From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:29:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:29:13 -0600 Subject: ARIN, ISPs and registries Message-ID: <01BC0472.0CD379E0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 4:52 AM, David Schwartz[SMTP:davids at wiznet.net] wrote: @ @ Sprint, for all intents and purposes, already does operate an IP @ registry. They receive IP allocations from Internic and then redistribute @ them to their customers. What more do they need? @ As I said... "In my opinion, Sprint is large enough to operate their own "registry". They could easily handle a /8." I see that you agree... Now...you ask..."What more do they need?" I would recommend that they obtain their own /8 and establish the necessary telemarketing people to handle registrations that do not necessarily have anything to do with people buying route announcement slots or bandwidth from them... Tieing IP Address Registrations to companies that sell bandwidth, short circuits what is really occurring. There should be at least three distinct steps... 1. Registration of IP addresses 2. Obtaining the right to announce routes 3. Purchasing bandwidth You could compare this to obtaining a (1) driver's license, (2) licensing your car, (3) operating the car. In the current system we have various agencies trying to sell IP addresses. Some control route announcements and some do not. The method of directing people to their "upstream provider" was a way to push most of the IP registry work off onto carriers. This was like saying, get your driver's license from the car dealer and they will give you a "dealer plate" (their IP addresses) and you can drive around on their parking lot which just happens to be connected to MOST of the other parking lots. Now ARIN is ready to take that work back for a fee. I suggest that ARIN only take on item #1 above and only for a limited part of the IPv4 address space (one /8 or maybe several /16s). I also suggest that carriers consider separating items #2 and #3 into distinct steps. When they do this, they may want to get into the business of #1, but that of course is their decision. That is the way it should be in a free market system. No matter what happens, all of these IP Address Registries, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, AlterNIC, AfricNIC, SouthAmericaNIC, CaribNIC, etc. still have to get their IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations entered in the Root Name Servers. I am sure that some of the Root Name Server owner/operators will be interested to see how much these registries are going to pay to obtain these delegations. Part of the registry fees should obviously be paid to the people who run the Root Name Servers for the good and stability of the Internet. It should be noted that some ISPs are large enough to have huge blocks of IP addresses, which they skillfully obtained from the InterNIC. Those ISPs can go directly to the Root Name Servers to secure their allocations. They are registries in their own right, even though they may not have the public exposure that ARIN will have because of the Network Solutions, Inc. funding. @ The authority is already there for them (and other ISPs) to @ allocate IPs to non-customers, including those who don't even have an @ Internet connection. Someone (David Conrad?) recently cited that RFC on @ this list. @ @ If anything, this pricing plan will increase the incentive for @ ISPs to act more like registries -- after all, it will now be more @ expensive for people to get their IPs 'direct'. So I think what you are @ asking for is already there. @ Great... You might be interested to know that several ISPs have told me that people are already calling asking to "pay" for their IP addresses to make sure they do not lose them. One of the good things that will come of these developments is more education on the part of the consumers. Some people think that they have their own IP addresses, when in fact they do not. They are going to find that they can not buy what they thought was theirs at any price. The demand for "provider independent" IPv4 addresses is going to go through the roof. Just as with the explosive growth of the .COM domain, if the Internet community does not deploy a structure to handle this growth, many customers will get poor service. Everyone seems willing to re-live the history of Network Solutions, Inc. doing on the job training to handle the growth of domain registrations without helping to spread the work to other registries. In my opinion, now is the time for people to learn from this past experience and to encourage the launch of numerous ARINs. Unfortunately, the IANA only seems to be willing to help certain companies get launched...why is that...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:47:06 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:47:06 -0600 Subject: Your kidding right? Message-ID: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 5:00 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote: @ @ Hi Jim, @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ * On Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:42 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net @ * @ * David, @ * @ * I am really surprised that people are not telling you that @ * this is the ARIN list and not the APNIC list... @ * @ * Do you think that ARIN should be a carbon copy of APNIC...? @ * @ * If so, I would point out that APNIC has three /8 address spaces @ * that you "manage". @ * @ * Can you explain what plans APNIC has to create additional @ * registries to help manage those large spaces ? @ @ RIPE NCC also has 3 * /8, 193/8 194/8 and 195/8 and when 195/8 @ is full we will need another one. Why would we then need another @ registry to help us with this? I don't follow your logic. @ In my opinion, the additional registries would be helping you to allocate portions of the three /8 spaces that you have. If you educate those registries, they may grow up to apply for their own /8. As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous registries that will be requesting such an allocation. I can not imagine that it will be easy to obtain a fourth /8 when the line is long and you already have three. Scarce resources should be shared. @ If a ISP has a /16 which is fully used for his infrastructure and @ customers then they also come back for more address space, they don't @ go and start another ISP. @ Of course not, I am pointing out that some ISPs cultivate the training and growth of other ISPs. They sell them bandwidth, they help them with routers, they loan them IP addresses to get started, etc. Some ISPs grow to be as big or bigger than the ISPs that helped to launch them. Some do not. Sometimes the "parent" ISP buys its successful off-spring. Every combination has been seen. If you separate registry services from being an ISP, you might see that the registry services part of the business could be as profitable or more profitable as the "modem part". This is similar to airlines who discover that their on-line reservation systems have more value than their planes and gates. @ * Based on your experience with APNIC, do you think that @ * ARIN should start with a /8 or just a /16 ? @ @ @ Based on whats already been said here, you must have missed those @ mails, ARIN will take over where InterNIC stops. @ Oh really...has the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Government approved that...? Can you show me the public records where that decision has been made ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 13:56:31 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:56:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN, ISPs and registries In-Reply-To: <01BC0472.0CD379E0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 12:29:13 pm Message-ID: <199701171856.NAA13108@access.netaxs.com> > No matter what happens, all of these IP Address Registries, > ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, AlterNIC, AfricNIC, SouthAmericaNIC, > CaribNIC, etc. still have to get their IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations > entered in the Root Name Servers. > > I am sure that some of the Root Name Server owner/operators > will be interested to see how much these registries are going > to pay to obtain these delegations. Part of the registry fees > should obviously be paid to the people who run the Root Name > Servers for the good and stability of the Internet. > > It should be noted that some ISPs are large enough to have > huge blocks of IP addresses, which they skillfully obtained > from the InterNIC. Those ISPs can go directly to the Root Name > Servers to secure their allocations. They are registries in their > own right, even though they may not have the public exposure > that ARIN will have because of the Network Solutions, Inc. > funding. Why do you fail to understand that there is a community, and that community supports the IANA and *not* the root name servers as allocaters of IP space. Really, the concept is quite simple. Have you even found *one* of the respected/trusted/current root name server operators who will go along with your theory? > Jim Fleming Avi From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:58:22 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:58:22 -0600 Subject: ARIN, ISPs and registries Message-ID: <01BC0476.1F3EE980@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:56 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > No matter what happens, all of these IP Address Registries, @ > ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, AlterNIC, AfricNIC, SouthAmericaNIC, @ > CaribNIC, etc. still have to get their IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations @ > entered in the Root Name Servers. @ > @ > I am sure that some of the Root Name Server owner/operators @ > will be interested to see how much these registries are going @ > to pay to obtain these delegations. Part of the registry fees @ > should obviously be paid to the people who run the Root Name @ > Servers for the good and stability of the Internet. @ > @ > It should be noted that some ISPs are large enough to have @ > huge blocks of IP addresses, which they skillfully obtained @ > from the InterNIC. Those ISPs can go directly to the Root Name @ > Servers to secure their allocations. They are registries in their @ > own right, even though they may not have the public exposure @ > that ARIN will have because of the Network Solutions, Inc. @ > funding. @ @ Why do you fail to understand that there is a community, and that @ community supports the IANA and *not* the root name servers as @ allocaters of IP space. Really, the concept is quite simple. @ @ Have you even found *one* of the respected/trusted/current root @ name server operators who will go along with your theory? @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ Avi @ @ @ Some people support dictatorships and others support democracy... Suit yourself... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:59:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:59:17 -0600 Subject: Your kidding right? Message-ID: <01BC0476.3FF368E0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:57 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get @ > at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous @ > registries that will be requesting such an allocation. @ @ And which registries would these be? @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ Avi @ @ You indicated that you are interested in running an IP Address Registry... Are you in line...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:52:40 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:52:40 -0600 Subject: request for clarification Message-ID: <01BC0475.53CF23A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 7:53 PM, Jerry Scharf[SMTP:scharf at VIX.COM] wrote: @ For any given year in which you want allocations from ARIN, you pay an anual @ fee. There is no fee per allocation, and there is no fee for things allocated @ in a prior period. @ @ There has been a discussion on the pagan IETF group about putting in a nominal @ recurring fee. That is a separate thing and would not be done unilaterally by @ ARIN, but would be done by all the NICs under recommendation of the IETF. @ Please don't cross the two threads, it makes a mess. @ @ Jerry @ @ Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:57:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:57:02 -0600 Subject: .AFRICA TLD Message-ID: <01BC0475.EFCE7120@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 5:10 PM, Peter deBlanc[SMTP:pdeblanc at noc.usvi.net] wrote: @ well, i guess my response to this should be @ @ .CARIB and CARIB.NIC @ @ for all the countries touching the waters of the caribbean. @ @ to see the floags (most of them) try www.caribtour.com @ @ or (alternatively) www.carib.tour @ @ @ @ @ Peter J. de Blanc pdeblanc at usvi.net @ Director, USVI.NET P.O. Box 1678 @ Voice (809) 776-4800 St. Thomas, VI 00804 @ Fax (809) 776-2666 United States of America @ @ @ CARIB.NIC makes a lot of sense... ...especially, if you plan to provide IP Address Registry services... You might want to check out the developments at... http://www.arin.net -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 14:08:18 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:08:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: <01BC0476.3FF368E0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 12:59:17 pm Message-ID: <199701171908.OAA14608@access.netaxs.com> > On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:57 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: > @ > As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get > @ > at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous > @ > registries that will be requesting such an allocation. > @ > @ And which registries would these be? > @ > @ > Jim Fleming > @ > @ Avi > You indicated that you are interested in running an > IP Address Registry... > > Are you in line...? Sure, we would love to start a registry. But it doesn't seem that the community is interested in having many competing registries in an area. When I see RFPs from respected bodies, Net Access may apply. But I suspect that a huge portion of the 'net would filter announcements from 'roguely allocated' IP space - enough to make the question of starting registries without the blessing of IANA quite pointless. > Jim Fleming Avi From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 14:13:01 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:13:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: from "Brian Tackett" at Jan 16, 97 10:43:19 am Message-ID: <199701171913.OAA15074@access.netaxs.com> My apologies to all for responding to Jim's posts; I'll just move this list into a folder w/ procmail and read it weekly instead of daily. I'll stop encouraging him. Sorry, Avi From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 14:10:11 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:10:11 -0600 Subject: Your kidding right? Message-ID: <01BC0477.C5D32620@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 8:08 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:57 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > @ > As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get @ > @ > at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous @ > @ > registries that will be requesting such an allocation. @ > @ @ > @ And which registries would these be? @ > @ @ > @ > Jim Fleming @ > @ @ > @ Avi @ @ > You indicated that you are interested in running an @ > IP Address Registry... @ > @ > Are you in line...? @ @ Sure, we would love to start a registry. But it doesn't seem that the @ community is interested in having many competing registries in an area. @ @ When I see RFPs from respected bodies, Net Access may apply. @ @ But I suspect that a huge portion of the 'net would filter announcements from @ 'roguely allocated' IP space - enough to make the question of starting registries @ without the blessing of IANA quite pointless. @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ Avi @ @ @ Can you point to the ARIN RFP...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 13:57:28 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:57:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 12:47:06 pm Message-ID: <199701171857.NAA13216@access.netaxs.com> > As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get > at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous > registries that will be requesting such an allocation. And which registries would these be? > Jim Fleming Avi From wardish2 at ns.mtinter.net Fri Jan 17 15:15:00 1997 From: wardish2 at ns.mtinter.net (Ward R. Goodwin Jr. - Maillist account) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:15:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Info Request on updated proposal In-Reply-To: <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: > changes necessary. It's taking a little longer than expected to update > the proposal because we're trying to take our time to make sure each > part is clear and each issue that has been raised is addressed. > > Kim Hi Kim; Do you have a rough idea when the updated proposal will be available? Many of us have been following the ongoing discussions on here and I suspect I speak for many when I say we are eagerly looking forward to the updated proposal. Ward =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Mountain Internet, Inc. sysadmin at mtinter.net System Administrator P.O. Box 1939 wardish at mtinter.net Voice - (540) 935-4141 Grundy, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 597-2413 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Meddle not in my affairs, for you are mortal and taste good with ketchup... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer. Of course it's possible they don't reflect mine either... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From scharf at vix.com Fri Jan 17 14:26:28 1997 From: scharf at vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:26:28 -0800 Subject: request for clarification Message-ID: <199701171927.LAA29727@bb.home.vix.com> JimFleming at unety.net said: > Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? I think is within the guidance role of IETF/pagan to recommend that an annual maintainence fee be charged for Internet Engineering reasons and what that fee should cover. I think it will be the responsibility of the registries/user base to decide how much the charge. This is just my personal opinion. This should move to pagan at apnic.net, as it has nothing directly to do with ARIN. I stated this in my last comment and you chose to ignore it, yet you are always wondering why people consider you a destructive force on mailing lists. Jerry From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 15:34:19 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:34:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC046B.4B3C8340@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ ARIN will manage whatever address space is delegated to it by IANA. > > Will that be a /8 or a /16 ? The point is that nobody cares whether it is a /8 or a /16 or any other netblock size. When ARIN runs short of address space, they talk to IANA about it. After consulations IANA gives them more. > Have the applications been posted that ARIN submitted > to the IANA to obtain IPv4 Address Space and Registry rights ? Nobody submits applications to IANA. You are under the misconception that IANA is some sort of aloof, remote bureaucracy that requires proper forms in triplicate. This is not the case. There is a darn good reason why people refer to the "Internet community" all the time in these sorts of discussions. That's because it *IS* a community and decisions are reached through a consultative process where everyone bounces ideas around and tries to find a workable solution through consensus. > What form was used ? There are no forms. The only thing I can possibly see IANA using forms for would be SNMP MIB registrations because there are so many. > Is the IANA accepting additional applications ? > Is there an application fee ? Obviously the answer is "no" to both of these. Your silly questions do nothing but confuse the media who are trying to understand what is going on here. > @ > 2. Does ARIN intend to cultivate the education of additional > @ > registries ? > @ > @ The only other IP registrie4s that ARIN will cultivate will be IP > @ registries for the continents of South America and Africa. Once those > @ registries are actually operational they will be equals with ARIN, APNIC > @ and RIPE with all 5 getting IP allocations from IANA. > That is good news.... > > You are obviously much more in touch with what is going > on with ARIN than most people... > > Do you work for Network Systems, Inc. ? No. I just pay attention to what people say and I try to put aside my own preconcieved notions of how things operate in order to more clearly see what is there. You would be well advised to start doing the same. 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 Fri Jan 17 15:45:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:45:59 -0600 Subject: request for clarification Message-ID: <01BC0485.27CF74C0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 1:26 PM, Jerry Scharf[SMTP:scharf at VIX.COM] wrote: @ JimFleming at unety.net said: @ > Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? @ @ I think is within the guidance role of IETF/pagan to recommend that an annual @ maintainence fee be charged for Internet Engineering reasons and what that fee @ should cover. I think it will be the responsibility of the registries/user @ base to decide how much the charge. This is just my personal opinion. @ I tried to get some clarification on this from Fred Baker the IETF chair. It appears that he is traveling on ISOC business in France, so this may take a while. @ This should move to pagan at apnic.net, as it has nothing directly to do with @ ARIN. I stated this in my last comment and you chose to ignore it, yet you are @ always wondering why people consider you a destructive force on mailing lists. @ @ Jerry @ @ For the record, you did not state which list this should be discussed on. You just said not to cross the threads. I have only posted to the ONE list and you chose to cross the threads and post to BOTH lists... ...once again, we see the double standard at work... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:51:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:51:04 -0600 Subject: How ARIN obtains IP blocks Message-ID: <01BC0485.DE104160@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 6:34 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ ARIN will manage whatever address space is delegated to it by IANA. @ > @ > Will that be a /8 or a /16 ? @ @ The point is that nobody cares whether it is a /8 or a /16 or any other @ netblock size. When ARIN runs short of address space, they talk to IANA @ about it. After consulations IANA gives them more. @ Will this same process be used by ALL companies that run IP address registries ? Are ALL companies treated equally by the IANA ? What criteria does the IANA use ? Are the discussions and results published ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:52:57 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:52:57 -0600 Subject: The InterArin Community Message-ID: <01BC0486.213CE920@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 6:34 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > Have the applications been posted that ARIN submitted @ > to the IANA to obtain IPv4 Address Space and Registry rights ? @ @ Nobody submits applications to IANA. You are under the misconception that @ IANA is some sort of aloof, remote bureaucracy that requires proper forms @ in triplicate. This is not the case. There is a darn good reason why @ people refer to the "Internet community" all the time in these sorts of @ discussions. That's because it *IS* a community and decisions are reached @ through a consultative process where everyone bounces ideas around and @ tries to find a workable solution through consensus. @ Can you give us the names of the top 10 people in this "community" ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:55:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:55:48 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC0486.875A44A0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 6:34 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ > Is the IANA accepting additional applications ? @ > Is there an application fee ? @ @ Obviously the answer is "no" to both of these. Your silly questions do @ nothing but confuse the media who are trying to understand what is going @ on here. @ Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, called meetings, and even accepted application fees... You were one of the people that helped to confuse everyone by running around with this "Wizard of Oz" IANA descriptions... Do you really think that you are going to fool people this time around...? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 14:05:03 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:05:03 -0600 Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees Message-ID: <01BC0477.0E5C98A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 9:17 PM, Chuck Goes[SMTP:chuck at digiplay.com] wrote: @ I have just been advised about the proposals to charge fees for blocks @ of IP Addresses. As a small ISP, this would be an intolerable burdon on @ my small business. I would be forced to increase my fees dramatically to @ cover this increased cost. Meanwhile, some of the larger providers would @ be able to eat this cost and therefore not have to increase their fees. @ This will eventually put me out of business. @ @ And to what benefit will these fees go for? What is the cost that they @ are covering? This I do not understand. @ @ Bottom line, I am very much apposed to this proposal. @ -- @ _________________________________________________________________ @ @ Chuck Goes Digital Interplay, Inc. @ chuck at digiplay.com P.O. Box 607061 @ http://www.digiplay.com Chicago, IL 60660-1912 @ Voice: 773-743-9843 FAX: 773-743-9844 @ _________________________________________________________________ @ @ If you become an IP Address Registry, then you can obtain your own blocks and lease parts of those blocks to people or companies not directly involved in the Internet infrastructure. This can become a profit center rather than a cost center... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bmanning at ISI.EDU Fri Jan 17 16:30:21 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:30:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: opinions Message-ID: <199701172130.AA15362@zed.isi.edu> So, It looks like Jim "Everyone is entitled to My Opinions" Flemming has found this list as well.... -- --bill From davids at wiznet.net Fri Jan 17 10:35:40 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:35:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees In-Reply-To: <32DEEF5B.176A@digiplay.com> Message-ID: Since you got your IP addresses from WorldWide Access, one of the "larger providers" who "would be able to eat this cost", I don't understand what you are worried about. DS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the news today: A fire tore through Bob Dole's library. Both books were destroyed, and he hadn't even finished coloring one yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Chuck Goes wrote: > I have just been advised about the proposals to charge fees for blocks > of IP Addresses. As a small ISP, this would be an intolerable burdon on > my small business. I would be forced to increase my fees dramatically to > cover this increased cost. Meanwhile, some of the larger providers would > be able to eat this cost and therefore not have to increase their fees. > This will eventually put me out of business. > > And to what benefit will these fees go for? What is the cost that they > are covering? This I do not understand. > > Bottom line, I am very much apposed to this proposal. > -- > _________________________________________________________________ > > Chuck Goes Digital Interplay, Inc. > chuck at digiplay.com P.O. Box 607061 > http://www.digiplay.com Chicago, IL 60660-1912 > Voice: 773-743-9843 FAX: 773-743-9844 > _________________________________________________________________ > > From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Fri Jan 17 23:43:51 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:43:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 17, 97 10:35:40 am Message-ID: <199701180443.XAA02730@linux.silkroad.com> He is simply a concerned person, it seems, who cares about, not only the 'largest providers who.... eat this cost' (as you reply) but to everyone who would like to be one the internet regardless of provider. > > Since you got your IP addresses from WorldWide Access, one of the > "larger providers" who "would be able to eat this cost", I don't > understand what you are worried about. > > DS > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In the news today: A fire tore through Bob Dole's library. Both books > were destroyed, and he hadn't even finished coloring one yet. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Chuck Goes wrote: > > > I have just been advised about the proposals to charge fees for blocks > > of IP Addresses. As a small ISP, this would be an intolerable burdon on > > my small business. I would be forced to increase my fees dramatically to > > cover this increased cost. Meanwhile, some of the larger providers would > > be able to eat this cost and therefore not have to increase their fees. > > This will eventually put me out of business. > > > > And to what benefit will these fees go for? What is the cost that they > > are covering? This I do not understand. > > > > Bottom line, I am very much apposed to this proposal. > > -- > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > Chuck Goes Digital Interplay, Inc. > > chuck at digiplay.com P.O. Box 607061 > > http://www.digiplay.com Chicago, IL 60660-1912 > > Voice: 773-743-9843 FAX: 773-743-9844 > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > -- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From jfbb at ATMnet.net Fri Jan 17 18:16:00 1997 From: jfbb at ATMnet.net (Jim Browning) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:16:00 -0800 Subject: All this /12, /14, /19, /24, etc? Message-ID: <01BC04B7.47FB2960@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] >Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 4:49 AM > >>I agree - there's absolutely *no* reason why competent ISPs should pay >>any portion of expenses incurred as a result of helping the clueless. > >Sigh. Shared fate, cooperation, culture of the Internet, etc. "This >is not your father's Internet". > >As I mentioned, the path chosen by APNIC was decided after significant >discussion and it was felt that a flat fee would balance out in the end >(e.g., an organization would cost more than they paid when they started, >but would in the end recover those costs after they gained clues). > >However, given the ability for the membership to modify the funding plan, if >ISPs in NA do not feel such an approach is appropriate, the funding mechanism >can change. That's pretty much the point -- the people who are affected by >the operation of the registry decide how the registry will operate. Giving the membership some authority in the articles/bylaws would go a long way t eliminating a lot of (otherwise pointless) controversy.. -- Jim Browning From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Jan 18 00:39:48 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:39:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Interrogatories (opportunity to contribute) Message-ID: <199701180539.AAA02830@linux.silkroad.com> Ladies and Gentlemen: After lurking on this list for some time, it has become obvious (at least to me) this group is just another iteration of the CIDRD-WG and enjoys the same emotional support and prejudicial bias famous in that WG. However, I'm disinterested in emotional and circular arguments which defy logic, fear tactics, and deception; which has dominated this issue for years. I am going to submit a set of Interrogatories via the US judicial system which addresses basic questions, to relevant organizations, regarding core IP issues: These Interrogatories will begin with a set of basic questions such as (worded better than these quick examples): (1) Does your organization claim copyright to the Internet Protocol? (2) Does your organization claim ownership rights to the Internet Protocol Address space? (3) Under what authority does your organization claim to regulate, administer, register or control the use of IP address space? &c. &c. (moving to a level of finer granularity as the questions progress). I'm sorry to be inclined to proceed with these Interrogatories; but it is quite obvious this issue will not be resolved; and the public trust has been violated by both the NSF and Network Solutions, Inc. (SAIC) and the I* organizations. Discussion and opposition is futile as it is apparent the future is for *some org* to regulate the Internet by charging for address space. There is no time nor energy for pointless argumentation and opposition. I was informed, via a FOIA reply from NSF, this group was for discussing the proposal; and I was informed by SAIC they were not convinced address space charges were necessary. However, the same old provider based address space proponents are here, on this list, dominating the discussion and shouting down and intimidating all who disagree. Enough is enough. This has gone too far already. Anyone who has specific questions they think would be useful in these Interrogatories, please forward them to me. I am happy to review them and include them, if possible. Emotional arguments by provider based proponents, threats, insults, and censure is totally unnecessary. My mind is firm on this matter and the Interrogatories will be filed soon. I cannot be intimated, threatened, nor insulted into inaction (period). It was my firm hope, the Internet Community and the supporting commercial vendors would energize to build a scalable exterior routing protocol where the service access points (IP addresses) would have no value. However, after watching and participating in this debate for over four years, there is little hope for a scalable paradigm when all parties are advocating economic and administrative solutions (and all technical proposals have either abandoned, shouted down, or ignored by the vendors and vendor supporters and employees within I* organizations). I cannot, in good conscious, stand by and watch 'the elite' claim IP address space rights and create an economic market, based on a poorly designed exterior routing protocol track. Furthermore, I have no interest in participating in emotional, circular, arguments which do little for the future of a scalable Internet. This is especially true as IPv6 matures. My vision of the Internet is one where IP address space is abundant, not polluted, and routable by a scalable paradigm. It is unethical to allow commercial interests to place IP address space and the Internet Community under siege and create a economic commodity out of a numbering system. To allow this to happen, in my opinion, is to allow a great injustice to occur and I do not think, men and women of good intent, should waste their valuable time in this continuing debate, which in over 15 years, has produced little technical progress, made a mockery of the intelligence of the Internet Community, and allowed a self-proclaimed group of 'elite' to drive the Internet down to a new low, all in the guise of their 'vision of the commercial Internet'. Relevant contributions to the Interrogatories are welcome and appreciated. However, I will proceed independently, without outside input, if necessary. Tim -- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From woody at zocalo.net Sat Jan 18 01:40:08 1997 From: woody at zocalo.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:40:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interrogatories (opportunity to contribute) Message-ID: <199701180640.WAA25665@zocalo.net> Tim Bass (bass at linux.silkroad.com) writes: > Does your organization claim copyright to the > Internet Protocol? > > Does your organization claim ownership rights > to the Internet Protocol Address space? > > Under what authority does your organization claim > to regulate, administer, register or control > the use of IP address space? Tim, As you well know: 1) "Copyright" of the Internet Protocol, if it exists, has no bearing upon the right to use integers. 2) To the best of my knowlege, nobody is claiming to "regulate or control" the set of integers. 3) Anyone who likes may "register" or "administer" integers to the extent of their heart's desire. 4) You're welcome to use any integer you like, for any purpose you like, anyone else's registration and administration notwithstanding. Accordingly I have, for my own amusement, just dubbed you "42". Furthermore, I've registered this fact on a half-used Post-It(tm) note here on my desk. I'm curious to find out whether this will provoke you to sue me. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From davids at wiznet.net Fri Jan 17 10:52:18 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:52:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC03B9.802E91E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: Sprint, for all intents and purposes, already does operate an IP registry. They receive IP allocations from Internic and then redistribute them to their customers. What more do they need? The authority is already there for them (and other ISPs) to allocate IPs to non-customers, including those who don't even have an Internet connection. Someone (David Conrad?) recently cited that RFC on this list. If anything, this pricing plan will increase the incentive for ISPs to act more like registries -- after all, it will now be more expensive for people to get their IPs 'direct'. So I think what you are asking for is already there. David Schwartz On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > In my opinion, Sprint is large enough to operate their > own "registry". They could easily handle a /8. > > Most ISPs are not large enough or experienced enough > to operate an IP Address Registry. Those ISPs will likely > have to band together under an ARIN-like organization. From cym at acrux.net Fri Jan 17 10:55:55 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:55:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: request for clarification In-Reply-To: <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > we could get community reaction on the proposal and make whatever > changes necessary. It's taking a little longer than expected to update > the proposal because we're trying to take our time to make sure each > part is clear and each issue that has been raised is addressed. And we appreciate your effort a great deal. Hopefully we (well, at least I can speak for myself :) can keep focus where it needs to be kept until the next revision is available. From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Fri Jan 17 02:59:26 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 07:59:26 -0000 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <01BC044C.5CEEA2E0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> To Whom: I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a global market. The ramifications would be severe. While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it has been explained. Mark Richmond CNE, AOP, CPIM District Technology Coordinator Tulare City Schools, CA From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 01:23:12 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 06:23:12 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5632.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Unlike RIPE, ARIN proposes to have both membership dues and service fees. Do we really need both membership dues and service fees? The membership dues are structured so that they represent a re-assessment of the previously paid assignment fees. This is different from both APNIC and RIPE, which assess dues based on the size (revenue) of the organization. Should we adopt the APNIC and RIPE model? An alternative would be to eliminate member dues, instead relying on assignment fees for revenue. A nominal amount, such as $100, could be assessed a member in those years that no new assessments are needed. Since ARIN has not yet published a proposed budget, we cannot judge whether these fees are adequate to cover expenses, current and future. In the absence of information, I am seeking consensus on the form and general amount of fees. Here are various proposed (one-time) fees: current similar medium broader ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 /16 $10,000 each $10,000 each $4,096 each $6,561 each /17 $7,500 " $7,500 $3,072 $4,374 /18 $5,000 " $5,500 $2,304 $2,916 /19 $2,500 " $4,000 $1,728 $1,944 /20 $2,500 " $3,000 $1,296 $1,296 /21 $2,500 " $2,250 $972 $864 /22 $2,500 " $1,750 $729 $576 /23 $2,500 " $1,500 $547 $384 /24 $2,500 " $1,325 $410 $256 Does column 3 (medium) look about right in scaling? or column 4? WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 12:40:51 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:40:51 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC046B.4B3C8340@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 5:05 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ 95% of the people on this list probably already know what ARIN's position @ on these questions will be. @ @ > 1. What /8 does ARIN intend to manage ? @ @ ARIN will manage whatever address space is delegated to it by IANA. @ Will that be a /8 or a /16 ? Have the applications been posted that ARIN submitted to the IANA to obtain IPv4 Address Space and Registry rights ? What form was used ? Is the IANA accepting additional applications ? Is there an application fee ? @ > 2. Does ARIN intend to cultivate the education of additional @ > registries ? @ @ The only other IP registrie4s that ARIN will cultivate will be IP @ registries for the continents of South America and Africa. Once those @ registries are actually operational they will be equals with ARIN, APNIC @ and RIPE with all 5 getting IP allocations from IANA. @ That is good news.... You are obviously much more in touch with what is going on with ARIN than most people... Do you work for Network Systems, Inc. ? @ > 3. Who are the Trustees of ARIN ? @ @ Kim said this would get announced when they publish a revised proposal. @ I think most people would be satisfied to wait and see it all at once. @ Sure...while they are waiting for the IANA, the IAHC, the ISOC...etc... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 02:14:00 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:14:00 +0900 Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 06:23:12 GMT." <5632.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: <199701180714.QAA12384@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Bill, A clarification: >This is different >from both APNIC and RIPE, which assess dues based on the size (revenue) >of the organization. Should we adopt the APNIC and RIPE model? APNIC's "size" differentiation is entirely self-determined, not based on revenue. As the APNIC community couldn't agree as to what constituted a good metric for "size", but we realized that some organizations would be interested/willing to pay more than others (for whatever reason), we decided to allow the members to define their own sizes. At this time, we have a distribution of (about) 50% small, 20% medium, 30% large. Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 12:56:14 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:56:14 -0600 Subject: ARIN Humor Message-ID: <01BC046D.7113CA40@webster.unety.net> I heard that these are the ARIN Trustee "candidates"... http://www.neato.org/~femur/images/gallery/aringrp.html I guess now we just need names to go with the faces...;-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 12:53:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:53:47 -0600 Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees Message-ID: <01BC046D.19C330A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 4:43 PM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ @ But I don't think any one's seriously claiming that the proposed prices @ are outrageously high and in danger of making business difficult @ for them. @ Until many ARIN-like companies are *allowed* to get into the business, people will not know what the prices or costs should be. The market place should be allowed to determine the price... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Fri Jan 17 17:06:09 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:06:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: the IETF & fees Message-ID: <199701172206.RAA06546@newdev.harvard.edu> Jim asked: > Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? explicitly by command of the IESG lawyers - no Scott From kimh at internic.net Fri Jan 17 17:44:12 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:44:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Info Request on updated proposal In-Reply-To: from "Ward R. Goodwin Jr. - Maillist account" at Jan 17, 97 03:15:00 pm Message-ID: <199701172244.RAA05174@jazz.internic.net> > > > Kim > > > Hi Kim; > > Do you have a rough idea when the updated proposal will be available? > Many of us have been following the ongoing discussions on here and I > suspect I speak for many when I say we are eagerly looking forward to the > updated proposal. > > Ward Understood. I would say middle of next week at the latest. Actually, all of the details have pretty much been ironed out (at least where the BoT is concerned) it's just a matter of making sure it's clear to you the reader. Kim > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Mountain Internet, Inc. sysadmin at mtinter.net > System Administrator P.O. Box 1939 wardish at mtinter.net > Voice - (540) 935-4141 Grundy, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 597-2413 > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Meddle not in my affairs, for you are mortal and taste good with ketchup... > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer. > Of course it's possible they don't reflect mine either... > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Jan 18 02:39:51 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:39:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Humor In-Reply-To: <01BC046D.7113CA40@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > I heard that these are the ARIN Trustee "candidates"... > > http://www.neato.org/~femur/images/gallery/aringrp.html > > I guess now we just need names to go with the faces...;-) I think most members of this list will find more humour at the end of this column.... http://www.zdnet.com/macuser/onlinecol/ihnatkosf96.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 michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 18:08:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:08:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC0486.875A44A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ Obviously the answer is "no" to both of these. Your silly questions do > @ nothing but confuse the media who are trying to understand what is going > @ on here. > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... In my opinion you are deliberately lying about this in order to mislead people. IANA did *NOT* encourage people to submit applications for TLD's. They did suggest that people who were concerned about being first in the event first-com first-served was used as a deciding factor, should send in a notice of their intention to make an application. And IANA did *NOT* call any meetings although one of the people who was assisting IANA in developing a TLD plan offered to meet with anyone who cared to attend and noted publicly that such a face-to-face meeting would not make any decisions. And IANA certainly did *NOT* accept any application fees. One of the attendees at the abovementioned meeting placed a cheque in a sealed envelope and slipped it into a file with notes and other documents from the meeting. When it was revealed that this envelope containing a cheque existed the envelope was returned to the individual without ever being opened. > You were one of the people that helped to confuse everyone > by running around with this "Wizard of Oz" IANA descriptions... > > Do you really think that you are going to fool people this > time around...? People will judge me by my words. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From bmanning at ISI.EDU Fri Jan 17 18:08:57 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:08:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC0486.875A44A0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 02:55:48 pm Message-ID: <199701172308.AA15535@zed.isi.edu> > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. -- --bill From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 18:22:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:22:45 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC049B.0E3F4240@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... @ @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ @ -- @ --bill @ @ Can you be more specific...? BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about along with your expansion on the above...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bmanning at ISI.EDU Fri Jan 17 18:26:28 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:26:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC049B.0E3F4240@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 05:22:45 pm Message-ID: <199701172326.AA15584@zed.isi.edu> > > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... > @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. > @ > @ -- > @ --bill > @ > @ > > Can you be more specific...? I refer you to the mailing list archives. > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about > along with your expansion on the above...? And Mr. Dillon is who's legal representative? > > -- > Jim Fleming > UNETY Systems, Inc. > Naperville, IL > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > -- --bill From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 18:33:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:33:59 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC049C.A0570CC0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:26 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, @ > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, @ > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... @ > @ @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ > @ @ > @ -- @ > @ --bill @ > @ @ > @ @ > @ > Can you be more specific...? @ @ I refer you to the mailing list archives. @ The mailing lists confirm what I have posted... Now, I realize that you have posted stories about how an envelope with money appeared in a file folder you had at a meeting, but those are your stories and several witnesses do not back up your story... ...in fact, they claim that you provided the envelope... As for you representing the IANA, that was very clear to everyone and last Fall you gave a talk in Silicon Valley as...Bill Manning of the IANA...if you recall, I had to ask Jon Postel and Fred Baker if that was the case and then after the meeting with 70+ people, the web site was changed... @ > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe @ > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about @ > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about @ > along with your expansion on the above...? @ @ And Mr. Dillon is who's legal representative? @ I just asked why Michael Dillon was telling people on the IAHC list that you should not talk about this for 2 years...what is the 2 years all about...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 18:58:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:58:15 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC04A0.04AF3140@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:26 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, @ > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, @ > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... @ > @ @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ > @ @ > @ -- @ > @ --bill @ > @ @ > @ @ > @ > Can you be more specific...? @ @ I refer you to the mailing list archives. @ @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html Re: Notes (fwd) John Frangie (john at toyota-slo.com) Fri, 03 Jan 1997 13:21:12 -0800 Mr Dillon, please don't take this wrong. I think the technical contribution you can add to this process is very valuable. Since day one, I have considered you, Rick Wesson, Perry Metzger, Simon Higgs along with Chris Ambler and a few others as the ones I draw most of my knowledge from. Thank you all for your input. Now I am unclear if you if you are planning on running a Registry. If you are, that might explain your need to try and make Chris look silly by constantly disreguarding the facts as they happened. IMO you will fail at a registry or any other endeavor you attempt if you try and convince anyone, anything that is not based on truth. Now the truth is you were not at this meeting. Michael Dillon wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > > Since the Postel draft was > > not yet RFC (according to their plans), I asked permission to go online now, > > as long as I disclaimed that it would take a while longer to get the Postel > > draft to RFC status. > > You asked permission? Do you think Bill is God? In English the words used > to ask for permission are also used to ask if something is technically > possible. Lots of room for misunderstanding there. And since Bill had no > authority to give you permission to do this anyway, it is a moot point. Michael, if I may, your crystal ball seems to be fooling you. A conversation with Bill Manning on this subject might stop this noise you are posting. > > Both myself > > and Mr. Frangie (a shareholder and partner in Image Online Design) were very > > clear with Bill. > > I see. So when you placed a check in a sealed enveloppe and slipped the > enveloppe into a file folder with some other paper, this was being > "very clear"? If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and he would place it in file along with our application. (Note) Bill said nothing about slipping the envelope anywhere as he appears to have too much integrity for anything like that. It was always our intention, in giving Bill Manning the check, to have this complete our application process according to the Postel draft which would become a RFC around October 1, 1996. And so accepted. > > What is important is the final document that the IAHC will present to us on > > the 31st, and what happens thereafter. > > As I read the draft of this document, there is very little hope that any > company will find a golden egg in the outcome of the IAHC. In other words, > if you have a business plan that relies on becoming a domain name > registrar and making lots of money, you had better change those plans now. > It is quite clear that the IAHC is not going to create a cash cow for > anyone. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From randy at psg.com Sat Jan 18 02:58:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 23:58 PST Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees References: <5632.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: > current similar medium broader > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 19:18:38 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:18:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC049B.0E3F4240@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about > along with your expansion on the above...? At the time on the IAHC list there were people who were threatening to take legal actions against Bill and against IANA if IAHC did not give them the rights to run a domain name registry. In addition Jim Fleming was posting messages that I considered to be mostly innuendo and outright lies. I posted a message that attempted to clarify what had actually taken place and I included portions of several email messages from public lists such as domain-policy at internic.net. I felt that Bill needed to say no more than what was already on the public record and I suggested that he should not say anything more about it because of the vultures waiting to pounce with their lawsuits. I did not consult with Bill on any of this nor did I send him the advice privately. In other words, Bill has nothing whatsever to do with what I said. If anyone wonders why I keep answering these allegations from Fleming it is because I have seen some evidence that members of the media are monitoring this list and have been mislead by Fleming's words. Thus I am attempting to provide an opposing viewpoint that, I hope, is a fairly close reflection of reality. 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 Fri Jan 17 19:50:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:50:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC049C.A0570CC0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > I just asked why Michael Dillon was telling people on > the IAHC list that you should not talk about this for 2 > years...what is the 2 years all about...? I picked it out off the top of my head because I'm reasonably certain that in two years, the details of how new TLD's came to be will be of no interest to anyone but historians. 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 Fri Jan 17 20:07:47 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:07:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC04A0.04AF3140@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html Anybody who is REALLY interested in the details can check that message and the other messages in the day or two before and after. The whole story should become clear if you follow through the thread over a couple of days. You don't have to take my word for it because the discussions are all in the public domain. > If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill > Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse > himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the > envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and > he would place it in file along with our application. You will note that Chris Ambler and John Frangie, who make this claim, are both from the same company. If you read through the whole thread to get the context you will find a list of other participants at the meeting and you will note that neither Jim Fleming nor myself was there. But one other participant at the meeting *DID* comment on the events and his comments do *NOT* agree with what John Frangie said above. Seems to me that Jim Fleming is once again lying by ommission and dragging mud all over everything because he cannot get his own way. And if you were to review the IAHC list (a voluminous task) you would see that the people who Fleming has called as witnesses have made some clearly incorrect statements on numerous occasions on that list. That is why I cannot take the above statement by John Frangie seriously. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From icarvs at prtc.net Fri Jan 17 00:43:54 1997 From: icarvs at prtc.net (icarvs) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 21:43:54 PST Subject: request for clarification In-Reply-To: <199701170153.RAA10933@bb.home.vix.com> References: Conversation with last message <199701170153.RAA10933@bb.home.vix.com> Message-ID: Thank you. ---------- > For any given year in which you want allocations from ARIN, you pay an anual > fee. There is no fee per allocation, and there is no fee for things allocated > in a prior period. > > There has been a discussion on the pagan IETF group about putting in a nominal > recurring fee. That is a separate thing and would not be done unilaterally by > ARIN, but would be done by all the NICs under recommendation of the IETF. > Please don't cross the two threads, it makes a mess. > > Jerry From handler at sub-rosa.com Fri Jan 17 21:05:20 1997 From: handler at sub-rosa.com (Michael Handler) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:05:20 -0500 Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: In <01BC0474.8C77A520 at webster.unety.net>, JimFleming at UNETY.NET (Jim Fleming) wrote: > @ Based on whats already been said here, you must have missed those > @ mails, ARIN will take over where InterNIC stops. > > Oh really...has the National Science Foundation and > the U.S. Government approved that...? Sure. When they gave authority of delegation over the IPv4 space to the IANA. > Can you show me the public records where that decision > has been made ? There probably are not. It would defeat the point of delegating the management of IPv4 space to the IANA, if the IANA was forced to justify every decision they made to the NSF in committee hearing. I have no doubt if the IANA tried to do something utterly unreasonable with the responsibilities they have been given, that the NSF would step in and remove them from power. -- Michael Handler i seek a thousand answers / i find but one or two / i maintain no discomfiture / my path again renewed -- bad religion From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 04:27:12 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:27:12 +0900 Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:41:51 CST." <9701161742.aa17558@blkbox.COM> Message-ID: <199701180927.SAA13502@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Marc, >I am and have been on hold for over 45 minutes dialed into the NIC's >help line currently. "All representitives are busy. Please stay on the >line". This is a toll call. You can forget my vote of confidence as to >having the current InterNic infrastructure handling any sort of new >arangement that might arise. So I gather you support the concept of fees for allocation and informational services. Regards, -drc From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 08:48:09 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 13:48:09 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5634.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 23:58 PST > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > > current similar medium broader > > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 > > Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From icarvs at prtc.net Fri Jan 17 13:28:22 1997 From: icarvs at prtc.net (icarvs) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 10:28:22 PST Subject: request for clarification In-Reply-To: <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> References: Conversation with last message <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: Dear Kim , I have one simple question, Can I volunteer to be a member of the board? You see, is not that easy to find a job in the real world as a generation X'er anymore. Section 1.1 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Board of Trustees will manage the business affairs of ARIN. This 5-member voluntary board will include the following corporate officers positions: President, Secretary and Treasurer. The initial Board of Trustees will be selected from those individuals who have shown an understanding of the issues and a desire to participate in solutions. The terms of the initial trustees selected shall be staggered to allow one to expire after the first year, two after the second year and the final two after the third year. Each term thereafter will be three years. The trustees whose terms do not expire shall elect successor trustees to fill the vacancies. ---------- On Thursday, Jan 16, 1997 Kim wrote: > > > > Ok, let me explain where the misunderstanding apparently is, ANNUAL means > > once a year folks. This means once PER year, you get charged. What we're > > Brett, you're right. The proposal is not clear on several issues and > needs modifying on others. That's why this list was established, so > we could get community reaction on the proposal and make whatever > changes necessary. It's taking a little longer than expected to update > the proposal because we're trying to take our time to make sure each > part is clear and each issue that has been raised is addressed. > > Kim > > > > discussing here is a one time fee for all allocations received in that > > 'business year'. Its this kind of vagueness that makes ARIN stink so badly, > > well, that and the self-sustaning dictorship. > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > > > > > > For any given year in which you want allocations from ARIN, you pay an > anual > > > fee. There is no fee per allocation, and there is no fee for things > allocated > > > in a prior period. > > > > > > There has been a discussion on the pagan IETF group about putting in a > nominal > > > recurring fee. That is a separate thing and would not be done unilaterally > by > > > ARIN, but would be done by all the NICs under recommendation of the IETF. > > > Please don't cross the two threads, it makes a mess. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) > [-] > > [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas > [-] > > [-] 713-467-7100 > [-] > > From randy at psg.com Sat Jan 18 09:04:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 06:04 PST Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees References: <5633.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: >>> current similar medium broader >>> ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 >> >> Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested > would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps > you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? Hi Bill, Just pointing out (obscurely, sorry) that your chart accidentally happens to show points on the scale that appeal to you, and that there are many more possibilities. In particular, Let's make the unexpected leap of faith that the ARIN numbers were based on someone running the numbers and coming out with a scale that met, to the best of the their abilities, the stewardship, service, and non-profit goals we think the ARIN should have. Then a scale which does not maintain the bottom line may not work. So maintaining the endpoint while changing the slope may not work, and you need to think about the integral. randy From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 09:10:08 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:10:08 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118091005.0069585c@lint.cisco.com> Folks, It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. - paul At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: >To Whom: > >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a >global market. The ramifications would be severe. > >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here >only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the >ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. > >I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it >has been explained. > > >Mark Richmond >CNE, AOP, CPIM >District Technology Coordinator >Tulare City Schools, CA From erikl at sover.net Sat Jan 18 09:56:49 1997 From: erikl at sover.net (Erik R. Leo) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:56:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118091005.0069585c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > [...AOP encourging members to complain about ARIN...] > > This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely > annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion > on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if > folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the > proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > > - paul > > At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > > > [...example AOP member "dissenting message"...] We happen to be a member of the AOP (probably not for much longer). I've enclosed a copy of their original (corrected) "alert" and my (completely inadequate) response to it. AOP doesn't seem to do much polling of their membership before deciding on their stance :(. But they did mention the ARIN web-site. Someone with a little more time on their hands may want to take a shot at a point-by-point rebuttal of AOP's "concerns." -Erik -- Erik R. Leo, Net Worker SoVerNet Tel: +1(802)463-2111 Vermont's Sovereign Internet Connection Fax: +1(802)463-2110 5 Rockingham Street Email: erikl at sover.net Bellows Falls, Vermont 05101 > ============================================================= > AOP Alert Wednesday, January 15, 1997 > ============================================================= > > The following is a legislative alert from the Association of > Online Professionals, the leading association of Internet > Service Providers and other professionals who manage online > services. > > Please give it the widest possible distribution: > > ============================================================= > AOP Opposes Network Solutions ARIN Proposal > ============================================================= > > This week, Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a > new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000 per year for > registration of Internet IP addresses. This fee would be in addition > to fees already charged for registration of domain names. > > Under the proposal, an American Registry for Internet Numbers would be > created as a non-profit entity to collect the fees and assign the > addresses. The new entity would replace the government- sponsored > InterNIC IP group. Companies who wish to participate in policy-making > as members of the group would pay an additional $1,000 per year. > > Information regarding the proposal may be found at > http://www.arin.net. > > The Association of Online Professionals has serious concerns about the > proposal, and urges all North American Internet service providers and > their subscribers to oppose the measure until these concerns are > addressed: > > ** There is no indication in the proposal as to why the fees are > needed. > > ** The proposed non-profit has no published goals, mission or other > information beyond its structure and fees. > > ** The fee structure will cost the industry millions of dollars, > yet there is no information as to how the money will be spent or > how it will benefit the Internet. > > ** The assertions that the fees would not affect subscribers are > incorrect, as these fees would have to be passed on to consumers. > > ** The assertions that ISPs can afford the fees as a cost of > doing business reflects a poor understanding of the current > economics of Internet access services. The proposed fee structure > would have a devastating effect on small ISPs as well as non- > profit, hobbyist and public access providers. > > ** It is unclear under what authority Network Solutions would impose > the fees. The Internet exists as a public resource, and as such > should not be subjected to the arbitrary control of any small > group of individuals or entities. > > AOP has generally supported efforts to bring organization and > structure to the Internet, including the imposition of fees to cover > the cost of assigning and maintaining domain names. > > However, AOP cannot support the current proposal until more > information is provided and a meaningful dialogue established to > ensure that the proposal is more than an attempt to wrest control of > the Internet for a select group of self-proclaimed authorities. > > Please do the following immediately: > > 1) Contact InterNIC with a request that the proposal not be > implemented. > > Comments are being taken only on the Internic listserv. To make > comments, you must first join the listserv by sending mail to > listserv at internic.net with SUBSCRIBE NAIPR in the body. You may > then post comments to naipr at internic.net. > > 2) Urge your subscribers and business associates to reject the > proposal. > > > AOP will make every effort to obtain answers to the questions raised, > and will strive for meaningful conversations with Network Solutions on > these issues. If you have comments that would help us build a > consensus for these discussions, please direct them to exec at aop.org. > ====================================================================== > Dave McClure (703) 924-9692 (703) 924-9594 Fax > Executive Director (703) 264-1750 BBS Telnet aop.org > Assn of Online Professionals http://www.aop.org info at aop.org > ====================================================================== and my response to AOP: > I would like to go on record as being in favor of the ARIN > proposal. I think AOP should reconsider their position on this > proposal. > > -Erik > -- > Erik R. Leo, Net Worker SoVerNet > Tel: +1(802)463-2111 Vermont's Sovereign Internet Connection > Fax: +1(802)463-2110 5 Rockingham Street > Email: erikl at sover.net Bellows Falls, Vermont 05101 From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 09:56:45 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:56:45 -0500 Subject: Articulation of ARIN opposition Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118095642.006926c4@lint.cisco.com> David, As you are the Executive Director of the Association of Online Professionals, I encourage you to articulate AOP's opposition to the ARIN proposal on the NAIPR mailing list (copied). The catalyst for this is two-fold. There have been numerous dissenting messages submitted to the list from AOP members, affiliates and/or supporters which vocalized opposition to the ARIN proposal, but which have also clearly shown a lack of understanding of the proposal. Also, it would serve as a clarification of AOP's basic understanding of the proposal and subsequent opposition. Thanks, - paul (concerned bystander) From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 10:13:47 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:13:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: <5634.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, William Allen Simpson wrote: > > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 23:58 PST > > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > > > current similar medium broader > > > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 > > > > Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > > > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested > would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps > you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? I'm not sure that I understand the 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, x:y either, but there are many reasons that larger allocations should be cheaper on a per address basis than smaller allocations. Unless someone were to develop a new class of router, that could handle many, many more routes than the current class of backbone routers (mostly Cisco at this time), *and* get all the backbone ISPs to implement them, there has to be an incentive to get people to request smaller allocations (/20 or smaller for now) from their upstream provider. I'm not sure if ARIN will be willing to give larger allocations to upstream providers who manage their address space closely, but Internic sure does. If ARIN can be convinced to give a /16 to a provider who may only need a /18 at the present time but has historically managed their allocations well, i.e. effective use of subnetting and supernetting, education of downstream customers, active utilization of SWIP, then it makes things smoother and more scalable for the internet at large. There is a lot of FUD and innuendo being spread here, and from what I can see certain people who are spreading it either don't understand that IP allocations that are too small to be picked up by the backbone providers are generally worthless, or they're bringing up the $2500 cost of a /24 as a strawman. If providers want to tell their customers to get a /24 directly from ARIN, then they can deal with the hassle of explaining why the customer can't reach sites on Sprint's network. I would just as soon see ARIN not even allocate anything smaller than a /19 without a statement releasing ARIN and the provider from any blame if the allocation is not globally routable. Heck, I would like to see ARIN only allocate /19s or greater. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 10:27:01 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:27:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Message-ID: With all the hubbub about the AOP, I checked ot their site. This is taken verbatim from their Code of Professional Standards: 8.Members shall not knowingly disseminate false or misleading information and shall act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which he or she is responsible, or which has originated from or resides on his or her system. I have no problem with AOP members opposing the ARIN proposal, but I would ask that they follow their own code and not disseminate misleading information or attempt to scuttle this proposal through the use of straw men. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 12:05:15 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 17:05:15 GMT Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <5635.wsimpson@greendragon.com> After some private consultation and wordsmithing, I would like to propose the following language for the Organization: The organization shall be comprised of: 3.1: Members, the governing body of the Registry. 3.2: an Executive Council, elected from the Members, acting on behalf of the Members between membership meetings. 3.3: an Executive Director, appointed by the Executive Council with the advice and consent of the Members, and serving at the pleasure of the Executive Council. 3.4: the Secretariat, appointed by the Executive Director with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, for administering daily Registry operations. 3.5: zero or more Committees, designated by the Executive Council for a limited time to resolve specific issues or conduct specific business on behalf of the Registry. Does this meet the general approval of the list? WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 12:36:38 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:36:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <199701181736.MAA07973@newdev.harvard.edu> > I would like to propose the following language for the Organization: Bill, Kim said that a new version of the proposal is done modulo cleaning up the text to be minimimaly confusing - can you hold off on suggestions for basic changes until you can reference the revised proposal - it will be less confusing to have people talking from the same base. thanks Scott From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Sat Jan 18 13:50:19 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:50:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees In-Reply-To: <01BC046D.19C330A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > On Thursday, January 16, 1997 4:43 PM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: > > @ > @ But I don't think any one's seriously claiming that the proposed prices > @ are outrageously high and in danger of making business difficult > @ for them. > @ > > Until many ARIN-like companies are *allowed* to get into the > business, people will not know what the prices or costs should be. > > The market place should be allowed to determine the price... When you say "the marketplace should be allowed to determine the price", do you mean "individuals should be allowed to place whatever value they want on obtaining IP addresses", just as it is with sugar, or automobiles, or gold? -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From cym at acrux.net Sat Jan 18 14:19:11 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:19:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html Folks, May I ask why this list now has to play host to IAHC, TLD, etc issues? The last I checked, this list was for discussion of the ARIN proposal. Nothing else. If we're not capable of restraining ourselves to the topic at hand, perhaps we should unsubscribe this list? From lindae at subjungle.com Sat Jan 18 15:49:39 1997 From: lindae at subjungle.com (Linda Emmele) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 14:49:39 -0600 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <01BC054E.D6F1F3A0@ppp03.azone.net> I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase. I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me. Linda Emmele ---------- From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM To: Mark Richmond Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR Folks, It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. - paul At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: >To Whom: > >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a >global market. The ramifications would be severe. > >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here >only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the >ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. > >I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it >has been explained. > > >Mark Richmond >CNE, AOP, CPIM >District Technology Coordinator >Tulare City Schools, CA From sysop at nmol.com Sat Jan 18 15:42:00 1997 From: sysop at nmol.com (Simon Clement) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:42:00 -0700 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118134159.006b5c74@nmol.com> >---------- >From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM >To: Mark Richmond >Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com >Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR > >Folks, > >It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of >Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization >representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to >deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of >the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. > >In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, >lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream >service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. > >This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely >annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion >on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if >folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the >proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > >- paul > Paul, I heard about the ARIN proposal through the AOP mail list. I went and read the proposal. To be honest, the way the proposal is written I can't tell if I will be affected or not. Can you or anyone else explain the proposed fee chart? Regardless, if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers. I don't like extra fees, especially if it is not clear what how the fees were assessed or what services are provided as a result. Your input clarifying this matter is appreciated. Simon Clement From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 15:48:15 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:48:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701182048.PAA08401@newdev.harvard.edu> Simon, > if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, > the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers If you got your addresses from your provider then the provider is charged and the pass on to you (if the provider decides to do so) will be your part of their charge - for example if your provider has 1000 ISP customers then your fee would be $20K/1K or $20 per year (if a very crude division were done) hardly worth the heat that seems to be showing up. Scott From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 15:52:33 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:52:33 -0800 Subject: Rationale Message-ID: As a new member to the list, I am interested in locating a rationale for the fee schedule as described in as of 18 Jan 1997. As someone who has followed many of the discussions, I understand much of the terminology, but for someone with other than a background in ARPAnet that dates back to the '70s many of the descriptions are in a shorthand which is almost impossible to understand. Perhaps reverting to plain English would be an improvement -- I understand there is to be a revision to this document and I await the presentation of it. I'm particularly interested in why the policy membership assessment is set so high. I'm a member of the Telecommunications Industry Association TR-30 as a consultant and my fees have historically been $300 per year -- and that is to cover the cost of paper mailings of notices, ballots for draft standards, and a small administration in Washington. (Corporate fees for the same organization are $10,000 per year for manufacturers.) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 16:02:08 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:02:08 -0800 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: At 3:48 PM 1/18/97, Scott Bradner wrote: >Simon, > >> if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, >> the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers > >If you got your addresses from your provider then the provider is charged >and the pass on to you (if the provider decides to do so) will be your >part of their charge - for example if your provider has 1000 ISP customers >then your fee would be $20K/1K or $20 per year (if a very crude division >were done) hardly worth the heat that seems to be showing up. If providers were told that they HAD to do that, it would be another story. As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at $2500. All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you suggest. For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and upstream port costs. This is why I'm asking for a comprehensive rationale. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:21:31 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:21:31 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118162129.006b96b8@lint.cisco.com> Not to stoke the fires here, but passing along any cost to the end-user would make the ISP business more competitive, and some would argue that the end-user is the ultimate winner. - paul At 02:49 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Linda Emmele wrote: >I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase. I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me. >Linda Emmele > >---------- >From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM >To: Mark Richmond >Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com >Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR > >Folks, > >It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of >Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization >representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to >deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of >the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. > >In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, >lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream >service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. > >This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely >annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion >on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if >folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the >proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > >- paul > > > >At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > >>To Whom: >> >>I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a >>fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a >>global market. The ramifications would be severe. >> >>While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here >>only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the >>proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To >>enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the >>ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. >> >>I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it >>has been explained. >> >> >>Mark Richmond >>CNE, AOP, CPIM >>District Technology Coordinator >>Tulare City Schools, CA > From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 16:23:07 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:23:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701182123.QAA08444@newdev.harvard.edu> Stephen, if you get your service from a rip off organization then they might try and make a 10000% profit on these fees - I rather doubt that you will find many such organizations lasting long in this world. please wait for the revision of the proposal and discuss aipr based on that rather than the proposal that is currently there or on fears of provider behaviors. Scott From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:29:38 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:29:38 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118162936.006a7fec@lint.cisco.com> [thinking out loud] Well, there's not written rule or law that says that the costs have to be *directly* passed along to the end-user (from the ISP), in the form of prefix charges. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier message, if the charges were passed along to the end-user in a heavy-handed fashion, one would think that this would inject a bit more competitiveness in the ISP marketplace. Is this a bad thing in itself? - paul At 03:48 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: >Simon, > >> if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, >> the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers > >If you got your addresses from your provider then the provider is charged >and the pass on to you (if the provider decides to do so) will be your >part of their charge - for example if your provider has 1000 ISP customers >then your fee would be $20K/1K or $20 per year (if a very crude division >were done) hardly worth the heat that seems to be showing up. > >Scott > From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 16:30:30 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:30:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <01BC054E.D6F1F3A0@ppp03.azone.net> Message-ID: Once more, and maybe this should be explained on the ARIN homepage. The costs are very reasonable for the small provider who properly uses his assigned address space. Since it is almost impossible to get a new allocation smaller than a /19 routed across the internet, since certain large providers will not accept the announcments, small providers will get their IP address blocks from their upstream provider. Assuming that the upstream provider has a /16, which pay $5000 for, the cost per /24 comes out to under $19.55. Even if the upstream provider only has a /19, which is the smallest globally routable block, the per /24 cost is only $78.13. These costs are not excessive! Any ISP that can't afford $80 yearly is running on a very, very thin margin. Please people, do the math, learn about CIDR, and set aside the 2 cents a day that a /24 will cost from a provider with a /16. Jeremiah who has only answered this same question about 10 times today. On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Linda Emmele wrote: > I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase. I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me. > Linda Emmele > > ---------- > From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM > To: Mark Richmond > Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com > Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR > > Folks, > > It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of > Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization > representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to > deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of > the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. > > In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, > lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream > service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. > > This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely > annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion > on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if > folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the > proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > > - paul > > > > At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > > >To Whom: > > > >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a > >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a > >global market. The ramifications would be severe. > > > >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here > >only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the > >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To > >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the > >ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. > > > >I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it > >has been explained. > > > > > >Mark Richmond > >CNE, AOP, CPIM > >District Technology Coordinator > >Tulare City Schools, CA > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:50:30 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:50:30 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118165028.006a9898@lint.cisco.com> At 01:02 PM 1/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at >$2500. All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you >suggest. For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't >changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and >upstream port costs. > Don't compare apples & elephants. And also bear in mind that the fee structure suggested in the current proposal is a draft & subject to modification. The proposed fees are for intended for allocation & management services with regards to IP address allocation, and are modeled after the existing policies already in place at the RIPE-NCC (Europe) and the APNIC (Asia Pacific), both of which have had similar fee structures for quite a while. While I'm personally in no position to speak for the ARIN folks, I believe the rationale for charging for these services is to fund the activities of the registry once formal funding relationship to SAIC and the NSF has been decoupled. Having said that, it should be noted that only those organization which feel the need to go directly to ARIN to obtain IP addresses will be charged these fees. One might also suggest that readers of this forum familiarize themselves with the registry guidelines as outlined in RFC2050: [snip] In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following conditions: a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still requires a globally unique IP address. The organization should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. If it is determined this is not possible, they can be issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. b) the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection. c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is very large, for example, the network prefix required to cover the request is of length /18 or shorter. All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet. [snip] Anyone else, other than organization which fall into category (a), (b) or (c) above, should go to their upstream service provider to obtain IP addresses. RFC2050 is a Best Current Practice. One Good Thing (tm) that falls out of this, is that this encourages aggregation, since provider-based addressing can be aggregated in the global routing system, whereas smaller allocations which are made without regard to topological significance most probably cannot. - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:53:04 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:53:04 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118165301.006b5550@lint.cisco.com> At 04:30 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > >Please people, do the math, learn about CIDR, and set aside the 2 cents a >day that a /24 will cost from a provider with a /16. > Or better yet, one might suggest that learning about global aggregation is a more interesting exercise. ;-) - paul From bradley at dunn.org Sat Jan 18 17:22:19 1997 From: bradley at dunn.org (Bradley Dunn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:22:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > I'm not sure that I understand the 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, x:y either, but there > are many reasons that larger allocations should be cheaper on a per > address basis than smaller allocations. Unless someone were to develop a > new class of router, that could handle many, many more routes than the > current class of backbone routers (mostly Cisco at this time), *and* get > all the backbone ISPs to implement them, there has to be an incentive to > get people to request smaller allocations (/20 or smaller for now) from > their upstream provider. Yes, there do need to be incentives for hierarchy and aggregation. I do not agree, however, that registry fees should serve that purpose. The issue of routability is an issue to be negotiated between ISPs and their customers and peers. Prefix fees should accurately reflect the costs of registering that prefix. No more, no less. On a different note, I have something else to add. The issue of who will bear the cost of registry fees has come up recently. I believe this depends on the elasticity of demand for Internet services. I would venture to say demand is fairly elastic at this point, although it is probably getting less elastic as people begin to rely on the 'net for more than just entertainment. If demand is indeed relatively elastic, then the imposition of a new tax/fee/whatever will tend to be borne by the *supplier*, i.e. upstream providers. -BD From jamie at comet.net Sat Jan 18 17:50:40 1997 From: jamie at comet.net (jamie dyer) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:50:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: test...'scuse the spam Message-ID: jamie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ jamie at comet.net | Comet.Net | Send empty message | Charlottesville, Va. | to pgpkey at comet.net | (804)295-2407 | for pgp public key. | http://www.comet.net | "Remember, there are only two kinds of music ... Blues and Zippidy-Do-Dah." -- Townes van Zandt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jan 18 18:26:42 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:26:42 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC0564.C5EDDD60@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 10:18 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ @ > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe @ > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about @ > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about @ > along with your expansion on the above...? @ @ At the time on the IAHC list there were people who were threatening to @ take legal actions against Bill and against IANA if IAHC did not give them @ the rights to run a domain name registry. In addition Jim Fleming was @ posting messages that I considered to be mostly innuendo and outright @ lies. I have never posted to the IAHC list... Please be specific... I posted a message that attempted to clarify what had actually taken @ place and I included portions of several email messages from public lists @ such as domain-policy at internic.net. I felt that Bill needed to say no more @ than what was already on the public record and I suggested that he should @ not say anything more about it because of the vultures waiting to pounce @ with their lawsuits. I did not consult with Bill on any of this nor did I @ send him the advice privately. In other words, Bill has nothing whatsever @ to do with what I said. @ @ If anyone wonders why I keep answering these allegations from Fleming it @ is because I have seen some evidence that members of the media are @ monitoring this list and have been mislead by Fleming's words. Thus I am @ attempting to provide an opposing viewpoint that, I hope, is a fairly @ close reflection of reality. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ You are doing the same thing that you have done for the past year or more...I think people have heard this story before... I suggest that the press read the archives...of the newdom list(s), the inet-access lists, and the IAHC list... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jan 18 18:57:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:57:55 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC0569.22548280@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 11:07 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html @ @ Anybody who is REALLY interested in the details can check that message and @ the other messages in the day or two before and after. The whole story @ should become clear if you follow through the thread over a couple of @ days. You don't have to take my word for it because the discussions are @ all in the public domain. @ Michael, Why would anyone "take your word for it"...? Here are your words...recently posted to this list... "One of the attendees at the above mentioned meeting placed a cheque in a sealed envelope and slipped it into a file with notes and other documents from the meeting. When it was revealed that this envelope containing a cheque existed the envelope was returned to the individual without ever being opened." Below you admit that you were not at the meeting. Yet you have consistently described this absurd story where someone takes $1,000 and seals it into an envelope and "slips" it into a folder. The implication is that the receiver, Bill Manning, did not know it was there. Where did you get this story...? As noted here, people who *were* at the meeting have posted in numerous places that not only did Bill Manning know it was there, he supplied the envelope...!!!! This story was reported in Boardwatch Magazine and on other lists. The story of the participants has not changed. @ > If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill @ > Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse @ > himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the @ > envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and @ > he would place it in file along with our application. @ @ You will note that Chris Ambler and John Frangie, who make this claim, @ are both from the same company. If you read through the whole thread to @ get the context you will find a list of other participants at the meeting @ and you will note that neither Jim Fleming nor myself was there. But one @ other participant at the meeting *DID* comment on the events and his @ comments do *NOT* agree with what John Frangie said above. @ Both from the same company...so ? Good...you note that you were not there... Please substantiate your claims regarding the "other participant". Are you speaking of Simon Higgs ? If so, his postings match the events as John Frangie and Chris Ambler have described them. And...Simon is not from the same company... Are you lying by omission...? By the way, I was not there, but there is much more to this story that has never been published....an may never be... @ Seems to me that Jim Fleming is once again lying by ommission and @ dragging mud all over everything because he cannot get his own way. Can not get my way about what...? Please be more specific...your comments and omissions are noted... @ And if you were to review the IAHC list (a voluminous task) you would see @ that the people who Fleming has called as witnesses have made some @ clearly incorrect statements on numerous occasions on that list. That is @ why I cannot take the above statement by John Frangie seriously. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ For people that came to this list to discuss ARIN. I offer the following... 1. The TLD discussions and the IAHC discussions have largely the same issues as the ARIN discussions.. control power money jealousy the haves the have nots etc. 2. I doubt of the ARIN list will be able to deal with these complex issues any better than the numerous mailing lists for the past two years. There are those people who have control and those that do not, and the ones with control are not going to give it up and therefore the growth of the Internet suffers. It is a real shame, and I am sure that historians will look back at this era and document the fact that some people asked for basic courtesy and freedoms and the people in charge were not able to grant those requests for fear of losing their monopoly power. These are serious human rights violations, which are just as serious as those in countries where people are deprived other basic rights. 3. There are a few people on the Internet who seem to have one agenda and one agenda only...that agenda is to defend the IANA at all cost...I suggest that you watch them in action... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Sat Jan 18 19:12:53 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC0564.C5EDDD60@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 18, 97 05:26:42 pm Message-ID: <199701190012.TAA06064@moses.internic.net> And I suggest you take this off-line. Again, this list is to discuss ARIN - only. If you continue to engage in off-topic discussions, I will have no choice but to remove you from the list. It is imperative that we receive community input on ARIN and I will not risk the possibility that individuals with constructive comments may unsubscribe because they do not have the time or patience to wade through off-topic dialogue. Kim Hubbard > You are doing the same thing that you have done for > the past year or more...I think people have heard this > story before... > > I suggest that the press read the archives...of the > newdom list(s), the inet-access lists, and the IAHC list... > > -- > Jim Fleming > UNETY Systems, Inc. > Naperville, IL > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 19:16:25 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:16:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118162129.006b96b8@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: I beg to differ, in the end, the end-user will always lose, its a simple matter of economics. You raise my prices, I raise theirs, otherwise I go out of business. This might cut out alot of smaller providers (the ones who usually provide the best service at that) which is good for the large companies, but face it folks.. the end user _will_ pay, one way or another. All ARIN does at this point is make it next to impossible for small ISPs to get started, and makes the existing fat cats that much fatter. Welcome to the Corporate Government you wall read about in the Cyberpunk novles 10 years ago. On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > Not to stoke the fires here, but passing along any cost to the end-user > would make the ISP business more competitive, and some would argue that > the end-user is the ultimate winner. > > - paul [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 19:21:53 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:21:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Sheesh Message-ID: Not to sound like Mr. Flemming but one thing strikes me as a serious oversight, the lack of thought towards the future. Rather than overprice a non-scalable resource, and basically screw everyone in the process. Why isn't something being done to create something more scalable and useable? I've seen this topic brought up once or twice and I have yet to see anyone even attempt to reply to it. We've seen lots of 'ARIN SUCKS' or 'ARIN RULES' messages, this is dandy (if you like the moronic politics involved) but ARIN is _NOT_ the solution. As the internet grow IP space is only going to become more and more scarce and then your troubles will be even more. Now I'm no genius, and I can't provide the answers.. what I want to know is why the people that can aren't. You've got dozens of brilliant minds spewing their politics back and forth rather than spending productive hours creating a new, more powerful, more scalable resource which can be enjoyed by everyone without the excessive costs and basic stupidity we're seeing now. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 19:39:23 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 00:39:23 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5638.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 06:04 PST > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > Let's make the unexpected leap of faith that the ARIN numbers were based > on someone running the numbers and coming out with a scale that met, to > the best of the their abilities, the stewardship, service, and non-profit > goals we think the ARIN should have. Then a scale which does not maintain > the bottom line may not work. So maintaining the endpoint while changing > the slope may not work, and you need to think about the integral. > I have, Randy, and looked at the numbers available. Unfortunately, we do not have the actual budget. But we know how many registrations occur. One advantage we have is that NRI has promised to make up any shortfall until the fees stabilize. Therefore, we are not totally dependent on getting it right the first time. There is no scaling in the ARIN proposal below /18, and then /24 is explicitly stated as $2,500. This makes no sense, as there are many intermediate prefixes. It is confusing other posters to this list. So, rather than the abundant FUD on this list, I was and am trying to explore constructive, tangible, proposals for alternatives. IMnsHO, all the numbers are much too high for a realistic budget, and a major surplus will result. But I scaled it both as if the ARIN numbers were correct, and as if they could be lower. Then we can look at the alternatives and make a choice. It is _our_ choice. If you do not want to explore alternatives, then please stop adding to the FUD. WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 19:23:31 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 00:23:31 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5637.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > From: Jeremiah Kristal > > > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > > > > current similar medium broader > > > > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 > > > > > > Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > > > > > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested > > would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps > > you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? > > I'm not sure that I understand the 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, x:y either, but there > are many reasons that larger allocations should be cheaper on a per > address basis than smaller allocations. Yes, Jeremiah. If you actually looked at the numbers that I gave, you would see that is in fact done. The scaling is the amount less "per address" that larger blocks are cheaper than smaller blocks. This scaling encourages aggregation. WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 19:52:18 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 00:52:18 GMT Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <5639.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:36:38 -0500 (EST) > From: Scott Bradner > Kim said that a new version of the proposal is done modulo > cleaning up the text to be minimimaly confusing - can you hold off > on suggestions for basic changes until you can reference the > revised proposal - it will be less confusing to have people > talking from the same base. > Scott, she also said these changes would be done by _last_ week. If the original proposal has been withdrawn, then it should be made abundantly clear, and removed from the Web page. I'd rather make constructive proposals that folks can evaluate. If we then choose a model (and it is _our_ choice) that is not reflected in later revisions of her document, we know that our needs have not been met, and can take appropriate action. If you do not care to evaluate alternatives, then please stop adding to the FUD. WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 20:29:02 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:29:02 -0500 Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118202900.006b74c8@lint.cisco.com> At 12:23 AM 1/19/97 GMT, William Allen Simpson wrote: > >Yes, Jeremiah. If you actually looked at the numbers that I gave, you >would see that is in fact done. The scaling is the amount less "per >address" that larger blocks are cheaper than smaller blocks. This >scaling encourages aggregation. > What a novel concept! ;-) - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 20:27:28 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:27:28 -0500 Subject: Sheesh Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118202723.006b745c@lint.cisco.com> With regards to a larger, yet still finite, number space than what IPv4 (2^32 host addresses) currently accommodates, this is at least one of benefits of IPv6 (2^128), at least from the perspective which you refer to below. However, it is in everyone's best interest to be immediately concerned with the IPv4 address allocation issues, rather than jumping to another, altogether different, problem. Also, I'm curious. Do people actually believe that if and/or when we do begin the transition to IPv6 that we will not be faced with the same issues? If we have a larger address space, do you think that everything will simply be a free-for-all? Sheesh is right. Scalability seems to be a phrase that I've seen tossed around a lot lately with very little evidence that anyone actually understands it. - paul At 06:21 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: >Not to sound like Mr. Flemming but one thing strikes me as a serious >oversight, the lack of thought towards the future. Rather than overprice a >non-scalable resource, and basically screw everyone in the process. Why >isn't something being done to create something more scalable and useable? >I've seen this topic brought up once or twice and I have yet to see anyone >even attempt to reply to it. We've seen lots of 'ARIN SUCKS' or 'ARIN RULES' >messages, this is dandy (if you like the moronic politics involved) but ARIN >is _NOT_ the solution. As the internet grow IP space is only going to become >more and more scarce and then your troubles will be even more. Now I'm no >genius, and I can't provide the answers.. what I want to know is why the >people that can aren't. You've got dozens of brilliant minds spewing their >politics back and forth rather than spending productive hours creating a >new, more powerful, more scalable resource which can be enjoyed by everyone >without the excessive costs and basic stupidity we're seeing now. > From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 20:33:46 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:33:46 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118203341.006b74ec@lint.cisco.com> At 06:16 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: >I beg to differ, in the end, the end-user will always lose, its a simple >matter of economics. You raise my prices, I raise theirs, otherwise I go out >of business. This might cut out alot of smaller providers (the ones who >usually provide the best service at that) which is good for the large >companies, but face it folks.. the end user _will_ pay, one way or another. >All ARIN does at this point is make it next to impossible for small ISPs to >get started, and makes the existing fat cats that much fatter. > Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. No service provider in their right mind would needlessly escalate pricing (based on ARIN service fees) if faced with customers leaving in droves for another provider with more a more reasonable pricing structure, reliable service, etc. This is not to say that some reasonable amount of cost recovery will be applied, but the operative word here is 'reasonable'. >Welcome to the Corporate Government you wall read about in the Cyberpunk >novles 10 years ago. > Please -- enough with the conspiracy theories. - paul From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 20:29:34 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:29:34 +0900 Subject: Sheesh In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:21:53 CST." Message-ID: <199701190129.KAA05913@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [Note cc and reply-to] Brett, >Not to sound like Mr. Flemming but one thing strikes me as a serious >oversight, I don't think anyone sounds like Mr. Flemming -- he is ... amazing. >Why isn't something being done to create something more scalable and useable? The less cynical among us would point to IPv6... >ARIN is _NOT_ the solution. Perhaps this might be surprising, but I agree. I feel the current registry system is a stopgap until "something better" comes along (as an aside, I had high hopes for automagic address assignment in v6, but it would appear people still think having strings of (hex) digits in configuration files is necessary). The reason for PAGAN is specifically to address how Internet address allocation will occur in the future. However, we have a "situation". Internet address allocations are performed in a certain way now (don't want to get into whether that way is "correct" or not -- that's a discussion for another thread) and as a result, there are certain costs associated with performing allocation and registration functions. Somehow those costs have to be met. Right now, they are met by a cross subsidization from DNS fees, however for various (IMHO very good) reasons, there is strong pressure to decouple address and name allocation. Further, within the Americas, the address allocation services are provided by a for-profit organization under a cooperative agreement with the US National Science Foundation and that agreement is due to terminate "soon". As it is assumed to be very important that IP address allocations be both stable and reliable, the allocator for those addresses must also be stable and reliable. I believe ARIN is an attempt to address this requirement in the context of existing constraints by using models (read: working code) from the European and Asia Pacific regions who didn't have Uncle Sam to rely on. >As the internet grow IP space is only going to become >more and more scarce and then your troubles will be even more. Or they will get easier as (to badly mangle words of Geoff Huston) the registries which are distorting the true market for Internet addresses becomes less and less a factor in Internet address transactions -- what is now the black market could conceivably become the normal mechanism in which organizations obtain address space. No more having to justify every last host address... of course, likely a per address charge under standard supply/demand economics too... Just one of many possible scenarios, however the fact remains that you are dealing with a finite resource in increasingly high demand. The "Tragedy of the Commons" applies to the Internet too. >Now I'm no >genius, and I can't provide the answers.. what I want to know is why the >people that can aren't. Because it is a very hard problem that [IMHO] is made essentially intractable by political and religious stances. There is a tremendous amount of historical baggage associated with IPv4 which can't simply be undone by wishing it so. Regards, -drc From randy at psg.com Sat Jan 18 20:45:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 17:45 PST Subject: Reject the NAIPR References: <3.0.32.19970118203341.006b74ec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > Please -- enough with the conspiracy theories. Paraphrasing from what I said to a friend a few minutes ago. The NSI/IANA/ARIN probably have the power to just do the damn thing and public opinion be damned. Yet Kim et al. are busting their buns for little but flamage (most religious or clueless and hence useless) to get public input, think about what people want and how that plays off against the realities of running a registry (about which they do have some small experience), and try to create the best possible solution for the internet in which we all live. It would help everybody, and make a better end result for the internet, if we kind of assumed that the people busting their buns trying to get this out of the old NSF/NSI cradle have good intent and are somewhat competent. randy From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 20:51:21 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:51:21 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118205119.006a5d28@lint.cisco.com> At 05:45 PM 1/18/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >Paraphrasing from what I said to a friend a few minutes ago. > >The NSI/IANA/ARIN probably have the power to just do the damn thing and >public opinion be damned. Yet Kim et al. are busting their buns for >little but flamage (most religious or clueless and hence useless) to get >public input, think about what people want and how that plays off against >the realities of running a registry (about which they do have some small >experience), and try to create the best possible solution for the internet >in which we all live. > >It would help everybody, and make a better end result for the internet, if >we kind of assumed that the people busting their buns trying to get this >out of the old NSF/NSI cradle have good intent and are somewhat competent. > Knowing each of these 'conspirators' quite well, and the historical context, I strongly concur. - paul From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 20:58:07 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:58:07 +0900 Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:39:23 GMT." <5638.