From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Sat Feb 1 01:23:14 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:23:14 +0000 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <19970201062304.AAB14728@LOCALNAME> Jawaid -- You said: >"the majority" is now a justification for any evil act. I don't buy it, and >neither should you. And this has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. and: >if a person decides that a product is no longer of enough >value to justify the amount of money asked for that product, they take >their money elsewhere. >You violate anti-trust if >you charge too little, you violate it if you charge the same as everyone >else, and you violate it if you charge far more than everyone else. You're >held as a criminal if you do so good a job that nobody wants to buy from >anyone else, being the best is held as a great evil. And: >Protected - for what purpose? From whom? For whose use? Against whose >rights? 1/3 of Colorado is "national forest" (so-called "national >resource"). Instead of being used to make people's lives better, there it >sits, as a monument to the election campaign of some politician. > >I don't want the Internet to become a political tool for some grubby >bureaucrat. But running to the government crying "anti-trust, anti-trust!" >will do just that. > And: >I don't believe in "opinions". You either state what you know to be right, >or don't say anything if you don't know. "Opinion" used to mean "this is >what I know is true"; now it's used to mean "The following words have no >meaning, please don't hold me to it, it's only an opinion". > And: >Do what needs to be done - and if it conflicts with the closed fantasy >world that bureaucrats have constructed for themselves - be happy to tear >down their shabby little walls for them. > >Going to them and asking their "permission" only legitimizes them. Should a >slave ask his master's permission before trying to escape? That says "You >have a right to be doing what you're doing." And I was actually caught up in a long carefully thought-out reply when it dawned on me...why? You apparently believe everything you believe is true so there is no point in arguing any point, and this is no longer germain to the purpose of this list. After reading your reply, I am extremely pleased to agree to disagree with you and move on. --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 02:28:40 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:28:40 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... Message-ID: At 4:47 PM 1/31/97, Randy Bush wrote: >karl at cavebear.com: >> 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. >> >snip> >If ARIN promised routability, people like you would be threatening all hell >right now because we all know that it can not be delivered. Routability on >the internet is based solely on ISP cooperation. Let's turn down the heat level just a bit and look at something. One of the rationales that has been put forward by proponents is that ARIN would allocate net addresses based on procedures that the backbone people have agreed to. This is the reason for the "bloat" in the budget: you need people who understand network architecture to select the "right" block of numbers to give to a particular applicant to minimize any bad effect on global routers. What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter timeframe. Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 02:28:37 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:28:37 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 7:07 PM 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >If an ISP needs to get more address to satisify a customer request and >if its higher ISP (if any) is unwilling or unable to satisfy that >request, then that ISP has exactly one place to go: ARIN. > >And if a business wants its own block, then there is one place to go: >ARIN. > >So I count one place: ARIN. > >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. > >Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the >three registries allocate anywhere in the world. If there weren't significant technical problems with your suggestion, I might actually go for it -- having multiple registries so fits the "flavor" of the Internet. Unfortunately, I still have many of the articles on routing from my 1972 ARPAnet days, and from what I've been able to glean from more recent publications there is damn little science and all too much art to designing routing schemes that work. When you consider that SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review has article after article after article about the current "hot flash" in routing that doesn't pan out, I think that your cry of "conspiricy" is very hollow indeed. Aggregation is a fact of life. Just as many people work very hard to keep Malthus from having the last laugh, there are a large number of very brainy people that are trying to stave off Metcalf's Prediction -- that the Internet will collapse by its sheer weight in the next year or so. Until we have routers which can handle 16,777,214 endpoint addresses in parallel without introducing unacceptable processing delays -- or unacceptable equipment prices -- we are stuck with trying to use what we've got. IPng isn't going to help this. If anything, a 128-bit address space is going to make it *worse*, not better. Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want to talk about how to reduce the cost of running such a registry, and therefore reduce the fees required to make such a registry work, that's great. But to talk about a free-for-all is just inviting a chaotic collapse of the 'Net. Is that what you want>? --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sat Feb 1 05:18:39 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 02:18:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least > topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want > to talk about how to reduce the cost of running such a registry, and > therefore reduce the fees required to make such a registry work, that's > great. But to talk about a free-for-all is just inviting a chaotic > collapse of the 'Net. > > Is that what you want>? I think I figured out why there is so much steam being generated. My notion of "routability" doesn't mean that at the instant ARIN says "here's a number" that one can go out, apply power, and magically expect packets from the outside to find their way to the new block. That's not possible until the block has topological context. I suspect that folks were thinking that I was proposing some magical, impossible thing or that the ARIN folks were going to have to configure the assignee's bgp or something like that. My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements because your block is too small.") In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an address by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated block might need to carry with it an obligation on the part of that ISP to honor all other ARIN derived allocations. By-the-way, I wasn't proposing a "free for all", only suggesting that the possibility exists for the net to devolve into clouds of competing network numbers. And I did say that I considered that to be a dangerous future. --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Sat Feb 1 07:31:55 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:31:55 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karl, This is a very useful clarification. It brings up several ideas/questions, not necessarily ones that CAN be answered within the scope of this list, but nonetheless valid areas to consider. At 2:18 AM -0800 2/1/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I think I figured out why there is so much steam being generated. > >My notion of "routability" doesn't mean that at the instant ARIN says >"here's a number" that one can go out, apply power, and magically expect >packets from the outside to find their way to the new block. That's not >possible until the block has topological context. I suspect that folks >were thinking that I was proposing some magical, impossible thing or that >the ARIN folks were going to have to configure the assignee's bgp or >something like that. It was coming across that way. > >My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that >once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's >exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there >would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By >artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements >because your block is too small.") Let me make a distinction intially between ISPs and users, and, for discussion only, make the assumption that an "ISP" provides transit service. It does appeal to me, as a first thought, that if an ISP meets the RFC2050 or successor qualifications for allocation, that there is a presupposition of routability. Things that complicate this, however, fall into the transit vs. peering problem. Let's say a new ISP in a major metropolitan area applies to ARIN for a good-sized block -- let's say a /17 -- that it has real business to justify. I think we would all agree this is a large enough block of customers such that it serves the global Internet well to have them globally reachable, and vice versa. But remember that I said this is a metropolitan area provider. If they connect only to their metropolitan exchange, do national providers have an obligation to announce the /17 globally? If so, how does one deal with the potential economic impact that this provider is getting national/international transit services for which it does not pay? > >In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an address >by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated block might need >to carry with it an obligation on the part of that ISP to honor all other >ARIN derived allocations. Subject to the economics of transit, my first reaction is that this is a not completely unreasonable assumption. But the economics of transit may make it infeasible. Now, let's turn to a different case. An end user organization -- let's make it a medical lab providing life-and-death information -- has less than 200 hosts, so it can only justify a /24. Due to its mission, it is extremely concerned with being reachable, and wants to multihome to three or more providers. Let's assume this company has fully clueful routing people. In other words, I have set up what I would consider the ideal justification for a small organization to get provider independent space that needs global advertising. Yet, if I give this organization a PI /24, I set a precedent for assigning such blocks. There is much more demand for /24, and quickly all the routing table growth (including flapping) issues arise again. Many small organizations don't have the knowledge that does the ideal firm, and want PI space or multihoming simply because they heard it was a good idea. Should ARIN grant PI space selectively, perhaps subject to criteria such as: 1) There are specific business needs for multihoming 2) The organization commits to implement multihoming within xxx days of being assigned PI space 3) The organization has staff, or contracted consultants, who have demonstrated BGP expertise 4) The organization commits to renumbering-friendly network design, so if in the future the PI requirement disappears, there is no renumbering pain disincentive to releasing PI space Again, I don't have answers, and suspect that many of these questions are outside scope -- they are more appropriate for PAGAN or other lists dealing with fundamental allocation policy. Your clarification helped. Thanks. > >By-the-way, I wasn't proposing a "free for all", only suggesting that the >possibility exists for the net to devolve into clouds of competing network >numbers. And I did say that I considered that to be a dangerous future. > I think this would be dampened very quickly by any providers wanting to survive. Howard From awolter at seidata.com Sat Feb 1 11:31:32 1997 From: awolter at seidata.com (Adam Wolter) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 11:31:32 -0500 Subject: leave Message-ID: <32F36FE3.5D4F@seidata.com> From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 1 11:39:34 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:39:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Let's turn down the heat level just a bit and look at something. One of > the rationales that has been put forward by proponents is that ARIN would > allocate net addresses based on procedures that the backbone people have > agreed to. This is the reason for the "bloat" in the budget: you need > people who understand network architecture to select the "right" block of > numbers to give to a particular applicant to minimize any bad effect on > global routers. Nice theory but it won't work. First of all, there are no procedures that the core network operators have agreed to. They are independent businesses and although they must cooperate in the routing of packets, they have differing network architectures, different kinds of equipment and different policies and procedures. They don't necessarily all agree how IP allocation should be done. The policies that ARIN applies are set within the IETF and more people than just the operators of the defaultless core are involved in setting those standard policies. Nevertheless there is a complex interplay between the registries, the standards working groups, the core operators and other stakeholders. This is why the Board of Trustees needs to be composed of people who understand how things work. Partly to ensure that they can do a proper job within ARIN and partly to ensure that they can communicate and work together with their peers in other registries, with IANA, with the IETF and with the operators in the defaultless core, whether those are transit providers like Sprint or whether they are regional providers like MCS. > What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better > chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any > analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a > much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter > timeframe. No. If you get an IP address block from your upstream provider you are guaranteed 100% to get a routable address block. If you get one from ARIN, it may or may not be routable. This is not likely to change because not all organizations who as for unique IP address blocks intend to use them on the global Internet. And when the core network operators change their policies, they don't wait for anybody's permission; they just do it. So the registries will always lag behind the operators. If there is any single thing that can be done to guarantee the routability of IP address blocks it is to get them from your upstream provider. And if you require a Provider Independent (PI) address block then the single most useful thing you can do to guarantee this is to read and understand the policies and procedures laid out on the ARIN website at http://www.arin.net in the Reading List. Routable PI blocks go to those organizations that can make a credible case to justify their need for them. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From scharf at VIX.COM Sat Feb 1 12:04:23 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 09:04:23 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 1997 02:18:39 PST." Message-ID: <199702011704.JAA23168@bb.home.vix.com> karl at CAVEBEAR.COM said: > My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- > that once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. > that it's exchange points with the rest of the world were determined > -- then there would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that > new block. (By artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept > your advertisements because your block is too small.") > In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an > address by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated > block might need to carry with it an obligation on the part of that > ISP to honor all other ARIN derived allocations. Taking your lead with removing the steam (thanks). The response to this is that all ARIN can do is a best effort tracking of the ISP's current policies in future allocations. These may need to be offset against other goals in 2050. There is no way ARIN can make any guarantees about future routability, since that is clearly beyond their control. The idea that ISPs must honor as routable forever any blocks ARIN allocates would be a serious issue and be grounds for many people to withdraw support from the proposal. The ISPs view this as their business/technical domain. They believe that if the time comes and they think it is a better answer to filter the TWD (192/8), that it is their business decision to make. No personal opinion expressed, just the statement that many ISPs won't accept these terms. (envision threats of lawyers...) Also, is there any reason to continue to bother the DoJ people with this discussion? If not, people should stop copying them on these mail messages. (Imagine the poor person getting all this technical banter ...) A comment about duplicate IP addresses: It is specious to talk about people who ignore the registry when talking about unique allocation from registries (again this issue of no control.) The question about duplicate IP addresses can only be discussed on "Has there ever been a case where two registry allocations for the same IP address were issued?" We all know people can ignore the registry and pick addresses, we each have our own fantasy on how this would turn out, almost always ugly. Jerry From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Feb 1 13:08:20 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:08:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 31, 97 11:28:37 pm Message-ID: <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> A few comments: > Aggregation is a fact of life. Of course aggregation for large networks is necessary. Klinerock and Kamoun showed this in 1977... not much new information is this opinion, considering this has been well documented in packet switched networks for over 20 years. This is not about aggregation, my friend. Phone calls are aggregated, but no one charges for area codes and prefixes; and it is illegal under current US Laws to create a process where users cannot switch providers without technical difficulties. > > Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least > topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want Yes, geographic addressing can be made into a much more pro-competitive paradigm than provider based address aggregation. However, the IAB and the IETF have been vituperously behind provider based addressing (understandable considering most members are either vendors or providers). In my opinion, global internetworking cannot be managed in a pro-competitive process by the NSF transition style of encouraging private industry to take over every single aspect of the registration process. We in the US are taxpayers and have some rights, do we not? Running a registry for something as important as allocating IP address space should be, in my opinion, paid for by US taxpayer funds, Congress. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and I do not believe for one minute the FTC nor Justice will support a process in the Internet paradigm that favors large businesses over smaller ones or one that puts smaller providers at a disadvantage vs. larger ones. There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing IP has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. The InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC if requested. Best Regards, Tim Bass IEEE Member --- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 15:37:26 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:26 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 1:08 PM 2/01/97, Tim Bass wrote: >I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a >pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, >please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, >however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC >if requested. Why not publish a peer-reviewed article in _Computer Communition Review_ (ACM SIGCOMM) so that your pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be discussed in academic circles? In this manner, either or both DoJ and FTC can find expert witnesses who have read your article and can validate or deprecate your proposal based on the submission. It can also start research independent of the Internet Society on your plan, and might form the basis of "the new Internet" if it is accepted. I can understand your attitude about IETF, although you will need to remember that IETF is recognized as a "standards provider" as far as the US Government is concerned (via ANSI). --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From hcb at CLARK.NET Sat Feb 1 15:49:10 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:49:10 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> References: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 31, 97 11:28:37 pm Message-ID: Congratulations, Tim! I will try to deal with some sense here, but you are rapidly working up to membership in an elite...the few, the very few, and proud, who have earned themselves one of my mail filters. Your very last comment is what triggered this reaction, after I have tried to look rationally at everything you have said. I hope you reconsider that last comment. At 1:08 PM -0500 2/1/97, Tim Bass wrote: >A few comments: > >> Aggregation is a fact of life. > >Of course aggregation for large networks is necessary. Klinerock and Kamoun >showed this in 1977... not much new information is this opinion, considering >this has been well documented in packet switched networks for over >20 years. This is not about aggregation, my friend. Phone calls >are aggregated, but no one charges for area codes and prefixes; >and it is illegal under current US Laws to create a process where >users cannot switch providers without technical difficulties. Equal Access, etc., do not require that users face no difficulties in switching providers in a given geographical area. The telephone network is generally geographically aggregated. Rightly or wrongly, the Internet is not geographically aggregated. Yes, it may affect a user if they change providers. However, remember that it is a computer, or a set of computers, that connect to ISPs, not a set of "dumb" telephones. Let's take another analogy from the telephone model. For many years, the demarcation point, if it existed at all, was a screw terminal block. As a result of Carterphone and other court-tested decisions, the FCC issued rules that future network interfaces use the Registered Jack (RJ) series of physical interfaces. So we saw RJ11, RJ12, etc., connectors placed into all new installations. Now, Joe User, who has an existing service, wants to connect customer provided equipment. Fine. He is free to do so. But were the telcos required to install an RJ connector at no cost? I think not. I can set up an enterprise today that is "renumbering friendly," and can change providers fairly easily using DNS/DHCP, scripted router config files, etc. Many enterprises firewall their internal address space in any case, and renumbering only affects a small number of externally visible addresses. Are you saying it is an obligation of providers to continue to support users who insist on using aging practices (e.g., static dialup IP address assignments), when alternatives exist? How far back does one reach? I have a 300 BPS modem somewhere, should I demand that content providers compress their web pages such that 300 BPS is enough? > >> >> Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least >> topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want > >Yes, geographic addressing can be made into a much more pro-competitive >paradigm than provider based address aggregation. However, the IAB >and the IETF have been vituperously behind provider based addressing >(understandable considering most members are either vendors or > providers). Just how is the IETF excluding non vendor- or provider input? The IETF process, with its extensive use of mailing lists, is FAR more accessible than CCITT/ITU, ANSI, or the other organizations that have produced the telephone environment you cite as a model. > >In my opinion, global internetworking cannot be managed in a pro-competitive >process by the NSF transition style of encouraging private industry >to take over every single aspect of the registration process. We >in the US are taxpayers and have some rights, do we not? Could you explain that last? What are the rights of Michael Dillon, to pick an active non-US participant? My employer, whom I am not representing here, is a Canadian firm. Does it have no rights then because a significant amount of its income is not earned in the US and is not taxable there? Look at your two previous sentences. The first speaks of global internetworking, while the second speaks of US taxpayer rights. What do the two have in common? >Running a registry for something as important as allocating >IP address space should be, in my opinion, paid for by US taxpayer funds, >Congress. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and >I do not believe for one minute the FTC nor Justice will support >a process in the Internet paradigm that favors large businesses >over smaller ones or one that puts smaller providers at a disadvantage >vs. larger ones. Right. Looked at the health care industry recently? The FTC and Justice seem to be quire tolerant of an environment that is forcing small businesses -- i.e., privately practicing physicians, small hospitals, etc. -- out of business, or into managed care organizations as employees. Of course, that industry just deals with human lives, and is not something as critical as IP connectivity that the government MUST control. > > >There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing >IP has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. >The InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this >anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. > >I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a >pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, >please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, >however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC >if requested. You can prove, I am sure, that a pro-competitive IP routing paradigm _can_ be created. I can prove I can create a paradigm by which I play starting offensive left tackle in the NFL. Creating a paradigm, however, is meaningless unless it is tested. I suggest you look again at health care, and see how the courts increasingly are throwing out "junk science" expert witnesses. Courts are requiring that expert testimony, to be fully credible, must be consistent with consensus in the learned profession involved, that peer review is relevant, etc. So if you don't want to publish the paradigm for peer review, fine. Have fun. Share it as much as you want with DOJ and the FTC. Why, while you are at it, share it with the Trilateral Commission, Rush Limbaugh, the Illuminati, Howard Stern, the National Inquirer, and David Letterman. But until you are willing to discuss things in an open matter, I suspect a fair number of people who actually feel good about making global internetworking happen, in a real world, would appreciate it if you would take your paradigms and peddle them elsewhere. We have work to do. If the IETF, IAB, and the rest of the Zionist Occupation Government are so evil, they won't listen to you, why waste your valuable time with them? Excuse me now. I must get into my black helicopter and go off to a golf date with Jimmy Hoffa. Howard Berkowitz, who feels better now. > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Sat Feb 1 16:56:00 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:56:00 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702012146.QAA29211@lists.internic.net> > > Me too. And I'm keeping the DoJ audience in mind as I write my replies > > because they can't be expected to be familiar with the background of this > > whole issue. Quite frankly, if the AOP hadn't flown off the handle and > > started issuing misleading press releases and press interviews, this whole > > thing would not be an issue. It was the AOP that got everyone believing > > that there was to be some sort of new outrageously high fee for all IP > > addresses when this is simply not true at all. And even the proposals on > > the ARIN website are only proposals. They could be changed beyond > > recognition by the time that the prospective members of ARIN actually > > start signing up. > > No doubt that there has been a lot of hyperbole. I'm in agreement > with you that ARIN will almost certainly be a valuable, well run, > organization that serves us all. Some of the original concerns about > costs were probably caused by unfortunate and inadvertant failure to > put into the initial drafts a few words that would have allayed the > fears of those who have seen NSI in action in the domain name area. > > One of the most compelling of the demonstrations about fee projections > was when someone posted an analysis saying "had we been charging, > here's what the revenue would have been last year". It was a very > reasonable amount and it certainly put my fears to rest. > > (By-the-way, there were serious questions that arose well before AOP > started its efforts.) TKS for pointing out that there were concerns before AOP started its efforts. What AOP did was read the initial proposal which was available and state its opinions to our membership. We also stated recommended actions as per what was read. I will not apologize if that made a few folks irritated...But I will state that it is a good thing that some of these questions were raised karl.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 20:54:36 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:54:36 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201205432.006a1d00@lint.cisco.com> At 02:21 PM 1/31/97 -0500, David Schwartz wrote: > > So you can be reasonable assured that a block allocated by ARIN, >Internic, APNIC, or RIPE that is routable today will remain routable for >awhile. > This a completely misleading statement. There is simply no way to be assured that a prefix which is routed today will be routable tomorrow. Caveat emptor. This has no bearing in how ARIN allocates addresses, since it can not determine what may, or may not, be routable. - paul From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:14:23 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:14:23 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201221421.006a4db0@lint.cisco.com> This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. - paul At 11:28 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better >chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any >analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a >much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter >timeframe. > >Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the >proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. > From aop at cris.com Sat Feb 1 22:12:00 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:12:00 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Scott, please allow me to respond to your e-mail to Steve May. While Steve serves (and very well) on the AOP Board of Directors, I am responsible for communication to our members, and I authored the alert to our members. We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. And this is okay with you? While I deeply respect the knowledge represented on this listserv, I'd point out that no one here appears to have experience in management, or in the formation or operation of a real non-profit. As someone who does have such experience, I have to say that the current proposal will certainly face class-action lawsuits from those who actually have to foot the bill for this organization. Not to mention the anti-trust implications. This is a deeply flawed proposal that **must** have significant public discussion. And it must have the consensus of the industry, not one relatively hidden listserv run by Network Solutions. It's interesting to note that you, like many other critics of our alert, did not respond to the issues we raised but rather attacked the messenger. Please take a moment to actually read what we wrote, which responded directly to the posted ARIN proposal. If that's a disservice to our members, I truly hope we continue disserving them for many, many years to come. As for it being a "scare tactic", perhaps the fact that this proposal doesn't scare you is because you won't have to foot the bill for it. On another note, please see the section on membership in ARIN. In the future, under this proposal you seem to feel is so peachy-keen, unless you have forked over $1,000 you are welcome to sit down and shut up -- you have no voice in ARIN. We'll keep informing our members when such proposals arise. That's our job. Respectfully, David P. McClure Executive Director Association of Online Professionals ---------- > From: Scott Bradner > To: the_innkeeper at sols.net > Subject: arin > Date: Saturday, February 01, 1997 5:28 PM > > > > I will not apologize if that made a few folks irritated > > by spreading falsehoods & using scare tactics? > > I think you did a diservice to your organization > discussions based on the facts of the proposal would have > been more useful > > Scott From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:19:31 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:19:31 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201221929.006a5950@lint.cisco.com> Giving an end-system an arbitrary length prefix just to ensure 'routability' is a recipe for disaster, if that's what you're recommending. I suggest that ARIN play no role in this regard; there is simply no way that they can effectively ensure routability, and something that might be routable today, may not be routable tomorrow (and vice versa). This is not practical. - paul At 02:18 AM 2/1/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that >once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's >exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there >would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By >artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements >because your block is too small.") > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:48:52 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:48:52 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Mr. McClure, Since I did not see the original message from Scott Bradner to this individual come across the list (of course, I may have missed it, since I've been traveling for the past couple of weeks), it would imply that you forwarded a private note to a public forum, which shows a great deal of unprofessionalism. Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. They certainly have more-than-adequate historical, technical and practical experience to do so, and your snide comments below come off as insulting, to say the least. Nonetheless, without calling one another silly names, I believe that your note is a fine example of how you do not completely grasp the complexities of running a registry, the technical significance of the registries' impact, nor the professional and personal commitments these folks have made to the Internet community. One might suggest that your continued persistence to forward messages without significant contributions, to include viable alternatives, would allow others on this list to dismiss you as a troublemaker, not a problem solver. - paul At 10:12 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. > From davesbox at poboxes.com Sat Feb 1 23:05:28 1997 From: davesbox at poboxes.com (David Tschoepe) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:05:28 -0800 Subject: Removal from list Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201200528.00875840@smtp.miraclestar.com> Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? Thanks, David From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Feb 1 20:40:56 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:40:56 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201204052.006de268@lint.cisco.com> Yes, and the registries have been quite clear that address space allocated by them is in no way to be considered 'routable'. No magic here (tm). - pal At 01:26 PM 1/31/97 -0500, John Curran wrote: >At 11:36 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >>OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting >>someone to give you routing. > >Karl, > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > to the Internet provider community. > >/John > > > > From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 2 00:15:58 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:15:58 -0800 Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Message-ID: At 7:12 PM -0800 2/01/97, Dave McClure wrote: >While I deeply respect the knowledge represented on this listserv, >I'd point out that no one here appears to have experience in >management, or in the formation or operation of a real non-profit. > >As someone who does have such experience, I have to say that >the current proposal will certainly face class-action lawsuits >from those who actually have to foot the bill for this organization. >Not to mention the anti-trust implications. Hey, Dave, I'm offended by your statement. I'm no new-comer to not-for-profits, nor to the standards community either. Name me ONE OTHER PERSON who has proposed any kind of budget numbers to forecast the expense side of ARIN. Where are *your* numbers, sir? When did you post them to public review? As for the anti-trust implications, I suggest you go back and review your law with regard to anti-trust and the establishment of manufacturer's standards. There is case law which is on all fours with ARIN -- I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to find and understand that law. (Hint: look for a case involving interchangable parts -- and don't forget to blow the dust off the book when you take it off the shelf.) --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 2 00:01:27 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:01:27 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201221421.006a4db0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: While the *idea* may be stated in RFC 2050, the concept that the ARIN is a preferred embodiment of the idea is *not*. I checked. This is part of the rationale for ARIN, after all. As such, stating the fact and recapping the concept in a rationale document is not redundant at all. My pair-o-pennies(tm). At 7:14 PM -0800 2/01/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. > >- paul > >At 11:28 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >> >>What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better >>chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any >>analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a >>much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter >>timeframe. >> >>Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the >>proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. >> --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 00:19:25 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:19:25 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202001922.00683e84@lint.cisco.com> Hand-waving. The concept that an allocated prefix may be unroutable has nothing to do with ARIN, APNIC, or the RIPE-NCC. The reality of the concept stands alone. A registry cannot, in no way, embody this particular principle, but it can certainly remind it's customers of the fact. - paul At 09:01 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >While the *idea* may be stated in RFC 2050, the concept that the ARIN is a >preferred embodiment of the idea is *not*. I checked. > >This is part of the rationale for ARIN, after all. As such, stating the >fact and recapping the concept in a rationale document is not redundant at >all. > >My pair-o-pennies(tm). > > >At 7:14 PM -0800 2/01/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. >> >>- paul >> From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 00:34:37 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:34:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would trust their judgement. (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might foreshadow.) --karl-- From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 01:29:02 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:29:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Feb 1, 97 09:34:37 pm Message-ID: <199702020629.BAA08148@moses.internic.net> > Karl, If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Of course, you are free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. However, I will, for the record, one more time, state that ARIN will be an independently run organization with no connection to NSI. Kim > > > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. > > I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. > > It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would > trust their judgement. > > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- > rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and > become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might > foreshadow.) > > --karl-- > > > From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 01:31:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 97 22:31 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a note to Kim. The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no sarcastic remarks:-). randy From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 01:36:15 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:36:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <199702020636.WAA06562@zocalo.net> > I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are > employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally Telage, yes. My understanding was that Ms. Hubbard is leaving the employ of NSI and entering that of ARIN at such time as it's sufficiently established to carry a payroll. I assume that's still the case, Kim? I don't find having one NBI representative on the BoT objectionable. I agree two could be construed as an imbalance. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sun Feb 2 01:37:50 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:37:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 1, 97 12:37:26 pm Message-ID: <199702020637.BAA21143@linux.silkroad.com> Steve sincerely asks: > > Why not publish a peer-reviewed article in _Computer Communition Review_ > (ACM SIGCOMM) so that your pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be > discussed in academic circles? The simple answer: Publishing in ACM or IEEE Journals take a minimum of one year which does not help the matter at hand, in my opinion. > It can also start research independent of the Internet Society ... Based on my observation of the structure of the IETF, I do not think it is prudent to publish ideas that are not subject to an un-democratic process. These is just Tim, plain ole EE' engineer speaking, but I do not trust organizations dominated by commercial interests to be fair with independent ideas. My agenda is to have a globally scalable Internet where every small business can connect to any level network access point they choose, without constraints and anti-competitive processes. I am not convinced this is the goal of all buinesses with dominate roles within IETF. In addition, it is highly likely that I am not the only person in the US to have this opinion;the US Department of Justice and the FTC spend millions of US Taxpayer Dollars to enforce and promote competitive business practices. The orgs would not exist if businesses did not have the 'tendency' to engage in anti-competitive practices. The Internet Services industry is no exception. Back to your question of 'why not publish'.... If and when DoJ becomes involved, I will be more than happy to submit to any investigation a technically feasible, scalable, inter domain routing paradigm for IPv4. However, if DoJ and the Antitrust division does not get involved, I will not reveal any carefully guarded technical solutions under any circumstances. None of my previous working papers are related. This paradigm came to mind and paper only after reviewing over 50 references on the subject and writing a historical, misconceptions paper. To be perfectly clear, i am not 'the only engineer' in the US who can conceive and design a scalable aggregation schema. My goal is to stop a direction which is anti-competitive and to promote the move toward a pro-competitive, scalable inter-domain routing protocol. This may sound kinda overly romantic, but sorry, it is my old-fashioned nature (an i apologize for being so old-fashioned).... I will perform this duty as an engineer and a US citizen without the motive of profit nor designs to be any false Internet hero if called upon. However, I will not do it for IETF nor the IAB as long as the process and is dominated by people with serious conflicts of interests. Best Regards, Tim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 01:43:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- I think that the question of these two BoT members needs to be publicly addressed on this list. Many of us expect that Kim Hubbard will fill the executive director position in ARIN which is a management role, i.e. she would be an employee. If this is so then one would normally expect her to hold an ex-officio position on the BoT, i.e. be a non-voting member. This might ordinarily be a simple matter of clarification, however Scott Bradner, another proposed BoT member did say something about the BoT using consensus to make its decisions and I have yet to see it explained how this can be reconciled with a non-voting member. But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a conflict here. And since Network Solutions Inc. has not announced any intention to cease offering domain name registry services after the NSF agreement ends, I am assuming that they will continue to operate as part of the commercial global domain name registry system. I'm not sure how best to resolve this conflict. Obviously, Mr. Telage could withdraw from accepting the position, but if there is some good reason why the CEO of Network Solutions must be involved in ARIN then perhaps a way could be found to recognize that involvement without placing him in a voting position on the Board of Trustees. I am afraid that if the public, especially the Internet Service Provider community, does not perceive ARIN as being a clean break from Network Solutions Inc., it will lead to unecessary political wrangling and take energy away from the job that ARIN should be focussing on. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 02:01:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:01:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 1, 97 10:43:15 pm Message-ID: <199702020701.CAA08264@moses.internic.net> > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the > cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for > another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a > conflict here. Michael - could you please explain this conflict? NSI will be financing ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they are no longer financially involved. Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a domain registry would cause a conflict. Kim From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 02:44:47 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:44:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702020744.XAA07529@zocalo.net> > My agenda is to have a globally scalable Internet where every > small business can connect to any level network access point > they choose, without constraints and anti-competitive processes. Um, would this be a "flat earth" theory? :-) Down with the hierarchy! Up with MAC addresses! -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Sun Feb 2 06:09:43 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:09:43 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Message-ID: Dave McClure wrote: > Cc: "'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET'" Sigh. More "'weirdly quoted'" junk in the headers. And you still have every paragraph as a single very long line. Please fix your mailer to conform to accepted norms. > Scott, please allow me to respond to your e-mail to Steve May. While > Steve serves (and very well) on the AOP Board of Directors, I am > responsible for communication to our members, and I authored the alert > to our members. I submit that you did your members a disservice by failing to explain that naipr was a mailing list and that they should research the issues and read the mailing list for some time before posting. Many AOP members who sent comments to the list had no idea that it was a mailing list. (I have this first hand, from correspondence with such people.) That they did insufficient research before posting to the list is their own fault, but that they did not know it was a mailing list is tracable directly to the AOP "Alert". > We are faced with a situation in which a small number of > self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major > ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people > involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force > a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North > American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which > will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to > the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. No, we are not faced with a situation like that at all. >From where I sat in the ire/pagan bof at the San Jose IETF, it appeared that there was consensus that starting a non-profit IP address registry was a reasonable idea. I haven't noticed any "major ISPs" that think ARIN is a big conspiracy. Even Karl Denninger appears to support the concept (though perhaps not all the details). As soon as the community thinks that ARIN is not doing the right thing and is beyond hope of being fixed, the community will form the AntiNIC. ARIN knows this, and so presumably will do the right thing. Everybody also knows that the AntiNIC will not be successful unless *it* has the support of community consensus. > This is a deeply flawed proposal that **must** have significant public > discussion. And it must have the consensus of the industry, not one > relatively hidden listserv run by Network Solutions. This is an imperfect proposal that *is* getting public discussion, and that will have the consensus of the industry (or it will not succeed). Helping to clarify the proposal and remove any bugs would be useful. Your conspiracy theories are not useful. > It's interesting to note that you, like many other critics of our > alert, did not respond to the issues we raised but rather attacked the > messenger. Please take a moment to actually read what we wrote, which > responded directly to the posted ARIN proposal. I read it. It had some good points, but was mostly scare mongering, and demonstrated a lack of understanding both of the ARIN proposal and of how IP address allocation works in the Internet. Responding point by point to such a thing would be a waste of time, but most of the points have been addressed in this forum. > We'll keep informing our members when such proposals arise. That's > our job. I agree that informing your members about such proposals is a legitimate and useful function of the AOP. I wish you had done a better job of it. --apb (Alan Barrett) From scharf at VIX.COM Sun Feb 2 06:16:18 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:16:18 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 1997 13:08:20 EST." <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: <199702021116.DAA06744@bb.home.vix.com> themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM said: > There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing IP > has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. The > InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this > anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. > I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a > pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, please > do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, however, > share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC if requested. Tim, I don't my accountant how to cook, why do you want to tell the DoJ how to build a better routing protocol. If you've got anything to share, you should share it with the technical community. If you put together a paper and a verifiable simulation that is accepted by the academic community, you'll be a star. I welcome any significant forward leaps in our technology. Now put up or shut up. Jerry From asp at PARTAN.COM Sun Feb 2 12:14:50 1997 From: asp at PARTAN.COM (Andrew Partan) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:14:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701242018.PAA08484@jazz.internic.net> from "Kim Hubbard" at Jan 24, 97 03:18:37 pm Message-ID: <199702021714.MAA06415@home.partan.com> I just read over the last 12 days of mail to the NAIPR list and the new ARIN proposal. My take on this whole thing is that basic premise (splitting IP registry off ala RIPE & APNIC) is fairly well accepted, with a few folk raising objections over some of the details. I think its a go. Where do I send my check for (individual) membership? --asp at partan.com (Andrew Partan) From tdeem2 at alpha.comsource.net Sun Feb 2 12:46:19 1997 From: tdeem2 at alpha.comsource.net (Timothy Deem) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:46:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Removal from list In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970201200528.00875840@smtp.miraclestar.com> Message-ID: I'd like that as well... Thanks On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, David Tschoepe wrote: > Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:05:28 -0800 > From: David Tschoepe > To: naipr at lists.internic.net > Subject: Removal from list > > Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? > > > Thanks, > > David > From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sun Feb 2 13:14:50 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:14:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 1, 97 03:49:10 pm Message-ID: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> Mr. Berkowitz, You and others seem to confuse the terms hierarchical, aggregation, clustering, and classless interdomain routing. However, I do not mind stating the obvious for you, my friend, if it helps: --------------------------------------------------------------- Classless interdomain routing is a subset of clustering techniques called aggregation. Aggregation techniques are subsets of clustering techniques which are subsets of building a hierarchy. Classless interdomain routing is not the only method to build a hierarchy routing structure. It is one possible technique out of a large set of solutions. However, it does happen to be on of the more anti-competitive paradigms, as currently implemened with provider based aggregation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Back to the 'other issue': If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running a registry only. It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. Questions: Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR members routin non-NAIPR members globally? This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of the old 'pyramid scheme'. Tim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 13:32:29 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:32:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy Deem wrote: > I'd like that as well... > > Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? I remember seeing that the list was moved from listserv to majordomo. If that is the case you should be able to get off by sending unsubscribe naipr to the address majordomo at arin.net If that doesn't work, try unsubscribe naipr your at email.address Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 14:19:17 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:19:17 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> References: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 1, 97 03:49:10 pm Message-ID: At 1:14 PM -0500 2/2/97, Tim Bass wrote: >Mr. Berkowitz, > >You and others seem to confuse the terms hierarchical, aggregation, >clustering, and classless interdomain routing. They are related terms, that I understand quite well, thank you, both operationally and in terms of theoretical routing. But, now that you mention it, you and other seem to confuse the terms operational network, investment protection, numerous court decisions and DoJ opinions on standards-setting by industry groups, etc. You also seem to confuse the function of this list with that of NIMROD, IDR, BIG-INTERNET, and even PAGAN. Oh...I'm so sorry...those lists, that deal with the subjects you raise, are controlled by the Illuminati Engineering Task Force, and must be suspect. > However, I >do not mind stating the obvious for you, my friend, if it >helps: My friend? I think again of the advice of my mother, to pick my friends and enemies carefully. As opposed to some newbies here, you DO have an engineering knowledge of some of the problems involved. You simply prefer to substitute rhetoric for peer review and product demonstrations. Again reaching a different industry where I also have professional knowledge, health care, there is a technical term for people who promulgate "cure all" nostrums without being willing to submit them for independent verification. Such people even appeal to the legal system to allow them unrestrained access. The technical term for such person is a "quack." In the context of routing, Sir, I find you a quack. The duck analogy is especially apt, since a duck, when challenged, typically emits loud noises, ruffles its feathers, presents its rear, may excrete certain bodily products in the direction of the challenger, and runs or flies off. To depend on your "paradigms" as relevant to the immediate situation is as appropriate as attempting to deal with a cholera epidemic by inserting corks in the orifices under stress. I actually believe it would be appropriate to start a very serious planning function to look at allocation and routability issues in perhaps a time frame 24 months off. But we don't have that luxury now. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Classless interdomain routing is a subset of clustering techniques >called aggregation. Aggregation techniques are subsets of >clustering techniques which are subsets of building a hierarchy. > >Classless interdomain routing is not the only method to build >a hierarchy routing structure. It is one possible technique >out of a large set of solutions. However, it does happen >to be on of the more anti-competitive paradigms, as currently >implemened with provider based aggregation. >--------------------------------------------------------------- Dayum! Those big words keep a'comin' back to haunt us, Cletus...currently implemented. Hey, Uncle Bert, you think ol' Tim there wants all current implementations to shut down while he has them lawyers check out his paradigm? Wanna bet a pair of dimes on the industry consensus on an Internet shutdown so we don't let them damn Yankees in ARIN get their ill-gotten gains? Yeah, I know they are in Virginia, but it's Northern Virginia. Mostly Yankee. > >Back to the 'other issue': > >If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) >to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should >say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's >position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running >a registry only. I have made no pretenses that I felt the initial proposal, and the way in which it emphasized fees over structure, was seriously flawed. The entire CIDR issue has been thoroughly available for some time. I'm afraid I have seen no systematic comments from you about short-term CIDR alternatives and the practical need for renumbering. I suppose it's that I am a Tool of Vendors that I never received a substantive comment from you on any Internet-Draft I worked on to give short-term addressing guidance. Your postings to lists tend to be orthogonal to the discussion underway, and make frequent allusions to Secret Suppressed Knowledge. > >It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... >Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... >Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... > >which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? Or maybe IBM should respond...I just discovered that netview uses port 1666...a shameful attempt to conceal the Satanic origins of some protocol mechanisms. Yep...I know I have problems with some routing tables too. Not just those in default free routers, but I have all kinds of trouble putting together the one that is supposed to hold my Craftsman router. Can't find all the pieces, just as some arguments here seem somehow incomplete. > >It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions >of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom >created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the >surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. >Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals >cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and >will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. > >Questions: > >Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space >will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR >will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR >members routin non-NAIPR members globally? Yes. Protection. You see, Don Scott and Donna Kim will, if you don't pay up, send Rudy the Routebanger to all default-free router sites, and, as he holds the staff at bay, Charlie the Configurator will break into the routers and delete all BGP advertisements from the Free People Who Won't Pay The Organization. I always thought Scott Bradner looked like Marlon Brando...a bit, anyway. Don Scott, may I kiss your ring when I next see you, as a token of my regard? Hmmm...I suppose if I have not met your expectations when I do that, Rudy the Routebanger may give me an early token release. Or maybe Kim and Scott are reincarnations of Bonnie and Clyde? Nahh...they have a better organized conspiracy than that. > >This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. >Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current >paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried >position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? > >These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large >salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, >which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of >the old 'pyramid scheme'. All right! Mr. Bass, my friend, don't you want to retire? Don't you want a Rolls Royce? Let me tell you about a business opportunity. No, I can't tell you the details unless you come to the meeting. But I can absolutely, promise you it's not Amway. Has anyone else noticed that NAIPR and Amway both have five letters, one of which is in common...and that letter is doubled in Amway? Coincidence? You decide. Howard, who is beginning to have too much fun with this to filter out Tim. Perhaps we can move this off the list and to the Comedy Channel, where advertising fees will fund everyone dumping their routers and getting new ones. From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 15:30:46 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:30:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> from "Tim Bass" at Feb 2, 97 01:14:50 pm Message-ID: <199702022030.PAA08642@moses.internic.net> > > Back to the 'other issue': > > If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) > to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should > say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's > position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running > a registry only. > > It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... > Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... > Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... > which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? This has been stated enough times that I assumed you would have understood by now that the fees are to fund the registry only. And the name is Postel - not Postal. > > It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions > of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom > created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the > surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. > Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals > cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and > will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. Nowhere is it implied that businesses and individuals cannot use the Internet if they do not join and pay fees. Please reread the proposal, Mr. Bass. > > Questions: > > Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space > will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR > will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR > members routin non-NAIPR members globally? ARIN will, as does the InterNIC, allocate globally unique addresses. ARIN will not route or guarantee routability of addresses. > > This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. > Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current > paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried > position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? Ms. Hubbard didn't propose anything. And I'm already in a salaried position and managing the affairs of IP allocation for this region under the authority of the IANA. > > These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large > salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, > which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of > the old 'pyramid scheme'. Well, if you mean that ARIN will use the same allocation guidelines as InterNIC/RIPE/APNIC are using than yes you could say its the same scheme. Kim Hubbard > > Tim > > > > > > From kmeuleman at innet.be Sun Feb 2 21:58:53 1997 From: kmeuleman at innet.be (Meuleman-Rubbrecht) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:58:53 +-100 Subject: JOIN Message-ID: <01BC1154.48FA0080@marina.metech.be> JOIN From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:50:33 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:50:33 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.5D1B5B20@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Kim: Taking Donald Telage out of this equation as a person, I have two questions about the NSI/ARIN relationship. (I'm focusing on the process used to create ARIN rather than the people involved). 1) Why is NSI funding ARIN? First, let me point out that if ARIN moves immediately to implement its fee structure, cash flow will be of less concern than the structure and integrity of the organization. And it seems to me that it is very awkward for a single private company to hold such primary financial power over ARIN. 2) My understanding is that by its contract NSI has turned over to NSF 30 percent of the funds raised by the domain name registry fees, and that this fund is currently about $12 million (and will be much more than that, once NSI begins to collect the fees that it has not collected to date). This NSF fund is purported to be money to be used for the good of the Internet, and according to the Washington Post there is some confusion as to how best use these funds. Why do we not apply to NSF that some or all of these funds be used to help start ARIN? This would eliminate the NSI/ARIN financial ties, and could likewise be used to reduce or eliminate the steep dues ARIN is proposed to charge. Dave McClure ---------- From: Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at INTERNIC.NET] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 9:01 PM To: Michael Dillon Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Re: AOP Notification > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the > cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for > another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a > conflict here. Michael - could you please explain this conflict? NSI will be financing ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they are no longer financially involved. Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a domain registry would cause a conflict. Kim From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:35:03 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:35:03 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.58D23FC0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Randy, I would also ask some clarification of your remarks. Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position to become the chief executive of ARIN? The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, Inc. (and if so, how is it impacted by NSI's recent discussion of their financial situation? If the money is instead to be drawn from the contractual amount that NSI was required to set aside for use to benefit the Internet (and ARIN would be an excellent use for such funds, IMHO), then it is not NSI's money. Dave McClure ---------- From: Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:31 AM To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Cc: naipr at arin.net Subject: Re: AOP Notification > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a note to Kim. The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no sarcastic remarks:-). randy From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:05:41 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:05:41 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.541B4760@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Kim: Just for the record, I for one am delighted at the prospect that you would bring your experience and expertise to ARIN. And in spite of my feelings about some of the specifics, I do deeply appreciate the work you have done in drafting a proposal for us to hash out. May I make a couple of suggestions? Much of our concern about the ARIN proposal revolves around two factors: The selection of the board of trustees, and the fact that many critical elements of the organization (mission, goals and accountability) have gotten short shrift. Some possible solutions: !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then re-elect a Board to continue the organization. This will get the organization up and running, and clearly show that the Trustees have no hidden agendas and that they are appropriate to their positions. Members of the initial Board could be elected then to longer terms if they have served well and if they wish to continue. 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.) to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a stronger role in supporting ARIN. 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a single listserv are behind ARIN. 4) Immediately begin work on preliminary mission statement, goals, structure, bylaws and budget for ARIN, so that these critical issues may be open to discussion. 5) Reconsider the $1,000 dues for annual membership in ARIN. If the intent is to have broad-based participation by the industry, then this level is far too steep. And if the intent is not to open membership to that broad a base, consider setting up rules to have membership based on representation of constituencies within the Internet community (e.g., representatives from the Internet Society, IETF and organizations involved in the industry). The funding model would work for either scenario with only minor modifications. The less time we spend on he said/you said discussions of personalities, conspiracy theories, niggling details of IP address technicalities (isn't that what IETF is for?), the stronger the ARIN proposal will be. The second draft is considerably better than the first in its explanation of some of the details, but this is still not a document that can be adopted at face value. Dave McClure ---------- From: Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 8:29 PM To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; aop at cris.com; the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Subject: Re: AOP Notification > Karl, If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Of course, you are free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. However, I will, for the record, one more time, state that ARIN will be an independently run organization with no connection to NSI. Kim > > > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. > > I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. > > It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would > trust their judgement. > > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- > rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and > become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might > foreshadow.) > > --karl-- > > > From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:15:42 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:15:42 -0500 Subject: ARIN BoT Message-ID: <01BC1124.56DAB580@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Karl, the integrity and service of the proposed BoT members is not the issue, in my mind. The issue isn't even who chose them and why. The issue is that they have been proposed without input from the people within the Internet community they would seek to serve, and without building support from within that community. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. We must have an initial BoT to get ARIN organized, but we also need to allow the Internet community to have a voice in their selection. Solution: Have the initial BoT serve for only one year to get the organization up and running, and then resign. This initial BoT would not be "grandfathered", but would have the right to run for BoT positions (with the advantage that they will have proven their abilities as trustees). This simple change could eliminate the entire "who are these people and who picked them" discussion. Dave McClure ---------- From: Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl at CAVEBEAR.COM] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 4:34 PM To: 'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Cc: Dave McClure; 'The Innkeeper' Subject: Re: AOP Notification > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would trust their judgement. (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might foreshadow.) --karl-- From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 15:40:04 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:40:04 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Alan, thanks for your comments and input. May a take a moment of your time to clarify an issue or two? The initial ARIN proposal suggested that persons comment to the e-mail address provided, which we reported to our members. When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a clarification to our members. We also believe that the formation of a non-profit to manage IP address registry is an excellent idea that AOP supports. And have said so. The issue is not the concept but its proposed implementation. >>As soon as the community thinks that ARIN is not doing the right thing and is beyond hope of being fixed, the community will form the AntiNIC. ARIN knows this, and so presumably will do the right thing. Everybody also knows that the AntiNIC will not be successful unless *it* has the support of community consensus.<< You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of self-perpetuating Trustees. Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input from the members of ARIN. Suppose this proposal is adopted within the next 10 weeks, as has been suggested, and the Trustees then elect to raise fees or otherwise act imprudently. Not saying they will, but we need to address these issues in order to craft a good proposal. Who would you complain to? No one, since ARIN is accountable to no one but its own Board of Trustees. How would you protest? Refuse to pay the fees? You'd only lose the ability to get IP addresses. You would be faced with trying to build a new organization to fix the problems we've created. And to do so in the face of an entrenched organization that already has been given the authority to do as it pleases -- by us. This is an imperfect proposal that *is* getting public discussion, and that will have the consensus of the industry (or it will not succeed). This is an imperfect proposal that is being discussed on a single listserv of about 300 people. That's better than none, but what is the mechanism to approve this proposal? A vote by this listserv? While there are many knowledgeable people of high integrity here, they hardly constitute a consensus. And I have yet to see any proposal for a vote on this proposal by any of the standards bodies extant to the Internet. Helping to clarify the proposal and remove any bugs would be useful. Your conspiracy theories are not useful. Conspiracy theories? I don't think I've ever tried to place Ms. Hubbard on the grassy knoll in Dallas . Fixing the bugs is exactly what we are trying to do. Let's begin by figuring out how ARIN can be made accountable to the people it would seek to serve. And by getting very specific information about what the actual costs are to maintain the registry today. And to determine how to build consensus beyond this listserv. Dave McClure From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 16:25:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 13:25 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: <01BC1124.58D23FC0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: > Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position = > to become the chief executive of ARIN?=20 > > The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, = > Inc. ... I believe this mailing list has been archived. It might help you to read up a bit before trying to post. from "Dave McClure" at Feb 2, 97 02:35:03 pm Message-ID: <199702022146.QAA09030@moses.internic.net> > > Randy, I would also ask some clarification of your remarks. > > Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position to become the chief executive of ARIN? No. The CEO of NSI is not resigning to become the CEO of ARIN. Randy meant that I will be the CEO of ARIN. > > The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, Inc. (and if so, how is it impacted by NSI's recent discussion of their financial situation? If the money is instead to be drawn from the contractual amount that NSI was required to set aside for use to benefit the Internet (and ARIN would be an excellent use for such funds, IMHO), then it is not NSI's money. > The funding is coming from NSI not the 30%. Kim > Dave McClure > > ---------- > From: Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:31 AM > To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM > Cc: naipr at arin.net > Subject: Re: AOP Notification > > > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > > are employees of NSI > > I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. > > An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of > money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's > cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. > > I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might > get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain > nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead > reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to > take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity > willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a > note to Kim. > > The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but > rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is > common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't > think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows > more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. > > So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no > sarcastic remarks:-). > > randy > > > From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 16:47:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:47:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702020701.CAA08264@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. > Michael - could you please explain this conflict? So many people get domain name registry services confused with IP allocation services that I think making a clean break between the two is a very good idea. However, having the CEO of the world's largest domain name registry provider on the Board of Trustees effectively means that there is no clean break and will be interpreted so by the media and by the public and by the potential members of ARIN. > NSI will be financing > ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly > understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they > are no longer financially involved. This makes perfect sense. If this is the case it would be best if it was clearly explained up front. Would this mean that Donald Telage would hold one of the Board seats that expires after the first year? Similarily with your own position. If you will be an ex-officio Board of Trustees member then it is best to state this up front so that everybody has a clear picture of how things will be structured. > Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a > domain registry would cause a conflict. I've just seen so many commentators confuse the two issues, time and time again.... However, I'm curious as to why it is necessary to get seed funding from Network Solutions in the first place. If ARIN is solidly supported by its potential membership, then it seems to me that there would be adequate funding available from them to get things going. And if it is not solidly supported by its potential membership then there is a major problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Seed funding from some other organization, whether Network Solutions or the NSF's Intellectual Infrastructure Fund, is not going to help much. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:01:00 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:01:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN BoT In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.56DAB580@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > The issue is that they have been proposed without input from the people > within the Internet community they would seek to serve, and without > building support from within that community. This is so ridiculous I can't understand how you could make such a statement. If I ask a bunch of friends "What do you say we go out bowling tonight?" would I expect to be attacked for not consulting them before proposing such a thing? Of course not. The act of making the proposal public is, in itself, an act of consultation. The proposal was placed on a web (a service that all Internet providers have access to) and a mailing list was created for discussion (again, a service that all Internet providers have access to). The website and mailing list were announced on ISP mailing lists on which well over half of North America's ISP's participate. This is consultation. As far as building support goes, this is not a product marketing issue here. We want to see Internet providers participate in the planning and design of ARIN and not merely passively voting aye or nay for some ivory tower proposal. That's what *IS* happening on this mailing list and yes, it does get messy sometimes, but that's the real world. The secret is that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If your ideas are good, say them on the list or mail them privately to one of the board members and there is a good chance they will consider them seriously. At the end of that process, the support will come naturally. > Solution: Have the initial BoT serve for only one year to get the > organization up and running, and then resign. I don't think that the term of office for most BoT members is in question as long as a reasonable mechanism is in place for choosing their successors. This initial BoT would > not be "grandfathered", but would have the right to run for BoT > positions (with the advantage that they will have proven their abilities > as trustees). This simple change could eliminate the entire "who are > these people and who picked them" discussion. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 17:28:44 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:28:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 2, 97 01:47:48 pm Message-ID: <199702022228.RAA09086@moses.internic.net> > > However, I'm curious as to why it is necessary to get seed funding from > Network Solutions in the first place. If ARIN is solidly supported by its > potential membership, then it seems to me that there would be adequate > funding available from them to get things going. And if it is not solidly > supported by its potential membership then there is a major problem that > needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Seed funding from some > other organization, whether Network Solutions or the NSF's Intellectual > Infrastructure Fund, is not going to help much. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > > > Michael, It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone before we can open the doors. If we did, though, how much would you be willing to ante up? Kim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:26:10 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control of > North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be under > the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. Nope. Control of North American IP addresses has always rested with the network operators who run the core mesh of the Internet. If this group gets disgusted with ARIN, they can and will form an AntiNIC and ARIN will become irrelevant dregs of history. At this point in time, the reason that the registries (RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC) appear to have some control is because they are basically fair and basically do a good job of IP allocations so the network operators are quite content to accept them as the final decision point for IP allocations. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will elect > new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory Council. The > Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board of Trustees. > That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input from the members > of ARIN. You simply have not been doing your research. Before writing such an inaccurate statement you could have very easily checked out the proposal at http://www.arin.net where you would have discovered that your statement is just plain wrong: It is expected that the initial Advisory Council will develop procedures to fill vacancies on the Council. These procedures, as envisioned, would allow ARIN's membership to elect future Advisory Council members. > Who would you complain to? No one, since ARIN is accountable to no one > but its own Board of Trustees. How would you protest? Refuse to pay > the fees? You'd only lose the ability to get IP addresses. You are stretching it pretty thin here. You can only pile up so many "if"'s before you have nothing left but air and vapor. ARIN will not exist in a vacuum. The BoT will be subject to the laws governing non-rpofit organizations. They will be subject to the disapproval of their fee-paying members. And they have to operate within the context of the Internet community which contains several other power centers such as the IETF, ISOC, the network operators. There is no point pretending that ARIN could become another OPEC cartel because it just can't happen. > This is an imperfect proposal that is being discussed on a single > listserv of about 300 people. No. It's been discussed on several other mailing lists as well. The people that are on this list are the self-selected group that is interested enough to be involved in the niggly details of getting ARIN off the ground. Let's not criticise those people who have decided that their views are adequately represented by others on this list so that they need not join in themselves. > That's better than none, but what is the > mechanism to approve this proposal? A vote by this listserv? While > there are many knowledgeable people of high integrity here, they hardly > constitute a consensus. And I have yet to see any proposal for a vote > on this proposal by any of the standards bodies extant to the Internet. This does not concern the standards bodies so there is no point in having them here other than as interested individuals. As far as making the final decision, I'm surprised that as a director of the AOP you do not understand how this type of decision is usually made by informed consensus. In addition, the very nature of a non-profit corporation means that a small group of people sign the incorporation documents and form the group of founding members and board of directors. P.S. Since you seem to have little understanding of how the Internet works, may I suggest that you review the material in the reading list at http://www.arin.net as well as the discussion list archives available at the same URL. You will find a lot of tutorial information in these sites that will help you to make more informed comments in the future. Right now I'm not sure why you are even interested in this list since ARIN is likely to have zero effect on the BBS sysops who constitute the AOP's membership. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:42:39 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.541B4760@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then > re-elect a Board to continue the organization. This would cause a lack of continuity which is worse than having a self-selected board. And the ARIN board is not truly self-selected since the potential members could have the composition of the board changed if they felt strongly enough about it. For instance if the core network operators decided that they wanted another operator like Curtis Villamizar instead of a researcher like Scott Bradner, then it is in the realm of possibility. > 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.) > to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any > stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a > stronger role in supporting ARIN. I don't believe any of the BoT candidate have an InterNIC stigma other than the CEO of Network Solutions. And I don't think it is realistic to have a patchwork board composed of nominees. And you forgot the CIX and the ISP/C in your list. Even then, the CIX and ISP/C do not represent all ISP's so it's no more fair than the current proposed board. > 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties > that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build > consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a > single listserv are behind ARIN. No doubt there will be a number of people at the next NANOG meeting discussing the proposals face-to-face. But you should know that doing this sort of thing at a "congress" is also unfair to those who cannot afford the time or the money to attend. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:52:33 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:52:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702022228.RAA09086@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't > think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone > before we can open the doors. It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a loan to be repaid by ARIN. Or is there something else? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 18:06:25 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:06:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You brought up some very, very good points -- about transit and about dual homing -- I guess what I'm getting at is this: I think of ARIN not just as something that passes out address blocks -- I consider that those who get the blocks ought to have some reciprocial obligation to ARIN itself and to the other folks who got blocks. To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing information for ARIN grants. I know that this is a very deep swamp with lots of hungry crocodiles. If Ford, for example, were to obtain an ARIN block, I wouldn't expect it to willingly provide transit to General Motors (again assuming that it gets an ARIN block.) This gets heavily into the dark forest of policy routing. What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider independent class C. Yes, if there are enought of these it has the potential to substantially remove the benefits of aggregation. Yet, as we've seen with the AOL mess, people are starting to depend on this stuff and as a consequence, I can see that the number of folks wanting (and being able to justify) a direct, small block directly from ARIN, could increase. So, what I'm saying is that we could consider that everyone else who got an ARIN block has an obligation to at least be reasonable in dealing with these small ARIN blocks. It's too early to say what "reasonable" is. I do feel that it certainly should not be an automatic barricade on blocks less than some size. (I.e. I think that "reasonable" involves some human though processes.) This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some reciprocial obligations...". --karl-- From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 18:18:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:18:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 2, 97 02:52:33 pm Message-ID: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> > > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't > > think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone > > before we can open the doors. > > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a > loan to be repaid by ARIN. > > Or is there something else? Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), phone system, etc. Kim > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 18:22:24 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:22:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Feb 2, 97 03:06:25 pm Message-ID: <199702022322.SAA09342@moses.internic.net> > > This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in > a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some > reciprocial obligations...". > > --karl-- > > > > > Karl, ARIN is definitely not in a position to dictate routing policy to anyone. Neither is RIPE, APNIC or InterNIC. Kim From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 18:26:17 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 18:26:17 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> At 03:06 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >I know that this is a very deep swamp with lots of hungry crocodiles. If >Ford, for example, were to obtain an ARIN block, I wouldn't expect it to >willingly provide transit to General Motors (again assuming that it gets >an ARIN block.) This gets heavily into the dark forest of policy routing. > No, this gets into basic economics and has little to do with ARIN. If (your example) GM gets has direct connectivity to Ford, and pays Ford to provide transit, then this is a private contractual issue. It does not rely on whether GM has been allocated their address space from ARIN or from Ford or anyone else for that matter. > >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some >reciprocial obligations...". > ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's the issue here? - paul From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 18:30:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 15:30 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: I share your concerns. I also share your questioning if this is the place to solve them. Smells a bit NANOGish to me. > To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and > don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general > mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a > member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing > information for ARIN grants. While suspect it may not be wise to burden ARIN with this mandate, it has enough problems already, could something be done to communicate this need to the culture as a whole? Observe that this is current accepted practice for reasonably aggregated routing. But, as has been so well demonstrated on this list, what is an accepted part of the culture today seems not to be understood by the massive influx of new folk. We should probably be less surprised than I, for one, am. > What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you > brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider > independent class C. What if NSI or ARIN will not allocate less than a /19, and they keep qualifications for space about the same as they are now? I.e. the medical group has no alternative but to take its /24 from one of its providers. The question becomes whether their other providers will accept that /24 from the medial group and propagate it. And will any of their peers listen to a /24? Before folk who do not run default-free routers today go ballistic, note that this issue is current today, sans ARIN and independent of the InterNIC. If someone bludgeons NSI into giving them a /24 out of 208 or wherever Kim's allocating this week, it is becoming less and less routable as more and more of us unstall filters. So if the InterNIC allows the medical group to bludgeon them out of a /24, they are really not doing the medical group a favor, in fact, it is a disfavor. I suggest that ARIN consider not doing so. But, as you suggest, much of this is NANOG and IEPG fodder, as it is an inter-pprovider matter, and neither InterNIC nor ARIN can dictate to the providers. randy From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 18:41:36 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:41:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > > are employees of NSI > > I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. > So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no > sarcastic remarks:-). I'll try, and without sarcasm and with an intention to be constructive. One of my purposes in pointing these things out is that I think that if these issues are answered now, when things are still flexible and when the reasons for a choice are still fresh and not-forgotten, ARIN will be in a better position to answer similar questions later. The AOL situation with the lawsuits has got me really concerned that it's worthwhile to endure a painful debate now in order to get some stability later; the users out there are getting feisty. > An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of > money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's > cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. Yes, that is a valid point. (Assuming, of course, that it is clearly NSI's money and not money from the 30% being witheld from domain name fees.) This does raise the ancillary question -- If the NSI representation is to ensure that the money is spent "properly", then what is the definition of "properly"? There is a lot of room here for suspicious minds (or some of us who have had unfortunate experiences in real-life business) to have concern. This is really hard to write about without inadvertent shadows on the individuals involved. I want to assure them that doing so is not my intent or desire. Let's look at the specific case of the CEO of NSI being on the BoT of ARIN. As CEO it's his legal obligation to care for the interests of NSI and it's shareholders. Each BoT member has a legal obligation towards ARIN and its constitutients. At times these will come into conflict, often in subtle ways. It's going to be a tough line to walk, and is only going to be made more difficult when there is a presumption at the outset that the NSI CEO is there to "ensure that NSI's money is properly spent". --karl-- From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 19:05:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 16:05 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: Message-ID: > This does raise the ancillary question -- If the NSI representation is > to ensure that the money is spent "properly", then what is the definition > of "properly"? I suspect to see that ARIN does a good enough job that NSI does not have to worry about address allocation showing up on their doorstep again. And I am not kidding. With some structural changes that are happening, domain names may be an interesting business. But addresses are not. Address allocation is the kind of pain in the butt that belongs in a non=profit stewardship, hence ARIN. So I suspect that NSI just wants to see that the handover is clean and successful. I hope that he may want to help see ARIN off on a sound business footing. He is a successful COO of an orgainzation that has ARIN-like duties. So one hopes he will provide some business guidance. But, in truth, I have no idea what Donald Telage's goals and concerns are, as I have not spoken with him. So we're all guessing here. If you know anybody else with a megabuck or so to spare for a good cause, I suspect that NSI would not be jealous. randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 19:11:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of > > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal > > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating > > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a > > loan to be repaid by ARIN. > > > > Or is there something else? > > Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, > office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), > phone system, etc. Why can't this stuff wait until ARIN is incorporated and the members hand over their checks? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 19:21:34 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:21:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in > >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some > >reciprocial obligations...". > > ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by > stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's > the issue here? The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or larger parts of the net. ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing such a condition.] It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own choices without regard for anyone else." But that game can be played by others as well, including ARIN. An ISP that says "we reserve the ultimate right to determine which traffic we will carry" should not complain if ARIN says to it "if you don't want to play by our rules, you don't get an address block." This is one of those situations which reflect the fact that "regulation of ARIN" by its membership is really not regulation. Since the membership (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be granting the tax exemptions.) This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild west" attitude of every ISP for itself. --karl-- From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 19:47:10 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> At 04:21 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by >> stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's >> the issue here? > >The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN >only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing >information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or >larger parts of the net. > ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. >ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, >impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or >capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating >that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing such a >condition.] > This is, in my humble opinion, common sense, as well as conventional wisdom. >It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be >independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own >choices without regard for anyone else." > ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, they can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, the fact that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal issue. Under the ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is now they will pay for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining address space directly from ARIN. - paul From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 21:15:01 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:15:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I made some statements about the financing of ARIN by using membership fees. However, I misunderstood the intent of the current proposal which is that members will pay $1,000 when they join but will only pay the annual subscription fee ($2,500 - $20,000) the next time they apply to ARIN for more address space. Since this could be a long time after ARIN is formed, it is clearly impractical to consider it for initial funding. Basically, this leaves NSI's offer to pay good money to move the IP allocation function out of their company, employees and all. And while there is a mystery fund sitting in an NSF trust account, I don't think that there is any way that this could become available soon enough to get ARIN off the ground in April. Given that ARIN is jump-started with NSI funding, it makes sense that their CEO sits on the board. If I were the CEO of NSI, then I would do the same to make sure that things are done right and my goals are achieved. And it seems likely that Mr. Telage's goal is to get this unfunded public service activity out of his corporation. Under more normal circumstances a CEO would either sell the division or shut it down. But since the NSF has managed to saddle him with an operation that is not saleable, the formation of ARIN seems to be the only reasonable way out. I'm sure Mr. Telage would not hesitate to resign from ARIN after the startup stage is complete since he has bigger fish to fry in the domain name business and the intranet consulting business. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 21:20:47 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:20:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702030220.SAA28116@zocalo.net> > The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block > from ARIN only to discover that some ISP has decided to not > accept or honor routing information that would allow that block > to be reached from smaller or larger parts of the net. I wouldn't call it an "issue," I'd call it a "fact." It would be an "issue" if there were some problem with this, or contention surrounding it. > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to > do so, impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid > arbitrary or capricious treatment of other grantees. Rhetorically, this is debatable... Yes, in a sense, if ARIN no longer wished to be an authoritative registry, it could impose such a condition, whereupon the authority you stipulate would no longer exist. In the real world, your statement is false. We need a registry, and there's no point in setting one up if it's just going to invalidate itself, so no, it couldn't impose any conditions of routability. > Kim just sent a note indicating that, at least at the outset, > ARIN would not be imposing such a condition. No, she said, and I quote: "ARIN is definitely not in a position to dictate routing policy to anyone. Neither is RIPE, APNIC or InterNIC." "ARIN will, as does the InterNIC, allocate globally unique addresses. ARIN will not route or guarantee routability of addresses." "ARIN will use the same allocation guidelines as InterNIC/RIPE/APNIC are using." I don't see anything either ambiguous or provisional about any of those statements. Your implication that such a condition might be imposed later would not seem to me to be correct. Making Kim repeat the same already-clearly-stated policy statements over and over is absolutely pointless, and a waste of everytone's time. Why is this still being hashed over? It doesn't seem to me to be bringing operational status any closer. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 21:38:46 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:38:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, > > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or > > capricious treatment of other grantees. > > And how would one define arbitrary or capricious? Some would say that not > accepting /20s is neither, but rather is saving one's own routers. That's a very legitimate reason; it is certainly seems neither arbitrary nor capricious, at least not at first glance. However, since the incremental cost of carrying a route is the same whether the prefix is /8 or /24, an ISP may have to have some policy other than mere prefix size for deciding which routes to carry and which to not carry. But that's an issue for the ISPs and whether they want to risk being called to task for being descriminatory. (Discrimination per se isn't illegal, but it does tend to be a source of questions.) What is an issue for ARIN is this: Suppose someone goes through all the necessary hoops and gets an ARIN assigned block. And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend. Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? --karl-- From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 21:46:37 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:46:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN > only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing > information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or > larger parts of the net. This is reality today, although not as much as in the past because the registries (RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC) make it abundantly clear to people that small netblocks are not routable. However, at the time when providers started filtering unaggregated netblocks, there were companies who received allocations which they discovered to be useless. For a while, RIPE was doing slowstart allocations to ISP's of /20's or /21's and they discovered that Sprint's /19 filters were blocking them from all Sprint customers. This is a basic risk of business on the net today. However, there are ways for most organizations to avoid those risks. It starts with due diligence in learning about RFC 1918 addresses, NAT, proxies, DHCP, renumbering, etc. And then implementing those techniques to help your organization meet its goals while protecting it from events beyond its control out there on the net. In a free market system it is not possible to guarantee that all companies will make a profit when their business licence is issued. And on the Internet it is not possible to guarantee that an ARIN-allocated address block will be routable on the public network. > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or > capricious treatment of other grantees. The problem with this is that the core network operators don't need to ask ARIN for addresses for themselves. If they decide that ARIN's conditions of service are too onerous and interfere too much with their ability to do business, they have two choices. They can go directly to IANA for addresses and IANA is highly unlikely to impose any such conditions if they should grant address space. Or they could simply agree amongst themselves to use a currently unused netblock. ARIN is not a kingmaker that can impose conditions on its grantees that the grantees would not willingly accept. And if they would willingly accept such conditions then there would be no need for ARIN to impose those conditions. > It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be > independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own > choices without regard for anyone else." The reality is that everybody in the Internet game is dependent on everybody else. The game requires cooperation in order to gain success. No doubt this is due to its military heritage since the military people who built the Internet technology live in an environment where cooperation and teamwork is the only choice. > Since the membership > (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the > policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, > not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be > granting the tax exemptions.) First of all, there is no reason why large non-ISP users of IP addresses could not be members of ARIN. So ARIN's membership is likely to include other corporations and probably some government agencies as well. Especially since membership is only $1,000 per year. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that even a majority of ISP's will join ARIN. So while it might be nice to have a world in which all network providers guarantee routability of an IP address block that is allocated according to some set of conditions, I don't believe that ARIN is in a position to do this. If there really is a demand for this sort of organization then it would likely grow out of NANOG and thus far, NANOG has not shown any great signs of wanting to become any sort of formal organization. In fact, I would not expect to see this sort of thing appear first in North America, because we are too wild, too entrepreneurial, too pioneer in spirit. This sort of organized behavior is more likely to arise in the more settled parts of the world, namely Europe. Then we can once again follow their example if it proves to be a good thing. > This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously > consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild > west" attitude of every ISP for itself. This would be like herding cats! Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 21:55:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 18:55 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: > And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's > policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend. > > Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? Can "The way inten[ded]" be clearly understood and defined? Before the granting of the allocation? And, if so, was the alocatee warned that the block may not be usable in that way? The reason I follow this trail is because that is the circumstance today. You will be told by the InterNIC that the /20 which you are insisting they allocate will not necessarily be universally usable. If you insist that they give it to you anyway, the public loses, because that is wasted space. Seems to me the most prudent approach would be to follow the practice in the rest of the world and not allocate a prefix longer than say a /19, period. If you can't qualify for a /19, then get space from your provider. And as neither ARIN nor that provider can guaranty that the space will be universally routable, we have completed the circle. Please show me the way out. randy From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 22:18:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 19:18 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: > Especially since membership is only $1,000 per year. Secondly, it is > highly unlikely that even a majority of ISP's will join ARIN. This is a key point in ARIN's income projections. If only 300 ISPs join, then that is on the order of 10% of the operating budget, after the rather large startup costs. Will those 300 ISPs who have gotten InterNIC allocations join ARIN as members? Even if they are not required to do so in order to obtain allocations? Will enough others join to make up for any shortfall in those 300? Then we get to the big chunk of income, the allocation fees. Should income estimates be modeled on o the most recent year of InterNIC allocations? o those allocations presuming some growth? how much? o those allocations presuming shrinkage as it will now cost people money? how much? o some other base for projections? Being an engineer, I am inclined to the first as it is easiest to explain logically. But I suspect real business folk are less seduced by logic than I. Note that a prudent startup estimates income a bit low and expense a bit high. While explaining a bit too much cash in a non-profit can be harder than in a for profit, it's a trivial problem compared to not making payroll, being cut off by your RBOC and ISPs, etc. So, Andrew's offered to pony up. I did the other week. Now don't all stampede. :-) randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 22:16:26 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:16:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > I fully agree many of the issues here are more NANOG/IEPG. Unfortunately, > as you suggest, a significant number of participants here either don't know > of those groups, or don't understand the relationship between ARIN and > NANOG/IEPG. If those people are ISP's then they have got to find the time to learn these things. There is plenty of material on NANOG at http://www.nanog.org and there is some amount of info available on IEPG at http://www.iepg.org Both groups are informal, both have mailing lists, both have regular face-to-face meetings (IEPG generally in conjunction with IETF). Of course many ISP's will claim that they have fulltime jobs already and just don't know where to find the time to learn all this stuff and participate in these discussions and meetings. However, every one of the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees also has a full time job and has to commit some of their personal time to getting ARIN off the ground. Volunteer work and non-profit organizations tend to go hand in hand. > My intuition > is that aggregation is probably best served if the medical group gets a /24 > assigned from Provider A space, with prior agreement from Provider B that > Provider B will advertise the specific hole from Provider A space, if and > only if the customer-to-A link is lost and the customer intelligently > starts advertising the /24 to Provider B. PIARA take note. If provider B were to charge an additional sum of money to the medical group for carrying the hole-punch route then this would tend to be self-regulating. I know some PIARA people want to see wholesale route charging but in the real world a small experiment is usually the wiser course to take. And if anyone here doesn't know what PIARA is or what they have proposed to do, have a look through ftp://archive.apnic.net/mailing-lists/piara/ but remember, it's only an idea and if you don't like something about it you would do best to take it up on the list itself. Send your subscribe request to piara-request at apnic.net and don't be surprised if there's not much traffic. And if you want to talk about what an IP registry SHOULD be doing, the IRE list, now renamed PAGAN is archived at ftp://archive.apnic.net/mailing-lists/pagan/ and you can join by sending your subscribe message to pagan-request at apnic.net > Now -- this is a real world problem. I haven't even scratched issues like > attempts to load balance, having >2 providers, etc. I'm sure that if this > were discussed in detail, there would be many more complexities. You might want to take this up in the IEPG or on the NANOG list. > If you are uncomfortable pointing out > the strengths and weaknesses of this off-the-top-of-my-head example, I > respectfully suggest you have some homework to do before assuming that > other than technical factors are involved in the allocation & routing > policies here. Yes. And the material required to do the homework is readily available on the net. Especially now that we have services like http://www.altavista.digital.com to make it easy to find things. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Feb 2 17:16:19 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:16:19 +0000 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:13:28 EST." <32F26078.6220@driveway1.com> Message-ID: <199702022216.WAA05685@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> >Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable >addresses being issued? Yes. Quite a few. Some organizations are completely uninterested in global Internet routability -- they simply want the uniqueness guarantees the registries provide. A company called SAP is a case in point. Regards, -drc From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Feb 2 17:14:28 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:14:28 +0000 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:45:59 EST." <32F2A057.1F9D@driveway1.com> Message-ID: <199702022214.WAA05663@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> >How about the other case, where there are duplicated addresses? Any >history on this? Any duplicate address allocations are considered extremely bad and no registry would do so knowingly. This is not to say it hasn't happened (registry staff being human after all), but it is _extremely_ rare and immediately corrected when discovered. Regards, -drc From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 22:52:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:52:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Refunds??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Randy Bush wrote: > > Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > You will be told by the InterNIC that the /20 which you are insisting they > allocate will not necessarily be universally usable. If you insist that > they give it to you anyway, the public loses, because that is wasted space. And since the public registry has already incurred the cost of allocating the netblock, I don't think there should be refunds. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Feb 2 17:12:23 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:12:23 +0000 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:07:10 PST." Message-ID: <199702022212.WAA05647@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> [antitrust at usdoj.gov removed from cc's] Karl, >So I count one place: ARIN. Actually, technically speaking, there are two. ARIN and the IANA. >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. "Agreed among themselves"? Please see RFC 1466 and who its authors are. >Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the >three registries allocate anywhere in the world. This has been discussed in the past in numerous venues, however the major sticking point is coming up with a way that insures the competitive registries do not ease allocation requirements in order to obtain additional customers without creating a huge bureaucracy of auditors. If you come up with a way, I'm sure all the registries (myself in particular) will be very interested in hearing about it. Regards, -drc From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 23:29:13 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:29:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702022212.WAA05647@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among > >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each > >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. > > "Agreed among themselves"? Please see RFC 1466 and who its authors are. I assume you mean 2050 which supersedes 1466: Network Working Group K. Hubbard Request for Comments: 2050 M. Kosters Obsoletes: 1466 InterNIC BCP: 12 D. Conrad Category: Best Current Practice APNIC D. Karrenberg RIPE J. Postel ISI The authors certainly do represent those amongst whom one would expect an agreement to be made. The authorship tends to represent those who allocate space rather than those who consume it. --karl-- From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 23:58:00 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:58:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Refunds??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > > And since the public registry has already incurred the cost of allocating > the netblock, I don't think there should be refunds. That's generally my feeling. One alternative, albeit a very troublesome one, is that the ISPs which prevent the grant from being effectively being used should be required, as a condition of their respective ARIN grant, to pay the costs. Yes, I know that that is very, very ugly, but ARIN *could* impose such a condition on its grants. There is no reason it could not do so except its own choice not to do so. And since that choice isn't in the proposed charter document on the web site, and since there is no BoT in place, such a decision could not yet have made. There are massive grounds here for potential litigation. If ARIN is going to hold to the "non refund" policy then there should be an extremely clear warning to the potential grantees, before they pay any money, of the dangers of ISPs refusing routing and that the fees paid are for the cost of labor of services rendered. (Overall, I think ARIN is would probably be on pretty good ground with a "no refund" policy, as long as it is articulated well, customers are given good notice beforehand, and that the reasons behind the policy are well documented. [The postings on this thread could possibly constitute part of such documentation.]. I'm not so sure that the ISPs who "protect themselves" by routing filters will be able to have such a safe ride.) --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 20:19:07 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:19:07 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: References: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: At 4:11 PM -0800 2/2/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >> > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of >> > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal >> > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating >> > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a >> > loan to be repaid by ARIN. >> > >> > Or is there something else? >> >> Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, >> office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), >> phone system, etc. > >Why can't this stuff wait until ARIN is incorporated and the members hand >over their checks? > Not sure what you are asking. Without knowing what the costs are, including these mundane ones, how would people know for what amounts the check should be written? The fees still seem arbitrary numbers -- might be reasonable, might not be -- I don't have information to judge. From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 20:19:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 17:19 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or > capricious treatment of other grantees. And how would one define arbitrary or capricious? Some would say that not accepting /20s is neither, but rather is saving one's own routers. > This is one of those situations which reflect the fact that "regulation of > ARIN" by its membership is really not regulation. Since the membership > (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the > policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, > not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be > granting the tax exemptions.) I am not aware of membership being limited to ISPs. The text I see says "Open to any entity or individual wishing to participate in IP-related issues." > This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously > consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild > west" attitude of every ISP for itself. Concrete suggestions solicited. randy From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 20:06:24 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:06:24 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Randy, I fully agree many of the issues here are more NANOG/IEPG. Unfortunately, as you suggest, a significant number of participants here either don't know of those groups, or don't understand the relationship between ARIN and NANOG/IEPG. I'm not sure how to refocus this list onto address registration (ignoring ASN's). People do bring up legitimate concerns, and perhaps there needs to be more of a forum for putting them in context. At 3:30 PM -0800 2/2/97, Randy Bush wrote: >I share your concerns. I also share your questioning if this is the place >to solve them. Smells a bit NANOGish to me. > >> To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and >> don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general >> mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a >> member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing >> information for ARIN grants. > >While suspect it may not be wise to burden ARIN with this mandate, it has >enough problems already, could something be done to communicate this need >to the culture as a whole? > >Observe that this is current accepted practice for reasonably aggregated >routing. But, as has been so well demonstrated on this list, what is an >accepted part of the culture today seems not to be understood by the >massive influx of new folk. We should probably be less surprised than I, >for one, am. > >> What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you >> brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider >> independent class C. > It's a deliberately nasty example, and even then, probably better than in the real world. I stipulated the medical group had thorough exterior routing competence. That isn't as likely as we might like. >What if NSI or ARIN will not allocate less than a /19, and they keep >qualifications for space about the same as they are now? I.e. the medical >group has no alternative but to take its /24 from one of its providers. >The question becomes whether their other providers will accept that /24 >from the medial group and propagate it. And will any of their peers >listen to a /24? Without getting into any issues of what might give an appearance of collusion, I think the long-term solution to this sort of thing will be specific, fairly routine, inter-provider backup arrangements. My intuition is that aggregation is probably best served if the medical group gets a /24 assigned from Provider A space, with prior agreement from Provider B that Provider B will advertise the specific hole from Provider A space, if and only if the customer-to-A link is lost and the customer intelligently starts advertising the /24 to Provider B. Not necessarily pretty, but winds up with only one /24 being advertised occasionally. Of course, that /24 needs to be withdrawn when the primary link comes back up, so some level of dampening probably is necessary. One would hope that with a sufficient number of bilateral provider agreements like this, the workload would tend to equalize. Now -- this is a real world problem. I haven't even scratched issues like attempts to load balance, having >2 providers, etc. I'm sure that if this were discussed in detail, there would be many more complexities. In all sincerity, for those of you who think ARIN is being anticompetitive because it discourages giving out small PI blocks, please read the preceding four paragraphs. I have not tried to be obscure, but have not written a lengthy tutorial either. If you are uncomfortable pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of this off-the-top-of-my-head example, I respectfully suggest you have some homework to do before assuming that other than technical factors are involved in the allocation & routing policies here. > >Before folk who do not run default-free routers today go ballistic, note >that this issue is current today, sans ARIN and independent of the >InterNIC. If someone bludgeons NSI into giving them a /24 out of 208 or >wherever Kim's allocating this week, it is becoming less and less routable >as more and more of us unstall filters. > >So if the InterNIC allows the medical group to bludgeon them out of a /24, >they are really not doing the medical group a favor, in fact, it is a >disfavor. I suggest that ARIN consider not doing so. In general, I agree. > >But, as you suggest, much of this is NANOG and IEPG fodder, as it is an >inter-pprovider matter, and neither InterNIC nor ARIN can dictate to the >providers. > >randy From davec at ZIPLINK.NET Mon Feb 3 00:23:12 1997 From: davec at ZIPLINK.NET (Dave Curado) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:23:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Refunds??? Message-ID: <199702030523.AAA06493@zip1.ziplink.net> >>> Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? In a bizarre twist, this could theoretically cost you money. =-) Kim and David Conrad (et al) have made it clear that the registry is charging for the work that goes into making the allocation, not for the address space itself. When you "de-allocate" space, they have to go through more work (although probably much less) to edit their files, databases, whois server, etc. (all that said, I'd bet they won't charge for this service =-) In any case, the question is not relevant as ARIN (just as the NIC) can only allocate space, but can not guarantee routability. davec From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 3 00:31:52 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:31:52 +0900 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 1997 20:29:13 PST." Message-ID: <199702030531.OAA06554@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Karl, >I assume you mean 2050 which supersedes 1466: No. The registries existed before 2050. 2050 documents current registry allocation guidelines, it does NOT address how the registries were created. RFC 1466 documents why and how the registries were created. Please read RFC 1466 and see what I mean. >The authorship tends to represent those who allocate space rather >than those who consume it. To save you some time: Network Working Group E. Gerich Request for Comments: 1466 Merit Obsoletes: 1366 May 1993 Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract This document has been reviewed by the Federal Engineering Planning Group (FEPG) on behalf of the Federal Networking Council (FNC), the co-chairs of the Intercontinental Engineering Planning Group (IEPG), and the Reseaux IP Europeens (RIPE). There was general consensus by those groups to support the recommendations proposed in this document for management of the IP address space. ... Regards, -drc From apb at IAFRICA.COM Mon Feb 3 00:39:03 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:39:03 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: Dave McClure wrote: > When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a > clarification to our members. Thanks. I didn't know about that. > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control > of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be > under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the trust of the community. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will > elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory > Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board > of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input > from the members of ARIN. Yes, I agree that that might be a problem. Perhaps it would be useful if you proposed a concrete alternative? (Or perhaps you have done so already, and I don't remember it?) > [various good points deleted] --apb (Alan Barrett) From woody at ZOCALO.NET Mon Feb 3 00:39:14 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:39:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Refunds??? Message-ID: <199702030539.VAA02237@zocalo.net> > One alternative, albeit a very troublesome one, is that the ISPs > which prevent the grant from being effectively being used should > be required, as a condition of their respective ARIN grant, to > pay the costs. No, that's not possible either. Let's say that I get a /16 from ARIN, and try to set up a peering session to announce it to MCI, and plan to run default-free. MCI is, of course, not going to actually bother to send packets to me for this this block, regardless of how big it is; they'll want to send the packets to someone they already have a peering agreement with. If it's my whim that I want to run default free, then they've just rendered my block useless. Under the scheme you suggest, I could return it to ARIN and MCI would have to pay a fee. I would, of course, keep doing this over and over until MCI gave in and set up a peering session, or Kim hired a thug to convince me to stop being a pest. Nice plan, but I doubt that Peter Kline, for instance, would sign off on it. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From bmanning at ISI.EDU Mon Feb 3 03:33:00 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:33:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anti-trust concerns vs. reliable address space concerns In-Reply-To: <32F269FF.6F07@driveway1.com> from "Larry Honig" at Jan 31, 97 04:54:07 pm Message-ID: <199702030833.AA15252@zephyr.isi.edu> > Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable > addresses being issued? Or addresses being unintentionally replicated? > How does the newly assigned address block get validated as kosher right > now other than in the "dreaded real world test"? > My case predates NSI and NAIPR handleing of address space. I had received approx. 60 /24 delegations (I'll check the files fr the actual numbers if you -really- need to know) which were also delegated to other sites. I ended up renumbering those 60+ sites into other number space to avoid injecting duplicates. As you can tell, this predates CIDR and RFC 1597 work by a number of years. -- --bill From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 06:14:29 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 06:14:29 -0500 Subject: Rebate? (not) [Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.] Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203061423.0070df1c@lint.cisco.com> At 06:38 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >Suppose someone goes through all the necessary hoops and gets an ARIN >assigned block. > >And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's >policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend. > >Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > I should hope not. Services have been rendered; in fact, they should be charged twice. - paul From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Mon Feb 3 07:23:20 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:23:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Anti-trust concerns vs. reliable address space concerns Message-ID: <199702031223.HAA04093@newdev.harvard.edu> > Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable > addresses being issued? well I got 192.18/16 and 192.19/16 to be used in network device performance testing equipment and asked to be sure that they are not routable - it can get a bit hard on a system to be the target of the type of data stream that this type of gear can produce :-) Scott From hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Feb 3 08:53:15 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:53:15 -0500 Subject: Refunds??? In-Reply-To: <199702030523.AAA06493@zip1.ziplink.net> Message-ID: At 12:23 AM -0500 2/3/97, Dave Curado wrote: >>>> Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > >In a bizarre twist, this could theoretically cost you money. =-) >Kim and David Conrad (et al) have made it clear that the registry >is charging for the work that goes into making the allocation, not >for the address space itself. When you "de-allocate" space, they have >to go through more work (although probably much less) to edit their >files, databases, whois server, etc. >(all that said, I'd bet they won't charge for this service =-) Interesting observation. Perhaps a "15% restocking charge" much as imposed by many stores after sales. > >In any case, the question is not relevant as ARIN (just as the NIC) >can only allocate space, but can not guarantee routability. > >davec Yes. This point cannot be made strongly enough. While it would be nice to have a guarantee of routability, the ISP/registry/etc. infrastructure does not exist to do this, cannot be created in the short term before Internic replacement operations must start, and may not be technically possible. Howard From hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Feb 3 08:57:26 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:57:26 -0500 Subject: Congratulations (was RE: AOP Notification) In-Reply-To: References: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: Humor does creep into this flamefest. Thank you, Alan, for a great T-shirt or button design: At 7:39 AM +0200 2/3/97, Alan Barrett wrote: >I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community >chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN >know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in >their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the >trust of the community. IANA: We know how anarchy works ARIN: We document anarchy Howard From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Mon Feb 3 08:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 08:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> PF>ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix PF>is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the PF>business of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting PF>to assume that one could actually do this is not in touch with PF>reality. PF>>ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do PF>so, >impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary PF>or >capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note PF>indicating >that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing PF>such a >condition.] PF>> PF>This is, in my humble opinion, common sense, as well as conventional PF>wisdom. PF>>It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be PF>>independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own PF>>choices without regard for anyone else." PF>> PF>ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, they PF>can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, the fact PF>that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal issue. Under the PF>ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is now they will pay PF>for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining address space directly PF>from ARIN. Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? This whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. I've watched much of the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this proposal. From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be the ISPs and network providers. This is akin to the "not in my backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With ARIN is seems we agree there needs to be some control over address space (albeit we would probably disagree on how much control and what the real purpose of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a minute. They weren't even the ones asking for it from what I can see. Paul's point is there will even be limietd benefit for them, even if they go along with it. So why should they start coughing up money for something which has this little potential for them ? Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 3 09:34:50 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:34:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> from "Jeff Binkley" at Feb 3, 97 08:55:00 am Message-ID: <199702031434.JAA09727@jazz.internic.net> > > > Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why > should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? You don't have to. If you do not require the services of an IP registry and feel that receiving globally unique IP addresses has no perceived value than you do not need to use ARIN's services. However, the IP registry function is no longer US government subsidized so someone must fund it. Who better than those that use those services? Kim > > Jeff Binkley > ASA Network Computing > > CMPQwk 1.42 9999 > From randy at PSG.COM Mon Feb 3 09:34:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 06:34 PST Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C References: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: > Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? Bzzzzzzt! They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. And, if you perceive no benefit in address allocation, the you won't have to play at all. Cool, n'est ce pas? randy From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Mon Feb 3 09:51:51 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:51:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > > Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why > should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? This whole thing > reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. I've watched much of > the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be > ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this > proposal. From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, > hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other > interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be > the ISPs and network providers. This is akin to the "not in my > backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree > they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With ARIN is > seems we agree there needs to be some control over address space (albeit > we would probably disagree on how much control and what the real purpose > of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay > for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a minute. They weren't even the > ones asking for it from what I can see. Paul's point is there will even > be limietd benefit for them, even if they go along with it. So why > should they start coughing up money for something which has this little > potential for them ? I think you are confusing the ISPs who *will* pay the fees, and the downstream ISPs who will bear only the incremental costs. I feel fairly confident that the concensus among ISPs who do get address space directly from InterNIC now is that ARIN is a good idea. I'm sorry if the small ISPs and BBSs don't understand all the issues, but to hold up the proposal because the downstream ISPs won't take the time to educate themselves is akin to GM holding up the development of a new engine because the average shade-tree mechanic doesn't understand the computer controls of the current engine. I will state that I work for an ISP, we get our IP allocations from InterNIC presently, and we support the general idea of the ARIN proposal, even if there are some minor details we would like cleaned up. If the medium to large ISPs were opposed to this, I think you would see evidence of it here. Hell, even mcs.net agrees with parts of it. :) (No offense Karl). Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From aop at cris.com Mon Feb 3 09:54:28 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:54:28 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC11BB.921A87A0@cnc019080.concentric.net> Alan, I actually have proposed (unfortunately, some of them in private notes to Kim Hubbard) a list of small but important changes that could make the proposal far more acceptable. Things like: 1) Opening the loop for member input but stating unequivocally that the Advisory Council will be elected directly by the members, and that the Advisory Council will elect the Trustees. These are inferred in draft two, but as the lawyers say, if it ain't in writing, it ain't. 2) Provide a mission statement up front. Simple, since the mission is obvious to some. But it needs to be there. 3) Reassign the creation of goals for ARIN from the Advisory Council to the Board of Trustees. 4) Remove Kim Hubbard's name from the list of Trustees. Since Kim's intention is to be an employee of ARIN (a good idea, I think), she wouldn't be a Trustee anyway. And this removes the NSI double-trustee problem. 5) Provide better economic information. So far, and still, we have heard only the vaguest of details in support of the extensive fee structure -- first that it is "what they are doing in Europe and Asia", then that it will take this much money (with no details as to why), and finally that since NSI is funding ARIN's startup, it's their business anyway. . . Alan, anarchy is a very poor management model, and generally only works when someone else is footing the bill. ARIN begins the transition to a model in which every penny of this will come, directly or indirectly, from our pockets. This isn't, as has been inferred, as case in which we just replace funding from NSF with a quick gouge of the "big guys". We are those guys. And I'd note again that once ARIN is in place with a closed Board that is not accountable to the industry or its members, you'll play hell trying to change it. Who would you complain to? And why would they listen to you? Anyway, those are my thoughts. . . Dave ---------- From: Alan Barrett[SMTP:apb at IAFRICA.COM] Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 2:39 AM To: Dave McClure Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: RE: AOP Notification Dave McClure wrote: > When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a > clarification to our members. Thanks. I didn't know about that. > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control > of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be > under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the trust of the community. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will > elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory > Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board > of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input > from the members of ARIN. Yes, I agree that that might be a problem. Perhaps it would be useful if you proposed a concrete alternative? (Or perhaps you have done so already, and I don't remember it?) > [various good points deleted] --apb (Alan Barrett) From aop at cris.com Mon Feb 3 10:05:38 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:05:38 -0500 Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding Message-ID: <01BC11BB.954F73E0@cnc019080.concentric.net> Actually, Michael, members will pay $1,000 per year, and membership is not required in order to register for address space. Nonetheless, a fact of life for non-profits is that you cannot survive on dues revenue alone. Most associations earn half or more of their revenues from dues, and I expect ARIN to be no exception. Also, I believe that they will have trouble building a large member base at that dues level. AOP can afford it, but most of our members cannot (or will not). One of the problems in setting a dues level is an old marketing question -- everyone sagely agrees that it is a fair price and that they would likely pay it until they actually have to write the check. I believe that $50,000 plus is a fair price for a Jaguar, but I won't buy one of them, either. That's why it is critical to know exactly how many members of NSI will move to ARIN and what the structure will be. I'm also curious as to why this, one of the most critical elements of the Internet infrastructure, can't be funded by the NSF Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. . . Dave ---------- From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:15 PM To: naipr at arin.net Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding I made some statements about the financing of ARIN by using membership fees. However, I misunderstood the intent of the current proposal which is that members will pay $1,000 when they join but will only pay the annual subscription fee ($2,500 - $20,000) the next time they apply to ARIN for more address space. Since this could be a long time after ARIN is formed, it is clearly impractical to consider it for initial funding. Basically, this leaves NSI's offer to pay good money to move the IP allocation function out of their company, employees and all. And while there is a mystery fund sitting in an NSF trust account, I don't think that there is any way that this could become available soon enough to get ARIN off the ground in April. Given that ARIN is jump-started with NSI funding, it makes sense that their CEO sits on the board. If I were the CEO of NSI, then I would do the same to make sure that things are done right and my goals are achieved. And it seems likely that Mr. Telage's goal is to get this unfunded public service activity out of his corporation. Under more normal circumstances a CEO would either sell the division or shut it down. But since the NSF has managed to saddle him with an operation that is not saleable, the formation of ARIN seems to be the only reasonable way out. I'm sure Mr. Telage would not hesitate to resign from ARIN after the startup stage is complete since he has bigger fish to fry in the domain name business and the intranet consulting business. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 3 10:33:23 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:33:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why > should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? No one is forced to pay for anything for which they recieve no benefit. > This whole thing > reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. TANSTAAFL. If you don't want to have government's levying taxes then you need to have a user-pay system. > I've watched much of > the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be > ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this > proposal. A lot of the ISP's who would pay the most money under this proposal have already been contacted directly and basically agreed to the whole plan. Remember, the Internic only has allocated IP address blocks to 300 organizations not all of whom are ISP's. And there are 3,500 ISP's and growing just in Canada and the USA alone. There are probably another 1,000 ISP's in the rest of the area under ARIN's jurisdiction. > of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay > for it, This is not wholly accurate. We have said several times and in several ways that most ISP's will pay either nothing, or such a minimal amount that it could not possibly have a negative impact on them. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Feb 3 10:43:58 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:43:58 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> References: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: At 8:55 AM -0500 2/3/97, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >PF>>It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be >PF>>independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own >PF>>choices without regard for anyone else." >PF>> > >PF>ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, they >PF>can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, the fact >PF>that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal issue. Under the >PF>ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is now they will pay >PF>for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining address space directly >PF>from ARIN. > > >Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why >should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for >today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? But they don't pay for it today because it's been funded by NSF. They do get benefits of controlled unique addressing. Addressing of this sort is a prerequisite for global routability, but they are not the same thing. >This whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. Take a different government example. When I was a kid, and my mother took me to visit a national park, there were no admission fees or very small fees. Jeff, you don't suggest here that there are no costs to running a Yellowstone or Yosemite, do you? The point I'm making is that the park operations were subsidized by general tax funding. As federal budgets become tighter, there's been more emphasis on user fees for services, privatizing services, etc. Same thing, in my mind, whether it is the Park Service or NSF. >I've watched much of >the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be >ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this >proposal. I really think you need to distinguish between the smaller ISPs that emphasize customer connectivity, and the larger network service providers (NSP). Think of the latter as those firms with national or large regional backbones, whose primary business is moving large numbers of bytes rather than providing web services, dialup access, etc. The latter don't seem to be complaining here, and I think that is because they take registry services as a cost of doing business. NSPs have been quite active in the IETF, NANOG, etc., so these proposals are not a surprise. NSPs, I suspect, feel they don't need to complain because they have already gone through the discussions in the RFC2050 effort, etc. Don't assume 2050 and related documents were things where it was easy to reach consensus. Sprint had pushed for the minimum allocation being /18, and a lot of effort was to reach compromise on a /19. For whatever reasons, the smaller ISPs are just starting to get exposed to some fairly well-developed issues. >From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, >hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other >interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be >the ISPs and network providers. Other than arguments over the details of the proposal -- parts of which I don't like either -- could you point out a NSP that has major technical problems with the proposal? Smaller ISPs, certainly. Some of these smaller ISPs also are demanding address portability and global routability that no one knows how to do in a reliable and scalable way, regardless of how many people scream "there _ought_ to be a way to do this." In fact, address portability is, IMHO, an obsolescent issue. Current good practice is to design systems such that they are easily renumbered, or to translate addresses on a firewall or gateway that might be installed in any case. Don't misinterpret what I am saying to mean I am opposed to smaller ISPs in the market. I think they have a critical role in supporting end user services, whether dialup access, web hosting, etc. I'm writing this from a personal account, and it is no accident that it is with a local ISP rather than AT&T, MCI, etc. But the smaller ISPs simply have not grown up aware of the operational scalability issues necessary, at least in the short term, to let the Internet grow and prosper. >This is akin to the "not in my >backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree >they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With ARIN is >seems we agree there needs to be some control over address space (albeit >we would probably disagree on how much control and what the real purpose >of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay >for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a minute. They weren't even the >ones asking for it from what I can see. Paul's point is there will even >be limietd benefit for them, even if they go along with it. So why >should they start coughing up money for something which has this little >potential for them ? It comes down to a simple question...you agree there is a need for "some control over address space." You agree, I belive, that providing such control involves expenditure of funds. Then my question to you: who pays? I don't really care who pays as long as the function is funded, and I believe that costs will eventually be reflected in pricing no matter who is charged. I also believe that the costs will be relatively small in relation to the profits to be made and the benefits perceived by customers. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 13:39:44 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:39:44 -0500 Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203133938.006b1150@lint.cisco.com> At 10:05 AM 2/3/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >I'm also curious as to why this, one of the most critical elements of the Internet infrastructure, can't be funded by the NSF Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. . . > Because the NSF is not in the business of subsidizing the commodity Internet. - paul From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Feb 3 14:12:15 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:12:15 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 EST." <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> References: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199702031912.OAA18164@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 EST, Paul Ferguson said: > ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix > is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business > of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume > that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice will render it unrouted from many locations? This sort of ties back to the straw man proposal I made a while back re: /19's for multi-homed groups. I saw one response to that, and nothing further. Are there any updates re: that? -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 14:16:58 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:16:58 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203141655.006c20c4@lint.cisco.com> At 02:12 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix >> is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business >> of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume >> that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. > >I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody >please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving >out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice >will render it unrouted from many locations? > It is my opinion that if an entity wants a prefix (for the sake of this discussion) longer than a /19 which they can safely assume will be routable in the commodity Internet, they should obtain it from their upstream provider. - paul From shiang at earthlink.net Mon Feb 3 14:21:00 1997 From: shiang at earthlink.net (shiang at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:21:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Price dropped!!! Message-ID: <199702031921.LAA10917@lithuania.it.earthlink.net> Dear Sir: Based on our research we feel that you may be interested in receiving periodic updates on prices on various computer components. We apologize for any inconvenience that may have cause you, and if you want to be removed from our list. Please just send us an email with subject REMOVE!! We will take you off our list. For this here is our prices on Computer Components: IBM 133 MHz 166+ CPU-$146.00 72 Pin 1MB X 32 EDO 60 ns(4mb)-$17.00 2mb X 32 EDO 60 ns(8mb)-$30.95 4mb X 32 EDO 60 ns(16mb)-$69.00 Modems 33.6k W/O voice-$67.95 33.6k W/voice-$77.95 Harddrive 1.2G-$189.00 1.6G-$199.00 2.0G-$245.00 Multimedia 8X CD ROM-$92.00 Ess 1868 16 bit soundcard-$28.95 Iomega Zipp Drive Ext. Parallel/SCSI-$179.00 Diamond Stealth 64 1mb Dram PCI-$59.00 Please Visit our website at http://www.rcomputer.com Or email to us at Sales at rcomputer.com Best regards, R-Computer From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Feb 3 14:34:53 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:34:53 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:16:58 EST." <3.0.32.19970203141655.006c20c4@lint.cisco.com> References: <3.0.32.19970203141655.006c20c4@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199702031934.OAA37702@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:16:58 EST, Paul Ferguson said: > It is my opinion that if an entity wants a prefix (for the sake of > this discussion) longer than a /19 which they can safely assume will > be routable in the commodity Internet, they should obtain it from > their upstream provider. That's fine and dandy, unless you also want to multihome. If you're a group (a company for instance) that wants to be *really* available All The Time, what do you do? For instance, (speaking hypothetically) two companies that might fall into this category are Netscape Inc and Yahoo Inc. It appears that www.netscape.com lives in a Barrnet network (198.95.251.X), and www.yahoo.com lives in an MCI space (www1.yahoo.com at 204.71.177.X). Are you saying that you would *prohibit* these two companies from multihoming? Even if they have the technical know-how, have their own BGP wizard in house, and all that? Neither company has anywhere NEAR enough machines to qualify for a /19 based on size. Are they therefor chained to what they can negotiate with *one* provider? (And yes, I know that these 2 companies have a large number of HTTP mirrors, almost certainly spread across multiple vendors. However, not all IP services are as easily mirrored, so saying "you can work around that for HTTP" is *not* an acceptable answer). -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 14:43:32 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:43:32 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203144327.0068fa38@lint.cisco.com> At 02:34 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> It is my opinion that if an entity wants a prefix (for the sake of >> this discussion) longer than a /19 which they can safely assume will >> be routable in the commodity Internet, they should obtain it from >> their upstream provider. > >That's fine and dandy, unless you also want to multihome. If you're >a group (a company for instance) that wants to be *really* available >All The Time, what do you do? > Dare I say it -- pay for transit. You are never going to reach concensus on how to handle this issue, but by the same token, you can't force any particular service provider to carry a longer prefix if you are not already paying them for service. This gets back into the whole discussion on whether an economic model for route advertisements is feasible, but not an applicable discussion topic for this list. - paul ps. Can you please reconfigure your mailer *not* to attach the mail headers as attachments? Thanks. From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 3 15:19:59 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: <199702031912.OAA18164@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody > please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving > out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice > will render it unrouted from many locations? How could there possibly be any legal exposure when ARIN issues a disclaimer that receiving a globally unique IP address block from them does not guarantee any sort of routability? Didn't you notice Scott Bradner's message about the IP address blocks used for testing equipment? Or SAP's use of globally unique addresses that never hit the net? The registries give out unique addresses whether you want to use them on the public Internet or not. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 3 15:44:02 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:44:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: <199702031934.OAA37702@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > Are you saying that you would *prohibit* these two companies from > multihoming? There is more than one way to achieve the main goal that most compaies have when they decide to multihome. Some of these solutions do not require the company to have their own provider independent (PI) netblock. Therefore, nothing ARIN does can either enable or prohibit these companies from receiving the benefits of multihoming. It's simply not an issue for here on this list. IPv4 address blocks are an international public resource. It's not the job of IANA, RIPE, APNIC or ARIN to make it easy to connect to the Internet or to make it cheap to connect to the Internet. Their job is to prudently allocate the public resource in such a way that the resource is not depleted. If this forces some companies to do things the hard way rather than the easy way, then this is OK because it serves the public interest. > Are they > therefor chained to what they can negotiate with *one* provider? They are at liberty to negotiate with as many providers as they wish. ARIN has nothing whatsoever to do with private business negotiations. If the company is shrewd they will have structured their network so that renumbering is cheap and painless and will thus be in a much stronger negotiating position. It's a free country, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 3 23:36:38 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:36:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: Having just talked to our NSP today and found that after the address space allocation they gave us today, we will have to go to Internic/Arin (whichever is running the show when the time comes) to get our next address blocks, I decided it was time to have another look at the ARIN site. First, I got sidetracked by www.arin.org (hmm...doesn't look like the right place). Then found the right site and read through the proposal. I think it could have been worded more clearly. Section 2.3 is not exactly clear in that ISP's/NSP's requesting blocks do not pay both a registration fee and a yearly maintenance fee. I had to wade 60% through the 1mb+ file which is the first section of the list archive to find a definitive looking quote from someone at internic.net saying ISP's don't pay the registration fee, just the maintenance fee. If the list is archived in some sort of threaded format rather than 2 mega text files, the arin.net site should have a pointer to it. We don't all have T1's to our houses. Downloading 600kb of text over a 28.8 shared with another computer to get the answer to a simple question is ridiculous. With all the questions people must have about ARIN and what it means to them, a searchable archive of the list would be a bonus idea. So...when FDT does ask ARIN for a /18 (in 6-12 months probably), we'll have to start shelling out $5k/year...plus another $1k/year if we want any say in things, want to send a rep to meetings, or have a vote. Is it too much to ask that those entities who are paying (subsidizing) ARIN for registry maintenance are automatically granted membership? I'm not sure where the numbers and cutoffs for fees came from...but it looks like they were trying to figure out just how much the market would bear rather than what might be reasonable. $5k/year won't kill us...but it will hurt. Why should we pay the same amount as an ISP/NSP 4 times our size? The difference in cash flow must be enormous between ISP's of such different sizes. i.e. for a small ISP with a /19, monthly payments on the $5k ARIN fee might be >10% of their gross montly income...while for an ISP 4x that size in a /16, it might only be ~2% of their gross monthly income. Will fees be collected at the beginning or end of each year? Can they be spread out over the year (monthly payments?) or must they be paid all at once? What methods of payment will be accepted? What happens if we're late on a payment or just don't pay for some reason? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Tue Feb 4 01:07:49 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:07:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: > different sizes. i.e. for a small ISP with a /19, monthly payments on the > $5k ARIN fee might be >10% of their gross montly income...while for an ISP > 4x that size in a /16, it might only be ~2% of their gross monthly income. Ack!...make me wear the silly hat for the night. I just noticed I dropped a decimal point. Those %'s should be more like 1.5% vs 0.3%. Much smaller percentages...but still, an extra $5k/year expense will hurt a small ISP in a /19 a lot more than a large ISP or small NSP in a /16. I can see us at the end of the year trying to decide if we should cut the check to ARIN or buy 16 more modems, or upgrade the news server disks, or spend it on some other equally important upgrade. Whereas the larger ISP in a /16 is trying to decide whether to buy another 4700M or upgrade to the 7k class router. $5k isn't pocket change to us...at least not yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702031434.JAA09727@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: <35.264372.7@asacomp.com> KH>> KH>> KH>> Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. KH>> Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to KH>> pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? KH>You don't have to. If you do not require the services of an IP KH>registry and feel that receiving globally unique IP addresses has no KH>perceived value than you do not need to use ARIN's services. KH>However, the IP registry function is no longer US government KH>subsidized so someone must fund it. Who better than those that use KH>those services? I don't disagree that globalbly registering address space is good thing. Paul is the one who said there would be little benefit, I was only confirming what he said. As for subsidizing the service, I would tend to agree a usage "tax" is the way to go but we must remember there are a lot of "non-profit" organizations who make up this list of users and skew the payign user base vs. the using user base. It would be like making the truckers pay for all of the road taxes but everyone else gets to drive for free. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.264373.7@asacomp.com> HC>At 8:55 AM -0500 2/3/97, Jeff Binkley wrote: HC>> HC>>PF>>It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be HC>>PF>>independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our HC>>PF>>own choices without regard for anyone else." HC>> HC>>PF>ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, HC>>PF>they can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, HC>>PF>the fact that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal HC>>PF>issue. Under the ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is HC>>PF>now they will pay for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining HC>>PF>address space directly from ARIN. HC>> HC>> HC>>Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. HC>Why >should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to HC>pay for >today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? HC>But they don't pay for it today because it's been funded by NSF. HC>They do get benefits of controlled unique addressing. Addressing of HC>this sort is a prerequisite for global routability, but they are not HC>the same thing. HC>>This whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. HC>Take a different government example. When I was a kid, and my mother HC>took me to visit a national park, there were no admission fees or HC>very small fees. Jeff, you don't suggest here that there are no HC>costs to running a Yellowstone or Yosemite, do you? The point I'm HC>making is that the park operations were subsidized by general tax HC>funding. HC>As federal budgets become tighter, there's been more emphasis on user HC>fees for services, privatizing services, etc. Same thing, in my HC>mind, whether it is the Park Service or NSF. I don't disagree but general funding means everyone pays unless they become tax exempt. This means folks who use the park or not. It's like where I live we subsidize the schools via property taxes. My wife and I have no kids and my neighbor has 5 yet we pay the same taxes. That's quite a big different than what is being proposed. HC>>I've watched much of HC>>the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to HC>be >ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this HC>>proposal. HC>I really think you need to distinguish between the smaller ISPs that HC>emphasize customer connectivity, and the larger network service HC>providers (NSP). Think of the latter as those firms with national or HC>large regional backbones, whose primary business is moving large HC>numbers of bytes rather than providing web services, dialup access, HC>etc. The latter don't seem to be complaining here, and I think that HC>is because they take registry services as a cost of doing business. HC>NSPs have been quite active in the IETF, NANOG, etc., so these HC>proposals are not a surprise. NSPs, I suspect, feel they don't need HC>to complain because they have already gone through the discussions in HC>the RFC2050 effort, etc. The later don't seem to be participating here. That's a big difference. HC>Don't assume 2050 and related documents were things where it was easy HC>to reach consensus. Sprint had pushed for the minimum allocation HC>being /18, and a lot of effort was to reach compromise on a /19. HC>For whatever reasons, the smaller ISPs are just starting to get HC>exposed to some fairly well-developed issues. HC>>From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, HC>>hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other HC>>interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to HC>be >the ISPs and network providers. HC>Other than arguments over the details of the proposal -- parts of HC>which I don't like either -- could you point out a NSP that has major HC>technical problems with the proposal? Smaller ISPs, certainly. Some HC>of these smaller ISPs also are demanding address portability and HC>global routability that no one knows how to do in a reliable and HC>scalable way, regardless of how many people scream "there _ought_ to HC>be a way to do this." In fact, address portability is, IMHO, an HC>obsolescent issue. Current good practice is to design systems such HC>that they are easily renumbered, or to translate addresses on a HC>firewall or gateway that might be installed in any case. HC>Don't misinterpret what I am saying to mean I am opposed to smaller HC>ISPs in the market. I think they have a critical role in supporting HC>end user services, whether dialup access, web hosting, etc. I'm HC>writing this from a personal account, and it is no accident that it HC>is with a local ISP rather than AT&T, MCI, etc. But the smaller ISPs HC>simply have not grown up aware of the operational scalability issues HC>necessary, at least in the short term, to let the Internet grow and HC>prosper. I would guess they are painfully aware of some of these issues just perhaps not on the same scale. HC>>This is akin to the "not in my HC>>backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all HC>agree >they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. HC>With ARIN is >seems we agree there needs to be some control over HC>address space (albeit >we would probably disagree on how much control HC>and what the real purpose >of the control was for) but the supports HC>are saying make the ISPs pay >for it, while the ISPs are saying wait HC>a minute. They weren't even the >ones asking for it from what I can HC>see. Paul's point is there will even >be limietd benefit for them, HC>even if they go along with it. So why >should they start coughing up HC>money for something which has this little >potential for them ? HC>It comes down to a simple question...you agree there is a need for HC>control "some over address space." You agree, I belive, that HC>control providing such involves expenditure of funds. HC>Then my question to you: who pays? I don't really care who pays as HC>long as the function is funded, and I believe that costs will HC>eventually be reflected in pricing no matter who is charged. I also HC>believe that the costs will be relatively small in relation to the HC>profits to be made and the benefits perceived by customers. I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it would be a mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic pressures. history has proven this. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.264374.7@asacomp.com> JK>On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: JK>> Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. JK>> Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to JK>> pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? This JK>> whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. JK>> I've watched much of the discussion going on here and many of the JK>> supporters tend not to be ISPs or folks who would be directly JK>> finacnially impacted by this proposal. From my unofficial JK>> counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, hardware vendors, JK>> academic affiliated individuals and a few other interested JK>> parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be the JK>> ISPs and network providers. This is akin to the "not in my JK>> backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree JK>> they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With JK>> ARIN is seems we agree there needs to be some control over address JK>> space (albeit we would probably disagree on how much control and JK>> what the real purpose of the control was for) but the supports are JK>> saying make the ISPs pay for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a JK>> minute. They weren't even the ones asking for it from what I can JK>> see. Paul's point is there will even be limietd benefit for them, JK>> even if they go along with it. So why should they start coughing JK>> up money for something which has this little potential for them ? JK>I think you are confusing the ISPs who *will* pay the fees, and the JK>downstream ISPs who will bear only the incremental costs. I feel JK>fairly confident that the concensus among ISPs who do get address JK>space directly from InterNIC now is that ARIN is a good idea. I'm JK>sorry if the small ISPs and BBSs don't understand all the issues, but JK>to hold up the proposal because the downstream ISPs won't take the JK>time to educate themselves is akin to GM holding up the development JK>of a new engine because the average shade-tree mechanic doesn't JK>understand the computer controls of the current engine. JK>I will state that I work for an ISP, we get our IP allocations from JK>InterNIC presently, and we support the general idea of the ARIN JK>proposal, even if there are some minor details we would like cleaned JK>up. If the medium to large ISPs were opposed to this, I think you JK>would see evidence of it here. Hell, even mcs.net agrees with parts JK>of it. :) (No offense Karl). I am not confused at all. I was only responding to Paul's comments. As for assuming that large ISPs are ok with this because they aren't providing any input here would be a big mistake. My onlu point here was that most of the folks who are vocally supporting the funding piece of the proposal aren't the ones who will be footing the bill. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.264371.7@asacomp.com> RB>> Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to RB>> pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? RB>Bzzzzzzt! RB>They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical RB>accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. This is your opinion. I'm personally still neutral on it. RB>And, if you perceive no benefit in address allocation, the you won't RB>have to play at all. Those weren't my words but Paul's. I was only iterating that if he is correct, then the whole reason for this proposal becomes very cloudy. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 16:38:56 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 16:38:56 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204163853.006a9e7c@lint.cisco.com> At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe >this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic >one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can >move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it would be a >mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules >because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic pressures. >history has proven this. > If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream providers. Problem solved. - paul From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 16:42:31 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 16:42:31 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204164228.006b7318@lint.cisco.com> I'm not quite sure you understand *what( I was talking about, since you keep attributing these silly remarks to me. I never said such a thing at all, or perhaps you just transmogrified something else I did happen to say. Of course registered addresses are necessary, unless you are not connecting to the global Internet. If not, the RFC1918 address space is sufficient. In the future, I'll speak for myself, thank you. - paul At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >I don't disagree that globalbly registering address space is good thing. >Paul is the one who said there would be little benefit, I was only >confirming what he said. As for subsidizing the service, I would tend >to agree a usage "tax" is the way to go but we must remember there are a >lot of "non-profit" organizations who make up this list of users and >skew the payign user base vs. the using user base. It would be like >making the truckers pay for all of the road taxes but everyone else gets >to drive for free. > From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 4 16:46:00 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:46:00 +0100 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 EST." <35.264373.7@asacomp.com> References: <35.264373.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: <9702042146.AA09797@ncc.ripe.net> jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) writes: * * HC>Then my question to you: who pays? I don't really care who pays as * HC>long as the function is funded, and I believe that costs will * HC>eventually be reflected in pricing no matter who is charged. I also * HC>believe that the costs will be relatively small in relation to the * HC>profits to be made and the benefits perceived by customers. * * I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe * this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic * one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can * move onto the organizational and economic pieces. And in the meantime who does the registration? You can't just wait until all of the engineering problems are solved before establishing a new registry system. When the funding stops it stops. If you can find someonbe willing to fund all the registration needs until the engineering problems are solved I'm sure everybody will be happy. John Crain From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 4 16:40:07 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:40:07 +0100 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 EST." <35.264372.7@asacomp.com> References: <35.264372.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: <9702042140.AA09765@ncc.ripe.net> jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) writes: * * * I don't disagree that globalbly registering address space is good thing. * Paul is the one who said there would be little benefit, I was only * confirming what he said. As for subsidizing the service, I would tend * to agree a usage "tax" is the way to go but we must remember there are a * lot of "non-profit" organizations who make up this list of users and * skew the payign user base vs. the using user base. It would be like * making the truckers pay for all of the road taxes but everyone else gets * to drive for free. A usage tax, in which country? ARIN will not only operate for the USA. How are you going to get all of the authorities in all of ARIN prospective region to agree to a tax system. The ideas nice but not workable. Unless the US ISP's are willing to be taxed for teh rest of teh Americas region:-) John Crain From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Feb 4 17:23:46 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:23:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <35.264371.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > RB>They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical > RB>accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. > > This is your opinion. I'm personally still neutral on it. Then perhaps you should read through http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/ and the ammendments made to it. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Tue Feb 4 18:01:12 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:01:12 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702042251.RAA01865@lists.internic.net> ---------- > At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > > > > >I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe > >this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic > >one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can > >move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it would be a > >mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules > >because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic pressures. > >history has proven this. > > > > If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be > having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering > the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream > providers. Problem solved. > > - paul A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does not allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a note of interest.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From randy at PSG.COM Tue Feb 4 18:42:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 97 15:42 PST Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND References: <35.264371.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: >>They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical >>accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. > This is your opinion. I'm personally still neutral on it. You are entitled to your opinion, and the rest of us are entitled to believe the NSF cooperative agreement. randy From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 4 18:30:57 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:30:57 -0700 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: At 12:19 PM 2/3/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > >> I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody >> please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving >> out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice >> will render it unrouted from many locations? > >How could there possibly be any legal exposure when ARIN issues a >disclaimer that receiving a globally unique IP address block from them >does not guarantee any sort of routability? Didn't you notice Scott >Bradner's message about the IP address blocks used for testing equipment? >Or SAP's use of globally unique addresses that never hit the net? The >registries give out unique addresses whether you want to use them on the >public Internet or not. This is a clarification of an issue I didn't grok until now -- thanks. It and some other messages over the past few days, though, contradicts something that was said when I posted my back-of-the-envelope budget proposal. (Kim, are you planning to post a budget soon to the Web site?) I had allowed for some clerks and a "Fixit" guy, but very little technical talent. I was flamed that ARIN needed network engineers for some unknown purpose. I took it that those engineers ($60K/year and up base salary, or about $200K/year fully burdened) were to make sure that the address issued would "follow the rules" such that it could be routed -- assuming that the address block being allocated was intended for global publication. "NO", said a number of people, "ARIN can't guarantee anything." So why the high-priced bodies? From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 18:01:22 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 18:01:22 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204180119.006a9358@lint.cisco.com> At 06:01 PM 2/4/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: > >A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does not >allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a note of >interest.... > I believe you are mistaken. - paul From blh at NOL.NET Tue Feb 4 20:29:57 1997 From: blh at NOL.NET (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:29:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970204180119.006a9358@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 06:01 PM 2/4/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: > > > > >A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does not > >allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a note of > >interest.... > > > > I believe you are mistaken. > > - paul > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 20:40:45 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 20:40:45 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204204042.006becf8@lint.cisco.com> At 07:29 PM 2/4/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: >That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were >told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > I reference: http://infopage.mci.net/docs/classc.html - paul From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Wed Feb 5 00:13:50 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:13:50 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702050510.AAA13825@info.netsol.com> I'll go take a look at it Paul....Just passing on what we were told we had to do.... ---------- > >That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were > >told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > I reference: > > http://infopage.mci.net/docs/classc.html > > - paul From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Wed Feb 5 00:15:52 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:15:52 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702050512.AAA13848@info.netsol.com> > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major NSP's. > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that is > a completely different issue. This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales geek.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From karl at MCS.NET Wed Feb 5 00:21:20 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:21:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702050512.AAA13848@info.netsol.com> from "The Innkeeper" at Feb 5, 97 00:15:52 am Message-ID: <199702050521.XAA15038@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we > were > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major > NSP's. > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that > is > > a completely different issue. > > > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales > geek.... > > Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services > http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net > VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 > Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors > http://www.aop.org You want a /19 anyway. Go get it from the NIC. You REALLY want to be independant from any provider. I believe that any ISP in the United States has a colorable restraint of trade claim if the NIC (or ARIN, should ARIN come about) refuses such a request. Now when you go back for more be prepared to show that you're using (as opposed to wasting) what you got in the first place. That's expected, and perfectly fine. Forcing you to be tied as a RESELLER to your vendors is not OK, and gives rise to all kinds of potential problems. Not to mention that "hole punching" in a multi-homed environment probably won't work anyway. If you EVER intend to be multihomed, you NEED provider-independant space -- period. -- -- 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: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Feb 4 21:59:51 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:59:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major NSP's. It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that is a completely different issue. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Feb 4 21:36:21 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 21:36:21 -0500 Subject: [fwd] RFC 2101 on IPv4 Address Behavior Today Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204213619.006d4ae0@lint.cisco.com> Although not directly related to the ARIN proposal, I would like to suggest that RFC2101 be added to the recommended reading list; it certainly provides additional perspective. - paul > > >A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 2101: > > Title: IPv4 Address Behaviour Today > Author: B. Carpenter, J. Crowcroft, Y. Rekhter > Date: February 1997 > Mailbox: brian at dxcoms.cern.ch, j.crowcroft at cs.ucl.ac.uk, > yakov at cisco.com > Pages: 13 > Characters: 31407 > Updates/Obsoletes: None > > URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2101.txt > > >The main purpose of this note is to clarify the current interpretation >of the 32-bit IP version 4 address space, whose significance has >changed substantially since it was originally defined. A short >section on IPv6 addresses mentions the main points of similarity with, >and difference from, IPv4. > >This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo >does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of >this memo is unlimited. > From apb at IAFRICA.COM Wed Feb 5 05:19:54 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:19:54 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I was flamed that ARIN needed network engineers for some unknown > purpose. I don't recall anybody (except you) saying that the engineers were needed for an unknown purpose. > I took it that those engineers ($60K/year and up base salary, or about > $200K/year fully burdened) were to make sure that the address issued > would "follow the rules" such that it could be routed -- assuming that > the address block being allocated was intended for global publication. NO. The need to check that the addressing plan makes sense, and that there is not much wastage of address space. For example, some organisations might apply for a /20 where they could have fitted all their requirements into a /23 by more sensible subnetting. The registry should find such cases and either refuse the applications or allocate the smaller block. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Wed Feb 5 08:13:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:13:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970204163853.006a9e7c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <35.264524.7@asacomp.com> PF>At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: PF>> PF>>I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I PF>believe >this is first an engineering question and not an PF>organizational/economic >one. I think once the engineering pieces PF>are figured out then we can >move onto the organizational and PF>>economic pieces. I think it would be a mistake to use economics to PF>force compliance to engineering rules >because if so done, PF>technology will soon replace the economic pressures. >history has PF>proven this. > PF>If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be PF>having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering PF>the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream PF>providers. Problem solved. As with most everything posted here from the supporters, you seem to have everything figured out and any outside comments are a bother. I'll make your life less bothersome and won't post any additional comments after today. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Wed Feb 5 08:13:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:13:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702042254.RAA00583@linux.asacomp.com> Message-ID: <35.264527.7@asacomp.com> TI>---------- TI>> At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: TI>> > TI>> >I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I TI>> >believe this is first an engineering question and not an TI>> >organizational/economic TI>> >one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we TI>> >can move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it TI>> >would be a TI>> >mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules TI>> >because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic TI>> >pressures. TI>> >history has proven this. TI>> If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be TI>> having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering TI>> the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream TI>> providers. Problem solved. TI>> - paul TI>A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does TI>not allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a TI>note of interest.... And do you think other NSPs might think about changing their policies if this proposal goes through ? I think it would be foolish not to think they won't at least look at them. I personally think we are going to see the whole economic model for the Internet start to shift this year anyway. Keep an eye on the larger ISPs and you'll see the trend starting. I guess the one question I would have for the ARIN supporters is what happens when the ISP market starts to consolidate as Gartner and others have been predicting. This will radically change the customer base and the overall makeup of the Internet ISP market. Will the proposal support this easily from a technical and economic standpoint ? Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 08:28:19 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:28:19 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205082816.006dea3c@lint.cisco.com> Well, you don't elaborate on what you think this paradigm shift actually *is*, so it's a little difficult to comment on how this proposal imapcts issues from a technical or economic perspective is relevant. Overall, I think that the ARIN proposal already reflects practices in use throughout the Internet; a reflection of reality. - paul At 08:13 AM 2/5/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >And do you think other NSPs might think about changing their policies if >this proposal goes through ? I think it would be foolish not to think >they won't at least look at them. I personally think we are going to >see the whole economic model for the Internet start to shift this year >anyway. Keep an eye on the larger ISPs and you'll see the trend >starting. I guess the one question I would have for the ARIN supporters >is what happens when the ISP market starts to consolidate as Gartner and >others have been predicting. This will radically change the customer >base and the overall makeup of the Internet ISP market. Will the >proposal support this easily from a technical and economic standpoint ? > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 08:32:14 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:32:14 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205083210.006e11f0@lint.cisco.com> Don't be so touchy. This should already be apparent -- this is not simply an engineering exercise. This is a straightforward attempt to establish a funding model for the IP registry 'formerly known as the InterNIC' to remain self-supportive after US Government subsidies have gone away. No magic here. - paul At 08:13 AM 2/5/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >PF>If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be >PF>having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering >PF>the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream >PF>providers. Problem solved. > >As with most everything posted here from the supporters, you seem to >have everything figured out and any outside comments are a bother. I'll >make your life less bothersome and won't post any additional comments >after today. > From sweeting at MCI.NET Wed Feb 5 09:40:26 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:40:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reply to MCI question In-Reply-To: <199702050512.AAA13848@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position. If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our customers. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet Address Engineering | | Enginer III Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we > were > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major > NSP's. > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that > is > > a completely different issue. > > > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales > geek.... > > Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services > http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net > VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 > Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors > http://www.aop.org > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Wed Feb 5 09:56:19 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:56:19 -0500 Subject: Reply to MCI question Message-ID: <199702051452.JAA15115@info.netsol.com> > I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position. > If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer > you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in > following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have > justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC > 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our > customers. Thank you. TKS for the clarification John....But all I needed was a /24 for startup and was still directed to InterNIC...Maybe a mistake....But am glad you clirified that for future reference...TKS again Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org ----------- > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > > > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we > > were > > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major > > NSP's. > > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that > > is > > > a completely different issue. > > > > > > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales > > geek.... From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Wed Feb 5 10:48:11 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:48:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reply to MCI question In-Reply-To: from "John Sweeting" at Feb 5, 97 09:40:26 am Message-ID: <199702051548.KAA06550@linux.silkroad.com> It is nice to know, BTW, that MCI has such a reasonable policy. Providers who force subproviders to use non-portable address space create a non-competitive business climate and to do so for the sake of making route forwarding tables as small as possible are asking for trouble in the future. Firms, like MCI, who understand this and try to work a balanced approach, are quite ethical in their approach and should be praised. If we recall the early days of MCI, they were forced to unlease a series of lawsuits in Federal Court to force the big provider to allow them to compete and to have equal access. Vendors, such as cisco, with spokesmen like Paul Ferguson, who should state 'all providers must get address from upstream providers' do so because they do not understand competiveness issues, as MCI does. Traditionally, cisco has had the excellent position of being the 'only real kid on the routing block' so, the can dictate, mandate, and direct. It will not be long into the future, a new routing protocol will be introduced, which will make provider based, non-portable address space obsolete. And, more than likely, it will be necessary for someone to go to court, similar to the olds days of MCI, to force the industry to implement this new paradigm, for foster competitiveness in the industry. It was good to hear from MCI, a policy, which is not perfect, but is a compromise between competitiveness and the reality of current scalability problems. I wanted to react strongly, a few days ago, to Mr. Ferguson's (representing cisco Systems?) demand all ISP get address space from providers. However, I did not, and deleted a very harsh censure of his statement. It is just not worth the energy to debate with individuals with very narrow perspectives on very broad issues. Albert Einstein once said, to the effect: "A new idea which is not judged by your peers as insane cannot be a profound discovery". I wish Albert could return from his place of repose to watch the reactions to those who know and understand, a better inter-domain routing protocol is on the horizon. Best Regards, Tim > > I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position. > If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer > you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in > following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have > justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC > 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our > customers. Thank you. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > | John Sweeting Internet Address Engineering | > | Enginer III Internet: sweeting at mci.net | > | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | > | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 11:03:18 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 11:03:18 -0500 Subject: Reply to MCI question Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205110315.006d91c4@lint.cisco.com> At 10:48 AM 2/5/97 -0500, Tim Bass wrote: > >Vendors, such as cisco, with spokesmen like Paul Ferguson, who >should state 'all providers must get address from upstream providers' >do so because they do not understand competiveness issues, as >MCI does. Traditionally, cisco has had the excellent position >of being the 'only real kid on the routing block' so, the can >dictate, mandate, and direct. > Once again, you have paraphrased my comments quite out of context. The analogy that stated was that *if* this were an *engineering* exercise, all entities would obtain their addresses from their upstream providers. In a follow-up, I stated the discussions on this list do not encompass strictly engineering problems. Please redirect your insults and conspiracy theories elsewhere. - paul From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Feb 5 11:38:35 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:38:35 -0500 Subject: A Simple Question of Timing Message-ID: Something that I've missed in all the detailed discussions, which certainly would add perspective: When does NSF funding for address registration end, or has it? Is there any "short-term" funding by NSI, subsidized by domain registration? Does IANA have any contingency plans if Internic ceases operations but ARIN is not agreed to? There's a lot of discussion here about how the process _ought_ to work. But in my mind, there is an even more critical issue: If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? This is not meant to suggest that we should charge ahead and adopt the current ARIN proposal. But it is an attempt to get a better idea of the urgency of the process. From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 5 11:50:05 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 01:50:05 +0900 Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 11:38:35 EST." Message-ID: <199702051650.BAA14777@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Hi, > If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become >impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other >than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? Not to worry -- if ARIN doesn't launch and InterNIC goes away, I'm sure the APNIC membership will be happy to extend membership to anyone in the Americas willing to pay our fees... :-) Cheers, -drc From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 12:06:42 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:06:42 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:21:20 CST." <199702050521.XAA15038@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> References: <199702050521.XAA15038@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:21:20 CST, Karl Denninger said: > You want a /19 anyway. Go get it from the NIC. You REALLY want to be > independant from any provider. > > I believe that any ISP in the United States has a colorable restraint of > trade claim if the NIC (or ARIN, should ARIN come about) refuses such a > request. Karl: Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) It would *definitely* be 'restraint of trade' if you can't get a /19 from the NIC until you're "big enough", if you can't get big enough without multihoming. And trust me - down here in southwest Virginia, you have to seize a *big* chunk of customer base to get that big, and with 4-5 companies actively involved, reliability is a big issue. With infi.net and Bell Atlantic looking for more people, it's getting to be a squeeze for the smaller ISPs who only have one link and Lose Big Time if that one link goes belly-up. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davids at WIZNET.NET Wed Feb 5 12:54:15 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:54:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: What am I missing here? It's not ARIN's fault that Sprint or AGIS or whoever won't route your block, is it? If WIZnet decided to start filtering at /16, should ARIN give everyone who multihomes a /16? What if I decide to start filtering at /8? David Schwartz WIZnet On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:21:20 CST, Karl Denninger said: > > You want a /19 anyway. Go get it from the NIC. You REALLY want to be > > independant from any provider. > > > > I believe that any ISP in the United States has a colorable restraint of > > trade claim if the NIC (or ARIN, should ARIN come about) refuses such a > > request. > > Karl: > > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 5 12:54:35 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:54:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <35.264527.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > starting. I guess the one question I would have for the ARIN supporters > is what happens when the ISP market starts to consolidate as Gartner and > others have been predicting. But Gartner is wrong. We are *IN* the Internet industry, and most of us know quite intimately how it works, who's doing what, etc. Gartner's prediction implies that small ISP's will die or be bought out to form fewer larger companies and very few new ISP's will start up. It's true that some ISP's are starting to fail and that some are growing and that some are being bought out. However, the pace of new startups has not slowed and is not likely to slow for a while yet. > This will radically change the customer > base and the overall makeup of the Internet ISP market. Will the > proposal support this easily from a technical and economic standpoint ? ARIN is not a regulatory organization. It can change its policies, procedures, fees and its structure anytime the membership sees a need. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 13:14:16 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:14:16 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:54:15 EST." References: Message-ID: <199702051814.NAA38704@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:54:15 EST, David Schwartz said: > > What am I missing here? It's not ARIN's fault that Sprint or AGIS > or whoever won't route your block, is it? If WIZnet decided to start > filtering at /16, should ARIN give everyone who multihomes a /16? What if > I decide to start filtering at /8? What you're missing is that currently, much of the core routing filters at /19. Therefore, if you dont have at least a /19, you can't effectively multihome. I do not expect to see that "magic number" change drastically - if an ISP starts filtering at /17 or higher, they will cut off enough of the net that their own customers will start leaving for someplace they *can* get connectivity to other sites, and going to /21 or lower is just asking for router meltdown on your part. But right now, there seems to be common consensus that /19 is "the magic number". Given that ARIN will be presumably composed many of the same people who currently manage the core routing, if ARIN makes it effectivly impossible to get a /19, this would look suspiciously like collusion among the big players to prevent your entry into the game. And that's a no-no. If a lawer decides that the RICO statutes apply, you're looking at triple punitive damages and all that. RFC2050, section 2.1, says an ISP *can* ask for a global prefix if they are multi-homed. RFC2050, section 3.1, says the following conditions should be met: 25% immediate utilization rate 50% utilization rate within 1 year and also "A prefix longer than /24 *may* be issued if deemed appropriate". (emphasis mine). All we need to do to resolve this is for somebody to state the policy *will* deem qualifying under section 2.1 to be appropriate, even if you don't meet the 25%/50% rule. I have *no* problem with ARIN applying additional technical criteria for such an exemption (such as requiring copies of PO's for routers and redundant links, and proof of employment of a full-time router wizard), as long as they are in line with "reasonable and customary" requirements to sucessfully multihome. Would anybody at ARIN like to go out on a limb and say "Yes we'll do it", or "yes we'll consider this" or "no way"? ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 13:30:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:30:34 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205133030.006d6c48@lint.cisco.com> I'm not sure how you got the impression that ARIN will be composed of 'many of the same people who currently manage the core routing', but you are sorely mistaken. - paul At 01:14 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > >Given that ARIN will be presumably composed many of the same people >who currently manage the core routing, if ARIN makes it effectivly >impossible to get a /19, this would look suspiciously like collusion >among the big players to prevent your entry into the game. > From markk at internic.net Wed Feb 5 14:04:23 1997 From: markk at internic.net (Mark Kosters) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:04:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 5, 97 11:38:35 am Message-ID: <199702051904.OAA24557@slam.internic.net> > When does NSF funding for address registration end, or has it? > NSF officially ended funding any portion of InterNIC Registration Services starting on Sept 14, 1995 (when domain charging took effect). IP and ASN allocations, Net Scout Services, Information and Education Services (used primarily by the R&E community), and funding for the US domain registry are also currently being funded by these domain fees. Mark -- Mark Kosters markk at internic.net +1 703 742 4795 InterNIC Registration Services PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48 From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Wed Feb 5 14:46:59 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:46:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > It would *definitely* be 'restraint of trade' if you can't get a /19 > from the NIC until you're "big enough"... It's my feeling that ARIN itself would be pretty safe from this sort of complaint if they: - Have a well articulated policy about this - Express that policy clearly to applicants for address space *before* fees are paid and let the applicants know the risks of getting an address that some ISPs won't route. - Have a well expressed and applied conflict-of-interest policy for their relationships with ISPs. (As usual, I'm not expressing this very well... what I'm trying to get at is that there are a lot of potential ISP relationships with ARIN due to BoT and advisory council memberships, and we need to prevent even the appearance that ARIN is, in-effect, an ISP-owned body.) As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to fairly offer their services to all comers. --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Feb 5 14:50:21 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:50:21 -0500 Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become >> impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other >> than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? > >It will never become "impossible" to get IP address space. This is because >if the ARIN proposal collapsed and NSI shut down their operation anyway >the large NSP's could still make mutual agreements to route IP address >blocks from currently unallocated space. That's specifically what I meant by "assignments from previously allocated blocks." >However, I think it much more >likely that if the above catastrophe occurred, 3 or 4 of the large NSP's >would simply pony up some money to form a consortium and hire some of the >current IP allocation people to continue the work. In other words, if you >are looking for a downside here, there really isn't much of one since, as >is normal in an anarchy, when a need is seen, someone will move to fill >the need. But I doubt that contingency plans are in place to do this immediately. I cannot help but think that at best, there might be a 30 day or longer hiatus for new allocations. Mind you, I also don't think this would be catastrophic to the growth of the Internet, because the number of people that need routable PI space is a small part of the total requests. > >While there is no big emergency to push ahead with ARIN in a big rush, >there is also no need to waste time either. The timeframe suggested >which would see ARIN become operational sometime in April, seems >pretty reasonable and I sense that there are not a whole lot more >objections to be overcome before an acceptable structure and bylaws >are presented to the community. I don't have a problem with this. While I think there is a lot of flaming going on, a certain level will never stop. I do have concerns I have voiced about the proposal and its lack of cost and process detail, but these are not show-stoppers. Howard From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Feb 5 16:23:24 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:23:24 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: References: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Karl, Up front, I'd like to thank you for some of your comments. I may disagree fervently with you at times, but just as often, you make me think. At 11:46 AM -0800 2/5/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> It would *definitely* be 'restraint of trade' if you can't get a /19 >> from the NIC until you're "big enough"... > >It's my feeling that ARIN itself would be pretty safe from this sort of >complaint if they: > > - Have a well articulated policy about this > > - Express that policy clearly to applicants for address space > *before* fees are paid and let the applicants know the risks > of getting an address that some ISPs won't route. > > - Have a well expressed and applied conflict-of-interest policy > for their relationships with ISPs. (As usual, I'm not > expressing this very well... what I'm trying to get at is that > there are a lot of potential ISP relationships with ARIN due > to BoT and advisory council memberships, and we need to prevent > even the appearance that ARIN is, in-effect, an ISP-owned body.)\ This is hard to express also. At some level, I am not as worried as I might be about this. Now, I am the first to admit that the Internet is not in the same environment as the telecom carriers. Yet there are parallels. AT&T, when it was Ma Bell, took on certain functions by industry consensus. These included North American Numbering Plan admistration, the telco part of the national emergency Restoration Priority System, etc. After Judge Greene spoke, some of these functions went to Bellcore, while others went into other industry forums. I am drawing a blank on the operational one, as it's been a while ... Inter-Carrier Forum. There was also the Exchange Carriers Standards Association, and, as ISDN became common, the North American ISDN Users Forum (which had a significant carrier piece). The IC-whatever-forum had some aspects of NANOG, but was a much more formal activity. NANOG serves a very useful function and is not broken. I do wonder, however, if there is getting to be a need for more of an inter-carrier policy organization dealing with the broad sense of ISP issues, routing policy, issues. ARIN is not the place for this sort of discussion. IETF or ISOC conceivably could be, but have not stepped up to the role. Perhaps no one can. Perhaps the partially regulated telecom industry is too different. I don't know, but I don't want to keep diverting the ARIN discussions into out-of-scope policy issues. Two obvious problems arise in creating an organization to deal with intercarrier policy: the appearance of collusion for restraint of trade, and the not-unrelated perception of lack of user input. Smaller ISPs have aspects of both users and carriers, and don't fit neatly into the model. My experiences in dealing with the first problem date from my 5+ years at the Corporation for Open Systems (COS), which, for those of you that don't remember, was a not-for-profit consortium intended to accelerate the adoption of interoperable OSI and ISDN products. Lots of things done wrong there, but some things are relevant. COS was a membership organization with a substantial staff -- up to about 140 when we were doing active development of protocol test systems. I was employee #4, and the first technical person on the staff. While most of my time was in software development, product certification,and education, I still spent time in secretariat functions. When the organization was first set up, the Justice Department was invited in to review matters to avoid antitrust. Certainly for the first couple of years, until the DoJ was satisfied we did not pose an antitrust threat, the lawyers were very involved, to a ridiculous extent at times. But one of the secretariat jobs was to watch for suggestions of prohibited collusion, and intervene IMMEDIATELY. For example, if during a technical meeting, a member got up and uttered even a couple of words about pricing or his company strategy, in those terms, I was REQUIRED to jump up, YELL If necessary, and warn him to cease immediately. There were cases where the staff had to go to the mat with members and stop meetings. But it could be done. We never established a satisfactory way to get user input, which in large part came down to the reality that most users did not want to be involved in the continuing process and expense. They expected their vendors to do it. Certain large users, such as the Defense Department, General Motors, etc. did take an active role, typically representing an industry segment as well as their own organization. > >As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have >a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental >cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs >want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against >being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to >fairly offer their services to all comers. Now you've got me struggling to articulate something. At one level, you are quite correct to say the incremental cost of carrying a /24 is the same as carrying a /8. Yet, at a different level, the cost of carrying the set of /24 prefixes is much greater than the cost of carrying the set of /8 prefixes. There is demonstrably more economic and technical risk into agreeing to the principle of carrying the set of /24 prefixes -- and we probably can't do it. So incremental cost isn't quite the term we want, although it is a factor. Perhaps someone can come up with a better term, but to me incremental cost has to be considered in the context of the size of the theoretical number of increaments -- of quanta -- in the universe of discussion. > > --karl-- From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 16:54:42 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 16:54:42 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 03:31:08 +0900." <199702051831.DAA15117@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: <199702051831.DAA15117@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <199702052154.QAA36698@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 03:31:08 +0900, "David R. Conrad" said: > I'm not at ARIN, but I'd direct your attention to RFC 1814. Umm.. we need an RFC2026 expert here. RFC2050 is flagged as 'BCP', and only references 1814 in the 'references' section. RFC1814 is itself tagged as "Informational". As best I can figure, this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way shape or form, so saying "we follow RFC2050" (which ARIN has done) does not transitively imply following 1814 as well. The most applicable part of RFC1814 is at the bottom of page 2: If an enterprise with a small to medium number of hosts desires unique IP addresses, and is unable to obtain them under reasonable conditions from a service provider, or has no service provider, the Internet registries are recommended to assign such addresses without conditions with respect to service provider selection. The But alas, 1814 is only "informational", and it only says "recommended to assign". So we'd still need somebody at ARIN to actually say "yes we'll do that...." (As an aside, RFC1814 has some classful A/B/C cruft left in it - would it be worth the effort of doing a re-write for the CIDR world?) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 5 18:44:40 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:44:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702052154.QAA36698@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > Umm.. we need an RFC2026 expert here. RFC2050 is flagged as 'BCP', > and only references 1814 in the 'references' section. RFC1814 is > itself tagged as "Informational". > > As best I can figure, this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way No RFC's are binding. Some of them are a means of publishing how things are done, some are documents that reflect Best Current Practices within the Internet community, and some are considered Standards. You can ignore them if you wish but since they do reflect various levels of community consensus you will find that people won't co-operate with you. That's not exactly "binding" though. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Wed Feb 5 20:03:55 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:03:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 5, 97 09:54:35 am Message-ID: <199702060103.RAA16255@songbird.com> Michael Dillon allegedly said: > [...] > some are being bought out. However, the pace of new startups has not > slowed and is not likely to slow for a while yet. Do you have any references or data to support this? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From huddle at MCI.NET Wed Feb 5 20:18:01 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:18:01 -0600 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205190653.00dd63d8@mci.net> Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" to be in the business. This would also eliminate the concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the price rather than beaurocrats. -scott At 03:19 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote on NANOG >> If you need to know that there will be a registry >> for each new gTLD, then I'm willing to run any of >> them that cannot otherwise find a home. > >The new gTLD's are all ultimately going to be shared. There's going to be >a crossbar effect where registries and gTLDs are not mapped one to one; any >registry will be able, if willing, to register names in any of the new gTLDs. > > From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 5 19:25:41 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:25:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702060103.RAA16255@songbird.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Kent Crispin wrote: > > some are being bought out. However, the pace of new startups has not > > slowed and is not likely to slow for a while yet. > > Do you have any references or data to support this? This is based on my own observations within the industry and my own analysis of the industry and is not based solely on statistics. Currently the only statistics I know of that are publicly available and anywhere near being accurate are Boardwatch's survey of North American ISP's. I'm not an academic so I don't keep a lot of references around. You would do better to ask this question of academics who study the Internet industry such as the people at Vanderbilt University. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 19:48:57 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:48:57 -0500 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205194850.006d5cc0@lint.cisco.com> At 07:18 PM 2/5/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: >Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address >allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort >of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists >for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service >and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" >to be in the business. This would also eliminate the >concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the >price rather than beaurocrats. > >-scott > Talk about route table bloat... - paul From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Wed Feb 5 17:27:04 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:27:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702052227.RAA10709@newdev.harvard.edu> > we need an RFC2026 expert here since my name is on it ... > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way nor are any IETF "standards" the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard) for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is Scott From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 17:42:40 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 14:42:40 PST Subject: No subject Message-ID: <199702052242.OAA09862@puli.cisco.com> Scott, > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way nor are any IETF "standards" the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard) for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is Just to clarify RFC1814 is Informational, not BCP. Moreover, I would suggest to read RFC2101 to get a more recent IAB's perspective on some of the issues discussed in RFC1814. Yakov. From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 17:37:26 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:37:26 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:27:04 EST." <199702052227.RAA10709@newdev.harvard.edu> References: <199702052227.RAA10709@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <199702052237.RAA10500@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:27:04 EST, Scott Bradner said: > > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way > > nor are any IETF "standards" > the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea > or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard) > for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger > than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is Right. We're an anarchy ;) My point was that the "proposed standard/standard/BCP" status has more weight behind it than the mere "informational" status that RFC1814 currently has. I'm sure that digging through the RFC index, we can find any number of examples of bad ideas flagged as "informational". Also, although ARIN has said that they'll follow RFC2050, I don't see any transitivity to imply 1814 as well... /Valdis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 03:08:06 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:08:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Communications Weekly International Message-ID: An article about ARIN. http://www.emap.com/cwi/178/178news17.html Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 03:35:54 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:35:54 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers that you want to carry your route. --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 04:28:12 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:28:12 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Cost per route In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have > a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental > cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs > want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against > being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to > fairly offer their services to all comers. Carrying a route has both a cost and a benefit. The costs depend chiefly on memory usage, flap frequency, and the effort of keeping filters up to date. The benefits depend chiefly on the utility of being able to reach hosts inside the address block. The cost per route would appear to be independent of prefix length, as you said. However, routes that cover many hosts are likely to carry a greater benefit per route. Also, routes that cover many interesting destinations are likely to be associated with infrastructure that is engineered to be less likely to cause route flap. So we see that routes that cover many destinations have a higher benefit (we're more likely to want to get to some of those destinations) and a lower cost (the routes are less likely to flap) that do routes that cover fewer destinations. Notice that I was careful to talk about the number of destinations behind the route, rather than the length of the prefix. A /8 prefix with 10 hosts behind it costs the same as a /28 prefix with the same 10 hosts behind it, and has the same benefits. However, if the registries do their jobs well[*], we would expect a very strong correlation between prefix length and number of hosts behind a route. Thus, it is a reasonable first approximation to assume that longer prefixes have higher costs (due to more flap) and lower benefits (due to fewer useful services) than do shorter prefixes. --apb (Alan Barrett) * See, this message is (only just) on topic for naipr. But perhaps we should move this discussion to piara. From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 5 13:31:08 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 03:31:08 +0900 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:14:16 EST." <199702051814.NAA38704@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <199702051831.DAA15117@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Valdis, >Would anybody at ARIN like to go out on a limb and say "Yes we'll do it", >or "yes we'll consider this" or "no way"? ;) I'm not at ARIN, but I'd direct your attention to RFC 1814. Regards, -drc From michael at memra.com Wed Feb 5 13:40:10 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:40:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become > impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other > than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? It will never become "impossible" to get IP address space. This is because if the ARIN proposal collapsed and NSI shut down their operation anyway the large NSP's could still make mutual agreements to route IP address blocks from currently unallocated space. However, I think it much more likely that if the above catastrophe occurred, 3 or 4 of the large NSP's would simply pony up some money to form a consortium and hire some of the current IP allocation people to continue the work. In other words, if you are looking for a downside here, there really isn't much of one since, as is normal in an anarchy, when a need is seen, someone will move to fill the need. While there is no big emergency to push ahead with ARIN in a big rush, there is also no need to waste time either. The timeframe suggested which would see ARIN become operational sometime in April, seems pretty reasonable and I sense that there are not a whole lot more objections to be overcome before an acceptable structure and bylaws are presented to the community. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at cisco.com Wed Feb 5 15:34:04 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 15:34:04 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205153358.006b1954@lint.cisco.com> At 11:46 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have >a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental >cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs >want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against >being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to >fairly offer their services to all comers. > Personally, I think there are better way to deal with misbehaving 'long prefixes' than by filtering on length, such as prefix-length based dampening advertisement suppression policies. But I digress, and we are now drifting far afield of the topics suitable for discussion on this list. - paul From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Wed Feb 5 21:47:35 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 21:47:35 -0500 Subject: Competition for address allocation References: <3.0.32.19970205190653.00dd63d8@mci.net> Message-ID: <32F94647.66AA@driveway1.com> Scott Huddle wrote: > > Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address > allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort > of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists > for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service > and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" > to be in the business. This would also eliminate the > concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the > price rather than beaurocrats. > > -scott > > At 03:19 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote on NANOG > >> If you need to know that there will be a registry > >> for each new gTLD, then I'm willing to run any of > >> them that cannot otherwise find a home. > > > >The new gTLD's are all ultimately going to be shared. There's going to be > >a crossbar effect where registries and gTLDs are not mapped one to one; any > >registry will be able, if willing, to register names in any of the new gTLDs. > > > > Yeah. This was what I meant a few days ago when I suggested that perhaps the SOA (Source of Authority) of the address allocation become part of the actual IP. I recognize that, in a way, the /8 end of the IP address (or the /16, or the /19) is actually being treated that way now (the authority being the hierarchical level from which PI space begins), but the discussions re: multihoming and address holes lead me to ask whether, as Scott asks, can this be externalized (without incurring an unpayable route lookup bandwidth penalty) in practice? (Again, I'm not sure if this is on-topic vis a vis ARIN). The externalization of IP source of authority would, it seems to me, render the anticompetitive fears expressed here (on this list) somewhat less threatening. And I understand less about the flexibility of the installed base of routers and their abilities to deal with this than I ought to (admittedly, I know *nothing* about them operationally!). From michael at memra.com Wed Feb 5 15:56:43 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > >> If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become > >> impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other > >> than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? > > > >It will never become "impossible" to get IP address space. This is because > >if the ARIN proposal collapsed and NSI shut down their operation anyway > >the large NSP's could still make mutual agreements to route IP address > >blocks from currently unallocated space. > > That's specifically what I meant by "assignments from previously allocated > blocks." Except that I said "currently UNallocated space". > But I doubt that contingency plans are in place to do this immediately. It would take a few hours at most to deal with the IP allocations part on a provisional basis, maybe a day to get the basic business committments from consortium members and then a week or so for legal agreements to be drawn up and signed. I don't think any contingency plan is necessary since the critical time sensitive part is the allocations and it can be handled on a moment's notice. > I cannot help but think that at best, there might be a 30 day or longer > hiatus for new allocations. Basically, anyone can allocate space to themselves today and announce it via BGP and it will work everywhere it is not filtered. If a catastrophe occurred and people picked a rational allocation scheme like carving up 223/8 into /12's then it wouldn't take a lot to get filters updated. This is the ultimate catastrophe scenario and it really isn't that scary. It is far more likely that a failure would have some warning time and that IANA could enlist the services of APNIC or RIPE to take over for some interim time period. > >pretty reasonable and I sense that there are not a whole lot more > >objections to be overcome before an acceptable structure and bylaws > >are presented to the community. > > I don't have a problem with this. While I think there is a lot of flaming > going on, a certain level will never stop. I do have concerns I have > voiced about the proposal and its lack of cost and process detail, but > these are not show-stoppers. Yep. I'm sure that the proposed board is not going to release any figures until they have a pretty strong case to back up each and every line item in their budget. And not only are the process details moving in the right direction, but I haven't seen any substantial objections even though I tried trolling for some issues that I thought could be hot buttons. To me this indicates that if the issues previously introduced on the list are dealt with, then ARIN is pretty close to a done deal. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 5 21:17:36 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:17:36 -0600 Subject: FW: OIG Investigates the NSF (revised) Message-ID: <01BC13A1.A1581CE0@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 1997 11:26 AM To: 'New Newdom' Cc: 'ckuehn at nsf.gov'; 'lsundro at nsf.gov' Subject: OIG Investigates the NSF (revised) The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government the large number of Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar) Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the clout for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. The InterNIC was originally made up of three companies, General Atomics, AT&T, and Network Solutions, Inc. These three companies were supposed to work together in various capacities to provide a variety of services including the important clerical duties commonly called "registrations". In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF was supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, many NICs would have been developed through education programs and the Internet Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State of Virginia and the few companies originally contracted to be part of the cooperative agreement. That has not occurred. The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, Network Solutions, Inc. suggested that they should do the entire job. Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds of the IANA, are listed on the original Network Solutions, Inc. bid as subcontractors to Network Solutions, Inc. As history has shown, the IANA, working in conjunction with the "InterNIC" (Network Solutions, Inc.) has helped to continue to promote Network Solutions, Inc. to a point where most people consider NSI to be the InterNIC. Throughout the evolution of the InterNIC from a three-company cooperative to a one company monopoly, the NSF has apparently been caught like a deer in the headlights of a car, frozen in indecision but providing mass when needed to allow a few individuals and companies to leverage themselves into positions of great wealth. The NSF has been skillfully used to provide the U.S. Government seal of approval, while policies are enacted by private parties who openly claim that the NSF is "backing" their agendas. Many companies operating within the United States under Federal and State laws, have been shocked over the past few years at how their tax dollars are used to fund the NSF which in turn funds Internet infrastructure with apparently no control over the outcome. Furthermore, despite repeated efforts for other companies to participate in and make investments in the Internet infrastructure, the NSF has stood by and allowed plans and systems to be developed which lock certain companies out while others are given a free pass and in some cases millions of dollars to jump start their business. The recent IAHC activity is an excellent example of how a private company (ISOC) , with less members than many ISPs, is provided an NSF representative, Dr. George Strawn, for credibility, while they develop a plan to sell what amounts to Internet Domain Registration Franchises to companies willing to pay large fees to fund the private ISOC. Another example is the recently proposed ARIN organization which claims to have strong support from the NSF to charge fees for IP addresses. The proposed Board of Direcors of ARIN are mostly people funded directly, or indirectly, by the National Science Foundation. @@@@@ @@@@@@@@@ "Network Solutions is leading the ARIN proposal based on a mandate from the Internet community reached in rough consensus with strong support from the National Science Foundation and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Fortunately, the U.S. Government had the wisdom to set up an agency within the NSF to provide some of the checks and balances needed to regulate the NSF. That agency is the Office of Inspector General (OIG) . OIG is headed by the Inspector General (IG), who reports directly to the President (via the NSB) and to Congress. ---- Inspector General ------- name: Sundro, Linda G. email: lsundro at nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2100 office_phone: (703) fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 -------------------------------------- In a recent discussion with Ms. Sundro, she indicated that the NSF Office of Inspector General has been investigating the matters surrounding the InterNIC and a Report to the Deputy Director is about to be published. Ms. Sundro indicated that Ms. Clara Kuehn, a physicist AND ATTORNEY, has been assigned to handle the investigations and can provide information on the status of the report. -------------------------------------- name: Kuehn, Clara email: ckuehn at nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2001 office_phone: (703)306-2001 x 1505 fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 ------------------------------------------ Ms. Sundro also noted that the e-mail address (oig at nsf.gov) listed on the Office of Inspector General as an "Electonic Mail Hotline" is not useful in contacting her office. She indicated that Ms. Kuehn will welcome input from people on all topics related to these matters and that the above e-mail address (ckuehn at nsf.gov) should be used. In summary, I think that U.S. citizens should be proud that their great country developed much of the technology and infrastructure for the Internet. I also think that the world population should be aware that the hundreds of years of government development in the U.S. has resulted in a system that has the proper agencies to not only help to foster increased growth of the Internet but also to help ensure that citizens around the world are able to compete in this marvelous advancement on a playing field that is fair and level. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unir.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Feb 6 07:04:50 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 07:04:50 -0500 Subject: Cost per route Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206070446.006c4714@lint.cisco.com> At 11:28 AM 2/6/97 +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > >Notice that I was careful to talk about the number of destinations behind >the route, rather than the length of the prefix. A /8 prefix with 10 >hosts behind it costs the same as a /28 prefix with the same 10 hosts >behind it, and has the same benefits. > There's an important distinction subtly hidden here. Carrying & advertizing a shorter prefix most likely provides reachability for more end-point destinations, which in turn results in more traffic transiting the advertisement path towards the destination. As Alan suggested, this is a key argument for PIARA proponents, in that advertizing a shorter prefix = advertizing more end-stations = more traffic. - paul From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Feb 6 12:14:04 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 12:14:04 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200." References: Message-ID: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200, Alan Barrett said: > Both small and big providers have to justify their address space > requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either > pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes > should be carried for no charge. > > So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated? The basic problem is that the "general guidelines" in RFC2050 say that you should have 25% *IMMEDIATE* use of an allocation - you don't get one until you will be at least 1/4 full.. So for a /19, you can be denied getting it until you have 2048 addresses *IN USE*. And this is *after* you've already started doing DHCP and all for those PC's and Macs that subscribe to your ISP. So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them connected *AT ONE TIME*. If you assume that the average subscriber is connected 2 hours a day, and mostly within a 12-hour "prime time", this means you need close to 12-15K or more subscribers to get 2K on at one time so you can get your /19. Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This will cost you market share. We're not talking about "mom and pop" ISPs getting cut out here. We're talking about ISPs that have 15K customers being cut out, to the benefit of those that are already 10X bigger than that. Hmm.. 15K customers, at $20/mo a pop, that's about $3.6M/year cash flow. And still not big enough to qualify for effective multihoming. That's the problem. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 13:05:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:05:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember > that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less > reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > will cost you market share. You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. It really isn't ARIN's job to be an all-purpose business consultant for ISP's supplying creativity services, marketing and planning advice, purchasing assistance, etc. All ARIN has to do is to apply the same international policies that RIPE and APNIC are applying and do it well. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 14:37:26 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:37:26 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu said: > So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really > multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them > connected *AT ONE TIME*. You seem to be assuming that there's something magical about "/19". I am assuming that, if you offer sufficient value in return, people whom you would like to carry your route will indeed be willing to carry your route, regardless of its prefix length. The "value" can be in the form of money, or of interesting reachable destinations. If there's any magic in "/19", it's simply that it's perceived as a size that is likely to cover a reasonable number of interesting reachable destinations, so there's an incentive for folk to carry the route without a direct exchange of cash. If you get your "/19" just by saying saying "I need to multihome and I don't want to be filtered", then it will no longer be safe for the controllers of the filters to make the assumption that a /19 route is likely to cover a lot of interesting destinations. In other words, the benefit to others from their carrying your /19 that you couldn't justify under RFC2050 rules, will be lower than the benefit to others of their carrying somebody else's /19 that _was_ justified under RFC2050. Suddenly, "/19" just lost that "magic" "guarantee" that it's sufficiently interesting for folk to want to carry the route free of charge. But I think this is getting significantly off topic for naipr. I will let Karl, Tim and Valdis have the last word if they wish, but I expect this to be my last message in this thread. --apb (Alan Barrett) From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 6 15:36:40 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:36:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> from "Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU" at Feb 6, 97 12:14:04 pm Message-ID: <199702062036.PAA10879@jazz.internic.net> > Valdis, You keep quoting from the *assignment* section of RFC2050. That criteria is for end-sites requesting address space directly from the registries. Please reread the RFC, specifically the *allocation* section that refers to ISPs. Regards, Kim Hubbard > --==_Exmh_1618832612P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200, Alan Barrett said: > > Both small and big providers have to justify their address space > > requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either > > pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes > > should be carried for no charge. > > > > So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated? > > The basic problem is that the "general guidelines" in RFC2050 say that > you should have 25% *IMMEDIATE* use of an allocation - you don't get > one until you will be at least 1/4 full.. So for a /19, you can be > denied getting it until you have 2048 addresses *IN USE*. And this is > *after* you've already started doing DHCP and all for those PC's and > Macs that subscribe to your ISP. > > So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really > multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them > connected *AT ONE TIME*. If you assume that the average subscriber is > connected 2 hours a day, and mostly within a 12-hour "prime time", > this means you need close to 12-15K or more subscribers to get 2K on > at one time so you can get your /19. > > Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember > that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less > reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > will cost you market share. > > We're not talking about "mom and pop" ISPs getting cut out here. > We're talking about ISPs that have 15K customers being cut out, to the > benefit of those that are already 10X bigger than that. Hmm.. 15K > customers, at $20/mo a pop, that's about $3.6M/year cash flow. > > And still not big enough to qualify for effective multihoming. > > That's the problem. > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Engineer > Virginia Tech > > > > --==_Exmh_1618832612P > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > > -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBMvoRWNQBOOoptg9JAQETwQP+OTaxXPFZYMYX8DpVUpPPcFEZnwsKcKk3 > 2z4sxa4kRhfVj2tu79TtRosbOeGl8g/oCZntkhUZas9rTAGs+BercSBfkHrOjOxi > MmPAL3dvWZsG8TCisFOq9Uzgf6wEvITXRzKE47o7P+kLqEuANOYJRV75pmyzApMo > GX9oMptU5tg= > =WSl5 > -----END PGP MESSAGE----- > > --==_Exmh_1618832612P-- > From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 6 19:10:18 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:10:18 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206191016.00f33294@justin.erols.com> At 05:12 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: >> >Justin, > >Nowhere in my message was the term "foregone conclusion" used. The >term "intention" was used. Please accept my apologies for the misinterpretation. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 18:58:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:58:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702062212.RAA10955@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Nowhere in my message was the term "foregone conclusion" used. The > term "intention" was used. If you know of other individuals you > feel would be more appropriate for the position, I'm sure the Board > would be interested in hearing about them. When I look at this overall situation, it looks a lot like when one corporation sells off a division and the new owner gets the existing employees, software, files, etc. intact. Except that in this case, the IP allocation function isn't owned by anyone and thus cannot be sold. Am I correct in assuming that this is the "intention" of the ARIN proposal, to transfer the existing operation including the existing employees as a more or less intact unit? > and say "but you are on the Board", I am getting ready to make > some minor changes to the proposal, one of which is the modification > of the makeup of the ARIN Board. Minor nit here, but when you redo the BoT web page could you revise the bio for Raymundo as per my earlier email to the list? I think there will still be newcomers who need more information on the personalities involved. And I think it wouldn't hurt to include a little more background on yourself such as your participation in NANOG, IETF and similar groups. I know this but a lot of people will get a somewhat narrower picture from the bio that is currently there for you. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Feb 6 19:16:42 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:16:42 -0500 Subject: MCI position on Class C... Message-ID: <199702070010.TAA21179@info.netsol.com> I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... >Steve, >You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class c's >anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page >www.infopage.mci.com. This came direct from MCI folks.... - Steve - Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From huddle at MCI.NET Thu Feb 6 20:34:25 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:34:25 -0600 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206191822.00de3f98@mci.net> Yes, this is the "mom said no, so ask dad" problem. The delegation of stewardship to a registry is not an abdication of responsibility. Obviously the delegator must insure that these stewards do a good job. -scott At 07:48 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 07:18 PM 2/5/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: > >>Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address >>allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort >>of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists >>for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service >>and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" >>to be in the business. This would also eliminate the >>concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the >>price rather than beaurocrats. >> >>-scott >> > >Talk about route table bloat... > >- paul > > > From cts at VEC.NET Thu Feb 6 19:44:38 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:44:38 EST Subject: MCI position on Class C... Message-ID: <009AF7EE.A6B8BA0A.36@vec.net> >I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a >position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > >>Steve, >>You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class >c's >>anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page >>www.infopage.mci.com. > >This came direct from MCI folks.... Hmmmm..... it's even worse than that; my browser doesn't find anything at www.infopage.mci.com; however, the page at www.infopage.mci.NET has the IP address space application; a statement that MCI is processing applications from Jan 31st, etc. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 6 20:00:12 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:00:12 -0600 Subject: FW: Summing up two years... Message-ID: <01BC145F.FC027780@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 1997 6:58 PM To: 'New Newdom' Subject: Summing up two years... The following sequence of seven messages seem to sum up the last two years, since Network Solutions, Inc. began to agressively move from being a small company and a member of a three-company cooperative NSF team to the current status. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] As shown below, the thread starts with a simple observation about an article that appeared in the Washington Post regarding Network Solutions, Inc. and the fact that they have no intention of sharing registrations in the Top Level Domain .COM. NSI evidently claims that their NSF agreement must be followed. It is interesting that the NSF is not consulted on other matters but when it comes to "sharing", the NSF becomes the clout. >From there, the thread turns a corner at [3] and the discussion heads in the direction where NSI is accused of positioning itself in preparation for a move to claim rights to the .COM Top Level Domain This is somewhat misguided, because any company or government body can currently set up a .COM server and offer to "mirror" NSI registrations for a fee to domain name holders. NSI and the IANA have no ability to stop this action. If the domain name holders feel that it is important enough to be listed in the "mirrored" .COM server then they can pay the fee. Depending on how many users the "mirrored" .COM server supports, the .COM domain name owner may feel obligated to pay. For example, if the Canadian government set up a .COM server, most Fortune 1000 companies would likely be willing to send $50 across the border to Canada each year, especially, if most the of the Canadians used that .COM server either by choice or law. Once the misguided turn is taken in [3], the [4], [5], [6], [7] represent a pattern that has been seen over and over for years. The IANA is defended at all cost. A steady stream of the same players enter the scene to defend the actions of Jon Postel (the IANA) in helping to create the monopoly enjoyed by Network Solutions, Inc. The defense is always the same, Jon Postel has the right to do as he pleases with the Internet, despite the impact on people and and companies, because he designed some protocols and wrote some documents many years ago. Using this "Pope logic", some might conclude that the inventor of the automobile would get to decide who gets drivers licenses or where one is allowed to drive. Others might conclude that the lawyer who developed "zoning" laws gets to personally decide where ALL people are allowed to build houses or live. Only on the Internet can such warped, dictatorial, socialistic, views be allowed to not only develop but be supported each year with more and more blind enthusiasm. This pattern continues to repeat month after month and year after year. There appears to be no end.... ...the claim is always, this is what the "consensus" wants... ...is it...? JF [1] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0176.html Interesting NSI note Vince Wolodkin (wolodkin at digitalink.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:57:30 -0500 I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his company would not agree to let other organizations register addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF expires next year. Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for the next contract? Vince Wolodkin [2] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0177.html Re: Interesting NSI note Carl Oppedahl (carl at oppedahl.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:57:44 -0500 At 10:57 AM 02/06/97 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote: >I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: > > Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his > company would not agree to let other organizations register > addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF > expires next year. > >Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to >charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one >year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI >for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for >the next contract? Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how many months are left on the NSI contract. [3] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0178.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:46:17 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by Carl Oppedahl at oppedahl.c > Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the > application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how > many months are left on the NSI contract. Considering NSI's track record, I highly doubt they are going to do anything of the sort. Other than coming out and saying it, I think NSI is going to try their hardest to keep running .COM. Probably something about how *they* own COM and they have intellectual rights to those names. Which is about as bogus as Alternic claims to their TLDs. Of course, reality sets in -- NSI is part of a huge company with probably a huge legal budget... it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [4] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0181.html Re: Interesting NSI note bmanning at ISI.EDU Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:32:17 -0800 (PST) > it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. > > Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu And that monster would be ...the internet...? -- --bill [5] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0184.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:23:19 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by bmanning at ISI.EDU > And that monster would be ...the internet...? Don't flatter yourself. IANA has done well on stuff like assigning ports and what not, but a monopoly contract to NSI with no specific clauses against charging or at least some sort of public forum on it was the monster. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [6] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0186.html Re: Interesting NSI note Perry E. Metzger (perry at piermont.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:28:14 -0500 You might want to look at who's name is on the early RFCs for our protocol stack. Perry [7] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0187.html Re: Interesting NSI note Michael Dillon (michael at memra.com) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:27:31 -0800 (PST) IANA is primarily the work of Jon Postel. And Jon is one of a small handful of people that could rightly claim to have created the Internet. Read your histroy for more details. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 6 20:01:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:01:26 -0600 Subject: FW: Summing up two years... Message-ID: <01BC1460.28028140@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 1997 6:58 PM To: 'New Newdom' Subject: Summing up two years... The following sequence of seven messages seem to sum up the last two years, since Network Solutions, Inc. began to agressively move from being a small company and a member of a three-company cooperative NSF team to the current status. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] As shown below, the thread starts with a simple observation about an article that appeared in the Washington Post regarding Network Solutions, Inc. and the fact that they have no intention of sharing registrations in the Top Level Domain .COM. NSI evidently claims that their NSF agreement must be followed. It is interesting that the NSF is not consulted on other matters but when it comes to "sharing", the NSF becomes the clout. >From there, the thread turns a corner at [3] and the discussion heads in the direction where NSI is accused of positioning itself in preparation for a move to claim rights to the .COM Top Level Domain This is somewhat misguided, because any company or government body can currently set up a .COM server and offer to "mirror" NSI registrations for a fee to domain name holders. NSI and the IANA have no ability to stop this action. If the domain name holders feel that it is important enough to be listed in the "mirrored" .COM server then they can pay the fee. Depending on how many users the "mirrored" .COM server supports, the .COM domain name owner may feel obligated to pay. For example, if the Canadian government set up a .COM server, most Fortune 1000 companies would likely be willing to send $50 across the border to Canada each year, especially, if most the of the Canadians used that .COM server either by choice or law. Once the misguided turn is taken in [3], the [4], [5], [6], [7] represent a pattern that has been seen over and over for years. The IANA is defended at all cost. A steady stream of the same players enter the scene to defend the actions of Jon Postel (the IANA) in helping to create the monopoly enjoyed by Network Solutions, Inc. The defense is always the same, Jon Postel has the right to do as he pleases with the Internet, despite the impact on people and and companies, because he designed some protocols and wrote some documents many years ago. Using this "Pope logic", some might conclude that the inventor of the automobile would get to decide who gets drivers licenses or where one is allowed to drive. Others might conclude that the lawyer who developed "zoning" laws gets to personally decide where ALL people are allowed to build houses or live. Only on the Internet can such warped, dictatorial, socialistic, views be allowed to not only develop but be supported each year with more and more blind enthusiasm. This pattern continues to repeat month after month and year after year. There appears to be no end.... ...the claim is always, this is what the "consensus" wants... ...is it...? JF [1] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0176.html Interesting NSI note Vince Wolodkin (wolodkin at digitalink.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:57:30 -0500 I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his company would not agree to let other organizations register addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF expires next year. Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for the next contract? Vince Wolodkin [2] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0177.html Re: Interesting NSI note Carl Oppedahl (carl at oppedahl.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:57:44 -0500 At 10:57 AM 02/06/97 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote: >I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: > > Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his > company would not agree to let other organizations register > addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF > expires next year. > >Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to >charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one >year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI >for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for >the next contract? Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how many months are left on the NSI contract. [3] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0178.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:46:17 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by Carl Oppedahl at oppedahl.c > Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the > application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how > many months are left on the NSI contract. Considering NSI's track record, I highly doubt they are going to do anything of the sort. Other than coming out and saying it, I think NSI is going to try their hardest to keep running .COM. Probably something about how *they* own COM and they have intellectual rights to those names. Which is about as bogus as Alternic claims to their TLDs. Of course, reality sets in -- NSI is part of a huge company with probably a huge legal budget... it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [4] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0181.html Re: Interesting NSI note bmanning at ISI.EDU Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:32:17 -0800 (PST) > it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. > > Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu And that monster would be ...the internet...? -- --bill [5] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0184.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:23:19 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by bmanning at ISI.EDU > And that monster would be ...the internet...? Don't flatter yourself. IANA has done well on stuff like assigning ports and what not, but a monopoly contract to NSI with no specific clauses against charging or at least some sort of public forum on it was the monster. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [6] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0186.html Re: Interesting NSI note Perry E. Metzger (perry at piermont.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:28:14 -0500 You might want to look at who's name is on the early RFCs for our protocol stack. Perry [7] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0187.html Re: Interesting NSI note Michael Dillon (michael at memra.com) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:27:31 -0800 (PST) IANA is primarily the work of Jon Postel. And Jon is one of a small handful of people that could rightly claim to have created the Internet. Read your histroy for more details. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 20:05:41 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:05:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... In-Reply-To: <199702070010.TAA21179@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... Not particularly, *sigh*, read on... > >Steve, > >You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > c's > >anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > >www.infopage.mci.com. Just the teensiest bit of Internet enabled research would have allowed you to determine that this host does not exist. And the teensiest bit of extra effort would have taken you to http://www.infopage.mci.net where you would find a link labelled "Request Internet Address Space". After reading the page at that link and finding no mention of the supposed MCI policy you might have been further inclined to check the first link on that page which was this phrase "how MCI reviews the IP network requests". Having thus satisfied your curiosity about MCI's published policy, you would have been forced to conclude that the MCI employee you were talking to was likely a janitor engaged in scraping paint out of all the power outlets that he had painted over the preceding day. I can understand that as a BBS sysop you might not fully understand all the ins and outs of the Internet, however I fail to understand how you could hope to function as a business person when you display such an utter lack of communications and commerce skills. And in order to assure the other list members that I am not merely being harsh and unforgiving, let me explain so that you may learn. When communicating with suppliers, customers and any governmental authorities under whose jurisdiction you fall, it is imperative to verify the information you receive. In this case, you could have checked the web page, you could have requested a signed and written confirmation from the MCI employee, you could have even spoken to another MCI employee such as a supervisor or another salesperson. In this case the mistake doesn't have lethal implications for your business, but should you be applying the incorrect tax collection policy based on an unrecorded phone conversation with some anonymous person purported to work for the state taxation authority, then you might find otherwise. This is basic business common sense and I am surprised that any ISP would not know and practice these basic rules. > This came direct from MCI folks.... This only goes to show that not all MCI folks are quite up to the caliber of Vint Cerf... Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From lfutten at www.readysoft.es Thu Feb 6 22:06:19 1997 From: lfutten at www.readysoft.es (Luz Futten) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:06:19 +1GMT Subject: An article at the www.news.com Message-ID: <199702062057.VAA09503@www.readysoft.es> Hi everybody, If you got time, go to this URL: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7681,00.html, you'll see another article about the proposal for new domains from the International Ad Hoc Commite. Just that. Have a nice day. Luz Futten lfutten at readysoft.es From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Feb 6 14:42:33 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:42:33 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:05:15 PST." References: Message-ID: <199702061942.OAA14538@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:05:15 PST, you said: > You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same > reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does > multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service > to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. Hmm... I guess the fact that Virginia Tech still has connectivity via MCI even if Sprint has a routing flap, and vice-versa, is just a hallucination on my part. Yes, you get more reliability with 2 T-1s instead of 1 to an upstream provider. But you get even more if the 2 T-1s go to different providers and you have good fall-over routing. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Thu Feb 6 21:15:38 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:15:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Competition for address allocation In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970206191822.00de3f98@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 6, 97 07:34:25 pm Message-ID: <199702070215.VAA16504@linux.silkroad.com> It appears the gentlemen are having some difficulty understanding the concept of competitiveness in telecommunications, or, maybe they are content inventing their personal interpretations! Competitiveness *does not* translate to competing for IP address space, as the industry defines it. (and the RF spectrum paradigm does not hold as an analogy.... thats an exercise for the interested reader to do off line, after reading Freiden). Here is a passage from Friden's book, re: pro-competitive environs: \begin{quote} ``The greatest degree of negotiating clout will lie with users who generate large traffic volumes and can migrate to other suppliers \ldots'' \cite{F95} \end{quote} Frieden \cite{F95} cites numerous tactics in networking and telecommunications services markets which are considered anticompetitive and a subset of these tactics may be directly applicable to bilateral IP internetworking; \begin{itemize} \item refusal to grant an operating agreement, \item discriminatory network access, \item impediments to network usage, and \item discriminatory prices or special relationships. \end{itemize} Furthermore: \begin{quote} 'While international telecommunications can ``contribute to world peace and understanding'', it primarily constitutes an industry with enterprises vying for billions of dollars in annual revenues.' \cite{F95} \end{quote} According to telecommunications studies \cite{F95} the future consumer of networking services will demand the ability to move their networks anywhere in the world easily and quickly. Consumers will require the ability to change service providers immediately and upon demand . Likewise, service provides will demand the same ability, to change their upstream service providers quickly and effectively with little or no impact to their established customer base. And finally: \begin{quote} ``Antitrust is intended to protect the competitive process from \ldots collusive interference \ldots'' \cite{K94} \end{quote} \bibitem{F95} Frieden, R., \newblock {\em International Telecommunications Handbook}, \newblock Artech House, Boston, MA, 1995. \bibitem{K94} Kennedy, C., {\em An Introduction to U.S. Telecommunications Law}, \newblock Artech House, Boston, MA, 1994. ---------------- It would be quite good if some of the more opinionated NAIPR posters would broaden their reading list beyond RFCs and email lists. The history of competitiveness in US and international telecommunications is quite well documented. There is little reason for the gentlemen to conjecture on what is competitiveness when Freiden has done such an excellent job. Regards, Tim From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 6 22:19:40 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:19:40 -0600 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <01BC1473.7799E460@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 06, 1997 3:15 PM, Tim Bass[SMTP:themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM] wrote: @ @ @ It would be quite good if some of the more opinionated NAIPR posters @ would broaden their reading list beyond RFCs and email lists. The @ history of competitiveness in US and international telecommunications @ is quite well documented. There is little reason for the gentlemen @ to conjecture on what is competitiveness when Freiden has done @ such an excellent job. @ Tim, Thanks for the great information. I agree with you completely that many of the Internet Politicians should broaden their horizons. Also, they may want to prepare for the day when they are sitting in a court room that does not provide them with high-speed access to the Internet. They may have to actually answer questions in front of other humans. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 7 00:28:46 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:28:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Competition for address allocation In-Reply-To: <199702070215.VAA16504@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Tim Bass wrote: > It would be quite good if some of the more opinionated NAIPR posters > would broaden their reading list beyond RFCs and email lists. You mean like this article from Communications Week International? http://www.emap.com/cwi/177/177news14.html > history of competitiveness in US and international telecommunications > is quite well documented. There is little reason for the gentlemen > to conjecture on what is competitiveness when Freiden has done > such an excellent job. Some of us are just born skeptics, I guess. Seriously, though, this conversation would be a good thing to carry on in the com-priv list. Send a message reading subscribe com-priv to the address com-priv-request at lists.psi.com and bring up the topic. These days, com-priv is not a very high traffic list so I think there is room for discussion of some of these issues of competition etc. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Fri Feb 7 01:59:50 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:59:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember > > that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less > > reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > > You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same > reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does > multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service > to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. Multiple connections to a single provider is "less redundant" than multiple connections to different providers. If your one provider has major problems, you can still end up dead to the net whether you connect to one of their POP's or two. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From russell at PROBE.NET Fri Feb 7 02:42:49 1997 From: russell at PROBE.NET (Tim Russell) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:42:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: from "Jon Lewis" at Feb 7, 97 01:59:50 am Message-ID: <199702070742.BAA28080@elwood.probe.net> > Multiple connections to a single provider is "less redundant" than > multiple connections to different providers. If your one provider has > major problems, you can still end up dead to the net whether you connect > to one of their POP's or two. No kidding. IMHO, anyone who said that connecting at multiple point to the same provider backbone is "redundant" wouldn't know "redundant" if it came up and bit him in the ass. I have an MCI connection that's been great, but they've also melted down a couple of times; it happens. Nowadays, I'm hosting several sites and users that make that an unacceptable occurrance, and I'll shortly be multihoming. It won't be with another connection to MCI, no matter how happy I am with their performance. I've already been told by NSI that I can't have an ASN until I've got a second connection or it's imminent - within 30 days. Nevermind that when that becomes the case, they'll most likely ignore me for three months and waste thousands of my $$$ like they do with domain registrations. -- Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine From davidc at APNIC.NET Fri Feb 7 03:50:25 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:50:25 +0900 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:57:45 CST." <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199702070850.RAA13064@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Karl, The law school you got your law degree from would seem to have left out or misinformed you on certain aspects of anti-trust law in the US. I'd recommend suing them for a refund. Regards, -drc -------- >> >> > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out >> > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're >> > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) >> >> I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify >> for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble >> getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers >> that you want to carry your route. >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. > >-- >-- >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: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 10:37:44 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061524.KAA12942@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: > It is quite interesting how many of these folks are totally > oblivious to the rights of small businesses to compete on equal > footing with large ones, in the US, especially in telecommuniation > related businesses. There's obviously something I don't understand here. Both small and big providers have to justify their address space requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes should be carried for no charge. So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated? --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 10:15:37 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:15:37 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: > > I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify > > for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble > > getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers > > that you want to carry your route. > > You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. The registry is entrusted with the task of ensuring that address space is not wasted, and they would not be violating that trust. The registry has nothing to do with the prices that providers charge to carry anybody's route announcements. If the USA has laws against registries doing their job properly, then that should be fixed. I am not a lawyer, I don't live in the USA, I don't know whether the USA's anti-trust laws could be used to prevent a registry from doing its job properly. --apb (Alan Barrett) From justin at erols.com Thu Feb 6 16:44:22 1997 From: justin at erols.com (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:44:22 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206164421.00cc6650@justin.erols.com> At 10:31 PM 2/1/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but >rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is >common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't >think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows >more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. I must have missed the request for applications for the position of Executive Director (I am assuming that is what you meant instead of Chief Executive). Regardless of anyone's overwhelming experience, it would be wise for the position to be open until a search is made, and people are invited to apply for the position. IP allocation is one part of the job. Managing people and financial resources is another. The two skills are not necessarily interrelated. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From justin at erols.com Thu Feb 6 16:59:48 1997 From: justin at erols.com (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:59:48 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206165947.00cc9854@justin.erols.com> At 01:29 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: >> >Karl, > >If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that >once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on >the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Although many of us have assumed so as a start, why is it a foregone conclusion that you are going to be ED of ARIN? (I actually think that you are the best choice that I know of, but it still shouldn't be a foregone conclusion IMHO). >Of course, you are >free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is >probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel >that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. I will state that I do not believe that NSI has a hidden agenda with respect to ARIN. If I were NSI I would want to get as far from IP allocation as I could. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 6 17:12:54 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:12:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970206165947.00cc9854@justin.erols.com> from "Justin W. Newton" at Feb 6, 97 04:59:48 pm Message-ID: <199702062212.RAA10955@jazz.internic.net> > Justin, Nowhere in my message was the term "foregone conclusion" used. The term "intention" was used. If you know of other individuals you feel would be more appropriate for the position, I'm sure the Board would be interested in hearing about them. And before you jump in and say "but you are on the Board", I am getting ready to make some minor changes to the proposal, one of which is the modification of the makeup of the ARIN Board. The ARIN Board will now consist of 7 members, 5 voting and 2 ex-officio. I will be an ex-officio member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. Regards, Kim Hubbard Kim Hubbard > At 01:29 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >> > >Karl, > > > >If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that > >once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on > >the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. > > Although many of us have assumed so as a start, why is it a foregone > conclusion that you are going to be ED of ARIN? (I actually think that you > are the best choice that I know of, but it still shouldn't be a foregone > conclusion IMHO). > > >Of course, you are > >free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is > >probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel > >that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. > > I will state that I do not believe that NSI has a hidden agenda with > respect to ARIN. If I were NSI I would want to get as far from IP > allocation as I could. > > > > Justin Newton > Network Architect > Erol's Internet Services > From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Thu Feb 6 14:02:29 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:02:29 -0800 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <01BC141D.3F2F41C0@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] >Sent: Thursday, February 06, 1997 10:05 AM > >On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > >> Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember >> that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less >> reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This >> will cost you market share. > >You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same >reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does >multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service >to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. Now now Michael, you are sounding like a Sprintlink rep. Having multiple connections to the same upstream provider does *not* provide the same level of redundancy as connections to multiple upstream providers, especially if you are talking about multiple connections to the same provider in the same geographic area (which would no doubt be the case for a new ISP). There are too many examples of provider specific router problems, congestion, and power outages taking down a whole area (remember the Stanford facility problem?) for the two solutions to be considered equivalent. >It really isn't ARIN's job to be an all-purpose business consultant for >ISP's supplying creativity services, marketing and planning advice, >purchasing assistance, etc. All ARIN has to do is to apply the same >international policies that RIPE and APNIC are applying and >do it well. On that we agree. In fact this whole discussion of allocation policies is inappropriate on the ARIN list. Policy issues are within the scope of PAGAN, and they apply to more than ARIN. ARIN will be following the same allocation guidelines InterNIC has used (similar but not identical to RIPE and APNIC), which are documented and in use. -- Jim Browning From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Thu Feb 6 10:24:49 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:24:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> from "Karl Denninger" at Feb 6, 97 08:57:45 am Message-ID: <199702061524.KAA12942@linux.silkroad.com> Karl observes: -apb (Alan Barrett) >.... have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. ------------ Agreed. It is quite interesting how many of these folks are totally oblivious to the rights of small businesses to compete on equal footing with large ones, in the US, especially in telecommuniation related businesses. ------------- Here is a blurb from CNN today: With growth like that there's a lot more opportunity for new mom-and-pop Internet providers -- and a lot more choices for the consumer. ------------- However, if the established big providers have it 'there way' all of the mom-and-pop providers would be forced to be subproviders to them. Moreover, it is absolutely amazing the InterNIC tacitly supports this. Just go figure..... Best Regards, Tim > > -- > -- > 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: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > From karl at Mcs.Net Thu Feb 6 09:57:45 1997 From: karl at Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:57:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: from "Alan Barrett" at Feb 6, 97 10:35:54 am Message-ID: <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) > > I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify > for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble > getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers > that you want to carry your route. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. -- -- 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: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From michael at memra.com Thu Feb 6 14:12:34 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:12:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <01BC141D.3F2F41C0@jfbb.atmnet.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jim Browning wrote: > >> reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > >> will cost you market share. > > > >You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same > >reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does > >multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service > >to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. > > Now now Michael, you are sounding like a Sprintlink rep. Having multiple > connections to the same upstream provider does *not* provide the same level > of redundancy as connections to multiple upstream providers, especially if > you are talking about multiple connections to the same provider in the same > geographic area (which would no doubt be the case for a new ISP). Nothing will *GUARANTEE* that you will get 5 nines uptime. But if you connect to a regional provider who is triple homed then you can solve the one problem most people are concerned with and that is dependence on one company's backbone. It still doesn't eliminate problems but local problems tend to get fixed faster. > There > are too many examples of provider specific router problems, congestion, and > power outages taking down a whole area (remember the Stanford facility > problem?) for the two solutions to be considered equivalent. I remember Stanford quite well. Inadequate generator backup that hadn't been tested recently and no good emergency procedures. But there are providers who plan and engineer for emergency situations. An ISP can install two demarcs and run connections through two CO's to two different POP's of the same upstream regional provider. And the more demand there is for this sort of service, the more regional providers will start offering it. > In fact this whole discussion of allocation policies is inappropriate on > the ARIN list. Policy issues are within the scope of PAGAN, and they apply > to more than ARIN. ARIN will be following the same allocation guidelines > InterNIC has used (similar but not identical to RIPE and APNIC), which are > documented and in use. Exactly! Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From sweeting at MCI.NET Fri Feb 7 08:58:19 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:58:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... In-Reply-To: <199702070010.TAA21179@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: Steve, Sorry but would you please provide the date of that message. Thanks. John --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > > >Steve, > >You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > c's > >anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > >www.infopage.mci.com. > > This came direct from MCI folks.... > > - Steve - > > Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services > http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net > VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 > Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors > http://www.aop.org > From sweeting at MCI.NET Fri Feb 7 09:01:21 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:01:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... In-Reply-To: <009AF7EE.A6B8BA0A.36@vec.net> Message-ID: Again the information "the Innkeeper" is providing is old information. Real Old. The correct address is infopage.mci.net and we are currently processing orders for the 5th fo February as posted. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Charles T. Smith, Jr. wrote: > >I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > >position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > > > >>Steve, > >>You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > >c's > >>anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > >>www.infopage.mci.com. > > > >This came direct from MCI folks.... > > Hmmmm..... it's even worse than that; my browser doesn't find anything at > www.infopage.mci.com; however, the page at www.infopage.mci.NET has the > IP address space application; a statement that MCI is processing applications > from Jan 31st, etc. > > From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 7 09:33:28 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:33:28 -0600 Subject: ASN Application Message-ID: <01BC14D1.98942FA0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 06, 1997 7:42 PM, Tim Russell[SMTP:russell at PROBE.NET] wrote: @ @ I've already been told by NSI that I can't have an ASN until I've @ got a second connection or it's imminent - within 30 days. Nevermind that @ when that becomes the case, they'll most likely ignore me for three months @ and waste thousands of my $$$ like they do with domain registrations. @ @ -- @ Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net @ "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, @ since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine @ I suggest that you take your ASN Application to George Strawn of the National Science Foundation. George and Don Mitchell oversee the Network Solutions, Inc. contract. You will find that they can help you obtain Internet resources in days rather than "months", years, or never. If they can not help you, then the following Road Map might help. JF @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov ===== @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/mission.html "The FNC supports the goals of the CIC, particularly those related to building the national information infrastructure (NII). It also seeks to address Federal technology transition goals and allow the operational experiences of FNC agencies to influence future Federal research agendas. It also contributes funds to important Internet infrastructure organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA), and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)." @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html Federal Networking Council George Strawn - Chairman GSTRAWN at NSF.GOV Walter Wiebe - Executive Director WWIEBE at NSF.GOV Bruce Almich ALMICH.BRUCE at EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Bruce Bottomley BBB at ROMULUS.NCSC.MIL Dick desJardins DESJARDI at EOS.NASA.GOV Frank Hartel HARTEL at BOX-H.NIH.GOV Craig Hunt CHUNT at NIST.GOV Pamela G. Kruzic PJK at NRC.GOV Henry Lai HENRY.LAI at GSA.GOV Fred Lee FLEE at NSF.GOV Fred Long FLONG at SUN1.WWB.NOAA.GOV Hilarie Orman HORMAN at DARPA.MIL Camillo J. Pasquariello PASQUARC at NCR.DISA.MIL Alexis Poliakoff ALEX_POLIAKOFF at ED.GOV Ken Roko KROKO at USAID.GOV Elaine Stout ESTOUT at USGS.GOV @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC.html The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) is chartered by the National Science Foundation to provide the FNC with technical, tactical, and strategic advice from the constituencies involved in the NREN Program..." FNCAC Members Dr. Sidney Karin KARIN at SDSC.EDU Dr. George Brandenburg BRANDENBURG at HUHEPL.HARVARD.EDU Dr. Henriette Avram AVRAM at IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU Mr. Jim Beall, Jr. BEALL at VNET.IBM.COM Mr. Alan Blatecky ALANB at MCNC.ORG Mr. Matt Blaze MAB at RESEARCH.ATT.COM Ms. Susan Estrada SESTRADA at ALDEA.COM Dr. Kenneth S. Flamm FLAMM at BROOK.EDU Dr. John Gage JOHN.GAGE at ENG.SUN.COM Ms. Carol Henderson CCH at ALAWASH.ORG Dr. Kenneth J. Klingenstein KJK at SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Mr. Richard Liebhaber 2714743 at MCIMAIL.COM Mr. Stu Loken SCLOKEN at LBL.GOV Dr. Paul Mockapetris PVM at SOFTWARE.COM Mr. Robert G. Moskowitz RGM3 at IS.CHRYSLER.COM Dr. Ike Nassi NASSI at SCRUZNET.COM Mr. Carl Edward Oliver OLIVERCE at ORNL.GOV Dr. Stewart Personick SDP at BELLCORE.COM Mr. Thomas C. Rindfleisch THOMAS_RINDFLEISCH at MEDMAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Mr. Mike Roberts ROBERTS at EDUCOM.EDU Ms. Connie D. Stout CSTOUT at TENET.EDU Brigadier General Harold Thompson THOMPSON at ICN.STATE.IA.US Dr. Stephen Wolff SWOLFF at CISCO.COM @@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sweeting at MCI.NET Fri Feb 7 10:45:20 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... (fwd) Message-ID: Just thought everyone should be privy to this with one correction. Again it is not standard MCI policy to send new ISP's to the InterNic. We fully support and conform to RFC 2050 and the guidelines that the InterNic sets forth regarding the allocation/assignment of registered Internet address space. Thank you. John --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:25:03 -0500 From: The Innkeeper To: John Sweeting Subject: Re: MCI position on Class C... I did some more research into this after I sent the response to the list and what had happened was a misunderstanding with the network folks...They assumed I was a starting ISP (even though I provided them with MCI Ckt #'s and the such) and said I must go thru InterNIC to receive my Class C (which IS standard MCI policy)....From that point on I draw from their pool as I was previously informed....I guess an honest mistake at the MCI end from someone who may have been a wee bit tired.... - Steve - ---------- > Again the information "the Innkeeper" is providing is old information. > Real Old. The correct address is infopage.mci.net and we are currently > processing orders for the 5th fo February as posted. Thanks. > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Charles T. Smith, Jr. wrote: > > > >I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > > >position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > > > > > >>Steve, > > >>You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > > >c's > > >>anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > > >>www.infopage.mci.com. > > > > > >This came direct from MCI folks.... > > > > Hmmmm..... it's even worse than that; my browser doesn't find anything at > > www.infopage.mci.com; however, the page at www.infopage.mci.NET has the > > IP address space application; a statement that MCI is processing applications > > from Jan 31st, etc. > > > > From matt at netmeg.net Fri Feb 7 12:01:00 1997 From: matt at netmeg.net (Matt Magri) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 12:01 EST Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: Tim Russell (russell at PROBE.NET) wrote: >Jon Lewis (jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net) wrote: >>Michael Dillon (michael at MEMRA.COM) wrote: >>> You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same >>> reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does >>> multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service >>> to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. >> >> Multiple connections to a single provider is "less redundant" than >> multiple connections to different providers. If your one provider has >> major problems, you can still end up dead to the net whether you connect >> to one of their POP's or two. > > No kidding. IMHO, anyone who said that connecting at multiple point >to the same provider backbone is "redundant" wouldn't know "redundant" >if it came up and bit him in the ass. > > I have an MCI connection that's been great, but [ ... ] While I don't necessarily agree with Michael's claim that you get "the same reliability" (I'm not too sure what it means in this context), I think it's pretty plain from the text you snipped (I returned it up at the top), that he's not talking about multiple connections to a net like MCI. he's talking about a regional provider which already has multiple connections to various providers (one of which could be MCI, etc.). I think if you have a quality multihomed regional provider operating in your area then that's an excellent choice for a first connection. A second connection to that provider (if you could touch their net in a different, sensible location, perhaps) would be nice for redundancy on what is likely to be your most reliable link to the net. OTOH, I, _personally_, wouldn't budget the money towards that until I had already established connections of my own to multiple providers. Of course, if your goal wasn't to become a regional provider yourself then you might make a different choice. If so, keep an eye on the regional you're connected to for signs that the quality is waning, etc. since your fortunes are strongly linked to how they run their net. Matt Magri Netmeg Internet From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Feb 7 12:48:42 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:48:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702070850.RAA13064@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: Ummm... I am Karl Auerbach. I am not Karl Denninger, the author of the e-mail you quoted and are apparently responding to. I graduated from Loyola of Los Angeles Law School with a JD cum laude. I am an attorney, licensed in California and the US Federal courts. Your email, quoted below, really concerns me. Many people on this list do not realize that there are two "Karl"s. As a consequence many people may take your comments below as deriding me and my ability in one of my professions. I don't like that. Please be careful to launch barbs at the right target. --karl-- On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > Karl, > > The law school you got your law degree from would seem to have left > out or misinformed you on certain aspects of anti-trust law in the US. > I'd recommend suing them for a refund. > > Regards, > -drc > -------- > >> > >> > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > >> > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > >> > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) > >> > >> I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify > >> for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble > >> getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers > >> that you want to carry your route. > >> > >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > > > >You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. > > > >-- > >-- > >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: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > > > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Fri Feb 7 13:43:52 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 13:43:52 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970207134349.006dfd80@lint.cisco.com> Folks, I think one would have to be a bit more precise about what problem it is that they are trying to solve, what 'redundancy' actually means. Chances are, that if you have more than one circuit to an upstream provider (whether a single provider or several), both of them come into your customer premise on the same entrance facilities, or ride the same piece of fiber to the local CO. If this is the case, the only 'redundancy' one would obtain by multihoming to two different providers would be pseudo _transit_safety_ if one of the upstream provider networks melted down; the ability to route packets via a different path if the transit were somehow munged on a particular Layer 3 upstream path. In any event, this is definitely *not* appropriate discussion for this list; the IP registries do not control the ability of an applicant to multihome, nor can they ensure that a particular prefix will be routable on the global Internet. Haven't we pretty much hashed this topic to death? - paul At 12:01 PM 2/7/97 EST, Matt Magri wrote: > >I think if you have a quality multihomed regional provider operating >in your area then that's an excellent choice for a first connection. >A second connection to that provider (if you could touch their net in >a different, sensible location, perhaps) would be nice for redundancy >on what is likely to be your most reliable link to the net. OTOH, I, >_personally_, wouldn't budget the money towards that until I had >already established connections of my own to multiple providers. Of >course, if your goal wasn't to become a regional provider yourself then >you might make a different choice. If so, keep an eye on the regional >you're connected to for signs that the quality is waning, etc. since >your fortunes are strongly linked to how they run their net. > From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Fri Feb 7 14:19:02 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:19:02 -0500 Subject: Mea Culpa (was Re: LET'S JUST GO AROUND) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:36:40 EST." <199702062036.PAA10879@jazz.internic.net> References: <199702062036.PAA10879@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: <199702071919.OAA12128@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> I'd like to thank Scott Bradner for injecting some actual hard info into the discussion (via a private e-mail to me). I'm sure that Scott will chastise me appropriately if I've mis-paraphrased what he told me, and everybody else will flame me if I added 2 and 2 and got 5. ;) Scott pointed out to me that at least at first, the ARIN registry will operate with exactly the same policies as the already existing registries, and that any changes in said policies would have to be thrashed out and agreeed to by all the registries, on a *different* already existing list. Taking that info, and poking around www.ra.net for RADB information, I eventually stumbled onto a document RIPE-140, which stated the policy for the European side of the puddle. Section 3.4.2 of said document basically answered the question re: multihoming, by saying that even if a request was for provider-independent addresses, the registry should trim it down to the smallest CIDR-sized/aligned block that would fulfill the address regardless of routing. My conclusions after reading the additional documents are: 1) The *current* policy doesn't cut any slack for people wishing to multihome. (I'm assuming that if the RIPE document doesn't, that the other registries and IANA don't either, via implied transitivity by having similar policies). 2) ARIN won't either, unless there's a global change in policy. 3) The issue of too-small companies trying to multihome is mostly a moot point, as apparently one of the following has happened for every case of what I was concerned about: a) They were big enough to get a globally routable address b) They decided to go with redundant links to a large ISP such as NetAXS. c) They managed to bribe those long-haul people with filters to pass their announcements anyhow. d) They appealed directly to IANA and got an allocation anyhow e) They were picked up by the guys in the black helicopters. ;) In any case, we've not seen any actual lawsuits about this policy, so I guess ARIN adopting it won't change things any. And I *know* that we heard about at least the first several lawsuits against NSI re: their domain name policies... I personally remember multihoming being a contentious issue when CIDR was first designed and deployed, and apparently the question of exactly what a registry (or anybody else, for that matter) should do regarding multihoming and its impacts on CIDR is still an open research question... TIme for me to go off, eat some crow (who's got the tabasco sauce? ;), ponder the RADB databases, and shut up on this particular issue until I have some hard numbers regarding multihoming and CIDR ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From huddle at MCI.NET Sat Feb 8 09:36:32 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 08:36:32 -0600 Subject: Membership Fee Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970208013810.00d10c64@mci.net> Ideally these sorts of decisions are done through some consensus building rather than a strict voting scheme, a voting scheme, though, coule be proportional to size of allocation, or perhaps based on membership status. Suggestions welcome here. -scott (still playing catchup on old mail) At 02:03 PM 1/20/97 -0800, Jerry Scharf wrote: >> > My only concern at this point regarding the ARIN proposal (while we wait >> > for Kim, anyways) is why the membership fee has to be so high. I'm an >> > individual who is quite interested in IP allocation issues and who would >> > very much like to use any vote I might get to ensure that allocations are >> > in the hands of people I feel appropriate. However, as a high school >> > geekoid searching for enough cash to get into university, I don't really >> > have that ability, do I. :) >> > >> > I would prefer a model whereby ARIN membership could be expanded to >> > include those hobbyists who care about abstract number assignments. >> > While we aren't the ones likely to be multi-homed, the thought of an >> > organization this powerful solely in the hands of the companies who want >> > provider independant space doesn't sound appealing to me. >> > >> Very good point Billy....That is something that I am sure many folks out >> there would like to see (myself included)... >> >> Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services >> http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net >> Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors >> http://www.aop.org > >I, for one, think this is totally unreasonable. The people actually getting >addresses from ARIN will probably be in the few hundred range. If thousands of >people are financially encouraged to be able to vote on the funding issues, >the people footing the bills loose their voice. I don't want to make this >sound like a club, but it is for the people who get services from ARIN, not >for steering allocation policies or fee structures by outside organizations. > >We're not in a governemtnal situation here, there must be somre reflection of >the size of the players. IMO. I don't deserve the same size vote as MCI or >UUNet even if I get addresses from ARIN. > >Jerry > > From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 10 00:24:15 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:24:15 +0900 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:48:42 PST." Message-ID: <199702100524.OAA02807@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Karl Auerbach, >Many people on this list do not realize that there are two "Karl"s. Perhaps, but including Karl Denninger's note in full would hopefully lead most people to believe I was responding to his note, not to any comment you might have made. >As a >consequence many people may take your comments below as deriding me and my >ability in one of my professions. I don't like that. I, in no way, would deride either you, your ability or one of your professions as I have some idea of your contributions to the field and am aware of your legal training. While I might think you have a tendency to engage in scaremongering, I do respect your opinions and if you were to claim Alan's statements were textbook anti-trust, I would take your statement at face value and adjust my position appropriately. However, the "other Karl" (Karl Denninger) is, as I'm sure your aware, quite infamous for threatening "actions", going to the DA, the DOJ, Janet Reno, etc. at the drop of anyone's hat. My comment was a result of the exasperation I felt at his constant blustering and what I felt to be a complete misrepresenttation of what I understand to be the reality of anti-trust violations in the context of ARIN. >Please be careful to launch barbs at the right target. Please be careful not to jump into the path of incoming barbs in no way intended for you. In any event, as this is unrelated to ARIN, you can have the last word -- I'll not respond further to this thread. Regards, -drc From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 13 16:39:07 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:39:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Updates to ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199702132139.QAA12297@jazz.internic.net> I have made a few minor modifications to the ARIN proposal. These modifications include: 7 member Board of Trustee, 5 voting members and 2 non-voting ex-officio members. 