NAIPR Message

Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN

On Saturday, February 22, 1997 12:35 PM, Michael 
Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote:
@ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ > @ You don't really want that Jim. Because if *I* go to *MY* elected
@ > @ officials then all of this stuff ends up on the table at GATT 
@ > @ in Geneva. Believe me, neither you nor I want to see it end up like 
@ > As you have pointed out, there is no Government organization
@ > in Canada. I believe you have reported several times that they
@ > are clueless.
@ I have never said anything of the sort.

Please see below.....

"Right now CAIP strikes me as a bunch of good old boys in an ivory tower
planning a secret power grab. They are clearly a clueless bunch"

@ > If that is the case, then it would take years for the above to occur.
@ > By that time the U.S. and any other participants will have moved
@ > forward.
@ Don't bet on it. If everyone on this list asked their government to
@ intervene then the possibility that Canada and Mexico and Holland and the
@ UK and Australia and Ghana and South Africa etc. would all drag their 
@ is slim to none.
@ > I find it interesting that you would issue cautions against the
@ > above after supporting the IAHC with such vigor.
@ The IAHC is a prime example of non-governmental industry self-regulation.
@ So is RIPE and APNIC and ARIN. This is the best way to do things and I
@ think you will discover that there is actually a lot of support for this
@ approach in most Western governments including that of the USA.
@ Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP 
@ Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
@             -               E-mail: 
michael at

Re: IP and Domain Committee looking for members


.Subject: Re: IP and Domain Committee looking for members .From: 
michael at (Michael Dillon) .Date: 29 Mar 1996 23:12:27 -0800 
.Newsgroups: can.infohighway .Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet 
consulting - .References: <4htj4u$cr7 at> 
<315097da.14158676 at> <4j6t45$rti at> 
<4jacr3$j6d at>


In article <4jacr3$j6d at>, Eric Carroll <ericc at> wrote:
>It needs to be kept in mind that IP allocation is not something that one
>does as a hobby. IP allocation is fundamentally intertwined with
>the daily operation of the public Internet, its topology and routing
>infrastructure. While handling individual IP allocations does not require
>heavy technical assistance, the job of setting the allocations policies,
>and auditing the large applications requires a moderate to
>large amount of comprehension of the issues and problems of the Internet
>on global basis. IP allocation policy requires heavy lifting.

I agree with everything you say here about IP allocation. Domain names
are an entirely diffrenet thing however.

>I believe you need an advisory group representative of the public involved
>in any industry consortium. But, fundamentally, the policies of IP 
>must be set for technical reasons. And that requires lots of
>operational experience.

The sort of advisory council you refer to in this paragraph has no need
to be anything other than 100% open, public and above-board. I think the
most appropriate wat to handle that is with an open mailing list and a WWW
site that contains full archives of the list discussions. The people on
the advisory council should never have any need to meet in person.

The actual IP allocation policies may well be set by a separate group of
people but again, there is no need for anonymity and those policies
should be fully public if for no other reason than to allow IP address
users to make reasonable and rational plans for IP number utilization and
to make reasonable and rational requests for IP numbers.

>IP allocation is fundamentally a thankless job, because you are the
>conservation officer on a big game farm in open season.

Even more thankless because so few people, even technical people,
understand the issues of CIDRization, global routing table size, flapping,
the implications of punching holes in a block, SPRINT's current routing
policies and so on. If anything, this cries out for a completely open and
public and thoroughly documented policy and process in order to educate
people about just what IP numbers are, why you may need (or not need them
vix. RFC198), and how to plan ahead for things like the inevitable
network renumbering you will do ever year or two (PIER, DHCP, etc.).

Right now CAIP strikes me as a bunch of good old boys in an ivory tower
planning a secret power grab. They are clearly a clueless bunch as
regards their political savvy and this is a HUGE black mark against them
considering how much political skill is required to be the conservation
officer on the IP game farm in open season. There is no indication that
these people have even a basic understanding of the issues at hand.

Certainly the existing IP registry can't teach them anything because they
didn't know anything either (viz. the NANOG archives).

And mixing together two totally unrelated functions (.CA domain registry
and the Canadiain IP allocations) does not strike me as a very wise move.
When CAIP made their announcements and for several days afterwards the
current .CA domain committee people (John Demco) did not even know about
CAIP's intentions re the .CA domain (another political faux pas on their
part) and he only found out about it on a US mailing list (viz com-priv

It astonishes me that CAIP has not yet even suggested that they might
reconsider their "secret society" requirements for anonymity even after
the outcry from some respected members of Canada's Internet community,
most of whose names I recognize which is more than I can say for the CAIP
board members.

Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: +1-604-546-3049                             E-mail: michael at


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

JimFleming at
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)