From karl at MCS.NET Tue Dec 31 20:44:16 1996 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:44:16 +73800 (CST) Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199702010144.TAA07516@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal > To: naipr at INTERNIC.NET > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:18:37 -0500 (EST) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-naipr at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET > > The revised ARIN proposal has been posted. You can find it at www.arin.net. > > We have moved the naipr mailing list to arin.net also. > > The next step will be to post ARIN's proposed budget. I'm not exactly > sure when this will be - hopefully within a couple of weeks. > > The ARIN website also contains a faq and a list of the proposed Board > of Trustees along with a recommended reading list. If you would like > to see other information posted or other questions added to the faq, > please let me know. > > Thanks, > > Kim Hubbard As promised, I have reserved commentary on this for a while.... until I could go through all the documentation and such, and let it sink in for a while. I am still concerned about BOD perpetuation and ultimate authority under the bylaws, but until the bylaws are published I don't know if this is a serious problem or paranoia :-) I am also concerned about any kind of cross-pollination between the BOD, Advisory Committee, membership and those who are paid to execute the policies of ARIN. I'd prefer to see absolute separation there to prevent any conflicts of interest, but again, I can understand why perhaps it might not, at least initially, be possible to do this completely. Bluntly, the general charter and operation of ARIN looks pretty much ok from here. I don't consider the membership fees to be out-of-line. I am concerned about the unspecified "maintenance" fees, especially for ASNs and pre-existing allocations however -- I'd like to see that fleshed out. I am still greatly concerned about the whole "PI" .vs. "PD" space issues, but those aren't really on-topic here... -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From karl at MCS.NET Tue Dec 31 21:09:59 1996 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:09:59 +73800 (CST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Jan 31, 97 05:50:56 pm Message-ID: <199702010209.UAA08124@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > If ARIN does not promise coordination with routing, then I would submit > > that ARIN can not complain should some collection of ISPs decide to start > > selling net numbers, uncordinated with ARIN, for which they will advertise > > and exchange routing information. > > Of course not. Why should they care? ARIN is only a registry. > > > Of course chaos will result. But just like the Alternic proposals in the > > domain name context, this kind of rogue activity is a foreseeable response > > to the ARIN proposal, especially as ARIN choses not to guarantee that the > > numbers it issues will be usable. > > Rogue activity may occur, but very little chaos will result just as little > chaos has resulted from the Alternic's actions. Most providers will have > the foresight to see that if even one provider does not join in the rogue > activity, then that provider will have a competitive market advantage. > Therefore most providers will not join in. It is not unusual for > unregistered IP address blocks to show up on the global Internet. But when > this occurs, it is quickly tracked down and filtered out. This is > especially so when the address is already in use by someone else who *HAS* > registered it. All in a day's work. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com Balderdash. Just the other day 0.0.0.0/0 (yes, DEFAULT) was being propagated by a LARGE NUMBER of national providers -- from a rogue (and unintentional) announcement that came out of a particular firm in Virginia. This went on for well over SIX HOURS before it was stopped. It was transiting a large number of NATIONAL network provider's core hardware, and disrupting connectivity to a fair number of people, some of whom were completely clueless as to the cause. We found it because we run defaultless and ANY instance of default appearing in announcements or anywhere on our core is an instant five-alarm fire. When we finally called the guilty party (after informing peers and upstream links hours before with no effect), they had not heard ANYTHING about it as of yet, and the announcement was ALREADY a few hours old in our tables at that point. Filtered out quickly my tailfeathers. 99% of the companies out there don't filter ANYTHING at that kind of level. Try to maintain the filters on CISCO hardware to actually verify and prevent any rogue announcements -- good luck. You just can't do an EFFECTIVE job of this; the coordination you NEED to do so is completely non-existant between firms to make it possible, especially in the "swamp". Now you can get routes from only a route server, yes, and that does help. Quite a bit. But basically all providers of any significance have exchange point(s) where the RADB isn't used. If the address isn't something that someone else is using, and is of sufficient prefix size (in 206 and above) I bet it wouldn't be noticed for months -- if ever -- until someone tried to get a so-called "official" allocation of the same number and said "what the hell??" when they found it already in the tables. I bet I could announce a random "reserved" prefix and nobody would catch it for at least 30 days -- during which time it would work perfectly, and globally. Yes, doing that kind of thing would be highly antisocial. But don't think for an instant that anyone actually watches constructively for this kind of chicanery on the net. That would be a false assumption, as I think the little episode of the other day proves rather conclusively. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal