From robert at DK.net Mon Jul 8 20:36:12 1996 From: robert at DK.net (Robert Martin-Legene) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:36:12 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: <199606251115.NAA27501@cuori.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Antonio_Blasco Bonito wrote: > I need some advice on the following: > > An italian ISP, which we run its delegated LIR, is planning its > backbone network where there are *A LOT* of point-to-point links (on > leased lines, on channelized lines, on Frame Relay PVCs, etc.). > > I know about two ways of managing the links in terms of IP addresses: > > 1- using a /30 subnet for each link: [...] > 2- using unnumbered interfaces for each link and, on cisco routers, > associating another interface IP address (the loopback interface > is quite useful for this purpose): > in this way addresses are not wasted but certain functionalities > are lost, i.e. SNMP monitoring of each physical interface, etc. > > Are you aware of any other way to deal with this issue so that it > is possible to have IP addresses for each interface without wasting > address space? Hmm... I tried to do the following... it makes a bit sense to me, but my Cisco didn't like it (makes more sense if it rfc1918 address space). I took a quick glance at RFC1812 as well, but it didn't give a solution. interface s0 ip unnumbered e0 ip addr 193.88.45.1 255.255.255.252 secondary What happened though, was that the traffic looped between the two interfaces. What would be the good about this solution was that on a traceroute it would still map back to a host in your domain, but you can still ping/SNMP to the interface. So if someone has a good contact at Cisco, please ask them if they'd consider adding this to the code in the future. :-) -- Robert Martin-Leg?ne (RM59), Network Manager (AS2109) DKnet, Fruebjergvej 3, DK-2100 K?benhavn ?, Denmark, +45 39 17 99 00 From nic at rediris.es Mon Jul 8 22:08:52 1996 From: nic at rediris.es (Network Information Centre. RedIRIS CSIC) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 22:08:52 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199607082008.WAA16226@chico.rediris.es> Estimado/a Sr/a, Su mensaje de fecha: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:36:12 +0200 (MET DST) acerca de: Re: Please help: ptp links addresses ha sido recibido satisfactoriamente en el help-desk del ES-NIC (nic at rediris.es). El numero de mensajes pendientes de procesar en estos momentos es de 312. El suyo sera procesado cuando le llegue su turno, que estimamos sera en 20 dias habiles. Por favor, le rogamos encarecidamente que no vuelva a enviar su mensaje (en ese caso el recibido en primer lugar sera ignorado). Si lo que desea es informacion acerca del procedimiento y formulario para registrar un dominio de DNS de segundo nivel bajo ".es", puede obtener la documentacion necesaria en: ftp://ftp.rediris.es/es-nic/es-nic-dom.txt o bien enviando un mensaje a nic at rediris.es cuyo "subject" sea: get es-nic-dom.txt Si lo que desea son direcciones IP Internet, pongase en contacto con su proveedor de acceso Internet, que es quien se las tiene que suministrar (con fecha 31/1/96 el ES-NIC ha dejado de ejercer las funciones de registro de ultimo recurso para la asignacion de direcciones IP en Espana). Los proveedores, a su vez, han de obtener las direcciones IP necesariamente bien de su proveedor de transito, bien del registro delegado de Internet en Europa (RIPE NCC). Si es para cualquier otro asunto, recibira contestacion cuando su mensaje sea procesado. En caso de tratarse de una solicitud de registro de nombre de dominio bajo "es" le recordamos algunas de las normas basicas: - Solo se puede registrar un dominio de segundo nivel por organizacion, entendiendo como tal una persona juridica (no fisica), es decir, una entidad legalmente establecida en Espana y, por tanto, registrada en algun registro oficial (mercantil, fundaciones, asociaciones, entidades publicas, partidos politicos, etc.) - El dominio propuesto habra necesariamente de corresponderse o ser directa y facilmente asociable al nombre con el que la organizacion aparece registrada en el mencionado registro oficial (preferentemente el nombre completo o un acronimo registrado y habitualmente usado por la organizacion). - En el caso de que la organizacion prefiera utilizar el nombre de una de sus marcas registradas con la que habitualmente se la identifique, en lugar del de la propia organizacion, podra solicitar el registro de un nombre de dominio que se corresponda con dicha marca, siempre que lo acredite mediante el envio a este NIC del certificado correspondiente de la Oficina Espanola de Pantentes y Marcas. - Los unicos caracteres validos para un nombre de dominio son las letras del alfabeto ingles, los numeros y el guion ("-"). - En nigun caso se admitiran solicitudes de registro de nombres de dominio que: a) tengan menos de tres caracteres b) coincidan con algun dominio de DNS de primer nivel (Top Level Domain) c) se compongan exclusivamente de un toponimico d) se compongan exclusivamente de un generico e) coincidan con nombres de protocolos, aplicaciones y terminologia de Internet f) sean contrarios a la Ley o el orden publico, ofensivos o malsonantes g) se compongan exclusivamente de una combinacion de c), d), e) o f) h) se asocien de forma notoria a otra organizacion distinta de la solicitante i) se compongan exclusivamente de nombres o apellidos - Las solicitudes se