New Node

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, mick wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:30:32 -0400
> Andrew Lewis <andrew at pdqvpn.com> allegedly wrote:
>>
>> The second question was more focused at other relay owners, since we
>> all seem to be having trouble with DMCA.
>>
>> I had briefly talked to some one else about it, but the proper term
>> is Provider Independent IP
>> Space<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provider-independent_address_space>.
>>
>
> As that wikipedia entry alludes, ISPs tend not to like this approach.
> I used to manage a set of 5 /24s (old style class C nets) which were
> independently owned. Moving them between ISPs blows holes in
> contiguous address space routing - this tend to make the ISPs unhappy
> because of the additional management overhead.

eh say what?

while this would be an issue if you take provider-allocated (also PA) 
space "somewhere else", this definately is not the case with PI space, as 
those are completely seperate from the address space "owned" by the 
provider, and furthermore, they should not have put other customers in it 
anyway, as PI space "owned" by the customer. (therefore there are no 
"gaps" in the address space as the entire chunk moves wherever the 
customer goes and the ISP should have no reason to split it up as it's 
just that single customer anyway)

nope, the only reason for -some- old jerks to have problems with this is 
that they run their routing on dusty old cisco shit with just a few 
megabytes of ram, therefore, it won't fit if a lot of people start to 
announce a lot of smaller networks, but actually, that's just their 
problem... (all our routers have 4-128GB of ram, fuck it ;)
upgrades people upgrades..

the thing that DOES NOT make ISPs (or rather: LIRs) happy tho
is the pile of paperwork to fill out to register NEW PI space for 
customers, as that's a pain in the butt

if the customer ALREADY HAS PI SPACE, we don't care and simply will 
announce it for the customer, no questions asked.

and one again, if your isp still considers the 'size of the routing table' 
an issue, its time you find yourself an isp that does not run on routers 
they bought in 1993 ;)

let's just put it this way: some people are running their network on stuff 
that has less memory and less packets per second throughput than my GSM, 
and still think their arguements for not routing smaller networks, 
including the ones smaller than a /24, will be taken serious by the rest 
of the internet... :P





>
>> Tor nodes seem to be having an issue with DMCA notifications pissing
>> off hosting providers. Thus we have to either host the nodes with more
>> "understanding" hosts or limit our exit policies so that we limit the
>> notifications. This is a problem because the more leniet hosts don't
>> all ways have the resources or connections that other places have.
>> If tor nodes controlled their own IP space then they can host their
>> nodes inside any data center and easier to host without worrying
>> about DMCA notices shutting down nodes. It would also allow more
>> liberal exit policies so that other types of traffic can be allowed,
>> even if they are more likely to generate notifications.
>>
>>
>> The only problem is that if it is described as tor only, then it
>> might be easier to block by various groups. Anyone have any thoughts?
>>
>
> It is alreday pretty easy to block Tor activity if you choose. The
> project publishes lists of all exit nodes and even offers a DNSrbl list
> to those who may wish to use it.
>
> Mick
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines.
> Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
>
> Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>