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: <199701190158.KAA06091@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Bill, >IMnsHO, all the numbers are much too high for a realistic budget, and a >major surplus will result. But I scaled it both as if the ARIN numbers >were correct, and as if they could be lower. Whether or not the numbers are high or low is entirely dependent on your base assumptions with respect to the number and category of members -- something that can be difficult to estimate using existing numbers given address allocation services are "free" now. Further, it is *MUCH* easier to reduce fees than to raise them, particularly in the context of address allocations. But you know that. Regards, -drc From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Jan 18 21:15:00 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:15:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118203341.006b74ec@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jan 18, 97 08:33:46 pm Message-ID: <199701190215.VAA06231@linux.silkroad.com> > > At 06:16 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > > >I beg to differ, in the end, the end-user will always lose, its a simple > >matter of economics. You raise my prices, I raise theirs, otherwise I go out > > Please -- enough with the conspiracy theories. > Paul, I read these posts and there is no one discussing conspiracy theories. The poster pointed out the simple fact of economics that when any goods or service cost more, the cost is somehow passed on to the consumer. If you cannot accept this idea, I'm happy to meet you at Border's Book Store and point you will a freshman college text on Basic Economic Theory. If you cannot substantiate your polemics with good logical arguments, with a basis and solid metrics, etc., please do not resort to the lowly technique of implying those whom you disagree with are somehow 'crackpots'. I have watched, for years on the network, over these same issues, the same illogical and emotional counter- arguments when people on the network desire to forward a position which they have little logical basis or the ability to articulate their position with solid reason. There is simply a better way to discuss controversial subjects than falling back on arguments which are meant to reduce, either directly or indirectly, the discussion to a personal attack. It is clear the same core group of individuals, who have participate in both the BGP and CIDR (and OPS) development side of IETF (and their supports) are highly favorable in moving toward a world where IP address space costs money. It is not a secret that the group has advocated using this technique to reduce the growth of the IP forwarding tables in routers and to encourage provider based aggregation. It is also clear, that there is another group of people who do not agree with the provider based paradigm nor the concept for charging for IP address space. It is also clear, it seems, that the group whom advocates charging and economic incentives will resort to just about any tactic to silence the opposition, even it if requires going very, very low into personal attacks. Okay, we disagree. Geezzze! What kind of world is it when hard working, well intending, well educated, people cannot disagree without remaining honorable toward each other? In defense of Mr. Fleming, his views may be quite differnet than others, but he is just trying to do what he believes in his hard working heart is correct. Please do not create monsters and criminals, everyone on the list, out of those whom you disagree. It is not healthy. Okay, back to the long standing, power struggle of the last 5 years :) Personally, I disagee with most of the charging, using the almighty dollar, to control the net. However, I still like and respect those whom have a different position. I even love a few of them! Life is too short to create enemies out of hard working folks whom we disagree. However, I do not appreciate deception, and based on what I've read over the years, there is quite a lot of deception going on. Best Regards, Tim -- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 21:33:36 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:33:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118212812.006b76b0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > How convenient that you left out the portion of the original > exchange to which my 'conspiracy' reply was aimed: > > >Welcome to the Corporate Government you wall read about in the Cyberpunk > >novles 10 years ago. > > And how convient of you not to point out that the large portion of the folks supporing ARIN stand to make _a LOT_ of money by forcing everyone to continue using IPv4. > Now, with regards to 'Economics 101', I'd tend to not dismiss your > argument with gleeful abandon if we were actually discussing the > possibility of IP addresses being bought & sold on the open market, > but we're not talking about that at all. We're discussing how to > fund a not-for-profit registry through billing direct customers > for registration services & how it is actually going to work. We're talking about prices based on what? Actual data? Real life discussion with the folks who make their living with IP space? Or did we just pull prices out of our ass and throw them on a web page? A good economist would have done quite a bit more research before throwing something that pathetic and disrespectful up and saying 'here it is, live with it'. > Certainly there are certain laws of economics at work here, but > I do not believe there are some insidious, underlying penalties > that are going to starve off all small Internet service providers. Let me give you the comment I gave several other people who emailed me privately: You must be one of those folks I thought didn't exist, we call them optomists. The reality of the situation is, in my opinion, that those 'fat cats' I spoke of will simply abuse this and use it as a way to generate even more profit. Folks like sprint, MCI, Agis, netcom, etc, they're here for one reason, and one reason only, and thats to make money. Any excuse they can use to make more money.. they'll use. I've not been around as long as many of the folks around her, but I've been around long enough to watch how the big providers will screw you without a second thought. Any philanthropic dreams you may have, you can keep, but don't you believe for a second that it won't be abused. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 21:28:17 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:28:17 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118212812.006b76b0@lint.cisco.com> At 09:15 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Tim Bass wrote: >> >> >I beg to differ, in the end, the end-user will always lose, its a simple >> >matter of economics. You raise my prices, I raise theirs, otherwise I go out >> >> Please -- enough with the conspiracy theories. >> > >I read these posts and there is no one discussing conspiracy >theories. The poster pointed out the simple fact of >economics that when any goods or service cost more, >the cost is somehow passed on to the consumer. If you >cannot accept this idea, I'm happy to meet you at Border's >Book Store and point you will a freshman college text >on Basic Economic Theory. > Tim, How convenient that you left out the portion of the original exchange to which my 'conspiracy' reply was aimed: >Welcome to the Corporate Government you wall read about in the Cyberpunk >novles 10 years ago. > Now, with regards to 'Economics 101', I'd tend to not dismiss your argument with gleeful abandon if we were actually discussing the possibility of IP addresses being bought & sold on the open market, but we're not talking about that at all. We're discussing how to fund a not-for-profit registry through billing direct customers for registration services & how it is actually going to work. Certainly there are certain laws of economics at work here, but I do not believe there are some insidious, underlying penalties that are going to starve off all small Internet service providers. Of course there will be cost-recovery which is passed along to the end-user and I believe that I said as much. - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 21:40:01 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:40:01 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118213959.00687dd0@lint.cisco.com> At 08:33 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > >And how convient of you not to point out that the large portion of the folks >supporing ARIN stand to make _a LOT_ of money by forcing everyone to >continue using IPv4. > Gee, hasn't this discussion turned ugly. I'd also like to remind you that the ARIN proposal is to create a non-profit organization. Clearly, you understand what this means? - paul From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 21:37:20 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:37:20 +0900 Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:15:00 EST." <199701190215.VAA06231@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: <199701190237.LAA06216@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [not particularly related to NAIPR, apologies in advance, hit 'd' now] Tim, >If you cannot substantiate your polemics with good logical >arguments, with a basis and solid metrics, etc., please do >not resort to the lowly technique of implying those >whom you disagree with are somehow 'crackpots'. >From you, this is quite amusing. You seem to take a position that there is a grand conspiracy between ISPs, router vendors, and what you call "the self-styled elite" to keep the Internet from using the "proper routing paradigm" which presumably has been bestowed upon you by whatever diety you believe in. Perhaps instead of mass conspiracies, the truth is more along the lines that critical mass can be more important than technical excellence (see Beta vs. VHS, MS-DOS vs. almost anything, etc) and that the existing Internet has evolved into what it is with the warts evolution implies because it worked better than the alternatives and people kept hacking on it until it did what they want. The current routing paradigm and the registry system is a product of that evolution and hacking and while I am the first to admit neither are perfect, they do provide required services. Unfortunately, in the case of the registry system, for those services to be provided, human beings must be in the loop and, being human, they prefer to eat. As such, they must get paid and ARIN is all about how those human beings can get paid so they can eat and thereby provide required services. ARIN is not about enthroning the "self-styled elite" or crushing the downtrodden masses under the steel boot of BGP. If you have an alternative solution to address allocation that can be deployed which makes the Internet registry system unnecessary, please expose it to the light of day instead of harping on how mistreated you were by the people in CIDRD. Regards, -drc P.S. When you're at Border's looking at economic textbooks, please look up "Tragedy of the Commons" and review the classical solutions to that problem and think how they apply to Internet resource allocation. From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 21:46:40 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:46:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118213959.00687dd0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Gee, hasn't this discussion turned ugly. > > I'd also like to remind you that the ARIN proposal is to create > a non-profit organization. Clearly, you understand what this means? Yes, it means lots of things, the least of which could be: 1: Someone honestly trying to do something right but going about it the wrong way. 2: A bunch of thieves getting together and figuring out how to make lots of money under the guise of doing something right. 3: A bunch of thieves agreeing with someone trying to do something right but doing it wrong because they know they're going to make a bundle if they allow the wrongness to continue and get implemented. 4: Just a bunch of morons who don't know what the hell they're doing but for some god unknown reason have the power to do it. Best start praying to whatever deities you hold dear that #1 is the correct version. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From kimh at internic.net Sat Jan 18 21:46:54 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:46:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Organization In-Reply-To: <5639.wsimpson@greendragon.com> from "William Allen Simpson" at Jan 19, 97 00:52:18 am Message-ID: <199701190246.VAA06401@moses.internic.net> > > > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:36:38 -0500 (EST) > > From: Scott Bradner > > Kim said that a new version of the proposal is done modulo > > cleaning up the text to be minimimaly confusing - can you hold off > > on suggestions for basic changes until you can reference the > > revised proposal - it will be less confusing to have people > > talking from the same base. > > > Scott, she also said these changes would be done by _last_ week. Bill, yes I did say I'd have it out last week. Sorry, I tried but that was when the governance issue was the main topic of conversation. Then it became clear that there were many that didn't understand other parts of the proposal, so we thought it was wise to take the time to clarify the entire draft. I am more than willing to take the abuse for being late with the modified proposal if it means that when it is posted, it will help clarify the issues. Oh, and also, I do have my regular job of IP allocation that keeps me just a tad busy :-) Kim > > If the original proposal has been withdrawn, then it should be made > abundantly clear, and removed from the Web page. > > I'd rather make constructive proposals that folks can evaluate. > > If we then choose a model (and it is _our_ choice) that is not reflected > in later revisions of her document, we know that our needs have not been > met, and can take appropriate action. > > If you do not care to evaluate alternatives, then please stop adding to > the FUD. > > WSimpson at UMich.edu > Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 > BSimpson at MorningStar.com > Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 > From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 21:53:43 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:53:43 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118215340.006dcbd4@lint.cisco.com> I would suggest: 5: Someone honestly trying to the Right Thing, and soliciting constructive comments on the draft proposal. You're not helping. - paul At 08:46 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > >1: Someone honestly trying to do something right but going about it the >wrong way. > >2: A bunch of thieves getting together and figuring out how to make lots of >money under the guise of doing something right. > >3: A bunch of thieves agreeing with someone trying to do something right but >doing it wrong because they know they're going to make a bundle if they >allow the wrongness to continue and get implemented. > >4: Just a bunch of morons who don't know what the hell they're doing but for >some god unknown reason have the power to do it. > > >Best start praying to whatever deities you hold dear that #1 is the correct >version. From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 22:03:34 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:03:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118215340.006dcbd4@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > I would suggest: > > 5: Someone honestly trying to the Right Thing, and soliciting > constructive comments on the draft proposal. > > You're not helping. How can anyone help when every reasonable idea that has been proposed was either attacked as being 'fearful and conspiracy bound' or ignored by people just like you. To this date we still have not seen Kim Hubbard (or anyone else for that matter) justify the self perpetuating BoT, or even state that they were wrong and are thinking up a new method. How hard can it be to say 'hey, we made a mistake, we're fixing it' or 'hey, f*ck you, we're the ones doing this and you're just SOL', at least then we'd have a damn answer, one way or the other. Have you seen _any_ reasonable justification for the prices set down? or are you going to lie down like a broken dog and assume that they're realistic? Maybe you have lots of cash lieing around but I dont, that means I'm careful when I shop for groceries and I'm careful when I shop for IP space. I want facts and figures, I want to see HOW they came up with these prices (not lame excuses like 'well, thats appx what APNIC charges'). I am not against ARIN as a whole, I'm against the way its being handled, I'm against the vaguery being thrown at us. You and your friends scream time and time again 'stop with the conspiracy concepts', great, I'm sure flemming and his crew will, just as soon as we see some real data. I for one don't believe there is any great conspiracy, I just believe that there are a number of people trying to cobble together a solution without much thought or real life figures. Add to which I think the lot of you are optimistic as all hell if you honestly believe that the larger companies where small ISPs are 'supposed' to get their IP space from wont abuse this and use it to generate more revenue (well beyond passing equivlant value costs along). [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From web at typo.org Sat Jan 18 22:03:37 1997 From: web at typo.org (Wayne Bouchard) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:03:37 -0700 (MST) Subject: Advice on Organization In-Reply-To: <199701190246.VAA06401@moses.internic.net> from "Kim Hubbard" at Jan 18, 97 09:46:54 pm Message-ID: <199701190303.UAA11444@typo.org> > Bill, yes I did say I'd have it out last week. Sorry, I tried but > that was when the governance issue was the main topic of conversation. > Then it became clear that there were many that didn't understand > other parts of the proposal, so we thought it was wise to take the > time to clarify the entire draft. I am more than willing to take > the abuse for being late with the modified proposal if it means > that when it is posted, it will help clarify the issues. So far, I've seen some interesting comments.. some usefull, some not. Likewise, I hope the revised proposal will clarify things. > Oh, and also, I do have my regular job of IP allocation that keeps > me just a tad busy :-) > > Kim What? You mean no one has written software to replace you yet? :-) -Wayne From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 22:27:23 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:27:23 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118222717.006b83a8@lint.cisco.com> At 09:03 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > >How can anyone help when every reasonable idea that has been proposed was >either attacked as being 'fearful and conspiracy bound' or ignored by people >just like you. To this date we still have not seen Kim Hubbard (or anyone >else for that matter) justify the self perpetuating BoT, or even state that >they were wrong and are thinking up a new method. How hard can it be to say >'hey, we made a mistake, we're fixing it' or 'hey, f*ck you, we're the ones >doing this and you're just SOL', at least then we'd have a damn answer, one >way or the other. > As Kim pointed out earlier, she is planning on placing an updated copy of the draft on the web site next week for review. - paul From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 22:53:43 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:53:43 -0800 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: At 4:53 PM 1/18/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >Or better yet, one might suggest that learning about global aggregation >is a more interesting exercise. ;-) So where is the reading list? :) (I've gotten onto people on comp.dcom.dns.bind for making off-hand remarks about "required reading" without giving *any* information as to how to find that required reading. Case in point: Earlier this week someone made an off-hand reference to "the O'Reilley book", and when I tried to find any book on DNS written by an author by this name I found nothing. What I *did* find was _DNS and BIND_, Second Edition, by Paul Albitz and Cricket Liu...*PUBLISHED* by O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., Sebastopol CA. ISBN 1-56592-236-0.) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 22:53:36 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:53:36 -0800 Subject: Bibliography Message-ID: So far, I've received a couple of pointers in replies to my messages. Just from the first 10 messages from the list, I've seen references to RFCs 1519 and 2050. I suggest that as part of the rationale, that links to these and other relevant RFCs be made part of the Web-based rationale, and bibliographic references be made to books, journal articles, and other non-Web printed material so that we can all start singing from the same bible. With regards to the router problem, I hope to be in a position to learn more closely what is going on, and to be part of the solution to that problem. (Not to mention making a little money at it, but that's beside the point, eh?) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 22:53:39 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:53:39 -0800 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: At 4:50 PM 1/18/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: > In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use > of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of > IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following > conditions: > > a) the organization has no intention of connecting to > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. > > b) the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection. > > c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is > very large, for example, the network prefix required to > cover the request is of length /18 or shorter. > > All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or > utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described > in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note that > addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the > least likely to be routable across the Internet. I suggest there is another rationale: d) The organization desires links to different backbone providers (either directly or via ISPs) in order to bridge local outages on any given specific backbone provider. This would be particularly true for those organizations with mission-critical use of the Internet and wanting to bridge any failure, including failure of any given backbone. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 23:12:09 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:12:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > At 4:50 PM 1/18/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use > > of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of > > IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following > > conditions: > > > > a) the organization has no intention of connecting to > > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. > > > > b) the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection. > > > > c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is > > very large, for example, the network prefix required to > > cover the request is of length /18 or shorter. > > > > All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or > > utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described > > in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note that > > addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the > > least likely to be routable across the Internet. > > I suggest there is another rationale: > > d) The organization desires links to different backbone providers > (either directly or via ISPs) in order to bridge local outages on any given > specific backbone provider. This would be particularly true for those > organizations with mission-critical use of the Internet and wanting to > bridge any failure, including failure of any given backbone. > > --- Actually, rationale d) is a slightly more verbose version of rationale b). I think this illustrates the need for an expanded ARIN website, with pointers to rfc1519, rfc1918, some general definitions, and a list of books for further reading. Mr. Satchell is one of the most highly regarded modem gurus out there, and he is still fairly confused by parts of this. Maybe some of the more active participants on this list would volunteer to write up some of the descriptions? Hell, I'll volunteer if we can get a general consensus about the content. Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 23:20:51 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:20:51 -0800 Subject: Interim drafts? (was: Advice on Organization) Message-ID: At 9:46 PM 1/18/97, Kim Hubbard wrote: >Bill, yes I did say I'd have it out last week. Sorry, I tried but >that was when the governance issue was the main topic of conversation. >Then it became clear that there were many that didn't understand >other parts of the proposal, so we thought it was wise to take the >time to clarify the entire draft. I am more than willing to take >the abuse for being late with the modified proposal if it means >that when it is posted, it will help clarify the issues. How about posting a working draft to the mailing list (not necessarily to the Web page) and let some of the people here -- like me -- "alpha-test" it. If you prefer to do that with private mailings, that's OK in my book. This is the way I'm used to dealing with ideas in the various standards committees I sit on. It works, and it helps to keep the flamage down to something that asbestos can handle... --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 23:20:44 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:20:44 -0800 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: At 5:45 PM 1/18/97, Randy Bush wrote: >It would help everybody, and make a better end result for the internet, if >we kind of assumed that the people busting their buns trying to get this >out of the old NSF/NSI cradle have good intent and are somewhat competent. I would feel that way if the following were to happen: 1) There was a detailed and legal specification for the work that neede to be done. 2) There be a request for price quotations to perform the work detailed in the specification. 3) There be a performance bond requirement, plus some proof that each bidder could indeed do the job and stick with it. 4) The bids be made public, and discussed in public. If it weren't for the fact that I just took a new day job, I'd be interested in bidding for the business. From the back-of-the-envelope calculations, I could do it for considerably less than the annual $1000 per committee member plus annual $2500 per allocation. Remember, this registry doesn't need multiple T3s in order to do its task -- but domain name management does. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 23:27:35 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:27:35 +0900 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:20:44 PST." Message-ID: <199701190427.NAA06910@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, >From the back-of-the-envelope >calculations, I could do it for considerably less than the annual $1000 per >committee member plus annual $2500 per allocation. Remember, this registry >doesn't need multiple T3s in order to do its task -- but domain name >management does. People who have been hanging around the Internet for a fair bit will be a tad gun shy of low bid proposals. The transition from SRI NIC to GSI way back when was ... distressing. It is very easy to underestimate what the registries do and what they require and the results of such underestimations have fairly serious repercussions to the operation of the Internet. "Choose wisely"... Regards, -drc From freedman at netaxs.com Sat Jan 18 23:33:35 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:33:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 18, 97 08:20:44 pm Message-ID: <199701190433.XAA22960@access.netaxs.com> > If it weren't for the fact that I just took a new day job, I'd be > interested in bidding for the business. From the back-of-the-envelope > calculations, I could do it for considerably less than the annual $1000 per > committee member plus annual $2500 per allocation. Remember, this registry > doesn't need multiple T3s in order to do its task -- but domain name > management does. > Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations There's no talk of a per-allocation annual fee... I believe it's based on total address space the previous year. Avi From freedman at netaxs.com Sat Jan 18 23:52:25 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:52:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: from "Brett L. Hawn" at Jan 18, 97 08:33:36 pm Message-ID: <199701190452.XAA24032@access.netaxs.com> > And how convient of you not to point out that the large portion of the folks > supporing ARIN stand to make _a LOT_ of money by forcing everyone to > continue using IPv4. I suppose you could use some proprietary Commodore-64-based routing protocol which uses floating point node IDs and relies on parallel processing over the serial links to the floppy drives, instead of using the IPv4 numbers and protocols which people who support ARIN make a _LOT_ of money on. I'll stick with IPv4. Or, tell me how you're going to route even more networks under IPvwhateveryou'rethinking of... > You must be one of those folks I thought didn't exist, we call them > optomists. The reality of the situation is, in my opinion, that those 'fat I guess I'm an optimist. Not sure about being one of the optom(etr)ists. > cats' I spoke of will simply abuse this and use it as a way to generate even > more profit. Folks like sprint, MCI, Agis, netcom, etc, they're here for one > reason, and one reason only, and thats to make money. Any excuse they can > use to make more money.. they'll use. I've not been around as long as many > of the folks around her, but I've been around long enough to watch how the > big providers will screw you without a second thought. Any philanthropic > dreams you may have, you can keep, but don't you believe for a second that > it won't be abused. Yes; it's undeniable that many out there are at it solely to make piles of money. Funny, though - I haven't seen many of them on this list. Guess they're too busy worrying about how to make more money. > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] Avi From nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 00:02:44 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:02:44 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: Message-ID: <32E1AAF4.2E1F@sprynet.com> Stephen Satchell wrote: > > > I would feel that way if the following were to happen: > > 1) There was a detailed and legal specification for the work that neede to > be done. > > 2) There be a request for price quotations to perform the work detailed in > the specification. > > 3) There be a performance bond requirement, plus some proof that each > bidder could indeed do the job and stick with it. > > 4) The bids be made public, and discussed in public. > > If it weren't for the fact that I just took a new day job, I'd be > interested in bidding for the business. From the back-of-the-envelope > calculations, I could do it for considerably less than the annual $1000 per > committee member plus annual $2500 per allocation. Remember, this registry Gee I would also like to have a shot at becoming a multi Millon-air. I would quit my day job and any other job for a shot at this. Greed is an ugly thing. Who do these guys think they are kidding, somebody is going to get rich here. I wonder how much the 5 trustees are going to make from this deal? What if one of the Big Guys or may be three MCI Sprint AT&T etc. decide to buy all of the address space what do you think an IP address will cost then? Nathan Nathan From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 19 00:10:59 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:10:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rationale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > I'm particularly interested in why the policy membership assessment is set > so high. I'm a member of the Telecommunications Industry Association TR-30 > as a consultant and my fees have historically been $300 per year -- and > that is to cover the cost of paper mailings of notices, ballots for draft > standards, and a small administration in Washington. (Corporate fees for > the same organization are $10,000 per year for manufacturers.) The members of ARIN are analogous to the manufacturers in the TIA so I would say that ARIN's fees are roughly comparable. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 00:24:30 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:24:30 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: <199701190513.AAA00550@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <32E1B00E.35C3@sprynet.com> Scott Bradner wrote: > > > I wonder how much the 5 trustees are going to make from this deal? > > read the proposal - they make nothing True Scott but for how long since they get to make all the rules and they get to do all the hiring and firing. Let us not put our head in the sand. Millions of dollars are going to change hands here. Our local hospital is not for profit but it generates millions each each year that ends up in a foundation that can do anything it whats with this money while the hospital shows a zero balance. These fees are way to high. Nathan From kimh at internic.net Sun Jan 19 00:44:50 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:44:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <32E1AAF4.2E1F@sprynet.com> from "Nathan Soward" at Jan 19, 97 00:02:44 am Message-ID: <199701190544.AAA06681@moses.internic.net> > > Gee I would also like to have a shot at becoming a multi Millon-air. I > would quit my day job and any other job for a shot at this. Greed is an > ugly thing. Who do these guys think they are kidding, somebody is going > to get rich here. I wonder how much the 5 trustees are going to make > from this deal? What if one of the Big Guys or may be three MCI Sprint > AT&T etc. decide to buy all of the address space what do you think an IP > address will cost then? > > Nathan > > Nathan > Have you even read the proposal? If so, you would see that the Board of Trustees are made up of volunteers. You would also see that ARIN will be a *non-profit* organization and you would see that ARIN will not be selling address space, all of the current justifications for address space will continue. Kim From kent at songbird.com Sun Jan 19 02:05:38 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:05:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: from "Randy Bush" at Jan 18, 97 05:45:00 pm Message-ID: <199701190705.XAA27136@songbird.com> Randy Bush allegedly said: > > > Please -- enough with the conspiracy theories. [...] > It would help everybody, and make a better end result for the internet, if > we kind of assumed that the people busting their buns trying to get this > out of the old NSF/NSI cradle have good intent and are somewhat competent. [...] I agree with this. However. Technical competence is largely irrelevant here. The main issues in play are economic, political, and psychological (guessing how people will react to the change.) As far as I can see there is very little technical content to the ARIN proposal -- it is a matter of *social* engineering, not *network* engineering. And competence in network engineering is simply not equivalent to competence in social engineering. The original questionable composition of the BoT demonstrates this. And while I agree that there is no evidence for a conscious conspiracy, a good case could be made for an unconscious one -- clearly there are a set of economic beliefs and other assumptions shared among the proponents. For example, there are shared assumptions about how price structure will affect behavior, and of the effectiveness and fairness of using that kind of control. Ultimately these kinds of issues get to the value structure of the individuals involved. These values are not likely to be swayed by technical arguments. There will be strident disagreement, and whatever the outcome it will represent the tyranny of the majority as much as anything else. Therefore, I think it would not be too much to ask of those well-intentioned people in that tyrannical majority to have a little sympathy for those in the minority -- they may very well not be clue-challenged, but rather just not able to articulate different fundamental values. -- 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 nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 01:13:18 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:13:18 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: <199701190544.AAA06681@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: <32E1BB7E.4770@sprynet.com> Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > > > Gee I would also like to have a shot at becoming a multi Millon-air. I > > would quit my day job and any other job for a shot at this. Greed is an > > ugly thing. Who do these guys think they are kidding, somebody is going > > to get rich here. I wonder how much the 5 trustees are going to make > > from this deal? What if one of the Big Guys or may be three MCI Sprint > > AT&T etc. decide to buy all of the address space what do you think an IP > > address will cost then? > > > > Nathan > > > > Nathan > > > > Have you even read the proposal? If so, you would see that the > Board of Trustees are made up of volunteers. You would also see > that ARIN will be a *non-profit* organization and you would see that > ARIN will not be selling address space, all of the current justifications > for address space will continue. > > Kim Kim I see that it cost a thousand dollars per year to belong to the club. Why? It appears to me also that any address space obtained cost money or have I miss read something? Since money is being charged a court some where may not agree with the current justifications. Nathan From satchell at accutek.com Sun Jan 19 01:48:13 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:48:13 -0800 Subject: Rationale Message-ID: At 9:10 PM 1/18/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >> I'm particularly interested in why the policy membership assessment is set >> so high. I'm a member of the Telecommunications Industry Association TR-30 >> as a consultant and my fees have historically been $300 per year -- and >> that is to cover the cost of paper mailings of notices, ballots for draft >> standards, and a small administration in Washington. (Corporate fees for >> the same organization are $10,000 per year for manufacturers.) > >The members of ARIN are analogous to the manufacturers in the TIA so I >would say that ARIN's fees are roughly comparable. But, but, but...the Web page says that *individuals* as well as representatives of commercial organizations have to pay $1k/year, and I just don't see the expense that justifies that sort of cost to people that aren't making money on the matter. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sun Jan 19 01:53:03 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:53:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <32E1AAF4.2E1F@sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Nathan Soward wrote: > > Gee I would also like to have a shot at becoming a multi Millon-air. I > would quit my day job and any other job for a shot at this. Greed is an > ugly thing. Who do these guys think they are kidding, somebody is going > to get rich here. I wonder how much the 5 trustees are going to make > from this deal? What if one of the Big Guys or may be three MCI Sprint > AT&T etc. decide to buy all of the address space what do you think an IP > address will cost then? > Nathan, please read the proposal before you post conjecture. This is taken directly from the webpage: The stability of the Internet relies on the careful management of the IP addresses. Recommendations have also been made that the management of the IP space should be placed, as it is with RIPE and APNIC, under the control of and administered by those that depend upon and use it - the end users. Those users include ISPs, corporate entities, universities and individuals. If you had been following this list, you would know that this proposal is to move the job of allocating IP addresses away from the present system, which is dependant upon funding from the NSF, because the NSF will soon be withdrawing its financial support. There has been no mention of any plan to sell IP addresses to the highest bidder, except off-topic comments by a couple of people who want to scuttle the entire IP allocation plan either because they do not understand the complexities of internet routing or they are so untrusting that they don't believe anyone would possibly do something just for the good of the internet. The present IP allocation method is set up in such a way as to *prevent* large providers from hoarding allocations, if you're not using a significant percentage of your present allocation, you can't get another one. It's as simple as that. Were there to be a major shift in the allocation requirements that would lead to one or more providers grabbing a huge block of address space without generally agreed upon justification, the other large providers (i.e. those who exchange BGP routes at the NAPs) would just not accept advertisements for the strongarmed routes. When Sprint stopped accepting new route advertisements that were smaller than a /19, they didn't just wake up and do so, they had been warning people for months that if people continued to advertise /24s and such, that the routing tables would become so large that no router could handle them. People continued to advertise small blocks, so they did what they felt was justified, and I don't think any large provider felt that Sprint was wrong, even if they may have been ecstatic that Sprint took the fall as the "bad guy out to kill the small ISP". Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From karl at MCS.NET Sun Jan 19 02:30:54 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:30:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: from "Jeremiah Kristal" at Jan 19, 97 01:53:03 am Message-ID: <199701190730.BAA26039@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > Were there to be a major shift in the allocation requirements that would > lead to one or more providers grabbing a huge block of address space > without generally agreed upon justification, the other large providers > (i.e. those who exchange BGP routes at the NAPs) would just not accept > advertisements for the strongarmed routes. When Sprint stopped accepting > new route advertisements that were smaller than a /19, they didn't just > wake up and do so, they had been warning people for months that if people > continued to advertise /24s and such, that the routing tables would become > so large that no router could handle them. People continued to advertise > small blocks, so they did what they felt was justified, and I don't think > any large provider felt that Sprint was wrong, even if they may have been > ecstatic that Sprint took the fall as the "bad guy out to kill the small > ISP". > > Jeremiah > > > ________ > \______/ Jeremiah Kristal > \____/ Senior Network Integrator > \__/ IDT Internet Services > \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net > 201-928-4454 Of course, the REASON we have this problem goes back a few years... were you on the net then? Remember the CISCO AGS+? Used to be the workhorse of the Internet. 16MB of RAM, 68040 processor. Not a bad box (We still have some in service as interior routing devices). HOWEVER - its downfall was not just RAM space, but CPU horsepower and ARCHITECTURE. A basic architecture that was replicated not once, but TWICE by CISCO since they found out that it was insufficient (first in the 7000 series, and then again in the 7500!) The first replication was bad enough -- the second, IMHO, is inexcusable. CIDR was designed and pushed by CISCO engineers. It was done due to the fact that *CISCO DID NOT MAKE A DEVICE AT THE TIME WHICH DID NOT HAVE THOSE LIMITATIONS*. Unfortunately, neither did anyone else! IF they had, CISCO likely wouldn't HAVE a backbone business right now -- and we wouldn't be stuck with route aggregation concerns. So here we are in 1996. Several years later. CISCO *STILL* doesn't make a router with an intelligent architecture which can actually handle the offered loads. And guess who's name is on some of the more-recent RFCs regarding address allocations and such? CISCO employees. The "why" is left to the reader. BTW, that monopoly is about to be broken. Despite the fact that this industry has pampered a company that is stuck selling 1970's technology in 1996 (when IMHO it should have forced them out of the market or forced them to adopt solutions which would WORK) it still is happening -- some people ARE in fact waking up to the opportunity that is present despite the railroading of the standards process. Of course, we also now have "BCP" documents and business practices which IMHO act to restrain trade and possibly violate anti-trust laws... -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From karl at CaveBear.com Sun Jan 19 03:13:09 1997 From: karl at CaveBear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:13:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701190544.AAA06681@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: > ... ARIN will be a *non-profit* organization... One should not wave the words "non-profit" or "501(c)" as a talisman. There are plenty of such organizations which have enormous cash flows, with very large pay-outs as "expenses", "salaries", and "benefits". Whether arin would be such an organization is yet to be seen. If established, hopefully it's revenues would pretty much match expenses. In order to ward off claims that excess cash will flow out as inflated "expenses" and such, the revised proposals should clearly indicate how revenue excesses will be handled. The phrase "non-profit" is not, in itself, adequate. --karl-- From satchell at accutek.com Sun Jan 19 03:43:08 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:43:08 -0800 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: At 12:13 AM 1/19/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> ... ARIN will be a *non-profit* organization... > >One should not wave the words "non-profit" or "501(c)" as a talisman. >There are plenty of such organizations which have enormous cash flows, >with very large pay-outs as "expenses", "salaries", and "benefits". > >Whether arin would be such an organization is yet to be seen. If >established, hopefully it's revenues would pretty much match expenses. > >In order to ward off claims that excess cash will flow out as inflated >"expenses" and such, the revised proposals should clearly indicate how >revenue excesses will be handled. The phrase "non-profit" is not, in >itself, adequate. Good point. I'd be interested in seeing Form 1023 in its embryonic form -- a lot of the ills you describe have to be disclosed on that form or the IRS gets very, very angry. I think I still have the Form 1023 from Project Notify, so I could try to reproduce the thing in ASCII. Conversely, I could just ask the questions and see what kind of reply I get. (This is in the "someday" file, right?) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 19 03:59:12 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:59:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > All ARIN does at this point is make it next to impossible for small ISPs to > get started, and makes the existing fat cats that much fatter. It has been pointed out that the ARIN fees would amount to something like $20 per year by the time they trickle down to the small ISP's. I can't see that having much effect on them getting started. In fact, I've seen some accounts of very small ISP's starting up recently in Australia where the similar pricing structure for IP adresses is already in place, so that appears to indicate that these prices are not a disincentive for small ISP's to start up. 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 Jan 19 04:22:30 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:22:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > We're talking about prices based on what? Actual data? Real life discussion > with the folks who make their living with IP space? Or did we just pull > prices out of our ass and throw them on a web page? A good economist would > have done quite a bit more research before throwing something that pathetic > and disrespectful up and saying 'here it is, live with it'. Maybe the web page didn't make it very clear, but the context of this list has certainly made it clear that the suggested pricing is only a first draft proposal. No one is yet saying "here it is, live with it". ARIN isn't cast in stone yet and the fact that the whole proposal has been placed before the public for discussion is something that we should be thanking the people at IANA and NSI for. > You must be one of those folks I thought didn't exist, we call them > optomists. The reality of the situation is, in my opinion, that those 'fat > cats' I spoke of will simply abuse this and use it as a way to generate even > more profit. Folks like sprint, MCI, Agis, netcom, etc, they're here for one > reason, and one reason only, and thats to make money. Any excuse they can > use to make more money.. they'll use. I've not been around as long as many > of the folks around her, but I've been around long enough to watch how the > big providers will screw you without a second thought. Any philanthropic > dreams you may have, you can keep, but don't you believe for a second that > it won't be abused. This may be true. But nevertheless these "fat cats" do not have a monopoly on IPv4 address space. There are approximately 300 organizations that are large enough to get their addresses from the Internic already. To me this indicates that competitive forces will limit any negative actions from the larger NSP's who might mistakenly see IP addresses as a profit center. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From dorian at cic.net Sun Jan 19 04:39:44 1997 From: dorian at cic.net (Dorian R. Kim) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 04:39:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > And how convient of you not to point out that the large portion of the folks > supporing ARIN stand to make _a LOT_ of money by forcing everyone to > continue using IPv4. Could please explain the above? How am I going to make alot of money by forcing everyone to continue using IPv4? How will Cisco? How will anyone else? -dorian From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 19 04:49:29 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:49:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <32E1AAF4.2E1F@sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Nathan Soward wrote: > What if one of the Big Guys or may be three MCI Sprint > AT&T etc. decide to buy all of the address space what do you think an IP > address will cost then? This is why you can't simply buy an IP address; you have to justify your need for them and show that you have wisely allocated the addresses you already have. In addition, the total IPv4 address space is overseen by IANA so even ARIN has to justify their need for IP addresses to allocate and ARIN must share the total space with RIPE and APNIC as well. No one is seriously proposing that IP addresses simply be treated as a market commodity. The crux of the whole ARIN issue is control. Who sould control IPv4 address allocations in North America. Today they are controlled by the US government and paid for by the National Science Foundation, which is funded out of the pocket of the US taxpayer. The fundamental ARIN proposal is to move this function out of the government and place the control in the hands of the Internet industry. In order for the industry to accept this control they must also accept the need to fund the registry. Since we already have experience in Europe and in the Asia Pacific region with industry-controlled allocation of IP addresses, it seems natural to attempt to structure ARIN based on that experience. If you want to see how they do things elsewhere, http://www.ripe.net and http://www.apnic.net would be natural starting points. 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 Jan 19 04:58:13 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > and I don't think > any large provider felt that Sprint was wrong, even if they may have been > ecstatic that Sprint took the fall as the "bad guy out to kill the small > ISP". Of course, after Sprint took this action the number of ISP's in North America doubled. So it seems to have had no significant effect on small ISP's at all. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From dorian at cic.net Sun Jan 19 05:06:45 1997 From: dorian at cic.net (Dorian R. Kim) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:06:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > I beg to differ, in the end, the end-user will always lose, its a simple > matter of economics. You raise my prices, I raise theirs, otherwise I go out > of business. This might cut out alot of smaller providers (the ones who > usually provide the best service at that) which is good for the large > companies, but face it folks.. the end user _will_ pay, one way or another. > All ARIN does at this point is make it next to impossible for small ISPs to > get started, and makes the existing fat cats that much fatter. Hmm.. I'm confused as to how this will happen. In this hyper-competitive market place, ISPs won't be able to charge more than their cost for IP address registration and get away with it. In fact, it makes sense to just eat the registration costs (which is at most $78 per /24 per year assuming continuous allocation and minium /19 allocation and can be much less than $20 per /24 per year) and undercut whomever is charging lots of money for it. -dorian From jamie at comet.net Sun Jan 19 05:48:55 1997 From: jamie at comet.net (jamie dyer) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:48:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism Message-ID: My apologies if this is rehashing old meatloaf. I'm new to this list and am greatly interested in the future assignation of IP space. I guess I should get a hobby:) First off, I'm in agreement that IP space needs to be managed carefully. I don't think anyone disputes this. I believe that the proposed fees are WAAY too high, however. Compared to RIPE, ARIN's rates are exorbitant. Consider: (as of 1/17/97, the ECU=approx. $0.83) --------------------------------------------------------------------- RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 1. The 1997 fee schedule is as follows: Enterprise registries: ECU 2200.- / year Service Provider Registries: Small ECU 2200.- / year Medium ECU 3000.- / year Large ECU 4000.- / year Supernational Multiple times large registry Please contact Start-up fee for registries established during 1997 ECU 1300.- 2. Registries established during the course of the year are charged as follows: +----------------------------------------------------+ |established during charge | | | |1st quarter start-up fee + full yearly fee | |2nd quarter start-up fee + 3/4 yearly fee | |3rd quarter start-up fee + 1/2 yearly fee | |4th quarter start-up fee + 1/4 yearly fee | +----------------------------------------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- I see nothing on the ARIN page about partial years. Did I overlook it? So, unless I'm misunderstanding, here's how I see the simplified view for a small assignation: STARTUP YEARLY RIPE ECU1300(approx. $1040.00) ECU2200(approx. $1760.00) ARIN $2500.00 $2500.00 This doesn't take into account the ASN fee, nor the membership fee(does anyone know if RIPE has similar fees? I didn't have time to look them up just now.). I'm glad the ARIN proposal is just that, a proposal. I think section 1.1 is begging for abuse down the road. It WILL lead to cronyism, nepotism, and all the other isms associated with money and power. IP addresses are going to be like phone numbers at some point and to have 5 people electing each other and running the organisation that takes in and manages the money made from IP allocation is setting up future generations to be fleeced. I don't see anything wrong with charging for IP numbers. I'd just like to see it be a lot more reasonable. And I'd also like to see the the BoT be somewhat more accountable to the Internet community. jamie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ jamie at comet.net | Comet.Net | Send empty message | Charlottesville, Va. | to pgpkey at comet.net | (804)295-2407 | for pgp public key. | http://www.comet.net | "Remember, there are only two kinds of music ... Blues and Zippidy-Do-Dah." -- Townes van Zandt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 06:34:51 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 06:34:51 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119063446.0069259c@lint.cisco.com> At 05:06 AM 1/19/97 -0500, Dorian R. Kim wrote: > >Hmm.. I'm confused as to how this will happen. In this hyper-competitive >market place, ISPs won't be able to charge more than their cost for IP >address registration and get away with it. In fact, it makes sense to just >eat the registration costs (which is at most $78 per /24 per year assuming >continuous allocation and minium /19 allocation and can be much less than $20 >per /24 per year) and undercut whomever is charging lots of money for it. > Sounds like good economics to me, but what do I know? ;-) - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 06:31:04 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 06:31:04 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119063058.006c78e8@lint.cisco.com> At 12:59 AM 1/19/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >It has been pointed out that the ARIN fees would amount to something like >$20 per year by the time they trickle down to the small ISP's. I can't see >that having much effect on them getting started. In fact, I've seen some >accounts of very small ISP's starting up recently in Australia where the >similar pricing structure for IP adresses is already in place, so that >appears to indicate that these prices are not a disincentive for small >ISP's to start up. > Indeed. In fact, current InterNIC customers are on the 'IP Address Allocation Free Lunch Program'; the registries in Europe (RIPE-NCC) and Asia (APNIC) have had similar funding models already in place for some time now. And the growth in Asia certainly has not been dampened. - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 07:03:14 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:03:14 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119070311.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> Jeremiah, Since you volunteered, please consider yourself Keeper of the Reading List (tm). I'll start off with a few pointers which spring to mind, and encourage others to contribute to the list. RFC1338, Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1338.txt RFC1380, IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1380.txt RFC1518, An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1518.txt RFC2050, INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt RFC1918, Address Allocation for Private Internets http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1918.txt Resources for ISPs http://www.ra.net/isp.html The CIDR FAQ http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html The Daily CIDR Report http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html RFC1481, IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to Address the Issue of Scaling http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1481.txt RFC1631, The IP Network Address Translator (NAT) http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1631.txt - paul At 11:12 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: >Actually, rationale d) is a slightly more verbose version of rationale b). >I think this illustrates the need for an expanded ARIN website, with >pointers to rfc1519, rfc1918, some general definitions, and a list of >books for further reading. Mr. Satchell is one of the most highly >regarded modem gurus out there, and he is still fairly confused by parts >of this. Maybe some of the more active participants on this list would >volunteer to write up some of the descriptions? Hell, I'll volunteer if >we can get a general consensus about the content. > From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 07:06:42 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:06:42 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119070637.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> At 01:13 AM 1/19/97 -0500, Nathan Soward wrote: > >Kim I see that it cost a thousand dollars per year to belong to the >club. Why? It appears to me also that any address space obtained cost >money or have I miss read something? Since money is being charged a >court some where may not agree with the current justifications. > Of course, there are always going to be people who may not agree with the fee policy, regardless of the fee schedule. In fact, there will most likely be dissenters who vehemently object to any fee whatsoever, but this doesn't solve the problem of funding an IP Address allocation registry which can continue to operate effectively. No magic here. What exactly is your point? - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 07:09:31 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:09:31 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119070929.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> Great. Another conspiracy theorist. Karl, may I suggest that you refrain from cisco-bashing and stick to the issue at hand, which is the discussion of the ARIN proposal and constructive comments regarding same? Is this too much to ask? - paul At 01:30 AM 1/19/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > >Of course, the REASON we have this problem goes back a few years... were you >on the net then? > >Remember the CISCO AGS+? Used to be the workhorse of the Internet. 16MB of >RAM, 68040 processor. Not a bad box (We still have some in service as >interior routing devices). > >HOWEVER - its downfall was not just RAM space, but CPU horsepower and >ARCHITECTURE. A basic architecture that was replicated not once, but TWICE >by CISCO since they found out that it was insufficient (first in the 7000 >series, and then again in the 7500!) The first replication was bad enough >-- the second, IMHO, is inexcusable. > >CIDR was designed and pushed by CISCO engineers. It was done due to the >fact that *CISCO DID NOT MAKE A DEVICE AT THE TIME WHICH DID NOT HAVE >THOSE LIMITATIONS*. Unfortunately, neither did anyone else! IF they had, >CISCO likely wouldn't HAVE a backbone business right now -- and we wouldn't >be stuck with route aggregation concerns. > >So here we are in 1996. Several years later. CISCO *STILL* doesn't make a >router with an intelligent architecture which can actually handle the >offered loads. And guess who's name is on some of the more-recent RFCs >regarding address allocations and such? > >CISCO employees. > >The "why" is left to the reader. > >BTW, that monopoly is about to be broken. Despite the fact that this >industry has pampered a company that is stuck selling 1970's technology in >1996 (when IMHO it should have forced them out of the market or forced them >to adopt solutions which would WORK) it still is happening -- some people >ARE in fact waking up to the opportunity that is present despite the >railroading of the standards process. > >Of course, we also now have "BCP" documents and business practices which >IMHO act to restrain trade and possibly violate anti-trust laws... > From poole at EUNET.CH Sun Jan 19 07:39:46 1997 From: poole at EUNET.CH (poole at EUNET.CH) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:39:46 +0100 (MET) Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism In-Reply-To: from "jamie dyer" at Jan 19, 97 05:48:55 am Message-ID: <199701191239.NAA20768@eunet.ch> Your exchange rates are wrong. 1 ECU = 1.21 $ -- ===== ______ __ __ == Simon Poole ==== / __/ / / /__ ___ / /_ === poole at eunet.ch === / _// /_/ / _ \/ -_) __/ ==== EUnet AG, Zweierstr. 35, CH-8004 Zuerich == /___/\____/_//_/\__/\__/ ===== Tel: +41 1 298 60 30 Fax: +41 1 291 46 42 From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 19 07:47:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 04:47 PST Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism References: Message-ID: > This doesn't take into account the ASN fee, nor the membership > fee(does anyone know if RIPE has similar fees? I didn't have time > to look them up just now.). While you're at it, you might also look up the actual ECU:$ exchange rate and adjust your calculations accordingly. randy From jamie at comet.net Sun Jan 19 07:52:42 1997 From: jamie at comet.net (jamie dyer) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:52:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ack...my only excuse is that it was 4 am and I'd been on a 12 hour shift...I zigged when I shoulda zagged. Anyway, even at the correct rates, RIPE is still cheaper. $4200 as opposed to $5k. jamie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ jamie at comet.net | Comet.Net | Send empty message | Charlottesville, Va. | to pgpkey at comet.net | (804)295-2407 | for pgp public key. | http://www.comet.net | "Remember, there are only two kinds of music ... Blues and Zippidy-Do-Dah." -- Townes van Zandt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 19 08:06:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 05:06 PST Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism References: Message-ID: > Anyway, even at the correct rates, RIPE is still cheaper. $4200 > as opposed to $5k. Yes, but the lesson is that the new calculation does not support the black helicopter theories very well. Also, it is instructive to note that these are RIPE's new rates, which have been lowered from the old start-up phase rates as income and costs stabilized. And I have ridden in Daniel's car, and it is not a Mercedes; though David's bike did look pretty fancy. And Geert Jan's five year old DELL laptoy was probably financed with blood money from the small innocent ISPs and probably has unfolding propellers and a gun mount. randy From hcb at clark.net Sun Jan 19 10:49:31 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:49:31 -0500 Subject: A cost-based model Message-ID: Trembling as I make my first post to this list, may I make a suggestion? As I see it, much of the financial concern with registry fees are regarding them as a price paid by address assignees. There is concern that these prices may be too expensive for small companies, and/or will be passed to end users and raise end user prices. I will make the assumption that there is a value to having registries and control of addressing; I recognize some people here believe that this is artificial and part of the CIDR Conspiracy. Even if there were such a conspiracy, I don't know how any routing system could work if there were no bodies to assure unique address assignment. So I suggest, in a completely serious, non-sarcastic way, what I think might be a useful reality check. RFC2050 certainly does describe the functions of a registry; there's real world experience to extend it. I propose that some of the people concerned that current price proposals come up with a cost-based proposal, and see how it reconciles with the price proposals. In other words, try to cost out some of the things a registry will do. As a starting point, look at cost factors in address allocation. There must have been prior work to set up a data base for the aggregated address space, to set up allocation logic and operational procedures, etc. These need to be amortized over the number of assignments the registry will make, along with the training costs of assignment technicians. Assume assignment requests arrive electronically. There will be a cost of connectivity such that they are received. There will be a cost of maintaining public servers with assignments. Address assignments will need to be reviewed by a human being with certain knowledge. How long will it take to review the average request with no complications or errors? How frequently will there be errors? For the number of allocation requests reasonably expected, how many first-level and higher-level people are needed to process them? What skill level do these people have and what is the market price for those skills? What administrative, HR, managerial, etc. support do they need? In today's world, the registry must assume it eventually will be sued, and budget for legal cost both preventive and reactive. Going through such an exercise will give a first approximation on the cost of managing allocations, ignoring legitimate planning, policy and coordination time. But the cost of allocation, with reasonable administrative and policy overhead, should have some relationship to the price for address allocations. Howard From nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 11:07:05 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:07:05 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: <3.0.32.19970119070637.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <32E246A9.2FED@sprynet.com> Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 01:13 AM 1/19/97 -0500, Nathan Soward wrote: > > > > >Kim I see that it cost a thousand dollars per year to belong to the > >club. Why? It appears to me also that any address space obtained cost > >money or have I miss read something? Since money is being charged a > >court some where may not agree with the current justifications. > > > > Of course, there are always going to be people who may not agree with > the fee policy, regardless of the fee schedule. In fact, there will > most likely be dissenters who vehemently object to any fee whatsoever, > but this doesn't solve the problem of funding an IP Address allocation > registry which can continue to operate effectively. > > No magic here. What exactly is your point? > > - paul My point is why should it cost so much to belong? Paul you seem to have an understanding of the costs involved here. Could you share with me how much money would be generated per year at the proposed level and the current number of addresses allocated. Maybe I have nothing to talk about. At the current pricing for Name Service $100.00 X 80,000 (domain names per month MSNBC) per month equals $8,000,000 per month times 12 months equal $96,000,000 per year how much money does it take to fund one of these things? Nathan From davidk at ISI.EDU Sun Jan 19 16:32:38 1997 From: davidk at ISI.EDU (davidk at ISI.EDU) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:32:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism In-Reply-To: from "Randy Bush" at Jan 19, 97 05:06:00 am Message-ID: <9701192132.AA24541@brind.isi.edu> Randy, > Randy Bush writes : > > > Anyway, even at the correct rates, RIPE is still cheaper. $4200 > > as opposed to $5k. > > Yes, but the lesson is that the new calculation does not support the > black helicopter theories very well. Also, it is instructive to note > that these are RIPE's new rates, which have been lowered from the old > start-up phase rates as income and costs stabilized. Don't forget the legal fees. RIPE still hasn't a legal department (I know, domain names tend to attract more lawyers then IPs). > And I have ridden in Daniel's car, and it is not a Mercedes; though > David's bike did look pretty fancy. And Geert Jan's five year old > DELL laptoy was probably financed with blood money from the small > innocent ISPs and probably has unfolding propellers and a gun mount. You forgot that RIPE even owned a corporate bike (oops, I should not have mentioned this is one, it's one of RIPEs better kept secrets), David K. --- From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 19 16:57:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 13:57 PST Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism References: <9701192132.AA24541@brind.isi.edu> Message-ID: David, > Don't forget the legal fees. RIPE still hasn't a legal department (I > know, domain names tend to attract more lawyers then IPs). America has a radically higher rate of suits. So, if we believe the RIPE model, try to translate it to the States, and assume that some portion of the irrational flamage here leads to some proportion of irrational suits, ARIN's proposed fees may be too low. Ugh. > You forgot that RIPE even owned a corporate bike The smoking gun at last! So finally we have proof that the blood sucking registries are using the lifeblood they drain from the small ISPs to fund their luxurious excesses. I demand that a picture of this bike be put up on the web, so we can all see evidence of the perfidy of these running dog capitalist (oops! wrong rant. uh ...) self-aggrandizing registries. :-) sorry, long running make randy From hcb at clark.net Sun Jan 19 17:08:24 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:08:24 -0500 Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism In-Reply-To: References: <9701192132.AA24541@brind.isi.edu> Message-ID: At 1:57 PM -0800 1/19/97, Randy Bush wrote: >David, > >> Don't forget the legal fees. RIPE still hasn't a legal department (I >> know, domain names tend to attract more lawyers then IPs). > >America has a radically higher rate of suits. So, if we believe the RIPE >model, try to translate it to the States, and assume that some portion of >the irrational flamage here leads to some proportion of irrational suits, >ARIN's proposed fees may be too low. Ugh. > >> You forgot that RIPE even owned a corporate bike > >The smoking gun at last! So finally we have proof that the blood sucking >registries are using the lifeblood they drain from the small ISPs to fund >their luxurious excesses. I demand that a picture of this bike be put up >on the web, so we can all see evidence of the perfidy of these running >dog capitalist (oops! wrong rant. uh ...) self-aggrandizing registries. > >:-) sorry, long running make > >randy Randy, you don't go far enough. Other conspirators are revealed here. What does the corporate bike run over? Wheels? A likely story. No...they are TOKEN RINGS! It's an IBM PLOT! If you don't believe me, look at those wheels. Hub and spoke if I ever saw it, and if that isn't the Secret Symbol of Mainframe Centrism, I don't know what is. Howard From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 19 17:17:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 14:17 PST Subject: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism References: <9701192132.AA24541@brind.isi.edu> Message-ID: > What does the corporate bike run over? The bodies of the small ISPs, of course! :-) randy From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sun Jan 19 11:41:49 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:41:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970119070311.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: No problem. I'll get this up on this net either today or tomorrow, I'll post the URL then. If anyone else has recommendations, please email them either to the list or to me directly. Jeremiah On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Jeremiah, > > Since you volunteered, please consider yourself Keeper of the > Reading List (tm). > > I'll start off with a few pointers which spring to mind, and encourage > others to contribute to the list. > > > RFC1338, Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1338.txt > > RFC1380, IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1380.txt > > RFC1518, An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1518.txt > > RFC2050, INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt > > RFC1918, Address Allocation for Private Internets > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1918.txt > > Resources for ISPs > http://www.ra.net/isp.html > > The CIDR FAQ > http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html > > The Daily CIDR Report > http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html > > RFC1481, IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to Address > the Issue of Scaling > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1481.txt > > RFC1631, The IP Network Address Translator (NAT) > http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc1631.txt > > - paul > > At 11:12 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > > >Actually, rationale d) is a slightly more verbose version of rationale b). > >I think this illustrates the need for an expanded ARIN website, with > >pointers to rfc1519, rfc1918, some general definitions, and a list of > >books for further reading. Mr. Satchell is one of the most highly > >regarded modem gurus out there, and he is still fairly confused by parts > >of this. Maybe some of the more active participants on this list would > >volunteer to write up some of the descriptions? Hell, I'll volunteer if > >we can get a general consensus about the content. > > > > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From karl at MCS.NET Sun Jan 19 12:31:56 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:31:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970119070929.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jan 19, 97 07:09:31 am Message-ID: <199701191731.LAA08723@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Vhen vendors drive BCPs and policies to protect the sale of their own product which won't live *WITHOUT* those documents, I Don't think this is off-topic in the least. There's no conspiracy here -- CISCO and the backbone engineers have AGREED IN THE PAST that the netwrok wouldn't have survived DUE TO THESE LIMITS if CIDR wasn't adopted. That CISCO then went on to produce TWO product lines which incorporated the same flaw in their design is a fact. - -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > Great. Another conspiracy theorist. > > Karl, may I suggest that you refrain from cisco-bashing and stick to > the issue at hand, which is the discussion of the ARIN proposal and > constructive comments regarding same? Is this too much to ask? > > - paul > > At 01:30 AM 1/19/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > >Of course, the REASON we have this problem goes back a few years... were you > >on the net then? > > > >Remember the CISCO AGS+? Used to be the workhorse of the Internet. 16MB of > >RAM, 68040 processor. Not a bad box (We still have some in service as > >interior routing devices). > > > >HOWEVER - its downfall was not just RAM space, but CPU horsepower and > >ARCHITECTURE. A basic architecture that was replicated not once, but TWICE > >by CISCO since they found out that it was insufficient (first in the 7000 > >series, and then again in the 7500!) The first replication was bad enough > >-- the second, IMHO, is inexcusable. > > > >CIDR was designed and pushed by CISCO engineers. It was done due to the > >fact that *CISCO DID NOT MAKE A DEVICE AT THE TIME WHICH DID NOT HAVE > >THOSE LIMITATIONS*. Unfortunately, neither did anyone else! IF they had, > >CISCO likely wouldn't HAVE a backbone business right now -- and we wouldn't > >be stuck with route aggregation concerns. > > > >So here we are in 1996. Several years later. CISCO *STILL* doesn't make a > >router with an intelligent architecture which can actually handle the > >offered loads. And guess who's name is on some of the more-recent RFCs > >regarding address allocations and such? > > > >CISCO employees. > > > >The "why" is left to the reader. > > > >BTW, that monopoly is about to be broken. Despite the fact that this > >industry has pampered a company that is stuck selling 1970's technology in > >1996 (when IMHO it should have forced them out of the market or forced them > >to adopt solutions which would WORK) it still is happening -- some people > >ARE in fact waking up to the opportunity that is present despite the > >railroading of the standards process. > > > >Of course, we also now have "BCP" documents and business practices which > >IMHO act to restrain trade and possibly violate anti-trust laws... > > > > From the_innkeeper at sols.net Sun Jan 19 12:20:44 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: <199701191716.MAA16826@lists.internic.net> ---------- > > >Kim I see that it cost a thousand dollars per year to belong to the > > >club. Why? It appears to me also that any address space obtained cost > > >money or have I miss read something? Since money is being charged a > > >court some where may not agree with the current justifications. > > > > > Of course, there are always going to be people who may not agree with > > the fee policy, regardless of the fee schedule. In fact, there will > > most likely be dissenters who vehemently object to any fee whatsoever, > > but this doesn't solve the problem of funding an IP Address allocation > > registry which can continue to operate effectively. > > > > No magic here. What exactly is your point? > > > My point is why should it cost so much to belong? Paul you seem to have > an understanding of the costs involved here. Could you share with me > how much money would be generated per year at the proposed level and the > current number of addresses allocated. Maybe I have nothing to talk > about. At the current pricing for Name Service $100.00 X 80,000 (domain > names per month MSNBC) per month equals $8,000,000 per month times 12 > months equal $96,000,000 per year how much money does it take to fund > one of these things? Very good point Nathan....The answer is one of my concerns also....How much money does it take to fund this thing and where is the extra money going...I know that the Name Service was supposed to set aside a portion of generated funds for Internet Improvement...At last check this fund was $9,000,000 short of what it should contain...Are we going to run into the same problems with ARIN? 