procesaran por estricto orden de llegada. - Toda solicitud incorrecta, incompleta o que no cumpla las normas sera rechazada. - Cualquier falsedad en los datos consignados en la solicitud podra ser causa de rechazo de la misma o de baja del dominio si el registro ya se hubiera producido. Atentamente, ES-NIC +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | ES-NIC (Delegated Internet Registry for Spain) | | Centro de Comunicaciones CSIC RedIRIS | | Serrano 142 Tel: + 34 1 5855150 | | 28006 Madrid Fax: + 34 1 5855146 | | SPAIN Email: nic at rediris.es | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ From hmaster at forthnet.gr Mon Jul 8 22:17:29 1996 From: hmaster at forthnet.gr (GR HostMaster) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:17:29 GMT Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199607082017.UAA03717@info.forthnet.gr> This is an automatic reply to acknowledge that your message has been received by the Greek Hostmaster (hostmaster at forthnet.gr) This acknowledgement is NOT a confirmation that your request has been processed. Your mail was forwarded to the appropriate people and you will have a response to your request as soon as possible. Kind regards, GR-HOSTMASTER hostmaster at forthnet.gr From alain at NetVision.net.il Tue Jul 9 13:25:01 1996 From: alain at NetVision.net.il (Alain Golan) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:25:01 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Why not use "private" address space, like network 10.0.0.0 You'll have plenty of subnets for internal links ! Regards, ___ ___ __ /__/ / /__/ / /\ / / / /__ / / _/_ / \/ o vox://+972-4-8560600 cel://+972-5-2593886 Alain at NetVision.net fax://+972-4-8550345 http://www.netvision.net.il/php/alain From robert at DK.net Tue Jul 9 16:07:44 1996 From: robert at DK.net (Robert Martin-Legene) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:07:44 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Alain Golan wrote: > Why not use "private" address space, like network 10.0.0.0 > You'll have plenty of subnets for internal links ! Because the address of the router in a traceroute then might be private address space one. I sort of like the idea that you know where in the world you are when you do a traceroute. If the interface has a hidden IP# that you can send packets to, but it still will present itself as (for instance) the ethernet interface, you just give the ethernet interface a "normal" IP# and all looks normal and the router only takes up one IP# (not counting RFC1918 address space). This way you can still ping the interface on 10.0.0.1 . -- Robert Martin-Leg?ne (RM59), Network Manager (AS2109) DKnet, Fruebjergvej 3, DK-2100 K?benhavn ?, Denmark, +45 39 17 99 00 From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jul 11 14:58:04 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 14:58:04 +0200 Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 09 Jul 1996 16:07:44 +0200. References: Message-ID: <199607111258.MAA28111@kantoor.ripe.net> > Robert Martin-Legene writes: > > Because the address of the router in a traceroute then might be private > address space one. I sort of like the idea that you know where in the > world you are when you do a traceroute. While this is nice but there may be a tradeoff here. If the address space for links and router interfaces is used efficiently, this is very nice to have. However some people for convenience or other reasons want to burn a lot of address space inefficiently -/24 subnets for 2 interfaces come to mind. In this case they are welcome to use private address space. One of the prices they pay is the tradcerooute problem; another is that they are not able to address spaceific interfaces directly from the Internet. Some tell us that this is a feature and not a bug ;-). As always there is no answer/soloution that fits everyone. Also note that even for private address space traceroute will return the address correctly, so the diagnostics are useful. There just are no names. If the border gateways with publicly adressed interfaces has a reasonable name such as 'bordergw-xxx.clever.net' 'clever-gw.customer.nl' it is quite clear "where you are" in between. > If the interface has a hidden IP# that you can send packets to, but it > still will present itself as (for instance) the ethernet interface, you > just give the ethernet interface a "normal" IP# and all looks normal and > the router only takes up one IP# (not counting RFC1918 address space) > This way you can still ping the interface on 10.0.0.1 . I am not sure I grok that. Daniel From David.Kessens at ripe.net Thu Jul 11 15:47:35 1996 From: David.Kessens at ripe.net (David.Kessens at ripe.net) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:47:35 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Announcement: new whois server in production+new features Message-ID: <9607111347.AA04807@voldragen.ripe.