wed, 13 Aug 97 02:23:03 PDT Received: by taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCA80D.82E4B880@taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:22:44 +0800 Message-Id: <01BCA80D.82E4B880@taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com> From: Barry Raveendran Greene To: "'MILIS PAGAN'" , "'Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim'" Subject: Re: Some technical question in IPv* Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:27:33 +0800 Encoding: 76 TEXT Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Sounds like questions from the IPNG working group days. Might find some good data and background material from the old IPNG working Group archives. Barry Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: >Thank you very much in advantage, if I someone would like to >enlighten me on these following technical aspects. It may not >be applicable to IPv4, IPv6, IPv8; however, it maybe for the g >eneration after. > >1. What is the current average packet size in the NET ? > What is the current percentage of ACK packets in the NET ? > Is 128 bit an optimum IP address size ? > Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? what RFC ? > >2. Why do we mix the issue of "uniqness" and "routable" ? > What will be the problem is we separate an address in two: > "a unique ID" and "a routable ID" ? > Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? what RFC ? > >3. Why everything has to be "absolute" ? Eg. IPv4=32 bits; > IPv6=128 bits. What is the problem to have variable > segments with fixed size for addresses ? > Eg. V8L1 = 0XXX XXXX ( 8 bits) > V8L2 = 1XXX XXXX 0XXX XXXX (16 bits) > V8L3 = 1XXX XXXX 1XXX XXXX 0XXX XXXX (24 bits) > .................................... > V16L1= 0YYY YYYY YYYY YYYY (16 bits) > V16L2= 1YYY YYYY YYYY YYYY 0YYY YYYY YYYY YYYY (32 bits) > Yes, we may need beacons, however even they do not need to be > absolute. The consequence is that everything will be relative > to each other. Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? > >4. Why is the root TLD-"." absolute ? What is the problem to have > Super-Root, Super-Duper-Roots, etc? If two parties can not > agree to be in a same root ".", let them be in separated roots. > As long we are in the same root, we can use the "short" address > form. Otherwise, we have to add the super-domain, etc. (like > the phone numbering system). > >5. Last month, John Leslie wrote: > >> Really, we've been down this road before: "Well, it's not >> IP space we're running out of right now, it's _routable_ IP >> space." "What's limiting routable IP space?" "Well, really, >> it's routing table space." "Isn't memory cheap enough?" >> "Well, it's really not table space so much as it's route >> flap." By then somebody changes the subject... > >Can someone tell me the frequency of route flapping ? >What causes routing flap ? Congestion ? > >6. What is the advantage of an "END to END" flow control > protocol like TCP ? > >7. If we can solve those problems, we may not need humanoid > registries in future. Live may be as easy as it used to be ?! > >cheers, > >-- >Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 >- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.. all good children go to heaven [LennonMcCartney]- > -- -- -- Barry Raveendran Greene | || || | Senior Consultant | || || | Corporate Consulting Engineering | |||| |||| | tel: +65 738-5535 ext 235 | ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. | e-mail: bgreene@cisco.com | c i s c o S y s t e m s | From owner-pagan Wed Aug 13 23:07:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA08879 for pagan-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:07:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (mail3.geocities.com [204.7.246.133]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA08874 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:06:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from yapcs-r2 (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA12893; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33F1BFBD.6D1A3E8D@geocities.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:07:57 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Raveendran Greene CC: "'MILIS PAGAN'" Subject: Re: Some technical question in IPv* References: <01BCA80D.82E4B880@taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Barry Raveendran Greene wrote: > Sounds like questions from the IPNG working group days. > Might find some good data and background material from > the old IPNG working Group archives. thank you very much for your information. can you tell me where the IPNG archive is ? basically, i would like to proof (or dis-proof) that: - RCF-2050 is *REALY* the Best Current Practice, therefore it is better to work on new paradigms instead to fix IPv4, IPv6, gTLDs, RFC-1591, and all old paradigms. - moreover, it is worth to totally "Reengineer" the NET: * why everything has to be "absolute" ? * how will the FedeNet (Federation Network) and FESOC (Federation Network Society) look like? * why should the Vulcans renumbering their net ? -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.. all good children go to heaven [LennonMcCartney]- From owner-pagan Thu Aug 14 08:12:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id IAA12835 for pagan-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:12:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from liveoak.priori.net (qmailr@liveoak.priori.net [208.202.191.239]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id IAA12830 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:12:29 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 23575 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 23:14:49 -0000 Received: from bluegum.priori.net (HELO ?10.11.12.33?) (10.11.12.33) by liveoak.priori.