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 From nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 14:34:57 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:34:57 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: <3.0.32.19970119141551.00694614@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <32E27761.6DEB@sprynet.com> Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 11:07 AM 1/19/97 -0500, Nathan Soward wrote: > > >My point is why should it cost so much to belong? Paul you seem to have > >an understanding of the costs involved here. Could you share with me > >how much money would be generated per year at the proposed level and the > >current number of addresses allocated. Maybe I have nothing to talk > >about. At the current pricing for Name Service $100.00 X 80,000 (domain > >names per month MSNBC) per month equals $8,000,000 per month times 12 > >months equal $96,000,000 per year how much money does it take to fund > >one of these things? > > > > My understanding of the costs involved are in no way intimate > > Let's see. For starters, staff salaries, computers, networking equipment, > recurring monthly fees for connectivity & telecommunications, recurring > monthly fees for office space [lease], maintenance & development of > registry resources. This is just off the top of my head. I imagine it > could get expensive pretty quick. > > Also, let's not compare ARIN to fees for domain name registry services; > as has been stated on more than one occasion, these two issues must be > completely decoupled. > > - paul Paul I keep asking very pointed questions but do not get any answers. Give me a dollar amount per year for this service. Or do you wish to continue with general statements that mean nothing. Do you not think that 96 million dollars a year is a bit much. And if my calculations are right 96 million will be only a small amount compared to this proposal. From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 14:15:53 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:15:53 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119141551.00694614@lint.cisco.com> At 11:07 AM 1/19/97 -0500, Nathan Soward wrote: >My point is why should it cost so much to belong? Paul you seem to have >an understanding of the costs involved here. Could you share with me >how much money would be generated per year at the proposed level and the >current number of addresses allocated. Maybe I have nothing to talk >about. At the current pricing for Name Service $100.00 X 80,000 (domain >names per month MSNBC) per month equals $8,000,000 per month times 12 >months equal $96,000,000 per year how much money does it take to fund >one of these things? > My understanding of the costs involved are in no way intimate Let's see. For starters, staff salaries, computers, networking equipment, recurring monthly fees for connectivity & telecommunications, recurring monthly fees for office space [lease], maintenance & development of registry resources. This is just off the top of my head. I imagine it could get expensive pretty quick. Also, let's not compare ARIN to fees for domain name registry services; as has been stated on more than one occasion, these two issues must be completely decoupled. - paul From nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 12:45:31 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:45:31 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: <199701191720.JAA20682@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <32E25DBB.180E@sprynet.com> The Innkeeper wrote: > > ---------- > > > >Kim I see that it cost a thousand dollars per year to belong to the > > > >club. Why? It appears to me also that any address space obtained cost > > > >money or have I miss read something? Since money is being charged a > > > >court some where may not agree with the current justifications. > > > > > > > Of course, there are always going to be people who may not agree with > > > the fee policy, regardless of the fee schedule. In fact, there will > > > most likely be dissenters who vehemently object to any fee whatsoever, > > > but this doesn't solve the problem of funding an IP Address allocation > > > registry which can continue to operate effectively. > > > > > > No magic here. What exactly is your point? > > > > > My point is why should it cost so much to belong? Paul you seem to have > > an understanding of the costs involved here. Could you share with me > > how much money would be generated per year at the proposed level and the > > current number of addresses allocated. Maybe I have nothing to talk > > about. At the current pricing for Name Service $100.00 X 80,000 (domain > > names per month MSNBC) per month equals $8,000,000 per month times 12 > > months equal $96,000,000 per year how much money does it take to fund > > one of these things? > > Very good point Nathan....The answer is one of my concerns also....How much > money does it take to fund this thing and where is the extra money > going...I know that the Name Service was supposed to set aside a portion of > generated funds for Internet Improvement...At last check this fund was > $9,000,000 short of what it should contain...Are we going to run into the > same problems with ARIN? > > 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 What do these people think that we live a vacuum. I would like to see a cash flow statement for internic not a profit and loss to much can get hidden in a P&L or balance sheet. Follow the cash. Nathan From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sun Jan 19 18:12:26 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:12:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701191731.LAA08723@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > Vhen vendors drive BCPs and policies to protect the sale of their own > product which won't live *WITHOUT* those documents, I Don't think this is > off-topic in the least. > > There's no conspiracy here -- CISCO and the backbone engineers have AGREED > IN THE PAST that the netwrok wouldn't have survived DUE TO THESE LIMITS > if CIDR wasn't adopted. > > That CISCO then went on to produce TWO product lines which incorporated the > same flaw in their design is a fact. Karl, Please explain to me how Cisco is to blame for no other routing vendor being able to develop a product that can beat Cisco? If there is some magical router out there that can handle 10,000,000 route entries, why haven't we heard about it? I think there is a very strong financial incentive to develop one, since I am sure that Cisco has sold well over 1000 7500 series routers in the past 2 years. If someone where to develop something that would beat it, and would sell for $100,000, that's $100Million in sales just for NAP routers, and we haven't even considered the huge corporate Intranet market. There are 100s of firms in NYC that use 7500 series routers internally to connect lans, and maybe one or two remote offices. Maybe Cisco isn't lying to us all, maybe aggregation is a good idea no matter what hardware the backbones are using. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From pferguso at cisco.com Sun Jan 19 18:28:35 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:28:35 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970119182829.006b6df8@lint.cisco.com> At 06:12 PM 1/19/97 -0500, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: >Maybe Cisco isn't lying to us all, maybe aggregation is a good idea no >matter what hardware the backbones are using. > In should also be noted that the IAB, IESG & IETF have all agreed that aggregation is a Good Thing (tm), and it is safe to presume that none of these organizations are puppets of the Evil Empire (cisco Systems). - paul From kimh at internic.net Sun Jan 19 19:04:15 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:04:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <32E27761.6DEB@sprynet.com> from "Nathan Soward" at Jan 19, 97 02:34:57 pm Message-ID: <199701200004.TAA22773@moses.internic.net> > > > > My understanding of the costs involved are in no way intimate > > > > Let's see. For starters, staff salaries, computers, networking equipment, > > recurring monthly fees for connectivity & telecommunications, recurring > > monthly fees for office space [lease], maintenance & development of > > registry resources. This is just off the top of my head. I imagine it > > could get expensive pretty quick. > > > > Also, let's not compare ARIN to fees for domain name registry services; > > as has been stated on more than one occasion, these two issues must be > > completely decoupled. > > > > - paul > Paul I keep asking very pointed questions but do not get any answers. > Give me a dollar amount per year for this service. Or do you wish to > continue with general statements that mean nothing. Do you not think > that 96 million dollars a year is a bit much. And if my calculations > are right 96 million will be only a small amount compared to this > proposal. > Your calculations are wrong. For example, over the last year, the InterNIC allocated space directly to about 300 ISPs - the average size would fit in the medium range or $5,000. *IF* each one of these ISPs continue to receive address space from ARIN that would make total revenues from ISPs $1.5M per year. Because of the policies and procedures, registration services to ISPs will make up about 90% of all ARIN revenue. If every one of those ISPs (which I doubt) sign up for membership that would be an additional $300K and another $100K per year for ASNs. Total revenue for ARIN per year is expected to be around $2M per year. We estimate we're going to need a total of 14 operational staff members to start ARIN to include registration personnel, technical staff, business and administration - not to mention legal counsel. We plan on posting a budget, however, not until it's finalized with some specific numbers instead of the estimates we have now on things like equipment, office space, membership meeting costs, etc. If, by some chance, there is an influx of ISPs justifying address space from ARIN (and willing to pay for registration services) and the revenue exceeds the amount required to operate ARIN than the membership, BoT and the Advisory Council will have every opportunity to modify the fees and decide what to do with any excess. - kim From karl at MCS.NET Sun Jan 19 22:06:54 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:06:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: from "Jeremiah Kristal" at Jan 19, 97 06:12:26 pm Message-ID: <199701200306.VAA22960@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > Vhen vendors drive BCPs and policies to protect the sale of their own > > product which won't live *WITHOUT* those documents, I Don't think this is > > off-topic in the least. > > > > There's no conspiracy here -- CISCO and the backbone engineers have AGREED > > IN THE PAST that the netwrok wouldn't have survived DUE TO THESE LIMITS > > if CIDR wasn't adopted. > > > > That CISCO then went on to produce TWO product lines which incorporated the > > same flaw in their design is a fact. > > Karl, > Please explain to me how Cisco is to blame for no other routing vendor > being able to develop a product that can beat Cisco? If there is some > magical router out there that can handle 10,000,000 route entries, why > haven't we heard about it? I think there is a very strong financial > incentive to develop one, since I am sure that Cisco has sold well over > 1000 7500 series routers in the past 2 years. If someone where to develop > something that would beat it, and would sell for $100,000, that's > $100Million in sales just for NAP routers, and we haven't even considered > the huge corporate Intranet market. There are 100s of firms in NYC that > use 7500 series routers internally to connect lans, and maybe one or two > remote offices. > Maybe Cisco isn't lying to us all, maybe aggregation is a good idea no > matter what hardware the backbones are using. > > ________ > \______/ Jeremiah Kristal Well gee, what do you call NETSTAR? And why, pray tell, did they go on to develop and produce what they did (which ASCEND noticed rather quickly)? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From karl at MCS.NET Sun Jan 19 22:08:52 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:08:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970119182829.006b6df8@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jan 19, 97 06:28:35 pm Message-ID: <199701200308.VAA23006@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Its claimed to be a "good thing" ONLY BECAUSE the hardware didn't exist and doesn't now to solve the REAL problem. Of course, coddling a vendor for four years after the issue first became apparent has perpetuated this situation through not one design turn, but now, TWO design turns. Finally, others are starting to take notice of an incredible market opportunity, DESPITE the bias which was engendered due to this, and products are beginning to ship. So now we get "whaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! I don't like the CLI!" as the only remaining argument? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > At 06:12 PM 1/19/97 -0500, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > > >Maybe Cisco isn't lying to us all, maybe aggregation is a good idea no > >matter what hardware the backbones are using. > > > > In should also be noted that the IAB, IESG & IETF have all agreed that > aggregation is a Good Thing (tm), and it is safe to presume that none of > these organizations are puppets of the Evil Empire (cisco Systems). > > - paul > > From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sun Jan 19 22:14:35 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 03:14:35 GMT Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: <5644.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > From: Avi Freedman > There's no talk of a per-allocation annual fee... > I believe it's based on total address space the previous year. > Uh, Avi, what's the difference? Basing an annual fee on the total address space previously allocated looks a lot like a per-allocation annual fee. The only nice thing about it is, when the address space is all used up, we can stop paying it because we won't need to be members, as we won't be getting new allocations. WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From nsoward at sprynet.com Sun Jan 19 22:32:10 1997 From: nsoward at sprynet.com (Nathan Soward) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 22:32:10 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent References: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:34:20 EST." Message-ID: <32E2E73A.11B4@sprynet.com> Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > At 10:06 AM +0900 1/20/97, David R. Conrad wrote: > >Howard, > > > >If Kim posts rough estimates, what do you think the probability is > >she'll be flamed with thermonuclear intensity should the actual > >numbers deviate from those estimates? My guess would be the number > >approaches 1 as the actual numbers go over her estimates -- regardless > >of whatever provisos she puts in or all capital letter requests you > >might make to the peanut gallery. > > I understand that we have a significant number of fools who flame at the > slightest hint of what they believe to be a conspiracy or an attempt to > mislead. On the other hand, I have always been uncomfortable in seeing > budgetary numbers for ANYTHING without having a reasonable idea of the > underlying process. A certain number of people who flame MIGHT be willing > to take a second look if they know some of the raw material from which the > budgetary numbers are derived. Also, many people simply are not aware of > some functions that are needed in a real world operation. > > I've been involved in the setup of not-for-profit industry consortia, > which, in the case of the Corporation for Open Systems, could also be read > disasters. I hope we can learn from mistakes. If I don't understand the > underlying functions in a proposal, just seeing budgetary numbers is of no > help in understanding the process or how it might be improved. > > I've also spent time in national politics, and always remember the > admonition that people really shouldn't watch how sausage, or their laws, > actually are made. Yet processes as well as budgets should be eligible for > review. > > Kim, I am obviously in no position to make other than a polite request for > these estimates, and I will as politely quiet down if you do not want to > provide them at this point. I will argue that I believe they would be > helpful at this point, and I strongly suggest that they be available as a > supplement when the final budget is prepared. > > > > >I'd really like to suggest we let Kim finish revising the draft > >proposal and working out real budgetary numbers -- it will make things > >a whole lot easier in the end. Of course, I'd also like to suggest > >people stop getting into wars. Both probably have equal likelihood > >of coming true. > > > >Regards, > >-drc > >-------- > >>Kim, > >> > >>I understand fully that you need to do a full budget, and I am really not > >>trying to get you to commit on pieces. If at all possible, I'd appreciate > >>it if you could give a sense of the range of time and average time it takes > >>your group to process a single allocation request. I'm speaking of staff > >>hours, not duration in-and-out; I recognize there is probably an internal > >>review process. > >> > >>In fact, it might be very useful if you could share a general idea of the > >>work flow from when an allocation request is received to when it is > >>rejected or implemented. TO ALL READERS: I AM ASKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE > >>HERE...not anything that we will hold Kim to in the future. > >> > >>The more I think about it, however, the more I think it might help get > >>rational people working together if they had a common view of the real-time > >>process. RFC2050 deals with policy, an essential but different matter. > >> > >>Yes, I know you have to have lawyers. When I did clinical things, we knew > >>we needed infection control people and a morgue, but they were not the > >>first focus. > >> > >>Howard Howard, I could not agree more. This will be my last post until Kim has a chance to get the new numbers out. Also, Kim I understand what an enormous undertaking this is. Thank you for caring. Nathan From ae687 at FREENET.CARLETON.CA Sun Jan 19 22:32:18 1997 From: ae687 at FREENET.CARLETON.CA (Billy Biggs) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 22:32:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Membership Fee In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970119063058.006c78e8@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: Hello, 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. -- Billy Biggs ae687 at freenet.carleton.ca From davidc at apnic.net Sun Jan 19 20:06:58 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:06:58 +0900 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:34:20 EST." Message-ID: <199701200106.KAA08130@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Howard, If Kim posts rough estimates, what do you think the probability is she'll be flamed with thermonuclear intensity should the actual numbers deviate from those estimates? My guess would be the number approaches 1 as the actual numbers go over her estimates -- regardless of whatever provisos she puts in or all capital letter requests you might make to the peanut gallery. I'd really like to suggest we let Kim finish revising the draft proposal and working out real budgetary numbers -- it will make things a whole lot easier in the end. Of course, I'd also like to suggest people stop getting into wars. Both probably have equal likelihood of coming true. Regards, -drc -------- >Kim, > >I understand fully that you need to do a full budget, and I am really not >trying to get you to commit on pieces. If at all possible, I'd appreciate >it if you could give a sense of the range of time and average time it takes >your group to process a single allocation request. I'm speaking of staff >hours, not duration in-and-out; I recognize there is probably an internal >review process. > >In fact, it might be very useful if you could share a general idea of the >work flow from when an allocation request is received to when it is >rejected or implemented. TO ALL READERS: I AM ASKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE >HERE...not anything that we will hold Kim to in the future. > >The more I think about it, however, the more I think it might help get >rational people working together if they had a common view of the real-time >process. RFC2050 deals with policy, an essential but different matter. > >Yes, I know you have to have lawyers. When I did clinical things, we knew >we needed infection control people and a morgue, but they were not the >first focus. > >Howard From hcb at clark.net Sun Jan 19 20:33:41 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:33:41 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701200106.KAA08130@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:34:20 EST." Message-ID: At 10:06 AM +0900 1/20/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Howard, > >If Kim posts rough estimates, what do you think the probability is >she'll be flamed with thermonuclear intensity should the actual >numbers deviate from those estimates? My guess would be the number >approaches 1 as the actual numbers go over her estimates -- regardless >of whatever provisos she puts in or all capital letter requests you >might make to the peanut gallery. I understand that we have a significant number of fools who flame at the slightest hint of what they believe to be a conspiracy or an attempt to mislead. On the other hand, I have always been uncomfortable in seeing budgetary numbers for ANYTHING without having a reasonable idea of the underlying process. A certain number of people who flame MIGHT be willing to take a second look if they know some of the raw material from which the budgetary numbers are derived. Also, many people simply are not aware of some functions that are needed in a real world operation. I've been involved in the setup of not-for-profit industry consortia, which, in the case of the Corporation for Open Systems, could also be read disasters. I hope we can learn from mistakes. If I don't understand the underlying functions in a proposal, just seeing budgetary numbers is of no help in understanding the process or how it might be improved. I've also spent time in national politics, and always remember the admonition that people really shouldn't watch how sausage, or their laws, actually are made. Yet processes as well as budgets should be eligible for review. Kim, I am obviously in no position to make other than a polite request for these estimates, and I will as politely quiet down if you do not want to provide them at this point. I will argue that I believe they would be helpful at this point, and I strongly suggest that they be available as a supplement when the final budget is prepared. > >I'd really like to suggest we let Kim finish revising the draft >proposal and working out real budgetary numbers -- it will make things >a whole lot easier in the end. Of course, I'd also like to suggest >people stop getting into wars. Both probably have equal likelihood >of coming true. > >Regards, >-drc >-------- >>Kim, >> >>I understand fully that you need to do a full budget, and I am really not >>trying to get you to commit on pieces. If at all possible, I'd appreciate >>it if you could give a sense of the range of time and average time it takes >>your group to process a single allocation request. I'm speaking of staff >>hours, not duration in-and-out; I recognize there is probably an internal >>review process. >> >>In fact, it might be very useful if you could share a general idea of the >>work flow from when an allocation request is received to when it is >>rejected or implemented. TO ALL READERS: I AM ASKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE >>HERE...not anything that we will hold Kim to in the future. >> >>The more I think about it, however, the more I think it might help get >>rational people working together if they had a common view of the real-time >>process. RFC2050 deals with policy, an essential but different matter. >> >>Yes, I know you have to have lawyers. When I did clinical things, we knew >>we needed infection control people and a morgue, but they were not the >>first focus. >> >>Howard From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 19 18:47:30 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:47:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <32E27761.6DEB@sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Nathan Soward wrote: > > Also, let's not compare ARIN to fees for domain name registry services; > > as has been stated on more than one occasion, these two issues must be > > completely decoupled. > Paul I keep asking very pointed questions but do not get any answers. That's because you have it backwards. Instead of asking pointed questions you should be developping a detailled budget with justifications and posting it to the list. ARIN is a membership organization. This list was created to give the potential members of ARIN an opportunity to comment on how they want to see ARIN structured. > Give me a dollar amount per year for this service. No, you give us the dollar figures that you think are reasonable and back it up with the services that you expect those dollars to cover. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From ecw at bestweb.net Mon Jan 20 00:13:41 1997 From: ecw at bestweb.net (Ed Walsh) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:13:41 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <01BC0666.D1493D00@dialin-27.croton.bestweb.net> unsuscribeLightning BBS Phone: (914) 271-6433 IP: N/A (yet) ecw at bestweb.net =================================== From satchell at accutek.com Mon Jan 20 01:02:05 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:02:05 -0700 Subject: Legal exposure (was: RIPE, High Fees and Cronyism) Message-ID: At 1:32 PM 1/19/97, davidk at ISI.EDU wrote: >Don't forget the legal fees. RIPE still hasn't a legal department (I >know, domain names tend to attract more lawyers then IPs). Because this is a North American registry that's being proposed, I point out that the only "normal" legal exposure that such a registry would have is errors and omissions...and E&O liability insurance isn't all that expensive. That cost, though, *does* need to be factored into the business plan and rationale as a necessary expense. Abnormal legal exposure (embezzelment, tort, criminal activites on the part of employees, &c) would be covered under general insurance. On my back-of-the-envelope bid proposal, I allowed for $10 million in E&O coverage -- this because a single mistake affecting two /8 sites would require a *lot* of unnecessary work being performed by the allocation holders and backbone support people. From satchell at accutek.com Mon Jan 20 01:02:11 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:02:11 -0700 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent Message-ID: At 12:20 PM 1/19/97, The Innkeeper wrote: >Very good point Nathan....The answer is one of my concerns also....How much >money does it take to fund this thing and where is the extra money >going...I know that the Name Service was supposed to set aside a portion of >generated funds for Internet Improvement...At last check this fund was >$9,000,000 short of what it should contain...Are we going to run into the >same problems with ARIN? Wait a minute...is this supposed to be a registry or something more? This *must* be spelled out! From satchell at accutek.com Mon Jan 20 01:02:16 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:02:16 -0700 Subject: A wild stab at the umbers Message-ID: At 2:15 PM 1/19/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >My understanding of the costs involved are in no way intimate > >Let's see. For starters, staff salaries, computers, networking equipment, >recurring monthly fees for connectivity & telecommunications, recurring >monthly fees for office space [lease], maintenance & development of >registry resources. This is just off the top of my head. I imagine it >could get expensive pretty quick. First off, in looking at the original proposal, I see that the *sole* function of this registry is to allocate IP addresses to those who apply for them, maintain the list to avoid multiple sites having the same IP address, and publishing that registry of IP addresses to the public. The membership's sole responsiblity is to set policy and pricing on these three functions -- other policy issues are in the pervue of other Internet Society organizations. That doesn't mean that the Registry doesn't have an interest in those policies, but the main charter is one of a glorified book-keeper. OK, let's start looking at what is involved. Staff salaries: you need two clerical types ($30K/year), director ($60K/year), policy co-ordinator ($40K/year), on-site repair and sysadmin ($60K/year), and a receptionist ($25K/year). Multiply by three to cover benefits, per-employee overhead, on-desk computers, building, physical plant, parking, and the annual company picnic. Total estimated: $735K/year. Budging $1000K/year allows for unforseen needs, as well as a cushion for hiring consultants to deal with in-house problems. Computers: you will need something fairly good-size for a Web and FTP server so that people can get registry information. Call it $50K every five years, or $10K/year. The rest of the computers are included in the headcount expense. Networking equipment: I can't see the need for anything faster than three T1 links -- this isn't domain registration, after all -- so you are looking at roughly $10K every five years, or $2K/year. The in-house network (including wiring) is of the same magnitude: $10K every five years, or $2K/year. This toals $4K/year Connectivity: Three T1s would eat up $108K/year in port costs, and some amount for the actual physical links. In my territory, you are talking $72K/year. Total is $180K/year. Probably way too high. Office space [lease]: incorporated into headcount expense. Maintenance of registry resources: Incorporated into headcount expense. Development of registry resources: There are two ways to do this that don't involve adding headcount. (1) Fund grants for outside development of registry resources (estimated at $350K/year); and (2) have the volunteers create the necessary resources (estimated at $10K/year to repay out-of-pocket expenses). Periodic meetings: The usual cost for throwing a meeting ranges from $4K to $9K, depending on how fancy you get. This assumes five days, rooms for the few staff that attend, some amenities, and the non-staff attendees pay their own room costs. This also incorporates some costs for printing and copying contributions to the meetings. If you assume quarterly face-to-face meetings, the total to budget is $36K/year Trade show presence: Small booths run roughly $15K to build -- and expect to build a new one every year. Transporting, setting up, tearing down, and returning the booth to storage is around $1K/show. Labor and amenities (power and net connection) associated with the booth should be no more than $7K per show. Assuming the organization exhibits at three trade shows a year, that's $39K/year. Copying, Mailings: While I can make a strong case that this organization should *never* mail a document, the truth is that ballots and such may need to be mailed, and once you start snail-mailing ballots you might as well do it right. So let's make the following assumptions: (1) 2000 members; (2) six mailings per year; (3) 250 pages per mailing (not uncommon); (4) a fully burdened copier cost of $0.045 per page; and (5) no attempt is made to use cheaper publishing methods such as offset because of the turnround time for the documents. That works out to three million pages, for a cost of $135K/year. Postage for such a large mailing, even at non-profit bulk rates, would cost roughly $5 each, for a total postage cost of $60K/year. Add $20K for preparation and postage of meeting notices, membership invoices, and address invoices. Total here: $215K/year. By the way, that's a per-member fee of $107.50 -- and I know that much of that cost could be knocked down considerably by using web presses instead of photocopy duplicators. Legal, insurance: WAG of $150K/year for legal, $100K/year for insurance including E&O, general liability, property, key-man, and workman's comp. Accounting, payroll: WAG of $65K/year, done by an outside firm. No need to bloat headcount for services readily available on the outside. Printing and postage for bills and payments are incorporated in with mailings. CPA: Another WAG of $70K/year. Loan costs: priced correctly, there is no way that you can get enough grants to fund this thing totally. Assume you will need to borrow $1.5 million to start, and you can get this for 12 percent (secured loan). That means your debt service will be at most $180K/year. This is a good place to look to cover with revenue from "first-time fees." Bad debt allowance: not everyone is going to pay, or pay on time. This means that in order to be fiscally safe you need to build in a cushion for bad debt. In many businesses a five percent allowance works quite well. So totaling all this, per year in thousands of dollars (000):: Staff salaries: 1000 Computers: 10 Net Equipment: 4 Net Connection 180 Development 350 Meetings 36 Trade Shows 39 Copy/mail 215 Legal/Ins 250 Acct/Payroll 65 CPA (includes audit) 70 Debt service 190 ---- Subtotal: 2399 Bad Debt Allowance 120 ---- Total: 2519 Now for the revenue side of the equation. If you decided to have each member pay the actual cost of membership plus something toward the network equipment and connection, you can easily justify a membership fee of $200/year. Remember, I calculated the out-of-pocket cost for a member is in the close order of $100; the other hundred pays for the servers and the network link for the members. That represents $400K of revenue per year, and any increase or decrease in membership counts scale almost directly, so that the membership fees pay for everything a member needs. For a simplistic view of the "cost per address", if you take the remaining $2.2M of the projected expenses (removing the membership portion as described above) and calculate a per-256-node cost, you arrive at a figure of $0.132 per 256-node allocation per year. Now I know that the United States is not going to take the entire address space, but if you assume for the moment (again simplistic -- I don't have any numbers here in this here hotel room) that the United States uses 1/100 of the total address space. That takes that simple number to $13.20 per /24. This is almost half the projected cost according to the admittedly-outdated proposal of $20 per /24. The "proper" way to get people to buy space from aggregators is to use a one-time fee of $2000 for *any* first allocation, a one-time fee of $400 for *any* additional allocations, and a $200 "deregistration" fee to this organization. (By the way, if someone is late with payment, I might suggest that they have to pay the $200 disconnect fee plus the $2000 first-allocation fee, and they may not necessarily get the same numbers back.) Further, the contract with the aggregators say that any resale of address space shall be done at the aggregator's cost plus a maximum of 15 percent. That should take care of any price gouging while still giving players some working room to attract (or discourage) customers. The annual fee would be fixed at, say, $25 per 256 addresses. For everybody. Same restriction on markup for resale. Now let's talk about grandfathering existing allocations. Let's say you have 3000 existing top-level customers of address space. If you impose a $250 grandfathering fee, that give you $750K in "up front" money to help pay down that debt of $1.5 million. I'd need to do a bit of research to see just how many addresses are allocated in the United States, but I think meeting the "nut" shouldn't be difficult at all. This is all off the top off my head and with very little research. Indeed, much of this analysis is based on my creating a few companies along the way and having some idea of what some of the costs might be. THIS IS A STRAWMAN ANALYSIS, and only good for "order of magnitude" projections. From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon Jan 20 04:32:22 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 04:32:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: A wild stab at the umbers In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 19, 97 11:02:16 pm Message-ID: <199701200932.AA232792742@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Stephen Satchell supposedly said: > So totaling all this, per year in thousands of dollars (000):: > > Staff salaries: 1000 > Computers: 10 > Net Equipment: 4 > Net Connection 180 > Development 350 > Meetings 36 > Trade Shows 39 > Copy/mail 215 > Legal/Ins 250 > Acct/Payroll 65 > CPA (includes audit) 70 > Debt service 190 > ---- > Subtotal: 2399 > Bad Debt Allowance 120 > ---- > Total: 2519 > > I find it interesting and somewhat comforting that you come up with an estimate of 2.5 mil and Kim Hubbard posted a rough cut at revenue which came back at about 2-2.5 mil a year. I disagree that charging a flat rate per address accross all allocations, since it does not encourage those who want smaller allocations (/21 or smaller) to get them from their upstream, but makes it just as cost effective to try and get it from ARIN. ---> Phil From davidc at apnic.net Mon Jan 20 06:02:30 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:02:30 +0900 Subject: A wild stab at the umbers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:02:16 MST." Message-ID: <199701201102.UAA12247@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, I want to publicly express my gratitude for you actually coming up with numbers, as made of straw as they might be. They are extremely useful in that they provide a starting point for discussions. A couple of points, however: >First off, in looking at the original proposal, I see that the *sole* >function of this registry is to allocate IP addresses to those who apply >for them, Almost -- registries allocate space to organizations which demonstrate need. A very significant difference when it comes to computing staffing costs (see below). >Staff salaries: you need two clerical types ($30K/year), director >($60K/year), policy co-ordinator ($40K/year), on-site repair and sysadmin >($60K/year), and a receptionist ($25K/year). Nope. In order to demonstrate need for IP addresses, you need technical staff capable of reading and understanding network engineering plans. They must also