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 4299 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/lir-wg/attachments/19960711/3cae3627/attachment.pl From zsako at banknet.net Fri Jul 12 12:13:10 1996 From: zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 12:13:10 +0200 Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses Message-ID: <9607121013.AA18642@banknet.banknet.net> > From owner-lir-wg at ripe.net Thu Jul 11 23:01:33 1996 > From: Daniel Karrenberg Daniel, > Also note that even for private address space traceroute will return the > address correctly, so the diagnostics are useful. There just are no > names. If the border gateways with publicly adressed interfaces has a > reasonable name such as 'bordergw-xxx.clever.net' 'clever-gw.customer.nl' > it is quite clear "where you are" in between. Although I agree in general with your statement above, I think the details are not necessarily true. According to RFC 1918: Because private addresses have no global meaning, routing information about private networks shall not be propagated on inter-enterprise links, and packets with private source or destination addresses ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ should not be forwarded across such links. Routers in networks not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ using private address space, especially those of Internet service providers, are expected to be configured to reject (filter out) routing information about private networks. If such a router receives such information the rejection shall not be treated as a routing protocol error. If an ISP is taking this recommendation by the letter, then they install a filter on the border routers to filter out these packets (as we do ourselves). In this case though, a traceroute from outside will not receive any packets from the interfaces that have a IP address from the private addresse space. I agree however that the answers from the other routers will give you in most of the cases enough information to figure out what route the packets take. Regards, Janos From alain at NetVision.net.il Sat Jul 13 20:39:23 1996 From: alain at NetVision.net.il (Alain Golan) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:39:23 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: <9607121013.AA18642@banknet.banknet.net> Message-ID: I don't remember exactly, but I am under the impression, that I'v read somewhere that you can do something like the following on Cisco routers: 1) Set an IP address (/32) to the loopback interface. 2) Tell the router that all ICMP replies should be sent with this interface address. ( I have done it for TFTP & SNMP..) If it is the case, with one address per router, You'll get a fine traceroute reply. Can someone confirm ? Regards, ___ ___ __ /__/ / /__/ / /\ / / / /__ / / _/_ / \/ o vox://+972-4-8560600 cel://+972-5-2593886 Alain at NetVision.net fax://+972-4-8550345 http://www.netvision.net.il/php/alain From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Jul 15 13:53:33 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:53:33 +0200 Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:13:10 +0200. <9607121013.AA18642@banknet.banknet.net> References: <9607121013.AA18642@banknet.banknet.net> Message-ID: <199607151153.LAA07825@kantoor.ripe.net> > zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) writes: > ... According to RFC 1918: > > Because private addresses have no global meaning, routing information > about private networks shall not be propagated on inter-enterprise > links, and packets with private source or destination addresses > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > should not be forwarded across such links. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I stand corrected. I was very much arguing the status quo and not the status expected by the RFC (and by myself when I wrote the passage you quote ;-). > I agree however that the answers from the other routers will give you in mo > st > of the cases enough information to figure out what route the packets take. Yep. From pab at cisco.com Tue Jul 23 18:47:31 1996 From: pab at cisco.com (Paolo Bevilacqua) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:47:31 +0200 Subject: Please help: ptp links addresses Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960723164731.00692088@malcolm.rmnet.it> At 17:59 23/07/96 +0200, you wrote: > >>Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:39:23 +0300 (IDT) >>From: Alain Golan >>To: Janos Zsako >>Cc: robert at dk.net, lir-wg at ripe.net >>Subject: Re: Please help: ptp links addresses >>X-Info: UniNet by Unidata >> >>I don't remember exactly, but I am under the impression, that >> I'v read somewhere that you can do something like the following >> on Cisco routers: >> 1) Set an IP address (/32) to the loopback interface. >> 2) Tell the router that all ICMP replies should be sent >> with this interface address. >> >>( I have done it for TFTP & SNMP..) >> >>If it is the case, with one address per router, You'll get >> a fine traceroute reply. >> >>Can someone confirm ? >> You get this behavoir with 'ip unnumbered Loopback0'. /pab >> Regards, >> >> ___ ___ __ >> /__/ / /__/ / /\ / >>/ / /__ / / _/_ / \/ o >> vox://+972-4-8560600 >> cel://+972-5-2593886 >> Alain at NetVision.net fax://+972-4-8550345 >> http://www.netvision.net.il/php/alain >> >> -- Paolo Bevilacqua ? ? Via F.T. Marinetti 221 cisco Systems Engineer ??? ??? 00143 Rome - Italy pab at cisco.com .???. .???. Tel: +39 (6) 58201230 "The net works, then ?" ..?????....?????.. Fax: +39 (6) 5020016 From David.Kessens at ripe.net Wed Jul 31 19:41:24 1996 From: David.Kessens at ripe.net (David.Kessens at ripe.net) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:41:24 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: FYI: new database code in production Message-ID: <9607311741.AA26097@belegen.ripe.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 11118 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/lir-wg/attachments/19960731/6c2c6f74/attachment.pl