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 23:14:49 -0000 X-Sender: michael@liveoak Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01BCA80D.82E4B880@taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:18:30 -0700 To: From: Michael Dillon Subject: Re: Some technical question in IPv* Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk >1. What is the current average packet size in the NET ? > What is the current percentage of ACK packets in the NET ? > Is 128 bit an optimum IP address size ? > Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? what RFC ? People at NLANR have done a certain amount of data collection and analysis that should answer at least the first two questions. In order to answer the second I think you will need to specify more criteria as to what is optimum before being able to get a useful answer. http://www.nlanlr.net is the place to start looking and they do have links to just about every other site with Internet traffic data and analysis results. >2. Why do we mix the issue of "uniqness" and "routable" ? > What will be the problem is we separate an address in two: > "a unique ID" and "a routable ID" ? > Has someone worked on this issue before ? who ? what RFC ? No doubt many people have worked on these issues before however I doubt that any significant amount of that work has ended up in RFC documents. It's far more likely to be found in papers, both private and published or even in unpublished research notes. I think you may find the answer to the second question by looking at the research and discussions regarding IPng that led to the selection of IPv6, and then communicating privately with some of the people involved. >4. Why is the root TLD-"." absolute ? What is the problem to have > Super-Root, Super-Duper-Roots, etc? Because DNS was designed that way and to change this would not only require a redesign but would require every single Internet user and every single Internet server to upgrade their software to match the new design. This is not going to happen unless there is a significant quantifiable benefit to all parties involved. > If two parties can not > agree to be in a same root ".", let them be in separated roots. This is precisely the way it is now. The system depends on most people agreeing to use the same root and the same root nameservers. >Can someone tell me the frequency of route flapping ? >What causes routing flap ? Congestion ? Again, if you can't find info at NLANR then nobody really knows. ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-650-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From owner-pagan Thu Aug 14 08:55:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id IAA13183 for pagan-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:55:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from liveoak.priori.net (qmailr@liveoak.priori.net [208.202.191.239]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id IAA13176 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:55:43 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 24945 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 23:58:04 -0000 Received: from bluegum.priori.net (HELO ?10.11.12.33?) (10.11.12.33) by liveoak.priori.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 23:58:04 -0000 X-Sender: michael@liveoak Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <01BCA80D.82E4B880@taipei-dhcp-171.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:03:07 -0700 To: From: Michael Dillon Subject: Re: Some technical question in IPv* Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk >People at NLANR have done a certain amount of data collection and analysis >that should answer at least the first two questions. In order to answer the >second I think you will need to specify more criteria as to what is optimum >before being able to get a useful answer. http://www.nlanlr.net is the >place to start looking and they do have links to just about every other >site with Internet traffic data and analysis results. Ooops, as you may have guessed, that URL was supposed to be http://www.nlanr.net ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-650-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From owner-pagan Fri Aug 15 23:38:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA01637 for pagan-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:38:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (mail4.geocities.com [204.7.246.134]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA01632 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:38:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from yapcs-r2 (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA03374 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33F46A18.6796C973@geocities.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:39:20 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MILIS PAGAN Subject: where to get old internet drafts ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pagan@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hello: Does anyone know where to get old internat drafts, especially: - draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt - draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-02.txt - draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-03.txt - draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-04.txt - draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt thank you very much in advance. -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 -------- Stupid is as stupid does ..... * Forrest Gump * ----------