15 member Advisory Council members with terms listed. The maintenance fee for individual (end-site) assignments and ASNs will be $50 per year. For more details please see the ARIN webpage at www.arin.net. Thanks, - Kim From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 14 21:01:59 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:01:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: CAIP Message-ID: Even though this message comes from the IAHC list it does have some relevance to ARIN. About a week and a half ago, one of the CAIP executive in Canada posted a message to can.infohighway (USENET) in a thread about IP allocation registries in Canada. He seemed to think that Canada would soon be taking over the IP allocation duties for our country again. I spoke to Kim Hubbard briefly about this at the NANOG meeting and, as usual, this was a CAIP plan that they hatched without consulting with anyone else. Since this message from the IAHC list appears to indicate some sort of closure on this issue I thought it would be relevant here. In other words, saner heads have convinced the CAIP people that ARIN is good and national IP registries are bad. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:26:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard J. Sexton" To: iahc-discuss at iahc.org Cc: drc at apnic.net Subject: CAIP Recently Micahel Dillon posted about CAIP and other Canajun (eh?) stuff that was basically factual, except the facts were jumbled around a bit. Since I was around for the formation of CAIP I thought I'd correct a few things. Michael Dillon (michael at memra.com) >Industry Canada is the government ministry that initiated the formation >of CAIP with a plan to take over the .CA domain and IP allocation within No. CAIP was started by Lorien Gable (interlog.com) John Mnemonic (idirect.ca) and John Epstein (passport.ca) at the time when Bell Canada began selling dial up analog IP on the same day that they tried to renegue on existing Centrex III contracts to ISPs. Industry Canada was NOT involved. CAIP has many members today. I'm not one of them; I have better uses for $500. >Canada. Of course they never bothered to ask the .CA domain committee >whether they needed help (they didn't and still don't) Jon Postel (or the Internic, I don't rememebr) posted to usenet they was seeking proposals to replace the .CA registrar, as he had lost his funding. In Jon's words (pers. comms.) "The first resonable proposal to get here, wins". I assume one never did, and with roughly 8000 .CA names, it was tough to make a business case for the then free names. As a sidebar, one of the fellows who is on the .CA committee accepts .CA registrations ($50) but still does the UUCP maps (free). >and they never >bothered to discuss the IP allocation function with the Internic. After >the University of Toronto dropped the IP allocation function, the duty was >taken over by the Internic. >However, CAIP had a couple of meetings at Industry Canada's offices in >Ottawa where they hatched a scheme to have a secret committee make IP >allocation and domain name decisions. The members of the committee >would be kept secret and each member would have to swear a lifetime oath >to keep all activities of the committee secret as well as keeping the >identity of other committee members secret. This part is correct. From the horses mouth: ================= From: woods at weird.com (Greg A. Woods) Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada There was a point where CAIP had big plans to propose take-over of .CA with another secret comittee. I was asked to fill out their on-line form and basically offer my views and I essentially told them to stick their ideas about secret committees where the sun don't shine. ================ So did everybody else and the novel concept went awsy. Techies uber alles. >This same organization, >CAIP, now has representatives of the RCMP or the Ontario Provincial Police >speaking at their meetings on the subject of Internet porn. The only >reason I'm not ashamed to be Canadian is that all these CAIP shenanigans >are happening in Ontario and I left that province 16 years ago to live in >B.C. where people are more normal and some even have a clue. CAIP thanked them very much and promptly ignord them. These days CAIP is trying to get ISP access into the (TV) cable infrastructure. >Now CAIP has publicly stated that there are "plans" afoot to bring the >IP allocation back into Canada. Some people never manage to get a clue, >it seems. The job simply does not belong in Canada because it transcends >the boundaries of the nation state. The Internic people do a darn good >job and unlike the government bureacrats I have encountered, the Internic >folks are smart and they are nice. Soon they will all be working for ARIN >which is a significant move towards industry self-regulation and is >a good thing. Anybody who wants more government interference in the >Internet, no matter what country, needs their head examined. >From Greg Woods again: I'm a member of that committee, and I've never know that it was supposed to be a secret. The CAIP asked Rayan (uunet.ca) to form it. We've had a couple of conference calls, and lots of discussion on . It's basically stagnated since those of us who know the technical side have shut down the empire builders. Michael is right -- Canada has no business being in the IP # allocation business -- it only makes sense for those regions that are truely geographically and network isolated. While this was not my original stance, I now believe that IP allocations in Canada do not belong in Canada and the interests of the Internet are best served by ARIN handling this. The fees make me nervous, but we'll see how that plays out. -- richard at vrx.net In a little while it may be over. We may fail. But the rights for which we contend will not die. Louis Riel 1885 From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Mon Feb 17 17:21:03 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:21:03 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3308D9CF.4D2C@driveway1.com> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? From russell at PROBE.NET Mon Feb 17 18:27:32 1997 From: russell at PROBE.NET (Tim Russell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:27:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? Message-ID: <199702172327.RAA16451@elwood.probe.net> Okay, since I haven't heard anything from the list in quite some time, I'll hopefully get things going again by asking a little question that's been on my mind: The proposal says that the rates for service are set such that NAIPR will break even the first year. Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been on my mind is this: what about the second year? I've been told about the huge startup costs, and I can see that. But then, if the funding for the first year will cover that (it has to, because NAIPR is supposed to break even that year, remember?), what about the second year when there aren't startup expenses? Is it just me, or will NAIPR not have quite a bit of cash left over with nowhere to spend it and nothing in the proposal about what to do with it? -- Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 17 19:04:56 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:04:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: test - is this list still alive? In-Reply-To: <3308D9CF.4D2C@driveway1.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco last week. In fact, I met three of the BoT people at NANOG so that kept them busy for a few days. No doubt they had to dig out from a pile of email after returning to work, I know I certainly did. Then this weekend is a holiday in the USA so it's not surprising that there isn't much email. The web site did get updated last week so you might want to check it out again if you haven't done so recently. At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have questions. But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still written in conditional language. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 17 19:55:23 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:55:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: test - is this list still alive? In-Reply-To: <3308D9CF.4D2C@driveway1.com> from "Larry Honig" at Feb 17, 97 05:21:03 pm Message-ID: <199702180055.TAA22189@moses.internic.net> > Yes, the lack of discussion has surprised me also. It also has me hopeful that ARIN is receiving the ISP support needed. Kim > Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? > From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 17 20:03:26 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:03:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702172327.RAA16451@elwood.probe.net> from "Tim Russell" at Feb 17, 97 05:27:32 pm Message-ID: <199702180103.UAA22218@moses.internic.net> > Actually, the proposal says that ARIN funding is for cost recovery - not just for the first year. Most of the costs for operating ARIN will be ongoing. For instance, rental space, equipment, connectivity, staffing will be leased/ongoing so startup costs are not expected to be the major cost. However, if operational costs are met along with an adequate surplus and the expectation is that there will be extra money than I expect the BoT will review the registration fees and consider lowering them. Kim > Okay, since I haven't heard anything from the list in quite some time, > I'll hopefully get things going again by asking a little question that's been > on my mind: > > The proposal says that the rates for service are set such that NAIPR will > break even the first year. > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > I've been told about the huge startup costs, and I can see that. But > then, if the funding for the first year will cover that (it has to, because > NAIPR is supposed to break even that year, remember?), what about the second > year when there aren't startup expenses? > > Is it just me, or will NAIPR not have quite a bit of cash left over with > nowhere to spend it and nothing in the proposal about what to do with it? > > -- > Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net > "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, > since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine > From justin at EROLS.COM Mon Feb 17 20:13:55 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:13:55 -0500 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970217201353.01323f88@justin.erols.com> At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been >on my mind is this: what about the second year? The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in not doing so? Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From justin at EROLS.COM Mon Feb 17 20:16:50 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:16:50 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970217201649.013b8664@justin.erols.com> At 04:04 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to >go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still >written in conditional language. You have my full concurence on this. The proposal has really come a long way and is IMHO one revision away from being ready to become a framework for by-laws. (And even the changes between the current revision and the by-laws will only need to be relatively minor). Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 17 21:45:56 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970217201353.01323f88@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > >on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would > suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in > not doing so? That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 17 21:45:56 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970217201353.01323f88@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > >on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would > suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in > not doing so? That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Mon Feb 17 22:24:49 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:24:49 -0500 Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act Message-ID: <33092101.7CD8@driveway1.com> Hi. This may seem offtopic, but perhaps not. ARIN itself may need to become involved in the medium term if and when telephone numbers and IP addresses converge. I was perusing the '96 Telecom Act (my usual lite bedtime reading) and I came across the following: "All LECs must immediately provide interim number portability measures such as remote call forwarding ("RCF"), flexible direct inward dialing ("DID") or other comparable and technically feasible methods." Now my question is: since ISPs and IX operators are not presently defined as LECs under this Act, are they therefore exempt? If there is some uncertainty about the durability of any exemption, shouldn't a prudent Board of Directors (of an IX operator or ISP) be asking questions now about their liability to conform with an expanded interpretation of the Act should it occur? How would ARIN's authority be exercised when renumbering disputes occur? The full text of the portions of the Act pertaining to local number provisioning can be found here: http://www.technologylaw.com/techlaw/local_access.html#lnp From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 17 22:50:15 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:50:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: from "Jon Lewis" at Feb 17, 97 09:45:56 pm Message-ID: <199702180350.WAA22753@moses.internic.net> > Are you suggesting that the rates never be lowered? I would guess that considering the ISPs will be paying an annual fee that lowering them at any time would be welcomed. Kim > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > > >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > > >on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > > > The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would > > suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in > > not doing so? > > That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of > ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for > it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the > first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 17 23:02:31 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:02:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702180350.WAA22753@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that the rates never be lowered? I would guess > that considering the ISPs will be paying an annual fee that lowering > them at any time would be welcomed. It surely would be welcomed by most, though the first organizations to have paid the original fees might be bitter when their younger competitors pay a fraction of what they just paid for the same "service". I just can't see it [lower fees] really happening. Usually, expenses grow to meet the available budget. If there's extra cash, what's to stop the BOT from blowing it on more T1's, upgrades to fractional T3's, bigger staff, etc.? Has anything been said about salaries for the president and other operational staff other than the BOT will decide them? Perhaps after the first year, when rather than break even, there is a revenue surplus, everyone will get big raises?? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From aop at cris.com Mon Feb 17 23:26:01 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:26:01 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <01BC1D29.F3C57540@dave> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco last week. [Dave McClure] Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of Trudtees?????" At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have questions. [Dave McClure] And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the system, and a real non-profit status. But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still written in conditional language. [Dave McClure] Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything else that **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a proposed budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, or the authority under which these hijackers are operating???? Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs who do not. . .large, and small. The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined organization whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP addresses in the Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational mission. It is a simple overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed. If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as APNIC and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set forth how the Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the organization will be responsible to the industry? Why no open information about accounting, or what their costs will be. This organization will pull more than $3 million from the industry in its first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or what the accountability will be to the industry. The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any opportunity to do so. Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be transferred to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in public. Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who almost immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. . . Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? Yes, or no? David P. McClure Association of Online Professionals From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 17 23:53:43 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:53:43 +0900 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:02:31 EST." Message-ID: <199702180453.NAA27187@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Jon, >I just can't see it [lower fees] really happening. As several have pointed out, it has already happened in the European registry's case. >Usually, expenses grow to meet the available budget. In APNIC and RIPE's case, when you are responsible to a group of individuals who are (to put it mildly) not particularly interested in paying for more than they need, and the activities of the registry are made public knowledge along with the budgets, it becomes somewhat of a "challenge" to cause expenses to grow without approval. Regards, -drc From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 00:45:55 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:55 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702180103.UAA22218@moses.internic.net> References: <199702172327.RAA16451@elwood.probe.net> from "Tim Russell" at Feb 17, 97 05:27:32 pm Message-ID: >> >Actually, the proposal says that ARIN funding is for cost recovery - not >just for the first year. Most of the costs for operating ARIN will be >ongoing. For instance, rental space, equipment, connectivity, staffing >will be leased/ongoing so startup costs are not expected to be the >major cost. > >However, if operational costs are met along with an adequate surplus and >the expectation is that there will be extra money than I expect the >BoT will review the registration fees and consider lowering them. > >Kim We still need the proposed budget -- a three-year projection would be nice. Also, if the capitalization is coming from a grant or lump-sum distribution from NSI, that should be indicated as well. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 00:59:54 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:59:54 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702180453.NAA27187@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:02:31 EST." Message-ID: At 8:53 PM -0800 2/17/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Jon, > >>I just can't see it [lower fees] really happening. > >As several have pointed out, it has already happened in the European >registry's case. > >>Usually, expenses grow to meet the available budget. > >In APNIC and RIPE's case, when you are responsible to a group of >individuals who are (to put it mildly) not particularly interested in >paying for more than they need, and the activities of the registry are >made public knowledge along with the budgets, it becomes somewhat of a >"challenge" to cause expenses to grow without approval. The reason to lower fees later is because your budget model was wrong and you charged too much in the beginning. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but we NEED the proposed budget NOW so that we can see where the money is coming from (revenue projections) and where the money is going (expenses). As for paying $1000 to participate in ARIN, don't count on me. I don't have that kind of money to throw around. If on the off chance you want me to continue to provide input to the process you will have to find a way to do it without bankrupting me. And don't expect my company, Motorola, to be willing to fork over that kind of money for me to participate in ARIN. Won't happen. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Feb 18 01:41:31 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:41:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Answer to Dave McClure's concerns In-Reply-To: <01BC1D29.F3C57540@dave> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but > that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to > claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who > elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone > even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of > Trudtees?????" If you would read through the materials in the Reading List at http://www.arin.net you would realize that ARIN is not claiming a monopoly on all North and South American IP addresses. On the contrary, ARIN is offering to act as a "steward" for the IP address space allocated in the Western hemisphere which is, no doubt, why there is a Board of "Trustees" rather than a Board of "Directors". It is also incorrect to say that the BoT is self-elected. Obviously they haven't been directly elected by any constitutency but this is not surprising in the absence of a structure to run such an election. However, they have consulted with IANA, NSF, the current IP allocation folks at the Internic, and most of the major users of IP space in North America. In addition, they have submitted their plans to the open scrutiny of the Internet community on this mailing list and on the website. The plan also provides for an election mechanism for future trustees as it does for the future Advisory Council. As far as the ISP connections. Both Randy Bush and John Curran currently work for large backbone providers as you can read in the biographies on the website. That's one more than you mentioned. But ISP's are not the only users of IP address space. The educational and research community are also large users of IP addresses and Raymundo Vega and Scott Bradner represent that sector. Donald Telage holds a trustee position because his firm will be funding the transfer of the existing IP allocation function to ARIN. It is quite reasonable that he should have a position as a trustee while his company's money is being spent. The other two positions are ex-officio and I assume that the intent is to have the current IANA director and the current Executive Director of ARIN as permanent members of the board. This provides the essential liaison with IANA, from whom all IP allocations originate, and with the operational employees of ARIN who actually do the job. > BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at > the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** > collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing > systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the > system, and a real non-profit status. I don't understand why you feel that ARIN will not have real non-profit status. I'm not all that familiar with U.S. tax law, however ARIN is being chartered as an organization that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(6) of the U.S. tax code. I know that in Canada that tax exempt organizations have to follow some fairly strict rules about handling money and I have no reason to doubt that U.S. law is significantly different. Perhaps the people from APNIC and RIPE can comment on the open election questions. I certainly do not find it unusual that an organization gets bootstrapped into existence with no elections in the first year. As long as the structure is in place for future elections I believe that the ISP members of ARIN will ensure that the organization is above reproach. And ARIN will certainly be far more open that the current privately run Internic. > > But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready > > to > > go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still > > written in conditional language. > Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the > Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, Yes, something like that. As far as by-laws are concerned, they are most likely available in boilerplate. I have been involved in the incorporation of several non-profits here in Canada and in one case we used the boilerplate provided in the provincial Society Act, in two other cases we used boilerplate provided by the provincial law society. I don't expect people to give their final consensus on the matter until the bylaws are actually presented, but knowing that the Trustees are all volunteers with full-time jobs elsewhere, I'm not terribly worried that details are coming out in a trickle. In fact, I'd be far more worried if we had been presented with a nice neat package from day one. > a mission, http://www.arin.net/arin_intro.html seems good enough so far. I agree it would sound better if rewritten as a mission statement, but the basic info is there. > How about a proposed > budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, Yes, definitely. I agree 100% with you on these two points. However, given the level of vituperative attack we have seen on this mailing list, it doesn't surprise me that the Trustees are keeping the budget secret until they can justify every line item on it. And I am confident that ISP's who intend to become ARIN members or subscribe to ARIN's services will make their views known to the Board of Trustees. Sadly, I expect a number of them will not want to speak publicly due to the level of discord on this list, but that is their prerogative. > or the > authority under which these hijackers are operating???? You really must check out the website in more detail. http://www.arin.net/iana.html > Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who > support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs > who do not. . .large, and small. I'm not on the Board of Trustees and I have not personally surveyed even the backbone providers so I cannot give you this information. I would like to point out, however, that several of the trustees do participate in a number of forums that the major providers attend such as NANOG and IETF. They certainly know how to contact the providers and the providers know how to contact them. I interpret the absence of public comment from the major NSP's on this list as a tacit vote of confidence for ARIN. > As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon > organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit > status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational > mission. You should read through section 501 of the tax code. While your comments would certainly apply to a 501(c)(3) corporation, they do not appear to apply to 501(c)(6). > Why have we not seen ... Like I said, the volunteers have sull time jobs, and they are asking the industry for input. If anyone has some direct advice on how to structure ARIN, bylaws, budgets, please share them with the BoT if not with the entire list. > but offers **NO** > accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or > what the accountability will be to the industry. In reading through the current draft proposal I do see accountability built into it. If you feel there is a shortcoming in the accountability, let's hear your suggestions for improvement. > The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little > interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any > opportunity to do so. Perhaps this is the truth in your worldview, but not in mine. Of course, I have personally met Kin Hubbard on two occasions, and met both Randy Bush and John Curran on one occasion. In addition I have met and talked to some Internic employees in person. One thing that face-to-face meetings do for me is to give me insight into a person's character. And I have to say that I get generally good impressions of these people. I have encountered sleazy people several times in my life and the ARIN folks do NOT fit that mold. This doesn't mean that they will automatically do everything perfectly, but since I'm not perfect either, I won't hold them to such a high standard. And with the open process exepmlified by this mailing list, I think we can all ensure that the job is done right. > Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a > simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will > become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be > transferred to ARIN. I'm not interested in numbers. But I hope that 100% of the people engaged in IP allocation functions at the Internic move to ARIN with basically the same job description. I think we are fortunate that Network Solutions is supportive of this because in most industries you would get sued for hiring away an entire department. And in order to maintain the stability of IP allocations in this continent we need as little disruption as possible. > Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising > law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the > possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of > Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? Some people on the ISP/C Board think that we should have a member on the Advisory Council and I am one of three ISP/C directors that our board has discussed as possibilities. However, the ISP/C has not been asked to appoint a member to ARIN's Advisory Council. In addition, the ISP/C board has not received any indication that the Advisory Council will be set up as a series of appointments by other organizations. In fact, I don't think that is a good way to set up the initial AC, they should be appointed directly by the initial BoT. I don't believe that the earlier proposals specified how the AC would be chosen, but the current proposal contains this statement: The initial Advisory Council will be selected from among ARIN's membership by the Board of Trustees. Since the current annual membership fee is $1000, I won't be joining ARIN as an individual and would thus be ineligible to be an AC member. Unless, of course, I end up working for a company that joins ARIN but then I would expect the choice of which employee would hold the ARIN membership would rest with the CEO of that company. It is entirely possible that the BoT already has a set of candidates for the AC and I have never discussed this with any BoT members except on this list. If you have reviewed the archives you will note that I made a number of suggestions about structuring the Advisory Council as a body elected directly by the membership of ARIN. As for the BoT, I don't think it would be good for it to expand in size. The ex-officio appointment of Jon Postel is a good idea leaving the board with 5 voting members which is a good size, IMHO, for a non-profit. This may seem like a complex answer to a simple question but I wanted to cover as many bases as possible and answer many of the questions that you have hidden inside your question. One thing that you fail to realize is that the Internet community is quite open to new ideas if they are good ideas. It is not necessary to have connections or to bribe somebody in order to be listened to. Good ideas speak for themselves. This isn't the first forum in which I have freely contributed my ideas and found that some of them have been accepted as part of the "stone soup". If you have some good ideas, there is a good possibility that they will also be accepted here. And I'm sure most of the people on this list would be happier to read a few good ideas than to read your constant critique of everything about ARIN. Let's face it, there may well be some bad things that could be fixed but it's really stretching it to suggest that everything is as bad as you make out. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 02:24:33 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:24:33 +0100 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:59:54 PST." References: Message-ID: <9702180724.AA03994@ncc.ripe.net> Stephen Satchell writes: * At 8:53 PM -0800 2/17/97, David R. Conrad wrote: * The reason to lower fees later is because your budget model was wrong and * you charged too much in the beginning. I know I'm beginning to sound like * a broken record, but we NEED the proposed budget NOW so that we can see * where the money is coming from (revenue projections) and where the money is * going (expenses). The reason that the RIPE prices were lowered was partially because of the extra growth in the Internet, meaning more registries than expected. Now if you can guarantee how the Internet will grow in the next three years so that people can budgetize correctly for that length of time, I'm sure that everybody would find it useful. ARIN must be funded and cannot risk being underfunded, a one year budget can ensure that they can adjust in 12 months to the situation at that point in time. A three year budget that guarantees them enough funding would seem to me very difficult to make while keeping the prices down to a realistic level. At the RIPE NCC we keep getting more registries but we don't have any way of knowing how long this growth will continue. What happens if we budgetise for three years and the growth slows, stops or even turns around in year two, I think then the contributors would be telling us we should have budgetised for one year. Of course I'm not an economist so I could be wrong. * * As for paying $1000 to participate in ARIN, don't count on me. I don't * have that kind of money to throw around. If on the off chance you want me * to continue to provide input to the process you will have to find a way to * do it without bankrupting me. And don't expect my company, Motorola, to be * willing to fork over that kind of money for me to participate in ARIN. * Won't happen. If your company doesn't consider it important to be involved, that's their choice. It is a shame that individuals who wish to be involved in this and don't have a $1000 that they can miss will miss out. I think this will be a minority, most people will be involved for reasons of business, for yourself your company would have decided it's not important to your business. I guess it's like anything in life there are always those who don't have the resources to contribute even when their contribution could be useful. John Crain RIPE NCC (These are my opinions and nobody elses, you want opinions get your own:-) From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 02:32:13 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:13 +0100 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:56 EST." References: Message-ID: <9702180732.AA04178@ncc.ripe.net> Jon Lewis writes: * On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: * * * That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of * ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for * it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the * first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? That depends totally on the reason for lowering the price. If it's because ARIN wildly overbudgeted for year one, based on the data they have now, then I agree. If it's because of market forces, i.e. it becomes fashionable to be an ARIN Member, then I disagree. I think 99% of the contributors would just be glad that the service becomes cheaper. If the ARIN people have their figures correct then it's not guaranteed that it will. John Crain RIPE NCC These opinions are mine, you want some get your own. * * ------------------------------------------------------------------ * Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will * Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. * ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ * From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 04:03:14 1997 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:03:14 +0100 Subject: Answer to Dave McClure's concerns In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:41:31 PST. References: Message-ID: <9702180903.AA06328@ncc.ripe.net> > Michael Dillon writes: > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: ... > > BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at > > the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** > > collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing > > systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the > > system, and a real non-profit status. > > ... Perhaps the > people from APNIC and RIPE can comment on the open election questions. > I certainly do not find it unusual that an organization gets bootstrapped > into existence with no elections in the first year. As long as the > structure is in place for future elections I believe that the ISP members > of ARIN will ensure that the organization is above reproach. And ARIN > will certainly be far more open that the current privately run Internic. The key element in this is establishing a level of trust of the community. The methods can vary widely. In the case of the RIPE NCC even at this point we have no elected board of [DT].*s. The NCC is currently run under the umbrella of TERENA, an organisation similar but not directly comparable to FARNET. For various reasons we now plan to set up a sepearate legal entity early next year. We are following the ARIN process with interest in this respect. The key thing to be constantly aware of is that almost any formal system works as long there is a level of trust that the organisation operating the registry is neutral and does a good job and -maybe even more importantly- that the people actually running the NCC are trustworthy. It has taken us more than five years to establish this. It is with great admiration that I follow the process around ARIN, especially the speed at which the *people* involved succeed in establishing such a high level of trust. And I think they deserve it. ... > > How about a proposed > > budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, > > Yes, definitely. I agree 100% with you on these two points. However, given > the level of vituperative attack we have seen on this mailing list, it > doesn't surprise me that the Trustees are keeping the budget secret until > they can justify every line item on it. And I am confident that ISP's who > intend to become ARIN members or subscribe to ARIN's services will make > their views known to the Board of Trustees. Sadly, I expect a number of > them will not want to speak publicly due to the level of discord on this > list, but that is their prerogative. I also agree that open budgeting is an absolutely required key ingredient to establishing trust. Seperate but following from that is open development of the charging scheme. We religiously publish everything concerning these two items. Have a look at our website if you want the details on how we do it: ripe-143 Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997 ripe-144 RIPE NCC Activities & Expenditure 1997 ripe-145 RIPE NCC Contributors Committee 1996 Annual Meeting ripe-146 RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 1997 However we also bootstrapped it at some point. So I suggest cutting the people who try to make it work some slack and allow them to get their homework done before facing the tomato throwing crowd. Added remark in response to some other messages on this list: The Internet is a constantly moving target. Asking for five year plans is not going to work. The RIPE NCC's planning period is more than 15 months as budgets for the following calendar year get approved in September. We have had to ammend every single budget during our existance. Fortunately the changes required were not big enough to cause us to keel over - just. However I can tell you that in the beginning we were several times seriously understaffed because of changing and unforeseen developments such as growth exceeding our wildest dreams - eh - most ambitious planning scenarios. Of course the customers were not happy about the resulting delays in service. So they cut us some slack because they trust us. We were authorised to build a decent level of reserves and received approval for necessary budget ammendments ... retrospectively. I believe this is absolutely necessary for success and all comes back to the initial issue of trust. If you give noone a reasonable initial credit of trust you might as well not do business or even function in society. Of course the very trust is an obligation to the one who is trusted and living up to it can be a hard job. Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC Manager From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Tue Feb 18 08:27:22 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:27:22 -0500 Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act References: Message-ID: <3309AE3A.40F3@driveway1.com> Stephen Satchell wrote: > This is more a telephony issue, and belongs in comp.dcom.telecom> > The existing telephone system converts the seven-digit number to an > equipment address, and that equipment address is used by the switch to > locate your pair. This is why you can move in-town and get service > almost instantly, even though there was no physical re-wiring at the > frame. I understand the differences between 7-digit phone numbers and IPv4 addresses. My question is a little deeper. I am NOT concerned about an individual at the /24 end of the tree who changes providers, NICs, etc, having to change an IP reference he/she may have inadvertently or ignorantly published instead of a DNS name. I am asking about the situation where an ISP decides to re-home or multi-home, and the implied latency in propagating any IP changes related to this decision to the world of DNS servers out there (some of which, IMHO *NEVER* pci up the new reference ;-| ). I know (I think) that there is no present binding authority in the '96 Act which mandates anything pertaining to this *under present interpretations*. But... > "Number portability" already exists on the Internet: the DNS facility > provides for this. Indeed, users are discouraged from ever saving internet > addresses anywhere they don't have to be saved so that number changes may > occur relatively transparently. It's too bad that there isn't a scheme for > a system to "discover" where to find a name server by using broadcast > requests initially so the poor user doesn't have to hard-code the name > server address. (I'm a dreamer.) > > Remember that in telephony the identifier is a string of digits; on the > Internet, the identifer is a name. > > --- > Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} > for contact and other info > Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 11:32:20 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <9702180724.AA03994@ncc.ripe.net> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:59:54 PST." Message-ID: At 11:24 PM -0800 2/17/97, John LeRoy Crain wrote: >Now if you can guarantee how the Internet will grow in the next three years >so that people can budgetize correctly for that length of time, I'm sure >that everybody would find it useful. ARIN must be funded and cannot risk being >underfunded, a one year budget can ensure that they can adjust in 12 months >to the situation at that point in time. A three year budget that guarantees >them enough funding would seem to me very difficult to make while keeping the >prices down to a realistic level. At the RIPE NCC we keep getting more >registries but we don't have any way of knowing how long this growth will >continue. What happens if we budgetise for three years and the growth slows, >stops or even turns around in year two, I think then the contributors would >be telling us we should have budgetised for one year. If there was no track record, I'd agree with you that you couldn't "guarantee" anything. The thing is, NSI *has* information about registry information, and the trends that go with it. You can plan with a three-year horizon, and adjust every month if you have to in order to keep things going properly. Just because you have a three-year budget forecast doesn't mean that you can't change it month to month to react to changing conditions. Growth stopping or turning around is part of the risk of being in any business, for-profit or not. That's one of the arguments for this function to be a part of government: if the revenue stream slows down, the government agency can raise taxes. >It is a shame that individuals who wish to be involved in this and don't have >a $1000 that they can miss will miss out. I think this will be a minority, >most people will be involved for reasons of business, for yourself your >company would have decided it's not important to your business. I guess it's >like anything in life there are always those who don't have the resources >to contribute even when their contribution could be useful. If this were a standards body consisting in the main of manufacturers, the US$1K entry fee makes sense. Indeed, the Telecommunications Industry Association wanted to see US$2400/yr from me as an individual, with companies paying around US$10K or more. This is the Internet, though. By "soaking" those interested in the process, ARIN is raising a significant barrier to participation by the users and (more or less) disinterested parties. How many people associated with the Internet do you know that (a) have an interest in the process but (b) don't derive a profit from the Internet? The *last* thing I want is for ARIN to be run by people who have a financial axe to grind. On the other hand, there is a benefit to wanting people to have some stake in the process. That's why in my strawman budget I assumed that the entry tax would be US$100, not US$1000, per member. I believe that far more people would be able to afford to not do dinner and a movie twice in order to participate in the process. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 12:00:40 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:00:40 +0100 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." References: Message-ID: <9702181700.AA24025@ncc.ripe.net> Stephen Satchell writes: * If there was no track record, I'd agree with you that you couldn't * "guarantee" anything. The thing is, NSI *has* information about registry * information, and the trends that go with it. RIPE also has a lot of statistics on this, the only thing we can predict about he growth on long term basis is that it will be unpredictable:-) * * You can plan with a three-year horizon, and adjust every month if you have * to in order to keep things going properly. Just because you have a * three-year budget forecast doesn't mean that you can't change it month to * month to react to changing conditions. What use is a three year budget if you change it every month/ or every three months? * Growth stopping or turning around is part of the risk of being in any * business, for-profit or not. That's one of the arguments for this function * to be a part of government: if the revenue stream slows down, the * government agency can raise taxes. * Which government? How do you get all of the involved governments to agree on a tax? This is a proposal for the Western hemisphere not just the USA. * * If this were a standards body consisting in the main of manufacturers, the * US$1K entry fee makes sense. Indeed, the Telecommunications Industry * Association wanted to see US$2400/yr from me as an individual, with * companies paying around US$10K or more. You had $2400 to spare but not $1000, this is a body that is entrusted with the stewardship of an important resource, if people don't value it high enough to pay $1000 then, IMHO, they don't need to be a member. * * This is the Internet, though. By "soaking" those interested in the * process, ARIN is raising a significant barrier to participation by the * users and (more or less) disinterested parties. How many people associated * with the Internet do you know that (a) have an interest in the process but * (b) don't derive a profit from the Internet? The *last* thing I want is * for ARIN to be run by people who have a financial axe to grind. The end users of IP won't normally use ARIN directly. They should go to their upsteam provider for addresse and these will probably be ARIN members. Large companies who have /19's etc. may well use ARIN directly, these people could normally afford $1000 if they chose to be members. * * On the other hand, there is a benefit to wanting people to have some stake * in the process. That's why in my strawman budget I assumed that the entry * tax would be US$100, not US$1000, per member. I believe that far more * people would be able to afford to not do dinner and a movie twice in order * to participate in the process. If you are a user of ARINs services then I can see a need to have a say in how it works, if you're john doe from the street with a couple of IP addresses you shouldn't need to be involved in ARIN. If you wish to be then there's a price to pay. Kind regards, John Crain RIPE NCC These opinions are my own, you want some, get your own. From huddle at MCI.NET Tue Feb 18 13:25:25 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:25:25 -0600 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970218104146.0075535c@mci.net> I propose that any excess funds collected in year 1 be used to host A Fine Dinner (AFD) in which all registrants will be invited to attend (with the number of tickets in a ratio of excess funds contributed, of course). If the funds are not substantial enough to fund AFD, we all get a free video rental (no current releases, 50cent rewind fee still in effect) -scott At 09:45 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > >> At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: >> > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that >> >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been >> >on my mind is this: what about the second year? >> >> The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would >> suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in >> not doing so? > >That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of >ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for >it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the >first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. >________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > > > From huddle at MCI.NET Tue Feb 18 13:25:17 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:25:17 -0600 Subject: Nit for section 2.3 Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970218101638.00e84fd4@mci.net> What are the routing restrictions that are mentioned here? Is this the general scaling problem of routing tables or the specific filters on routing announcements that some providers choose to implement? -scott --- SECTION 2.3 Individual Address Space Assignment Those individuals/entities who will be the end users of a block of IP address space, and who receive their IP address space assignments directly from ARIN as opposed to through an ISP, will be charged a one-time registration fee. This one-time registration fee is based on the amount of address space assigned. The fee structure for receiving IP address space as an end user, directly from ARIN, is as follows: PLEASE NOTE: Almost all end users will receive IP address space from their upstream Internet Service Providers - not directly from ARIN. Due to current routing restrictions, the IP registries in almost all cases issue a minimum of a /19. As a result, the fee structure outlined here begins with /19. All individuals/entities that do not meet the requirements for a /19 will be referred to their upstream service provider. From kimh at internic.net Tue Feb 18 16:15:01 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:15:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Nit for section 2.3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970218101638.00e84fd4@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 18, 97 12:25:17 pm Message-ID: <199702182115.QAA13379@jazz.internic.net> > The "current" routing restrictions refer to the specific filters in place. Kim > What are the routing restrictions that are mentioned here? Is > this the general scaling problem of routing tables or the > specific filters on routing announcements that some providers > choose to implement? > > -scott > > --- > SECTION 2.3 Individual Address Space Assignment > > Those individuals/entities who will be the end users of a block of IP > address space, and who receive their IP address space assignments directly > from > ARIN as opposed to through an ISP, will be charged a one-time registration > fee. This one-time registration fee is based on the amount of address > space assigned. > > The fee structure for receiving IP address space as an end user, directly > from ARIN, is as follows: > > PLEASE NOTE: Almost all end users will receive IP address space from > their upstream Internet Service Providers - not directly from ARIN. > Due to current routing restrictions, the IP registries in almost all > cases issue a minimum of a /19. As a result, the fee structure outlined > here begins with /19. All individuals/entities that do not meet the > requirements for a /19 will be referred to their upstream service provider. > From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 15:27:23 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:27:23 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <9702181700.AA24025@ncc.ripe.net> References: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." Message-ID: At 9:00 AM -0800 2/18/97, John LeRoy Crain wrote: >What use is a three year budget if you change it every month/ or every >three months? The purpose for using a long planning horizon is to see problems before they become problems, and adjust to them. Going month-by-month is a trick which Scott Adams has exposed in his _Dilbert_ series. The main benefit to the "customers" is that you can make smaller adjustments earlier and hurt them less -- and *they* can do longer-range planning, too. >You had $2400 to spare but not $1000, this is a body that is entrusted >with the stewardship of an important resource, if people don't value >it high enough to pay $1000 then, IMHO, they don't need to be a >member. I didn't have $2400/year to spare. TIA was kind enough to "comp" me because of my contributions to the standards efforts as an individual who wasn't raking in the cash from my efforts. Now that I'm working for a company already a member of TIA, I don't have to worry. >The end users of IP won't normally use ARIN directly. They should go >to their upsteam provider for addresse and these will probably be ARIN >members. Large companies who have /19's etc. may well use ARIN directly, >these people could normally afford $1000 if they chose to be members. Then I would argue that the membership for customers be built into their registry rates, not a separately billed item. It *is* in the interest of the customer to have a say in the matter. >If you are a user of ARINs services then I can see a need to have a say >in how it works, if you're john doe from the street with a couple of IP >addresses you shouldn't need to be involved in ARIN. If you wish to be >then there's a price to pay. In the case of the United States, the fact that ARIN will be a not-for-profit means that the taxpayers of this country will be subsidizing the efforts of ARIN. This is true for all not-for-profits. This means that I, as a taxpayer, may want to have more say in the organization than if it were a true for-profit enterprise. The proposed price is too high, in my opinion. >John Crain >RIPE NCC >These opinions are my own, >you want some, get your own. As you can see, I have plenty already. :) --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From davidc at APNIC.NET Tue Feb 18 22:55:46 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:55:46 +0900 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." Message-ID: <199702190355.MAA04352@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, >If there was no track record, I'd agree with you that you couldn't >"guarantee" anything. The thing is, NSI *has* information about registry >information, and the trends that go with it. What track record does NSI have with respect to the number of organizations which will decide to go with their provider instead of paying the fees? They get the service for "free" now. How many customers will ARIN have after the funding plan is initiated? Regards, -drc From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Wed Feb 19 00:18:23 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:23 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702190355.MAA04352@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." Message-ID: At 7:55 PM -0800 2/18/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Stephen, > >What track record does NSI have with respect to the number of >organizations which will decide to go with their provider instead of >paying the fees? They get the service for "free" now. How many >customers will ARIN have after the funding plan is initiated? For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many backbone providers there are. If we don't know the customer base, we better damn well better find out before we even think about how to organize the thing. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 00:36:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 21:36 PST Subject: Funding - what about the second year? References: <199702190355.MAA04352@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they > have. Send code. randy From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 19 00:50:13 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:50:13 +0900 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:23 PST." Message-ID: <199702190550.OAA05357@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, >For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they >have. Easily? How? And of those, how many will need additional resources such that they'll need to become members? >They also know how many backbone providers there are. No, they don't, after all, it has proven impossible to come up with a definition of "provider" much less "backbone provider". However, lets look at "backbone providers" that I think we all (or at least most) can agree on: I think we can all agree UUNet, MCI, and Sprint will likely become members. But how about BBN? They've got (or had) more address space than APNIC and RIPE. How about PSI? Similar situation. I think they will, but I don't think they actually need to. Then you get into when they'll become members, since presumably they won't become members until they need the registry's services, so if they have enough address space or ASNs to last them a while, I'm sure they'd prefer to spend the money on something else. Looking at the wider audience, you get to guess how many of the smaller ISPs will decide the fees are too much to justify, how many will wait, and how many will file anti-trust lawsuits. Just a few variables, no? >If we don't know the customer base, we better damn well better find out >before we even think about how to organize the thing. I think we know the customer base -- the people who need resources. Unforunately, as with most businesses I'm aware of, determining the exact magnitude of your customer base tends to be a bit tricky. Regards, -drc From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 19 01:10:27 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:10:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Randy Bush wrote: > > For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they > > have. > > Send code. Randy is the master of the succinct reply :-) He means that it ain't so easy and would involve analyzing current BGP route announcements and correlating that with AS ownership and that there is no current software tool that can do this. Basically, the concept of "multihoming" is an operational concept and not something determined by or known to the registries. I am assuming that the reason Network Solutions is providing the initial startup funding for ARIN is to alleviate this uncertainty about the revenue stream and to ensure that the new organization gets on its feet with a minimum of disruption to service. If this is the case then I don't think we need to worry too much about how many ISP's join ARIN or subscribe to ARIN's services because if there is a shortfall due to low numbers we will know about this far enough in advance to be able to adapt the organization to the reduced funding level that would result. And this is all hypothetical because the latest reports on Internet growth show that it continues to grow exponentially and there are no signs of anything that would dampen that growth. Recent experience has shown us that it is wiser to be prepared for rapid growth than for downsizing. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From darin at GOOD.NET Wed Feb 19 01:30:48 1997 From: darin at GOOD.NET (Darin Wayrynen) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:30:48 -0700 (MST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702190550.OAA05357@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at Feb 19, 97 02:50:13 pm Message-ID: <199702190630.XAA20942@indy.good.net> > I think we can all agree UUNet, MCI, and Sprint will likely become > members. But how about BBN? They've got (or had) more address space > than APNIC and RIPE. How about PSI? Similar situation. I think they > will, but I don't think they actually need to. >From http://www.arin.net/arin_board.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Board Of Trustees [snip] John Curran -- Chief Technical Officer, BBN Planet ------------------------------------------------------------- John is openly advocating ARIN. That should answer your question regarding BBN. Another proposed BOT member is Randy Bush of WNA, whose backbone will participate. Though much smaller of a backbone provider than the ones you mentioned, GoodNet will become a member of ARIN and will most likely use ARIN's services (they are seperate actions). Darin -- \//// ( o o ) 'shredding packets from coast to coast' ======oOO-(.)-OOo======================================================== Darin Wayrynen, VP of Technology, (602) 303-9500 ext 3234, darin at good.net From aop at cris.com Wed Feb 19 01:38:21 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:38:21 -0500 Subject: Answer to Michael Dillon Message-ID: <01BC1E05.A7959880@cnc019051.concentric.net> Michael, first of all thanks for your thoughtful response to our concerns. While I do not agree with all of your points, they are well taken. Let's begin with the questions of stewardship. I would submit that stewardship for the IP address space allocation in the Western hemisphere should rest with the users of that space, following the APNIC and RIPE models, and that ARIN should be a coordinating agency between those entities. The issue is one of control, and of trust. I'll come back to the trust issue. I agree that universities and research institutes should have a voice in ARIN, as should all users of the system. I understand that InterNIC issued about 300 allocations last year -- were 2/3 of them to universities and research institutes, as is reflected in the current ARIN Board? As for the appointment of the Executive Director and the ED of IANA as ex officio members, I would agree that that makes sense. But, of course, it leaves the question of whether IANA will continue at all, since the decisions will now be made by ARIN. And why was this decision made secretly? This is not a major point of contention, except that it continues the tradition of secret meetings and decisions by a self-appointed cabal. We actually might have supported such a decision, had it ever been open for discussion. But so far, not much of ARIN besides its fee schedule and the announcement of trustees has been open for discussion. It is the opinion of AOP's tax attorneys that ARIN, as presently outlined, would not be likely to qualify as a non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(6) of the US Tax Code. That code reads for that section: "Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." Actually, an ARIN organization might more properly fit under Section 501(c)(3), which reads: "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." But understand that the rule are very strict. It is not a matter of having strict rules about handling money. It is about having a mission that is aimed at educational purposes. While the ARIN proposal takes a minor swipe at a half-baked educational mission in the FAQ as posted: "16. What educational services will ARIN supply to the Internet community? ARIN will be an organization responsible for maintaining a public trust. As part of its charter, ARIN is tasked with managing and conserving IPv4 address space. To help with this task it is necessary to educate the Internet community regarding efficient utilization of address space. This education is expected to take several forms, such as, policy and procedure training, website documents detailing efficient utilization guidelines and/or pointers to other documents, continued modifications to allocation guideline RFCs and any other form the membership determines. This education will in the long run benefit all Internet users by extending the longevity of the IPv4 address space. Contrary to recent postings, at no time, does ARIN plan to offer consulting services " It is unlikely that a free market will need, in the long term, to be taught the importance of IPv4 addresses. And this still begs the question. . .isnt this what IANA does today? ARIN is proposed as an organization that will charge a fee (see schedule in proposal) for a service (registering IP addresses). Fee-for-service is not a non-profit function. As I pointed out to Kim Hubbard several times, there are some basics of frming a non-profit -- bylaws, mission statement, etc. -- that could make much of the opposition in this newsgroup disappear. But, of course, no one involved with ARIN is actually listening. As for the bylaws, Michael, they are critical. You would excuse the trustees, who will be compensated for their work for ARIN, for not having the time to properly develop bylaws. I would submit that if we do not have the luxury of personally knowing all those involved, we must rely on the formal contract to assure that we can trust ARIN. That contract is spelled out in the bylaws. Without proper bylaws that commit ARIN to some things -- open elections, accountability to the industry, etc. -- this is a sloppy job at best and a hijacking at worst. Frankly, if the trustees do not have the time to do this right, why are they trustees? And why should we automatically trust them to "do it right" in managing ARIN? Michael, the level of vituperative attacks on this listserv are not because people are afraid to voice their support for ARIN. It is because virtually everyone involved in ARIN is engaging in secret meetings, evasion of the facts, avoidance of answers and other actions that make them seem untrustworthy. There are seven members of the ARIN Board of Trustees. Who besides Kim Hubbard -- who is not posting regularly (Note: I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to take the rap for the whole Board, either) -- has even bothered to post here? This is the Board you asuume will fix all rights, and will be sensitive to the needs of ARIN members. How many even bother to post here? ARIN, in its most recent proposal, claims to have authority to take control over American IP addresses from IANA. Okay. Who gave IANA the authority to assign a non-competitive contract to ARIN? I'll repeat my comment about the major ISPs. How many support this proposal? Why are they not here, voicing it? I can tell you that the ISPs who are members of AOP -- more than 600, large and small -- do not support the current proposal. And I would dearly love to hear withat MCI, SPrint, AT&T, UUNet, Earthlink, Netcom and others have to say on this subject. Where are they in this disucssion? Sigh! Michael, I know that I seem to be a constant critic of ARIN. But the truth is that this is beeing done sloppily at best, and at wrost to the very detriment of our industry. I have several times offered simple suggestions to improve or fix the proposal -- publicly and privately. All have been ignored. On a personal level, I can accept that. After all, I've been called worse than the names I've been called here. But the fact is that what we are proposing is nothing short of the future of IP administration in the northern hemisphere, and I am stunned that it is being handed over so casually on the basis of blind trust. If you are wrong, Michael, who will you complain to? You will have no input, no voice, and no one in control except the seven people you helped give control of IP registries to. What then? Regards, Dave McClure From aop at cris.com Wed Feb 19 01:50:09 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:50:09 -0500 Subject: Bylaws for ARIN Message-ID: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> Kim: Several people have argued that since no one involved with ARIN is a full-time person, and presumably does not have the time to draft real bylaws and an appropriate mission statement for ARIN (even though there are very good models available from APNIC and RIPE). I would therefore offer the service of AOP, its legal and tax experts, and our staff in this endeavor. We do not look for any compensation for this effort, we do not ask to be on the ARIN Board or Advisory Council, and we have no particular ax to grind beyond the fact that ARIN be a true non-profit, duly constituted, with appropriate checks and balances built in. Would ARIN accept our assistance? We would be more than willing to run them by the ARIN Board of Trustees and post them for public comment. What do you say? Regards, Dave McClure From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 01:58:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 22:58 PST Subject: Bylaws for ARIN References: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> Message-ID: > Several people have argued that since no one involved with ARIN is a > full-time person Though my SO might agree with you, I suggest not resorting to ad homina in a public forum. But thanks for the kind offer, ARIN already has scary serious legal council. In my organizational experience, a mission statement's main value is the process through which the management team goes agreeing on it, not the paper result. randy From mje at mje99.posix.co.za Wed Feb 19 02:37:05 1997 From: mje at mje99.posix.co.za (Mark J Elkins) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:37:05 +0200 Subject: naipr and South Africa Message-ID: <199702190737.JAA31224@mje99.posix.co.za> I'm not sure why South Africa has been lumped in to the same administrative area as the USA (historical - but why explicitly named?). Anyway - we are in the process of sorting out our own local NIC - hopefully with an influence that covers most of Africa. The costs that are mentioned are High - especially if paying for them in South African Rands. OK - so living in the USA is high - but why must we pay (to us) four times more than folk in the USA! The cost of living in South Africa is much lower than in the USA (and the proposed funds in the USA would cover the cost of "black helocopters", along with the limo's, for all trustees! :-) At least the USA is kicking Africa into action.. what with this and the IAHC. Just another voice from the African continent - along with Alan Barrett. -- . . ___. .__ Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Sth Africa /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 11 456 3125 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 02:46:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 23:46 PST Subject: naipr and South Africa References: <199702190737.JAA31224@mje99.posix.co.za> Message-ID: > why must we pay (to us) four times more than folk in the USA! Historical, and far more to do with apartheid sanctions than internet numbers. ARIN has yet to take over the currency exchange rates. So how about taking it to soc.culture.africa or something? randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 19 03:11:04 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: naipr and South Africa In-Reply-To: <199702190737.JAA31224@mje99.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Mark J Elkins wrote: > named?). Anyway - we are in the process of sorting out our own local > NIC - hopefully with an influence that covers most of Africa. The way you worded this makes it wound like you plan to have some sort of national NIC in the RSA and then extend it to serve the rest of the continent. If this is so, I would suggest that you should reconsider how this is being done and get other countries in your continent involved in a truly international effort from the beginning. I can understand that the political situation would make it hard to get everybody to agree but it should still be possible for most African countries to sit down at one table and agree to run the IP allocation infrastructure for the continent. And there is probably no need to rush into this either. IP allocations should be done for engineering reasons, not political or nationalistic ones. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Wed Feb 19 03:55:28 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:55:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bylaws for ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> from "Dave McClure" at Feb 19, 97 01:50:09 am Message-ID: <199702190855.AA032782529@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Dave McClure supposedly said: Michael, first of all thanks for your thoughtful response to our concerns. >Let's begin with the questions of stewardship. I would submit that >stewardship for the IP address space allocation in the Western hemisphere >should rest with the users of that space, following the APNIC and RIPE >models, and that ARIN should be a coordinating agency between those >entities. The issue is one of control, and of trust. I'll come back to >the trust issue. I believe it is clear that ARIN is designed in the same vein as RIPE and APNIC, but is born of different circumstances and thus has a slightly different set of startup criteria. Since it will be run be its members who will be the users of the IP space I see no conflict with your statement and ARIN's goals. >I agree that universities and research institutes should have a voice in >ARIN, as should all users of the system. I understand that InterNIC issued >about 300 allocations last year -- were 2/3 of them to universities and >research institutes, as is reflected in the current ARIN Board? An unfair question. Since most of the development of the Net was done at Universities and Research Institutes many have had their addresses for years and years. It should be clear to anyone that the greatest number of registrations would have been to ISP for commercial allocations. My math also comes out with 40% University affiliated BOT members (2 of 5), and that is fairly arbitrary since I know that Scott Bradner may be affiliated with Harvard, but he does commercial consulting and technical writing as well. Do we count him as .5 University and .5 Commercial ? >As for the appointment of the Executive Director and the ED of IANA as ex >officio members, I would agree that that makes sense. But, of course, it >leaves the question of whether IANA will continue at all, since the It is clear you have little idea what the IANA actually does. Assigning IP addresses are only a small part of IANA's duties. Secondly ARIN will only be assigning addresses from the block that the IANA assigns it to allocate from. (In the exact same way APNIC and RIPE do). >decisions will now be made by ARIN. And why was this decision made >secretly? This is not a major point of contention, except that it >continues the tradition of secret meetings and decisions by a >self-appointed cabal. We actually might have supported such a decision, >had it ever been open for discussion. But so far, not much of ARIN besides >its fee schedule and the announcement of trustees has been open for >discussion. Have you been following this thread with any seriousness? The whole concept has been completely open for dicussion. An original proposal was made, significant discussion was had, another draft was produced taking into account the discussion. There have been more tweaks since then. I fully expect the by-laws, etc. to go through a similar round of revisions. There is another issue to consider. The function of address allocation is currently under contract to NSI for the next odd year or so. It is only with their consent for the next year or so. >It is the opinion of AOP's tax attorneys that ARIN, as presently outlined, >would not be likely to qualify as a non-profit organization under Section >501(c)(6) of the US Tax Code. That code reads for that section: >"Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of >trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a >pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of >the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder >or individual." >Actually, an ARIN organization might more properly fit under Section >501(c)(3), which reads: > ...Other legal stuff deleted for brevity. I am not a lawyer but I have been assured that ARIN has heavy duty legal advisors working on all the legal aspects. >It is unlikely that a free market will need, in the long term, to be taught >the importance of IPv4 addresses. And this still begs the >question. . .isnt this what IANA does today? No. Feel free to look at the IANA web page to actually understand what the IANA does. >But, of course, no one involved with ARIN is actually listening. What evidence do you have to back this spurious statement? The entire process has been open and has been responsive to suggestions and feedback. If people disagree with your suggestions and they are not incorporated into the proposal it does not necessarily follow that no one is listening, but perhaps they don't agree with you. >Michael, the level of vituperative attacks on this listserv are not because >people are afraid to voice their support for ARIN. It is because virtually >everyone involved in ARIN is engaging in secret meetings, evasion of the >facts, avoidance of answers and other actions that make them seem Once again do you have any proof for your conspiracy theories. IT should be clear that undertaking such a complicated task, a lot of preliminary meetings and discussions have to take place. It sounds like you have been reading to many IAHC messages :-) >untrustworthy. There are seven members of the ARIN Board of Trustees. Who >besides Kim Hubbard -- who is not posting regularly (Note: I don't blame >her, I wouldn't want to take the rap for the whole Board, either) -- has >even bothered to post here? Scott Bradner, John Curran and Randy Bush. >ARIN, in its most recent proposal, claims to have authority to take control >over American IP addresses from IANA. Okay. Who gave IANA the authority >to assign a non-competitive contract to ARIN? It has not. They have not. IANA has given ARIN a block of addresses to assign from. This does not preclude the IANA from assigning other blocks to other registries (not that I seriously believe that they will) >I'll repeat my comment about the major ISPs. How many support this >proposal? Why are they not here, voicing it? I can tell you that the ISPs >who are members of AOP -- more than 600, large and small -- do not support >the current proposal. And I would dearly love to hear withat MCI, SPrint, >AT&T, UUNet, Earthlink, Netcom and others have to say on this subject. >Where are they in this disucssion? Have you actually polled all 600 of your members? After your inflammatory "Alert" I would expect a lot of opposition. I have personaly talked with almost all of your members who have posted to this list and in every case they have gone back satisfied that the proposal is reasonable even if they would like to continue to have it subsidized. It's also wierd that all 600 members are against it but there were only about 300 allocations made last year, so it is clear that at least half of your members are smaller providers who will be minimally effected because their allocations are so small. >On a personal level, I can accept that. After all, I've been called worse >than the names I've been called here. But the fact is that what we are >proposing is nothing short of the future of IP administration in the >northern hemisphere, and I am stunned that it is being handed over so >casually on the basis of blind trust. Not blind trust. I doubt anyone here believe that ARIN will go forward until there are by-laws and more specifics worked out. Typically you try to define broad goals and objectives before you do the nitty gritty detail. >If you are wrong, Michael, who will you complain to? You will have no >input, no voice, and no one in control except the seven people you helped >give control of IP registries to. What then? As always, you can appeal to the IANA to assign a different block to another registry, and appeal to the IAB who appoints the IANA. >Regards, >Dave McClure ---> Phil From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 04:10:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 01:10 PST Subject: Bylaws for ARIN References: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> <199702190855.AA032782529@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: > Scott Bradner may be affiliated with Harvard, but he does commercial > consulting and technical writing as well. Do we count him as .5 > University and .5 Commercial ? I would say .8 and.8. Have you tried to keep up with him? We had to have him pushed down the stairs and sent to hospital the other week, just so we could catch up. > I am not a lawyer but I have been assured that ARIN has heavy duty legal > advisors working on all the legal aspects. I have really been impressed with both their quality and their integrity. > Scott Bradner, John Curran and Randy Bush. Raymundo Vega has also posted here. The scremers probably missed it as he is the subtle type. But there are those who seem amazingly uninterested in listening and would rather indulge in quite clueless accusations and wild conspiracy theories. Ever stop to wonder what they think this behavior gains? randy From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Wed Feb 19 04:09:24 1997 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:09:24 +0100 Subject: naipr and South Africa In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:11:04 PST. References: Message-ID: <9702190909.AA11203@ncc.ripe.net> > Michael Dillon writes: > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Mark J Elkins wrote: > > > named?). Anyway - we are in the process of sorting out our own local > > NIC - hopefully with an influence that covers most of Africa. > > The way you worded this makes it wound like you plan to have some sort of > national NIC in the RSA and then extend it to serve the rest of the > continent. If this is so, I would suggest that you should reconsider how > this is being done and get other countries in your continent involved in > a truly international effort from the beginning. I can understand that the > political situation would make it hard to get everybody to agree but it > should still be possible for most African countries to sit down at one > table and agree to run the IP allocation infrastructure for the continent. > > And there is probably no need to rush into this either. IP allocations > should be done for engineering reasons, not political or nationalistic > ones. Amen! A pan-African regional registry is an excellent idea, but it requires true international support. That is hard to build and takes time. Needless to say the RIPE NCC is very much willing to support any serious effort in this direction. Daniel From kimh at internic.net Wed Feb 19 09:51:25 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:51:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bylaws for ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> from "Dave McClure" at Feb 19, 97 01:50:09 am Message-ID: <199702191451.JAA13797@jazz.internic.net> > As previously pointed out, ARIN has very qualified legal assistance of its own, although I appreciate AOPs offer. Also, please note, that the ARIN bylaws are being worked on as we speak and have been for quite a while now. The Board of Trustees has no intention of publicly posting the bylaws or the budget until we are satisfied they are complete. I learned my lesson after posting the first ARIN proposal and getting flamed for it not being the perfect document. Kim > > Kim: > > Several people have argued that since no one involved with ARIN is a full-time person, and presumably does not have the time to draft real bylaws and an appropriate mission statement for ARIN (even though there are very good models available from APNIC and RIPE). > > I would therefore offer the service of AOP, its legal and tax experts, and our staff in this endeavor. > > We do not look for any compensation for this effort, we do not ask to be on the ARIN Board or Advisory Council, and we have no particular ax to grind beyond the fact that ARIN be a true non-profit, duly constituted, with appropriate checks and balances built in. > > Would ARIN accept our assistance? We would be more than willing to run them by the ARIN Board of Trustees and post them for public comment. > > What do you say? > > Regards, > Dave McClure > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 19 13:37:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:37:34 -0500 Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219133727.006f7420@lint.cisco.com> At 10:24 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Larry Honig wrote: >Hi. > >This may seem offtopic, but perhaps not. ARIN itself may need to become >involved in the medium term if and when telephone numbers and IP >addresses converge. > They will not converge. - paul (looking into his crystal ball) From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 19 13:47:54 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:47:54 PST Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 97 13:37:34 EST." <3.0.32.19970219133727.006f7420@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199702191847.KAA29416@puli.cisco.com> Paul, > At 10:24 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Larry Honig wrote: > > >Hi. > > > >This may seem offtopic, but perhaps not. ARIN itself may need to become > >involved in the medium term if and when telephone numbers and IP > >addresses converge. > > > > They will not converge. Just to add, observe that it is FQDNs, and not IP addresses that are analogous to phone numbers (as usually people use FQDNs, rather than IP addresses on their business cards). Yakov. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 19 13:49:32 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:49:32 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219134928.006f7bac@lint.cisco.com> *plonk* That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. - paul At 11:26 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > >> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this >> list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? > >The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes >to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco >last week. >[Dave McClure] >Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of Trudtees?????" > >At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about >ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives >and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will >be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have >questions. >[Dave McClure] >And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the system, and a real non-profit status. > >But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to >go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still >written in conditional language. > >[Dave McClure] >Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything else that **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a proposed budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, or the authority under which these hijackers are operating???? > >Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs who do not. . .large, and small. > >The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined organization whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP addresses in the Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational mission. It is a simple overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed. > >If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as APNIC and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set forth how the Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the organization will be responsible to the industry? Why no open information about accounting, or what their costs will be. This organization will pull more than $3 million from the industry in its first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or what the accountability will be to the industry. > >The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any opportunity to do so. > >Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be transferred to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in public. > >Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who almost immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. . . > >Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? > >Yes, or no? > > >David P. McClure >Association of Online Professionals > > From huddle at MCI.NET Wed Feb 19 17:42:27 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:42:27 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219164219.00b432dc@mci.net> Huh? I don't follow, anyway little multihomed sites can always buy space out of The Swamp. Market opportunity anyone? -scott At 09:18 PM 2/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they >have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if >I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many >backbone providers there are. From kimh at internic.net Wed Feb 19 17:20:38 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:20:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 18, 97 09:18:23 pm Message-ID: <199702192220.RAA14226@jazz.internic.net> > > At 7:55 PM -0800 2/18/97, David R. Conrad wrote: > >Stephen, > > > >What track record does NSI have with respect to the number of > >organizations which will decide to go with their provider instead of > >paying the fees? They get the service for "free" now. How many > >customers will ARIN have after the funding plan is initiated? > > > For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they > have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if > I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many > backbone providers there are. I definitely do not want to get into a policy discussion on multi-homing, but, multi-homed customers do not *have* to get their allocations from ARIN. Multi-homed customers would prefer to get their allocations from the InterNIC, however, being multi-homed is not enough justification by itself to receive addresses directly from InterNIC. I expect this topic will be one of the first to be discussed by the ARIN membership/AC and BoT. Kim > > If we don't know the customer base, we better damn well better find out > before we even think about how to organize the thing. > > --- > Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} > for contact and other info > Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. > > From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 19 22:49:44 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:49:44 +0900 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:42:27 CST." <3.0.32.19970219164219.00b432dc@mci.net> Message-ID: <199702200349.MAA13958@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Scott, While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does not change hands via the registries. Regards, -drc -------- >Huh? I don't follow, anyway little multihomed sites can always >buy space out of The Swamp. Market opportunity anyone? > >-scott > >At 09:18 PM 2/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >>For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they >>have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if >>I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many >>backbone providers there are. > > From vgoel at SPRINT.NET Wed Feb 19 23:35:37 1997 From: vgoel at SPRINT.NET (Vab Goel) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:35:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <199702200349.MAA13958@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > Scott, > > While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices > disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does > not change hands via the registries. In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. vab.. From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Feb 20 00:09:21 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:09:21 +0900 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:35:37 EST." Message-ID: <199702200510.OAA14065@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Vab, >> While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices >> disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does >> not change hands via the registries. >In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? It is the case with all 3 registries that you can update the database autonomously with no human interaction from registry staff, however the restriction mentioned above still exists. >Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. That is, of course, true. This discussion is rapidly diverging off ARIN and moving towards PIARA (one of the specific subjects PIARA looked into was removing the transfer restriction from the 192 block) however, it would appear PIARA has died. Regards, -drc From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Thu Feb 20 02:11:08 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:11:08 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702192220.RAA14226@jazz.internic.net> References: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 18, 97 09:18:23 pm Message-ID: At 2:20 PM -0800 2/19/97, Kim Hubbard wrote: >I definitely do not want to get into a policy discussion on multi-homing, >but, multi-homed customers do not *have* to get their allocations >from ARIN. Multi-homed customers would prefer to get their allocations >from the InterNIC, however, being multi-homed is not enough justification >by itself to receive addresses directly from InterNIC. > >I expect this topic will be one of the first to be discussed by the >ARIN membership/AC and BoT. I'm happy to say that I've already received the answer to this question, and the description shows me that a small multi-homed site does *not* have to get their space from ARIN. That was the one piece of the puzzle I needed to see the picture, and I thank the people on this list for their patience in explaining the matter to me in detail. Without that one puzzle piece, the whole discussion was looking like a pissing contest. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From randy at PSG.COM Thu Feb 20 14:23:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 11:23 PST Subject: TEST - IS THIS LIST S References: <3.0.32.19970219134928.006f7bac@lint.cisco.com> <35.266721.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: >> That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. > This seems to be the case for folks who disagree with you. No. E.g. Paul Ieither of them) and I disagree on a number of things. But more and more of us do dump those who repeatedly flame with no intent to improve their or anyone else's knowledge level. When it becomes pretty clear that someone's only effect is to destroy, detract, and distract, those of us who are old and tired .procmailrc them in the hope that this will give us more time and bandwidth to deal with those who are constructive and/or willing to teach or learn. randy From dennis at JNX.COM Thu Feb 20 14:25:37 1997 From: dennis at JNX.COM (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:25:37 -0800 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:02:22 PST." Message-ID: <199702201925.LAA16921@skank.jnx.com> > > Secondly, I would hope that most, if not all, ISPs are checking WHOIS to verify > > the address space actually belongs to their customer before they route it. > > This sounds like backtracking on the notion that ARIN is intended to be > independent from ISPs and their routing policies. This sounds like trying to have the cart lead the horse. The only value that getting address space from ARIN, or any registry, has is that they associate your name with the address space in a database. The entries in the database are the only things the address registry controls. Having your name in a database is by itself worthless (from the amount of spam mail I get I can tell my name must be in a lot of databases, none of which have provided me with any value). The sole value of having your name in an address registry's database is that ISP's sometimes consult address registry databases when configuring their routers, and having your address space routed on the Internet (or not routed on the Internet, at your choice) is of substantial value. So the value of an address registry, and of the addresses provided by that address registry, derives solely from the entirely voluntary use of the registry data by ISPs. It is hence hard to see how an address registry could do anything independent of ISPs and their collective routing policies (as opposed to individual ISPs and their individual routing policies, which the registry must remain scrupulously independent of if they are to continue to enjoy wide support), and entirely understandable that a registry operator would very much wish that ISPs would use the data. Dennis Ferguson From huddle at MCI.NET Thu Feb 20 15:28:47 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:28:47 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970220103956.006ff0f4@mci.net> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a contiguous block. -scott At 02:09 PM 2/20/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >Vab, > >>> While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices >>> disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does >>> not change hands via the registries. >>In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? > >It is the case with all 3 registries that you can update the database >autonomously with no human interaction from registry staff, however >the restriction mentioned above still exists. > >>Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. > >That is, of course, true. > >This discussion is rapidly diverging off ARIN and moving towards PIARA >(one of the specific subjects PIARA looked into was removing the transfer >restriction from the 192 block) however, it would appear PIARA has died. > >Regards, >-drc > > > From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 20 15:26:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:26:19 -0600 Subject: Internic Abuse Mailing List Message-ID: <01BC1F3A.0AA3C340@webster.unety.net> Dr. George Strawn National Science Foundation Arlington, VA Dear Dr. Strawn: As the NSF employee in charge of the InterNIC contracts you might want to consider following the mailing list described below. As you know, it is always important to get customer feedback especially in a business like yours which is financed by the taxpayers in the United States. Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: Internic Abuse Mailing List From: brent at ime.net (Brent) Date: 1997/01/19 Message-Id: <5bscq9$cr2$1 at news.ime.net> Organization: Internet Maine, Inc. Keywords: abuse internic nsi money Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-Ip.domains Summary: Internic Abuse Greetings, Just in time for 1997 I have established a mailing list that is specifically to deal with the abuses committed by Network Solutions Inc., aka The Internic. The Internic has been double billing, over charging and refusing refunds for over a year now. It's time we all put an end to them, and to thier pathetic attempt to start selling IP numbers for thier own profit. To subscribe send email to majordomo at ime.net and put subscribe internic-abuse in the body. You'll be amazed and reassured to find you are not alone. Once we have enough dirt on them we will be able to bring a class action suit against them. Brent ------------------------ Internet Maine ISP -------------------------- info at ime.net 207-780-0416 voice http://www.ime.net 207-879-1416 fax ------------------------ Fixed Rate Access -------------------------- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: The Internic-Abuse mailing list was created to address the issue of all the TLD's (Top Level Domains) such as .com, .net, and .org being controlled by one company. This company is Network Solutions Inc., a subsidary of SAIC. Network Solutions Inc. d/b/a The Internic has been accused of seveal abuses. Most notably over charging, double charging, refusing to issue refunds, and engaging in other 'anti-trust' practices. This list is not about alternatives, or other means to handle DNS and IP issues. It is about the improper actions of Network Solutions Inc. This list is unmoderated however I will request that we keep it on topic. The ultimate aim of this list is two things. 1. To prevent Network Solutions Inc from getting a contract renewal in 1998 after it current contract with the NSF runs out. 2. To obtain proper refunds for parties who have been over charged by Network Solutions Inc. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From mleber at HE.NET Thu Feb 20 14:59:24 1997 From: mleber at HE.NET (Mike Leber) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:59:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970220103956.006ff0f4@mci.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: > I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s > are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a > contiguous block. Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | | mleber at he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From huddle at MCI.NET Thu Feb 20 18:39:22 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:39:22 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970220170556.00b579f0@mci.net> At 11:59 AM 2/20/97 -0800, Mike Leber wrote: > >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a >> contiguous block. > >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy of distribution. Observation 3, $5001. :) -scott From yakov at CISCO.COM Thu Feb 20 18:18:26 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 15:18:26 PST Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Feb 97 17:39:22 CST." <3.0.32.19970220170556.00b579f0@mci.net> Message-ID: <199702202318.PAA27365@puli.cisco.com> Scott, > >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: > >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s > >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a > >> contiguous block. > > > >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. > > Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is > money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your > two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) > > Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes > more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy > of distribution. > > Observation 3, $5001. :) Somewhat controversial: Observation 4: the decision on whether there should be a market for address space should be controlled *neither* by registries, *nor* by various I* organizations (IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG). Yakov. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 20 22:24:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:24:01 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC1F74.650DC580@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 20, 1997 5:18 PM, Yakov Rekhter[SMTP:yakov at CISCO.COM] wrote: @ Scott, @ @ > >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: @ > >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s @ > >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a @ > >> contiguous block. @ > > @ > >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. @ > @ > Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is @ > money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your @ > two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) @ > @ > Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes @ > more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy @ > of distribution. @ > @ > Observation 3, $5001. :) @ @ Somewhat controversial: @ @ Observation 4: the decision on whether there should be a market @ for address space should be controlled *neither* by registries, @ *nor* by various I* organizations (IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG). @ @ Yakov. @ @ I agree... The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government, the large number of Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar) Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the clout for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. The InterNIC was originally made up of three companies, General Atomics, AT&T, and Network Solutions, Inc. These three companies were supposed to work together in various capacities to provide a variety of services including the important clerical duties commonly called "registrations". In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF was supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, many NICs would have been developed through education programs and the Internet Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State of Virginia and the few companies originally contracted to be part of the cooperative agreement. That has not occurred. The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, Network Solutions, Inc. suggested that they should do the entire j