understand the explanations provided to them by the requestors when they call up to explain why they need a /16 for 2000 hosts. Then there is AS number request justifications. Note, that people with this kind of knowledge are in quite high demand at this point in time. As an aside, the time necessary to understand a requestor's network in sufficient detail to justify allocation tends to be bimodal -- the clueful only take an hour or two, the aggressively clueless can take weeks (note that this is APNIC's experience, InterNIC's may be a bit less as there are less language issues that need to be dealt with). Currently, I believe InterNIC has something like 10 full time staff handling request reviews (Kim will correct me if I'm wrong). RIPE-NCC is approximately similar. APNIC has 2 staff who do the reviews, but we're dying for additional staff and our load is an order of magnitude less than InterNICs and RIPE-NCC. And please, before people start screaming that the registries should not to do these reviews, I am talking about CURRENT registry policies as defined in RFC 2050. If you'd like to modify those policies, please take it to the Policy And Guidelines for Allocation of Network numbers mailing list, pagan at apnic.net (to subscribe, send a message body of "subscribe" to pagan-request at apnic.net). >Computers: you will need something fairly good-size for a Web and FTP >server so that people can get registry information. Call it $50K every >five years, or $10K/year. Load on whois servers can be quite high -- Mark Kosters can provide details. People whine very loudly when they can't reach the registration database. Instead of a single big machine, you'll likely want an array of smaller machines so you can round robin load share over those machines. Also helps availability. >Networking equipment: I can't see the need for anything faster than three >T1 links Both APNIC and (I believe) RIPE-NCC have placed machines at Internet exchange points. This has 3 advantages: a) bandwidth is generally not a concern, b) you don't run the risk of "gives us more addresses or we'll cut you off", and c) people won't say "we're better than ISP x because we're providing Internet services to a regional registry". Of course, the registry has to be able to negotiate peering and transit agreements as necessary. Housing at an IX plus peering/transit fees can be significantly higher than your projected numbers. >Periodic meetings: The usual cost for throwing a meeting ranges from $4K >to $9K, depending on how fancy you get. This assumes five days, rooms for >the few staff that attend, some amenities, and the non-staff attendees pay >their own room costs. This also incorporates some costs for printing and >copying contributions to the meetings. If you assume quarterly >face-to-face meetings, the total to budget is $36K/year > >Trade show presence: Small booths run roughly $15K to build -- and expect >to build a new one every year. Transporting, setting up, tearing down, and >returning the booth to storage is around $1K/show. Labor and amenities >(power and net connection) associated with the booth should be no more than >$7K per show. Assuming the organization exhibits at three trade shows a >year, that's $39K/year. Not sure how valuable trade show presence is, however it has proven to be important that the registries attend technical conferences and meetings of ISPs (e.g., IETFs, IEPGs, NANOGs, EOFs, etc). These probably balance out. >Copying, Mailings: While I can make a strong case that this organization >should *never* mail a document, the truth is that ballots and such may need >to be mailed, and once you start snail-mailing ballots you might as well do >it right. Don't forget billing expenses. >Loan costs: priced correctly, there is no way that you can get enough >grants to fund this thing totally. Assume you will need to borrow $1.5 >million to start, and you can get this for 12 percent (secured loan). That >means your debt service will be at most $180K/year. This is a good place >to look to cover with revenue from "first-time fees." Shouldn't be necessary -- NSI is providing funding backstop while ARIN becomes established. >Remember, I calculated the >out-of-pocket cost for a member is in the close order of $100; Depends very much on the number of members -- this is one of the unknowns. >Now let's talk about grandfathering existing allocations. Let's say you >have 3000 existing top-level customers of address space. I suspect this would be a bit controversial. Again, thanks for providing the numbers -- they provide very good input for useful discussions. Regards, -drc From dorian at cic.net Sun Jan 19 20:20:02 1997 From: dorian at cic.net (Dorian R. Kim) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:20:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701191731.LAA08723@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: Karl, cisco's corporate stupidity and those BCPs do not have anything to do with each other, and furthermore, this discussion is off topic for this list. -dorian On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > Vhen vendors drive BCPs and policies to protect the sale of their own > product which won't live *WITHOUT* those documents, I Don't think this is > off-topic in the least. > > There's no conspiracy here -- CISCO and the backbone engineers have AGREED > IN THE PAST that the netwrok wouldn't have survived DUE TO THESE LIMITS > if CIDR wasn't adopted. > > That CISCO then went on to produce TWO product lines which incorporated the > same flaw in their design is a fact. From cym at acrux.net Sun Jan 19 20:26:09 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:26:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701200106.KAA08130@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > I'd really like to suggest we let Kim finish revising the draft > proposal and working out real budgetary numbers -- it will make things > a whole lot easier in the end. Of course, I'd also like to suggest > people stop getting into wars. Both probably have equal likelihood I cannot possibly be in more agreement. Having made the mistake of actually getting out of my office for a night and a day, can you guess my reaction on returning to see approx. 130 mails from this list alone? Yes, Virginia, I did indeed delete them all unread. I suspect that if the signal to noise ration here doesn't improve, much valid and insightful commentary might be lost either by obfuscation, or simply by way of the intelligent people unsubscribing or going into lurk mode. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE everyone, this list is for discussion of the ARIN proposal. NOTHING else. Not wars, not the PRC, not whether Cisco is the Antichrist, not DNS, none of those issues (while exceedingly interesting in their proper place) has any relevancy to the topic. In addition, it's more or less pointless to keep debating an old proposal....wait until Kim gives us the new fodder :) From hcb at clark.net Sun Jan 19 19:34:20 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:34:20 -0500 Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701200004.TAA22773@moses.internic.net> References: <32E27761.6DEB@sprynet.com> from "Nathan Soward" at Jan 19, 97 02:34:57 pm Message-ID: Kim, I understand fully that you need to do a full budget, and I am really not trying to get you to commit on pieces. If at all possible, I'd appreciate it if you could give a sense of the range of time and average time it takes your group to process a single allocation request. I'm speaking of staff hours, not duration in-and-out; I recognize there is probably an internal review process. In fact, it might be very useful if you could share a general idea of the work flow from when an allocation request is received to when it is rejected or implemented. TO ALL READERS: I AM ASKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE HERE...not anything that we will hold Kim to in the future. The more I think about it, however, the more I think it might help get rational people working together if they had a common view of the real-time process. RFC2050 deals with policy, an essential but different matter. Yes, I know you have to have lawyers. When I did clinical things, we knew we needed infection control people and a morgue, but they were not the first focus. Howard >> > >Your calculations are wrong. For example, over the last year, the >InterNIC allocated space directly to about 300 ISPs - the average >size would fit in the medium range or $5,000. *IF* each one of >these ISPs continue to receive address space from ARIN that would >make total revenues from ISPs $1.5M per year. Because of the >policies and procedures, registration services to ISPs will make >up about 90% of all ARIN revenue. If every one of those ISPs (which >I doubt) sign up for membership that would be an additional $300K >and another $100K per year for ASNs. Total revenue for ARIN per >year is expected to be around $2M per year. > >We estimate we're going to need a total of 14 operational staff >members to start ARIN to include registration personnel, technical >staff, business and administration - not to mention legal counsel. > >We plan on posting a budget, however, not until it's finalized with >some specific numbers instead of the estimates we have now on things >like equipment, office space, membership meeting costs, etc. > >If, by some chance, there is an influx of ISPs justifying address >space from ARIN (and willing to pay for registration services) and >the revenue exceeds the amount required to operate ARIN than the >membership, BoT and the Advisory Council will have every opportunity >to modify the fees and decide what to do with any excess. > >- kim From dadobbs at mix-net.net Mon Jan 20 12:49:21 1997 From: dadobbs at mix-net.net (David A. Dobbs) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:49:21 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701201749.MAA20745@dilbert.mix-net.net> I oppose the formation of the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) without further justifiable reasoning and demonstrated need. I have many questions and concerns. 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that the formation of a new organization is needed? 2) Under what authority does Network Solution, Inc. have to create a new organization that would impose these fees? Under what authority would this organization enforce or control allocation and issuance of IP addresses? 3) What was the criterion used to decide how much the fees should be and who should pay these fees? Is this a plan to weed out numerous small ISPs and to discourage new startup ISPs? 4) How will the money be spent? This organization would be collecting many millions of dollars. What would the ISP get in return? What is the benefit? 5) Who will be the people what will make up this organization? How will the "select" few be chosen? Persons that "understand" the issues as the issues are defined by Network Solutions, Inc. or if by representative people from the Internet community (ISP's, vendors, government, educators, corporate users, back bone providers), will they like minded with interest similar to big business? Who will oversee this group of people (i.e., the registry)? I ask that this plan NOT be implemented until they can make reasonable answers and assurances. Thank you David A. Dobbs Data Processing Manager Saco River Tel & Tel Co (207) 929-9250 dadobbs at mix-net.net From davids at wiznet.net Mon Jan 20 13:09:34 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:09:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701201749.MAA20745@dilbert.mix-net.net> Message-ID: Here's a brief summary answer to your questions, each of which has been asked and answered on this forum numerous times. On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > the formation of a new organization is needed? It costs money to run a registry. What has changed is that NSI has decided that the conflation of domain registry and IP address registry is a bad thing. > 2) Under what authority does Network Solution, Inc. have to create a new > organization that would impose these fees? Under what authority would this > organization enforce or control allocation and issuance of IP addresses? The answer to your first question is that such authority comes from IANA whose authority comes from the Department of Defense. The answer to your second question is that ARIN does not have that control, IANA does. > 3) What was the criterion used to decide how much the fees should be and > who should pay these fees? Is this a plan to weed out numerous small ISPs > and to discourage new startup ISPs? The fees were selected to be an approximation of what it would cost to run such a registry. This plan will not weed out small ISPs because small ISPs do not get their allocations from Internic now and wouldn't get them from ARIN in the future. > 4) How will the money be spent? This organization would be collecting many > millions of dollars. What would the ISP get in return? What is the > benefit? The ISP would get in return IP registration services, or do you not think those are necessary? The money would be spent on the operation of the registry. > 5) Who will be the people what will make up this organization? How will > the "select" few be chosen? Persons that "understand" the issues as the > issues are defined by Network Solutions, Inc. or if by representative > people from the Internet community (ISP's, vendors, government, educators, > corporate users, back bone providers), will they like minded with interest > similar to big business? Who will oversee this group of people (i.e., the > registry)? For those questions, I defer to the coming details of the implementation. The answer to your last question is, you guessed it, IANA. > I ask that this plan NOT be implemented until they can make reasonable > answers and assurances. That was and still is the plan. That's what this list is for. David Schwartz WIZnet/WIZLink From mknewman at blkbox.COM Mon Jan 20 13:46:39 1997 From: mknewman at blkbox.COM (Marc Newman) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:46:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 20, 97 01:09:34 pm Message-ID: <9701201246.ab28452@blkbox.COM> > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > > > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > > the formation of a new organization is needed? > > It costs money to run a registry. What has changed is that NSI > has decided that the conflation of domain registry and IP address > registry is a bad thing. > So shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in the cost of domain registration since that function will no longer be hosted by NSI and their costs will go down accordingly, or is this just another scam to skim profits off ISPs? Marc From kimh at internic.net Mon Jan 20 14:05:08 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:05:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 20, 97 01:09:34 pm Message-ID: <199701201905.OAA05800@jazz.internic.net> > David, Thanks for answering the questions below. One correction though, ARIN is *not* an NSI initiative but a community initiative. NSI is merely trying to work with the community to propose a solution to the community's desire that domain name administration and IP number administration be separated. Kim > Here's a brief summary answer to your questions, each of which > has been asked and answered on this forum numerous times. > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > > > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > > the formation of a new organization is needed? > > It costs money to run a registry. What has changed is that NSI > has decided that the conflation of domain registry and IP address > registry is a bad thing. > > > 2) Under what authority does Network Solution, Inc. have to create a new > > organization that would impose these fees? Under what authority would this > > organization enforce or control allocation and issuance of IP addresses? > > The answer to your first question is that such authority comes > from IANA whose authority comes from the Department of Defense. The > answer to your second question is that ARIN does not have that control, > IANA does. > > > 3) What was the criterion used to decide how much the fees should be and > > who should pay these fees? Is this a plan to weed out numerous small ISPs > > and to discourage new startup ISPs? > > The fees were selected to be an approximation of what it would > cost to run such a registry. This plan will not weed out small ISPs > because small ISPs do not get their allocations from Internic now and > wouldn't get them from ARIN in the future. > > > 4) How will the money be spent? This organization would be collecting many > > millions of dollars. What would the ISP get in return? What is the > > benefit? > > The ISP would get in return IP registration services, or do you > not think those are necessary? The money would be spent on the operation > of the registry. > > > 5) Who will be the people what will make up this organization? How will > > the "select" few be chosen? Persons that "understand" the issues as the > > issues are defined by Network Solutions, Inc. or if by representative > > people from the Internet community (ISP's, vendors, government, educators, > > corporate users, back bone providers), will they like minded with interest > > similar to big business? Who will oversee this group of people (i.e., the > > registry)? > > For those questions, I defer to the coming details of the > implementation. The answer to your last question is, you guessed it, IANA. > > > I ask that this plan NOT be implemented until they can make reasonable > > answers and assurances. > > That was and still is the plan. That's what this list is for. > > David Schwartz > WIZnet/WIZLink > From cym at acrux.net Mon Jan 20 13:56:01 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:56:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <9701201246.ab28452@blkbox.COM> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Marc Newman wrote: > So shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in the cost of domain > registration since that function will no longer be hosted by NSI and > their costs will go down accordingly, or is this just another scam to > skim profits off ISPs? I don't think you understand this proposal as written. I would reccomend reading it more closely. InterNIC will not cease to handle domain registration. The stated intent of this proposal is.... 1) To separate IP registry functionality from domain registry functionality 2) To provide funding for above mentioned IP registry services, as the current funding model is finite and will soon (relatively) cease to exist. There are problems with the proposal, which are no doubt being worked on in the impending version change of the ARIN proposal document. I would suggest waiting until that document is released, reading it carefully, and then and only then taking aim at what you perceive to be the primary problems. That is what I intend to do, and it seems the most efficient way :) From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon Jan 20 14:59:41 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:59:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <9701201246.ab28452@blkbox.COM> from "Marc Newman" at Jan 20, 97 12:46:39 pm Message-ID: <199701201959.AA041270383@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Marc Newman supposedly said: > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > > > > > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > > > the formation of a new organization is needed? > > > > It costs money to run a registry. What has changed is that NSI > > has decided that the conflation of domain registry and IP address > > registry is a bad thing. > > > So shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in the cost of domain > registration since that function will no longer be hosted by NSI and > their costs will go down accordingly, or is this just another scam to > skim profits off ISPs? > > Marc > I don't think anyone will disagree that NSI is "in the black" on DNS registrations, but I would caution against letting any vehmence about the DNS costs effects who one evaluates the ARIN proposal. Since there is such a large concern over profits, I applaud the efforts to split the IP registry function off from the DNS registration. They are seperate functions and should not be dealt with in the same fashion. I expect the DNS registration games (and costs) to swing wildly in the next year as changes are made in the gTLD's and the outcome of the IAHC deliberations, so trying to link the two is not a prudent move. I firmly support moving away from a US government funded infrastructure, to a self sustaining, cost recovery, non-profit model. I also firmly believe that the model proposed is a reasonable one, and the costs are not unreasonable. I have a few concerns with the first draft of the proposal which I hope to see in the second draft(non perpetuating BOT, and a membership category for individuals at a much lower yearly rate). ---> Phil From mknewman at blkbox.COM Mon Jan 20 15:39:54 1997 From: mknewman at blkbox.COM (Marc Newman) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:39:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701201944.OAA05847@jazz.internic.net> from "Kim Hubbard" at Jan 20, 97 02:44:22 pm Message-ID: <9701201439.aa08238@blkbox.COM> > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > > > > > > > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > > > > the formation of a new organization is needed? > > > > > > It costs money to run a registry. What has changed is that NSI > > > has decided that the conflation of domain registry and IP address > > > registry is a bad thing. > > > > > So shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in the cost of domain > > registration since that function will no longer be hosted by NSI and > > their costs will go down accordingly, or is this just another scam to > > skim profits off ISPs? > > > > Marc > > > > You know Marc, your first question was very legitimate - what I don't > understand is why you felt it necessary to include the second > part. *sigh* > Sorry, Kim, nothing personal it's just that in the last year, we have endured the State of Texas niping us for 1% of gross for the Telecommunication Infrastructure Fund, the RBOCs trying to raise our rates to $600 per line per year, charges for domain names that used to be free and now IP allocations. It's enough to make a starving ISP pull his hair out! Everyone sees ISPs as fat cats and it just ain't true! Look at AOL, Netcom, PSI and all the others that are having problem just keeping solvent! New charges are NOT a good thing for this business. Marc From hcb at clark.net Mon Jan 20 15:38:55 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:38:55 -0500 Subject: A wild stab at the numbers Message-ID: I have a sense it might be a good idea to respond fairly quickly to this; I'm beginning to think flamers come out in strength when the moon rises (yes David, I know, it's already tomorrow where you are, and I'm being US-centric...) >To: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) >cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, davidc at apnic.net >Subject: Re: A wild stab at the numbers >Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:02:30 +0900 >From: "David R. Conrad" > >Stephen, > >I want to publicly express my gratitude for you actually coming up >with numbers, as made of straw as they might be. They are extremely >useful in that they provide a starting point for discussions. I will echo David's gratitude. This is an excellent start to a process that I believe is needed both to validate the proposal, and to gain consensus. I was the first technical employee at the Corporation for Open Systems, and was involved with planning and setting up its physical plant, as well as a wide range of secretariat activities. Regardless of what one thinks of OSI (it makes me feel old when people now ask me "what's that?"), some of our practical experience may be relevant here. Some of our experience is very relevant in how _not_ to deal with the owning members and the technical public. Many of the membership issues are not appropriate to this note, but the idea of reasonable budgets are. COS had ridiculously expensive quarters and other "image" things that hurt its credibility. Utility was often sacrificed to image. Again, I am far less concerned with the numerical values of line items as identifying what the line items are, and what missions they support. > >A couple of points, however: > >>First off, in looking at the original proposal, I see that the *sole* >>function of this registry is to allocate IP addresses to those who apply >>for them, > >Almost -- registries allocate space to organizations which demonstrate >need. A very significant difference when it comes to computing >staffing costs (see below). > >>Staff salaries: you need two clerical types ($30K/year), director >>($60K/year), policy co-ordinator ($40K/year), on-site repair and sysadmin >>($60K/year), and a receptionist ($25K/year). Multiply by three to cover >>benefits, per-employee overhead, on-desk computers, building, physical >>plant, parking, and the annual company picnic. Total estimated: >>$735K/year. Budging $1000K/year allows for unforseen needs, as well as a >>cushion for hiring consultants to deal with in-house problems. I think physical plant needs to be examined further...see below. As far as desktop and plant requirements go in general, don't forget telecommuting will be an option. Telecommuting may in fact be a useful way to handle time zone variations among the customer base. There's probably practical value to locating the new registry office relatively near the current Internic, to ease transition, but I hate to see people on Pacific time forced to live by Eastern hours. (I do mean here the Pacific Time Zone, as opposed to the perception of time by Californians as opposed to those of us in the Eastern Establishment *wink*) > >Nope. In order to demonstrate need for IP addresses, you need >technical staff capable of reading and understanding network >engineering plans. They must also understand the explanations >provided to them by the requestors when they call up to explain why >they need a /16 for 2000 hosts. >Then there is AS number request >justifications. Not that ASN justifications are anywhere near the volume of address allocations, I must have missed them in the proposal. Of course, they are logically part of the process. > >Note, that people with this kind of knowledge are in quite high demand >at this point in time. > >As an aside, the time necessary to understand a requestor's network in >sufficient detail to justify allocation tends to be bimodal -- the >clueful only take an hour or two, the aggressively clueless can take >weeks (note that this is APNIC's experience, InterNIC's may be a bit >less as there are less language issues that need to be dealt with). First, I agree with David that you will need to have technical people reviewing the requests. It's entirely possible well-trained clerical people will do some of the screening, or even software (with associated development cost), but at some point a person with a good knowledge of addressing and routing will need to become involved. Depending, of course, on going salaries wherever the registry is placed, such a person will run more than that. In the DC area, I'd start at $60K (not including benefits) and go up from there. A technical director will run higher. I'm not clear what the policy coordinator would do, or what his/her qualifications need to be. Stephen, could you elaborate? Before we estimate how many people are needed to handle requests, whether technical (of varying levels, we need a better understanding of the volume of requests and the level of effort required to handle them. I agree that there will be at least a bimodal distribution of processing effort. > >Currently, I believe InterNIC has something like 10 full time staff >handling request reviews (Kim will correct me if I'm wrong). RIPE-NCC >is approximately similar. APNIC has 2 staff who do the reviews, but >we're dying for additional staff and our load is an order of magnitude >less than InterNICs and RIPE-NCC. > >And please, before people start screaming that the registries should >not to do these reviews, I am talking about CURRENT registry policies >as defined in RFC 2050. If you'd like to modify those policies, >please take it to the Policy And Guidelines for Allocation of Network >numbers mailing list, pagan at apnic.net (to subscribe, send a message >body of "subscribe" to pagan-request at apnic.net). > >>Computers: you will need something fairly good-size for a Web and FTP >>server so that people can get registry information. Call it $50K every >>five years, or $10K/year. > >Load on whois servers can be quite high -- Mark Kosters can provide >details. People whine very loudly when they can't reach the >registration database. Instead of a single big machine, you'll likely >want an array of smaller machines so you can round robin load share >over those machines. Also helps availability. > >>Networking equipment: I can't see the need for anything faster than three >>T1 links >>Connectivity: Three T1s would eat up $108K/year in port costs, and some >>amount for the actual physical links. In my territory, you are talking >>$72K/year. Total is $180K/year. Probably way too high. >> >>Office space [lease]: incorporated into headcount expense. The "production" servers are critical resources. If they are colocated with an IX, as proposed below, UPS, backed up HVAC, 24x7 staff, etc., will presumably be there. If they are at the main offices, raise the physical plant costs to cover the high-availability requirements. Also raise the communications line cost to reflect needs for physical route diversity. > >Both APNIC and (I believe) RIPE-NCC have placed machines at Internet >exchange points. This has 3 advantages: a) bandwidth is generally not >a concern, b) you don't run the risk of "gives us more addresses or >we'll cut you off", and c) people won't say "we're better than ISP x >because we're providing Internet services to a regional registry". Of >course, the registry has to be able to negotiate peering and transit >agreements as necessary. I tend to agree with IX placement for the "production servers." Informational web servers might be handled differently. Of course, the registry will need connectivity to the production servers, and to the Internet in general. Security is a consideration, given the criticality of the function. It's not a question of if crackers will try to attack the servers, it's a question of when, how frequently, and how hard. There will need to be firewalls, authentication servers, etc. > >Housing at an IX plus peering/transit fees can be significantly higher >than your projected numbers. > >>Periodic meetings: The usual cost for throwing a meeting ranges from $4K >>to $9K, depending on how fancy you get. This assumes five days, rooms for >>the few staff that attend, some amenities, and the non-staff attendees pay >>their own room costs. This also incorporates some costs for printing and >>copying contributions to the meetings. If you assume quarterly >>face-to-face meetings, the total to budget is $36K/year >> >>Trade show presence: Small booths run roughly $15K to build -- and expect >>to build a new one every year. Transporting, setting up, tearing down, and >>returning the booth to storage is around $1K/show. Labor and amenities >>(power and net connection) associated with the booth should be no more than >>$7K per show. Assuming the organization exhibits at three trade shows a >>year, that's $39K/year. I'm not sure of the reason to have trade show booth presence. Just as it has been suggested snail mail should be minimized, I wonder if web presence is adequate for "user" contact, coupled with visibility at, and participation in, technical conferences. > >Not sure how valuable trade show presence is, however it has proven to >be important that the registries attend technical conferences and >meetings of ISPs (e.g., IETFs, IEPGs, NANOGs, EOFs, etc). These >probably balance out. > >>Copying, Mailings: While I can make a strong case that this organization >>should *never* mail a document, the truth is that ballots and such may need >>to be mailed, and once you start snail-mailing ballots you might as well do >>it right. > >Don't forget billing expenses. > >>Loan costs: priced correctly, there is no way that you can get enough >>grants to fund this thing totally. Assume you will need to borrow $1.5 >>million to start, and you can get this for 12 percent (secured loan). That >>means your debt service will be at most $180K/year. This is a good place >>to look to cover with revenue from "first-time fees." > >Shouldn't be necessary -- NSI is providing funding backstop while ARIN >becomes established. > >>Remember, I calculated the >>out-of-pocket cost for a member is in the close order of $100; > >Depends very much on the number of members -- this is one of the >unknowns. > >>Now let's talk about grandfathering existing allocations. Let's say you >>have 3000 existing top-level customers of address space. > >I suspect this would be a bit controversial. > >Again, thanks for providing the numbers -- they provide very good >input for useful discussions. > Seconded. Disclaimer, Hopefully with Useful Content ----------------------------------------- Let me issue a disclaimer here, on a topic that is I think also relevant to the discussion. I am a direct employee of a Cisco Training Partner, and hold Cisco stock in my retirement account (as well as Ascend). We do training for other internetworking vendors including Digital and Motorola. I also develop advanced courses that we offer commercially, such as OSPF and BGP. As an individual, I am working on a textbook for CiscoPress (the joint venture between Cisco and MacMillan), on which I hope to go to contract this week, with a goal of publication this summer. A significant thrust of this textbook is to educate people in how to prepare a clueful address request. David's comment "As an aside, the time necessary to understand a requestor's network in sufficient detail to justify allocation tends to be bimodal -- the clueful only take an hour or two, the aggressively clueless can take weeks (note that this is APNIC's experience, InterNIC's may be a bit less as there are less language issues that need to be dealt with)." is just the sort of thing I am trying to deal with. In the process of developing my text, I had planned to solicit comments from registry staffs. I'm interested in registry experience with the clueless, as it is a portion of those to which the book is aimed. I recognize certain segments of the clueless are beyond engineering education, and simply need adult supervision. So, I have a financial interest in understanding registry needs. At the same time, it is also in my interest to help make those needs clear. Thoughts? Howard Berkowitz PSC International, a Cisco Training Partner (To the best of my knowledge, my immediate boss doesn't know what address allocation is, and is a sufficiently reasonable human being as not to have an opinion on it without understanding it). Telecommuting office (703)998-5819, fax (703)998-5058, home (703)998-5017 From the_innkeeper at sols.net Mon Jan 20 10:54:42 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:54:42 -0500 Subject: A wild stab at the umbers Message-ID: <199701201546.KAA19761@lists.internic.net> > So totaling all this, per year in thousands of dollars (000):: > > Staff salaries: 1000 > Computers: 10 > Net Equipment: 4 > Net Connection 180 > Development 350 > Meetings 36 > Trade Shows 39 > Copy/mail 215 > Legal/Ins 250 > Acct/Payroll 65 > CPA (includes audit) 70 > Debt service 190 > ---- > Subtotal: 2399 > Bad Debt Allowance 120 > ---- > Total: 2519 I would also like to express my thanks for the numbers Stephen....These are very helpful (along with the comments I have already seen) in helping understand more of what we are all looking at..... 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 From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Mon Jan 20 10:56:21 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:56:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: <199701200306.VAA22960@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > Well gee, what do you call NETSTAR? > > And why, pray tell, did they go on to develop and produce what they did > (which ASCEND noticed rather quickly)? > I call it a damn good idea that has not proven itself in a production environment yet. They also started in 91, began testing in 93, and introduced the GigaRouter in 94. I still don't see it in the NAPs, and at least 2 of the big backbone providers have recently looked into replacing their backbone gear, but I still don't see them using it. Raw speed is one thing, and it's very important, but stability and a robust BGP implementation are at least as important. I certainly hope they do well, or at least Ascend's High-Performance Networking Division does well, but there are faster routers out there, they just aren't stable enough or don't have good BGP (or any BGP in some). Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From kimh at internic.net Mon Jan 20 14:44:22 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:44:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <9701201246.ab28452@blkbox.COM> from "Marc Newman" at Jan 20, 97 12:46:39 pm Message-ID: <199701201944.OAA05847@jazz.internic.net> > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > > > > > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > > > the formation of a new organization is needed? > > > > It costs money to run a registry. What has changed is that NSI > > has decided that the conflation of domain registry and IP address > > registry is a bad thing. > > > So shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in the cost of domain > registration since that function will no longer be hosted by NSI and > their costs will go down accordingly, or is this just another scam to > skim profits off ISPs? > > Marc > You know Marc, your first question was very legitimate - what I don't understand is why you felt it necessary to include the second part. *sigh* To answer your legitimate question, I'm not really privy to domain discussions but I believe NSI is reviewing this possibility, however, keep in mind that the IP portion of the InterNIC is a pretty small piece of the registration services currently supplied by NSI. Kim From cym at acrux.net Mon Jan 20 16:55:15 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:55:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Michael D. Bathrick wrote: > I have to agree with David - the fees posted will do nothing but hurt the > small ISP, many of whom are running on the hairy edge of existance. We > were never consulted when Network Solutions chose to impose a domain > registration fee - but at least that fee was within reason. The fees > currently proposed are outrageous. *sighs deeply* OK....now it looks like I'm in the slightly odd position of defending this proposal. I'd like to just take a time out and aswer what seem to be the most common misperceptions of this plan: 1) As explained by the proposal's primary drafter, the fee schedule is based on a yearly fee, charged on the cumulative amount of address space allocated in the previous year directly from the registry. If ISP X allocates 2 /16's, they pay $20,000 total. THe pricing is *not* $20,000 for each /16, etc. At the end of the year your allocations are added up, and what you pay depends only on the range you fall into. 2) The small ISP (non-multihomed) WILL NOT have to pay this price schedule, though they may have to pay a lesser amount based on upstream providers charging to recoup their investment. *ONLY* ISP's which obtain allocations *directly* from the registry will be paying the proposed fee schedule, and since it is currently not possible to obtain an address block smaller than a /19 (32 class C's) from InterNIC, there will really be no change in this aspect for small ISP's. 3) The allocation guidelines will not change unless it is decided for other reasons to do so in the future. If you couldn't get a /19 now, you won't be able to get it then either, money irregardless. Now....can we PLEASE wait until we see the next revision of the proposal to start wasting time and bandwidth again? Kim has assured as that a good bit of work is going into making the next generation readable and clear, and that objections made previously on this list and others are being considered. All we're doing until then is rehashing the same arguments over, and over, and over, with no knowledge of whether or not said arguments have or have not been dealt with in the next revision of the ARIN proposal. From scharf at vix.com Mon Jan 20 17:03:22 1997 From: scharf at vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:03:22 -0800 Subject: Membership Fee In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:47:28 EST." <199701201541.KAA19441@lists.internic.net> Message-ID: <199701202203.OAA05874@bb.home.vix.com> > > 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 prez at berkshire.net Mon Jan 20 14:40:07 1997 From: prez at berkshire.net (Michael D. Bathrick) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:40:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701201749.MAA20745@dilbert.mix-net.net> Message-ID: I have to agree with David - the fees posted will do nothing but hurt the small ISP, many of whom are running on the hairy edge of existance. We were never consulted when Network Solutions chose to impose a domain registration fee - but at least that fee was within reason. The fees currently proposed are outrageous. Though I agree that the IP registration may be warranted, ANY pricing this high is anti-competitive and can make the difference between success and failure for a small company struggling in a competitive environment such as the ISP is now facing. The very fact that this has been taking place in a nearly 'secret' manner (in other words - without those whom this plan will affect the most being notified - much like the decision to charge domain registration was made) points to a group of folks who don't care what the effect of their decisions will produce. The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. Else expect a major problem with getting the folks you are regulating to co-operate. Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael D. Bathrick | 150 North Street | prez at berkshire.net President | Suite 23 | Voice: 413-442-7805 BerkshireNet | Pittsfield, MA 01201 | Fax: 413-442-7909 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David A. Dobbs wrote: > I oppose the formation of the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) > without further justifiable reasoning and demonstrated need. I have many > questions and concerns. > > 1) Why are the fees needed? What has changed or is about to change that > the formation of a new organization is needed? > > 2) Under what authority does Network Solution, Inc. have to create a new > organization that would impose these fees? Under what authority would this > organization enforce or control allocation and issuance of IP addresses? > > 3) What was the criterion used to decide how much the fees should be and > who should pay these fees? Is this a plan to weed out numerous small ISPs > and to discourage new startup ISPs? > > 4) How will the money be spent? This organization would be collecting many > millions of dollars. What would the ISP get in return? What is the > benefit? > > 5) Who will be the people what will make up this organization? How will > the "select" few be chosen? Persons that "understand" the issues as the > issues are defined by Network Solutions, Inc. or if by representative > people from the Internet community (ISP's, vendors, government, educators, > corporate users, back bone providers), will they like minded with interest > similar to big business? Who will oversee this group of people (i.e., the > registry)? > > I ask that this plan NOT be implemented until they can make reasonable > answers and assurances. > > Thank you > > David A. Dobbs > Data Processing Manager > Saco River Tel & Tel Co > (207) 929-9250 > dadobbs at mix-net.net > From hcb at clark.net Mon Jan 20 17:17:52 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:17:52 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm responding to two positions here. The proposal drafters, as I understand, have put out a fee structure. Michael Bathrick and others are saying the fees are too large for them to pay. To me, there is a problem with both positions. I do not believe the initial proposal should have suggested any actual numbers for fees, but instead have discussed the functions to be performed and some estimate of the workload in terms of number and types of work requests (as opposed to the resources needed to service them). Consensus needs to form as to: 1) The need for a registry (I think this is self-evident, but I'll put it down for completeness) 2) The functions that registry will perform, including availability goals for public servers, 3) An estimated workload of allocation requests, ASN requests, etc. Once there is a consensus on these requirements, the means for carrying them out can be examined. There will be a set of fixed costs that must be allocated over the expected number of direct customers (assuming that is the only funding source), and there will be some set of variable costs that varies with the workload. If the services are accepted as needed, and it is agreed that it will cost a certain amount to provide them, then those costs will have to be distributed over the current and prospective customer base. If those costs are excessive for small ISPs, then either there needs to be a community consensus that there is a non-economic reason to subsidize them (and there may be), or, sadly, a certain amount of natural selection comes into play. (I'd really like to play NFL quarterback, but I just don't have what it takes...let's be honest...defensive back...gets to hit people). But we now seemed locked in a battle over arbitrary numbers. How can that go anywhere? Even if a new proposal changes the numbers, unless there is a derivation of where the numbers came from, I see the flames continuing. Howard Berkowitz At 3:55 PM -0600 1/20/97, Brian Tackett wrote: >On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Michael D. Bathrick wrote: > >> I have to agree with David - the fees posted will do nothing but hurt the >> small ISP, many of whom are running on the hairy edge of existance. We >> were never consulted when Network Solutions chose to impose a domain >> registration fee - but at least that fee was within reason. The fees >> currently proposed are outrageous. > >*sighs deeply* > >OK....now it looks like I'm in the slightly odd position of defending this >proposal. I'd like to just take a time out and aswer what seem to be the >most common misperceptions of this plan: > >1) As explained by the proposal's primary drafter, the fee schedule is >based on a yearly fee, charged on the cumulative amount of address space >allocated in the previous year directly from the registry. If ISP X >allocates 2 /16's, they pay $20,000 total. THe pricing is *not* $20,000 >for each /16, etc. At the end of the year your allocations are added up, >and what you pay depends only on the range you fall into. > >2) The small ISP (non-multihomed) WILL NOT have to pay this price >schedule, though they may have to pay a lesser amount based on upstream >providers charging to recoup their investment. *ONLY* ISP's which obtain >allocations *directly* from the registry will be paying the proposed fee >schedule, and since it is currently not possible to obtain an address >block smaller than a /19 (32 class C's) from InterNIC, there will really >be no change in this aspect for small ISP's. > >3) The allocation guidelines will not change unless it is decided for >other reasons to do so in the future. If you couldn't get a /19 now, you >won't be able to get it then either, money irregardless. > > >Now....can we PLEASE wait until we see the next revision of the proposal >to start wasting time and bandwidth again? Kim has assured as that a good >bit of work is going into making the next generation readable and clear, >and that objections made previously on this list and others are being >considered. All we're doing until then is rehashing the same arguments >over, and over, and over, with no knowledge of whether or not said >arguments have or have not been dealt with in the next revision of the >ARIN proposal. From davids at wiznet.net Mon Jan 20 17:25:21 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:25:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Brian Tackett wrote: > schedule, and since it is currently not possible to obtain an address > block smaller than a /19 (32 class C's) from InterNIC, there will really > be no change in this aspect for small ISP's. This is not so. So far as I know, Internic does allocate smaller blocks for cases where globally unique IPs are required whether routable or not. DS From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 20 17:47:18 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:47:18 -0500 Subject: Membership Fee In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:03:22 PST." <199701202203.OAA05874@bb.home.vix.com> References: <199701202203.OAA05874@bb.home.vix.com> Message-ID: <199701202247.RAA30788@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:03:22 PST, Jerry Scharf said: > 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. I admit being a tad confoozled here. Your second paragraph implies you think you should have *some* voice, but the first one seems to say that only the big players need apply. Personally, I think there *does* need to be some sort of support for "the little guy". Let's play a little thought experiment... Where do you define "the big dogs"? Right now, there's only a small handful of *big* long-haul people (MCI, Sprint, BBN, and the like, sorry if I missed anybody ;). What if "they" get defined as "only the big players need apply"? Only thing I'll add here is one word: Microsoft. Enough said. -- 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 prez at berkshire.net Mon Jan 20 17:49:22 1997 From: prez at berkshire.net (Michael D. Bathrick) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:49:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701202151.QAA03653@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Obviously an answer from someone in academia who has time on his hands - something that a working ISP doesn't have. Mike On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Scott Bradner wrote: > > The very fact that this has been taking > > place in a nearly 'secret' manner (in other words - without those whom > > this plan will affect the most being notified > > notified - like posting drafts of the proposal to open > mailing lists for comment, you mean notification like that?? > > Scott > From the_innkeeper at sols.net Mon Jan 20 17:53:35 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:53:35 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701202249.RAA11751@rs2.internic.net> > I'm responding to two positions here. The proposal drafters, as I > understand, have put out a fee structure. Michael Bathrick and others are > saying the fees are too large for them to pay. > > To me, there is a problem with both positions. I do not believe the > initial proposal should have suggested any actual numbers for fees, but > instead have discussed the functions to be performed and some estimate of > the workload in terms of number and types of work requests (as opposed to > the resources needed to service them). > > Consensus needs to form as to: > 1) The need for a registry (I think this is self-evident, but I'll put > it down for completeness) The need for a registry is very self-evident. The organization of that registry is something for further discussion. > 2) The functions that registry will perform, including availability > goals for public servers, Excellent point. That is something that should be very well pointed out. > 3) An estimated workload of allocation requests, ASN requests, etc. > > Once there is a consensus on these requirements, the means for carrying > them out can be examined. There will be a set of fixed costs that must be > allocated over the expected number of direct customers (assuming that is > the only funding source), and there will be some set of variable costs that > varies with the workload. > > If the services are accepted as needed, and it is agreed that it will cost > a certain amount to provide them, then those costs will have to be > distributed over the current and prospective customer base. If those costs > are excessive for small ISPs, then either there needs to be a community > consensus that there is a non-economic reason to subsidize them (and there > may be), or, sadly, a certain amount of natural selection comes into play. > (I'd really like to play NFL quarterback, but I just don't have what it > takes...let's be honest...defensive back...gets to hit people). > > But we now seemed locked in a battle over arbitrary numbers. How can that > go anywhere? Even if a new proposal changes the numbers, unless there is a > derivation of where the numbers came from, I see the flames continuing. > I will agree very much with this outlook on some folks possibly being left out because of costing....But then there are many ISPs who attempt to start up and just cannot make it because of improper planning or forecasting...Being able to plug specific figures into budgeting and forecasts will help the small folks in their initial planning and hopefully some of our efforts with AOP and the writings we are putting together will have the ability to work well with what is being proposed in helping all ISPs out there no matter what size... 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 From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Mon Jan 20 16:44:00 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:44:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Membership Fee Message-ID: <199701202144.QAA03604@newdev.harvard.edu> there has been a suggestion for multiple classes of membership (two anyway) for example, an individual and a corporate membership one question comes out of this type of proposal, how does one figure out who should be in what classification? Scott From jis at mit.edu Mon Jan 20 15:41:23 1997 From: jis at mit.edu (Jeffrey I. Schiller) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:41:23 -0500 Subject: Board Structure inappropriate Message-ID: <32E3D873.6B39@mit.edu> Here are my comments (for the record): > The initial Board of Trustees will be selected from those individuals > who have shown an understanding of the issues and a > desire to participate in solutions. I noticed that a previous version of this document claimed that the Board of Trustees will be selected by NSI. This version removes the reference to NSI. Yet, I heard prior to this version that the board had already been chosen (just not announced to the public yet). So did the board get disbanded and a new board selected, or is the removal of the reference to NSI for political correctness but without meaning given the board has already been chosen. So who chose? > The trustees whose terms do not expire shall elect successor trustees > to fill the vacancies. So we have a self perpetuating board responsible for a public resource. The initial list of "chosen" is made by a non-public not even published process. Smells like a Cabal to me. Smells bad. I had been holding this comment because I heard that a new better version of the proposal was to come out soon, but I haven't seen it. If it addresses this issue, great! -Jeff P.S. I know who one of the board members is, and it is someone I trust and respect. This is a good sign and I don't mean to disparage the individuals (who presumably know who they are), particularly since I don't know who they are (but they have met a few times? Correct?). It is the process that smells here... From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Mon Jan 20 16:51:19 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:51:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701202151.QAA03653@newdev.harvard.edu> > The very fact that this has been taking > place in a nearly 'secret' manner (in other words - without those whom > this plan will affect the most being notified notified - like posting drafts of the proposal to open mailing lists for comment, you mean notification like that?? Scott From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 19 18:53:07 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:53:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good intent and somewhat competent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > If there is some > magical router out there that can handle 10,000,000 route entries, why > haven't we heard about it? http://www.pluris.com is only one of three designs out there. And at least one of these will be available soon. > Maybe Cisco isn't lying to us all, maybe aggregation is a good idea no > matter what hardware the backbones are using. Besides, changing the global routing paradigm is something that should be done first in a research environment so we can have some proof that it has a chance of succeeding in the real world. 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 Mon Jan 20 10:47:28 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:47:28 -0500 Subject: Membership Fee Message-ID: <199701201541.KAA19441@lists.internic.net> > 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 From hcb at clark.net Mon Jan 20 18:10:04 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:10:04 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: The Innkeeper said, >I will agree very much with this outlook on some folks possibly being left >out because of costing....But then there are many ISPs who attempt to start >up and just cannot make it because of improper planning or >forecasting...Being able to plug specific figures into budgeting and >forecasts will help the small folks in their initial planning and hopefully >some of our efforts with AOP and the writings we are putting together will >have the ability to work well with what is being proposed in helping all >ISPs out there no matter what size... I think I understand, but I am not sure. Could you clarify the above? I think you are saying, or thinking about: Some startup ISPs will fail because of poor forecasting, technical skills, marketing, or just plain bad luck. Most startup ISPs will not justify a /19, so will not deal directly with the registry. In this case, the concern is that the "big guys" will not pass through registry costs that become a bar to entry. I assume you are saying there is no guaranteed right to entry into the ISP market; a certain level of startup costs comes with the territory. Some startup ISPs may multihome and want provider-independent space, so they would be a candidate to deal directly with the registry. The proposal doesn't really seem to consider this. Small providers will also need to deal with the registry to get ASNs. Costs need to be determined here. Howard Berkowitz From jis at mit.edu Mon Jan 20 18:19:31 1997 From: jis at mit.edu (Jeffrey I. Schiller) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:19:31 -0500 Subject: Board Structure inappropriate References: <32E3D873.6B39@mit.edu> Message-ID: <32E3FD83.6E49@mit.edu> Well, I hear it on good authority that the self perpetuating aspect of the Board will be fixed in the next version of the proposal. This sounds good. -Jeff From vancleef at microunity.com Mon Jan 20 18:32:09 1997 From: vancleef at microunity.com (Bob Van Cleef) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:32:09 -0800 Subject: Advice on Organization In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:46:54 EST." <199701190246.VAA06401@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: <199701202332.PAA29411@plotter.microunity.com> Kim; > Then it became clear that there were many that didn't understand > other parts of the proposal, so we thought it was wise to take the > time to clarify the entire draft. May I make a suggestion that is radical? Make the current draft, and each subsequent revision "public." Include the rationale for each change as part of the draft until the final release. I know that many "flames" will result based on incomplete phrasing - but wouldn't it be more profitable to have the flames focused on the document itself, instead of other people? You will never get the wording to the point that everyone will "understand it." However, you can point to the reasons for the changes, as recorded in the "rationale" sections, so that others can then suggest different ways of phrasing to achieve the end goal, a finished document. Standards organizations have used this methodolgy for years with positive results. Holding the document "until it is ready" only means that it will never get released for review... Bob ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com From the_innkeeper at sols.net Mon Jan 20 18:36:32 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:36:32 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701202332.SAA18446@rs4.internic.net> > The Innkeeper said, > > >I will agree very much with this outlook on some folks possibly being left > >out because of costing....But then there are many ISPs who attempt to start > >up and just cannot make it because of improper planning or > >forecasting...Being able to plug specific figures into budgeting and > >forecasts will help the small folks in their initial planning and hopefully > >some of our efforts with AOP and the writings we are putting together will > >have the ability to work well with what is being proposed in helping all > >ISPs out there no matter what size... > > I think I understand, but I am not sure. Could you clarify the above? I > think you are saying, or thinking about: > > Some startup ISPs will fail because of poor forecasting, technical skills, > marketing, or just plain bad luck. > > Most startup ISPs will not justify a /19, so will not deal directly with > the registry. In this case, the concern is that the "big guys" will not > pass through registry costs that become a bar to entry. I assume you are > saying there is no guaranteed right to entry into the ISP market; a certain > level of startup costs comes with the territory. > > Some startup ISPs may multihome and want provider-independent space, so > they would be a candidate to deal directly with the registry. The proposal > doesn't really seem to consider this. > > Small providers will also need to deal with the registry to get ASNs. > Costs need to be determined here. I think I'll send my messages to you before I answer so you can word them out Howard :-) One of the concerns (and one we have been looking at very thoroughly within AOP over the last year) is about small ISPs and how we can better assist them. A large concern with us is that this will open it up so that the "big guys" will be able to use this as a leverage point with some ISPs. Most starting ISPs should be able to qualify for a /19 if they are starting up properly, that is not a problem. The real concern is how we can better control, via the proposal, when an ISP should deal with ARIN and when they should attempt to draw out of their Providor pool. I know that I would rather deal with a centralized organizating (as I do with DNS0 rather than deal with multiple organizations. Thank you very much for the assistance in clarifying this Howard... 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 From vancleef at microunity.com Mon Jan 20 18:51:38 1997 From: vancleef at microunity.com (Bob Van Cleef) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:51:38 -0800 Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:22:30 PST." Message-ID: <199701202351.PAA29461@plotter.microunity.com> > Maybe the web page didn't make it very clear, but the context of this list > has certainly made it clear that the suggested pricing is only a first > draft proposal. But Michael, the web page is the only standard against which comments can be made. Especially in light of the fact that many, clear and focused questions that have been posted to this mail list have been ignored, answered off-line, or dismissed with a hand-wave. Dredging through back e-mail is not acceptable. Last week I posted a series of questions. I tried my best to make them non- flamatory and focused. Except for an off-line telephone conversation with Jerry Scharf (who knew me from my days at NASA) I basically received no answers other than a terse "read the RFC." Based on my experience with things of this ilk, updating and expanding the web page should be "job one." And not just for Kim, who I suspected is under excessive pressure as is, but by a dedicated team of "volunteers" from the core team of those who claim to understand what is going on. Bob ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com From cts at vec.net Mon Jan 20 18:55:17 1997 From: cts at vec.net (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:55:17 EST Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <009AEA8B.F09BD3C0.106@vec.net> Michael D. Bathrick (prez at berkshire.net) wrote: > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the > average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. Else expect a major problem with > getting the folks you are regulating to co-operate. Perhaps it be useful to define some terms. What, for example, is the average 'mom & pop' ISP? Is it dual or multihomed? Do they get their IP allocation directly from the 'Nic now? I'd offhand guess "No" to both questions; if that's the case, they most likly are getting their blocks from an upstream provider instead of the NIC (or ARIN); therefore, the fees do not apply to them; there's nothing to deal with. But, perhaps you're concerned that the larger providers will pass along the costs; they indeed may; however, this is where the pricing models work to your favour; a few class 'C' blocks - which is what I'd assume a 'Mom & Pop' might have work out to be fairly inexpensive when part of a much larger allocation. It would be useful if you explained, in detail, how the proposed fees will impact your business. For example, share what a "typical" mom & pop would look like, if they are multihomed, where their current address blocks came from, and what they'll consume, address wise, in the next year or two. -- Charles T. Smith, Jr. VecNet, Inc. cts at vec.net Vice President, ISP/C From erikl at sover.net Mon Jan 20 19:02:15 1997 From: erikl at sover.net (Erik R. Leo) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:02:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > [...it costs $ to start an ISP...] > > Some startup ISPs may multihome and want provider-independent space, so > they would be a candidate to deal directly with the registry. The proposal > doesn't really seem to consider this. The operative word here is "want." We didn't start multi-homed, but grew into it. We still use some of our original provider-supplied IP blocks but are renumbering into our own (InterNIC-assigned) blocks, i.e., provider-independent space is a *choice* we've made as we've grown. > Small providers will also need to deal with the registry to get ASNs. > Costs need to be determined here. We didn't *need* and ASN 'til we multi-homed. My point is that we haven't experienced IP allocation procedures as a barrier to entry. And because its all been a consequence of growth, the proposal to charge cost-based fees seems pretty reasonable. In other words, when one has to go get one's addresses from ARIN, one will be able to afford it. -Erik -- Erik R. Leo, Net Worker SoVerNet Tel: +1(802)463-2111 Vermont's Sovereign Internet Connection Fax: +1(802)463-2110 5 Rockingham Street Email: erikl at sover.net Bellows Falls, Vermont 05101 From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Jan 20 19:21:21 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:21:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Membership Fee In-Reply-To: <199701202144.QAA03604@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Scott Bradner wrote: > there has been a suggestion for multiple classes of membership (two > anyway) for example, an individual and a corporate membership > > one question comes out of this type of proposal, how does one > figure out who should be in what classification? Associate membership is cheap but you don't get a vote. 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 MCS.NET Mon Jan 20 19:27:39 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:27:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <009AEA8B.F09BD3C0.106@vec.net> from "Charles T. Smith, Jr." at Jan 20, 97 06:55:17 pm Message-ID: <199701210027.SAA06668@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > Michael D. Bathrick (prez at berkshire.net) wrote: > > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the > > average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. Else expect a major problem with > > getting the folks you are regulating to co-operate. > > Perhaps it be useful to define some terms. What, for example, is the > average 'mom & pop' ISP? Is it dual or multihomed? Do they get their > IP allocation directly from the 'Nic now? > > I'd offhand guess "No" to both questions; if that's the case, they most > likly are getting their blocks from an upstream provider instead of the > NIC (or ARIN); therefore, the fees do not apply to them; there's nothing > to deal with. > > But, perhaps you're concerned that the larger providers will pass along > the costs; they indeed may; however, this is where the pricing models > work to your favour; a few class 'C' blocks - which is what I'd assume > a 'Mom & Pop' might have work out to be fairly inexpensive when part of > a much larger allocation. > > It would be useful if you explained, in detail, how the proposed fees will > impact your business. For example, share what a "typical" mom & pop would > look like, if they are multihomed, where their current address blocks came > from, and what they'll consume, address wise, in the next year or two. > > -- > Charles T. Smith, Jr. > VecNet, Inc. cts at vec.net > Vice President, ISP/C This is a non-starter. ANY ISP which obtains non-portable blocks and then resells anything which can't be instantly renumbered has a huge problem. Let's look at the possible places you get "screwed": 1) Static IP individual customers (I know that registries HATE this practice, but it really *IS* quite address-conservative if you do it right -- and for ISDN LAN-style connections it is the ONLY way you get interoperability with all hardware across the board!) 2) Web servers. Folks, try forcing all the DNS caches on the net to flush instantly. Can't be done. You WILL screw customers if you renumber their servers. The depth of the "screwing" is not under your control, and will CERTAINLY by more than a full business day. You WILL lose customers over that event. 3) Dedicated connections. Go ahead. Call your customers and tell them THEY have to renumber their LANs. Try it once. See how many customers you have left and how likely it is YOU get sued based on either a tort or equity claim. You WILL lose a BOATLOAD of YOUR customers if you get boxed like this. The only option you have left as an ISP is to sue the people who are putting you in the box. The only way you can PREVENT having this happen with provider-based space is to "marry" the company that has the block. Now, do you really want to do that? Do you want to EVER be put in the position where you have a supplier that you just CANNOT get rid of? No matter what you do? No businessperson in their right mind would accept this as a business premise. Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can justify them). To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite lawsuits -- I'm talking SERIOUS lawsuits here -- not based on some trivial matter, or to annoy, but multi-million lawsuits which are based on *HARD* damages to companies and their customer base! You'll see these suits by the hundreds, and the problem is that the eventual effect of this will be the destruction of CIDR and provider-based addressing. This is why we worked VERY hard to get Provider-Independant space when we needed original space, maintain that stance through whatever process is necessary today, and urge OTHERS to do so as well. It is also why ARIN must be *CAREFULLY* constructed to insure that it meets the essential need of NOT interfering with normal business operations and vendor/supplier relationships. If it serves to tie INDIRECT customers to a given vendor, not only will the vendors get sued but so will ARIN and its board -- and THAT eventuality is a very un-good thing. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Mon Jan 20 19:38:12 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:38:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, David Schwartz wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Brian Tackett wrote: > > > schedule, and since it is currently not possible to obtain an address > > block smaller than a /19 (32 class C's) from InterNIC, there will really > > be no change in this aspect for small ISP's. > > This is not so. So far as I know, Internic does allocate smaller > blocks for cases where globally unique IPs are required whether routable > or not. > > DS You are technically correct, but the original argument was predicated on the mistaken assumption that the small ISP would have to pay $2500 for a /24. I don't know of any ISP that wants to pay for non-routable addresses. Hell, that's what RFC1918 is for! :) > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Jan 20 20:08:34 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:08:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <199701202351.PAA29461@plotter.microunity.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Bob Van Cleef wrote: > > Maybe the web page didn't make it very clear, but the context of this list > > has certainly made it clear that the suggested pricing is only a first > > draft proposal. > > But Michael, the web page is the only standard against which comments can > be made. Especially in light of the fact that many, clear and focused questions > that have been posted to this mail list have been ignored, answered off-line, or > dismissed with a hand-wave. Dredging through back e-mail is not acceptable. I agree with everything you say here. But the fundamental problem is that IP allocation is a technical activity and the people who do it are not skilled politicians. That's why I think we should cut them a lot more slack. Especially since they have said that they put this before the public for community input, i.e. their timeframe is to have an independent registry running in April and it is only January right now. And while there is ample ammunition to criticize them for their political skills I don't think it is terribly productive because I don't think we want them to be better politicians. The people who have been firing postshots at the people and the proposal have simply got to grow up and realize that this is a public process in which they *MUST* either put up or shut up. There is no man behind the curtain, no big brother, no overreaching government authority who will tell us how to do things. This is our ball game, we set the rules and those rules are for us, not for someone else. Since it is an international venue, there is no government authority at all, period. In particular the actions of AOP are reprehensible in the way they roused their members to criticize this democratic process because the AOP executive seemingly has never taken the time to learn how the Internet works even though it has been a couple of years since they shifted their focus from BBS sysops to ISP's. If this group of people on this mailing list cannot come to a rough consensus on how the IP allocation function for North America can be moved into the hands of the private sector, then there will be no ARIN. It's that simple. My advice to anyone who has a criticism of the next draft ARIN proposal is to never shoot down any point for which you cannot at least provide a written rationale and, ideally, and alternative scenario or alternative wording. This list is not for trashing proposals, it's for creating proposals. In particular, many of the criticisms were both virulent and vague. The writers seemed to assume that we should all just magically understand where they are coming from. However, if they truly want to represent their constituency, they will have to spell out where they are coming from so that all of us can understand and appreciate their position. And if we can all get on with that sort of productive work then I would expect the individuals involved to to answer more questions in public and we can fully see and participate in the process for working out the next draft and the next and so on until we have a final consensus. > Based on my experience with things of this ilk, updating and expanding the web > page should be "job one." And not just for Kim, who I suspected is under > excessive pressure as is, but by a dedicated team of "volunteers" from the > core team of those who claim to understand what is going on. Definitely. It is asking too much of Kim to do a full time job running the current registry and then to also do the whole job of hashing out ARIN. I'd like to point out that in a similar recent process run by the IAHC, they had a person who was acting as librarian and webmaster to ensure that their website was up to date. Even if it involves paying a subcontractor, this would probably be a good idea. For instance there is an ARIN FAQ that is still not on the website and the mailing list archive is still not available at ftp://rs.internic.net/archives/NAIPR/ although a decent web archive would be a better idea and make it more accessible to most people. Nevertheless, I really cannot cast the blame on anyone. These are much harder problems to deal with than they appear at first because there is no organization to handle them when we are at the stage of trying to form a new organization. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From markb at INFI.NET Mon Jan 20 20:41:08 1997 From: markb at INFI.NET (MARK BORCHERS) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:41:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "Michael D. Bathrick" at Jan 20, 97 02:40:07 pm Message-ID: <199701210141.UAA13521@sh001.infi.net> > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the > average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. Else expect a major problem with > getting the folks you are regulating to co-operate. > Why? The notion that the infrastructure should be tailored to the typical underequipped shoestring "ISP" such as those that have sprung up over the past couple years is debatable, IMHO. From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Jan 20 20:49:17 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:49:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701210027.SAA06668@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > ANY ISP which obtains non-portable blocks and then resells anything which > can't be instantly renumbered has a huge problem. ISP's can take preemptive actions to protect themselves from some of this and there are ways in which they can deal with renumbering to alleviate some of the problems. Of course, life is not perfect but it's often not as bad as it seems. > 1) Static IP individual customers (I know that registries HATE this > practice, but it really *IS* quite address-conservative if you > do it right -- and for ISDN LAN-style connections it is the ONLY > way you get interoperability with all hardware across the board!) If a LAN customer wants to protect themselves from renumbering problems they can do two things. One is to run a DHCP server for all internal IP address allocations so that renumbering is quick and painless. The other is to use RFC1918 addresses internally and access the Internet through a proxy server thus requiring no more than two IP addresses (one on the router and one on the proxy server). Then renumbering requires only two pieces of equipment to be updated. > 2) Web servers. Folks, try forcing all the DNS caches on the net to > flush instantly. Can't be done. You WILL screw customers if you > renumber their servers. The depth of the "screwing" is not under > your control, and will CERTAINLY by more than a full business day. > You WILL lose customers over that event. Instantly is a problem. However if the changes are planned you can adjust the expire time of DNS downwards in steps so that there are only very short term caches to be flushed at the switchover point. > 3) Dedicated connections. Go ahead. Call your customers and tell > them THEY have to renumber their LANs. Try it once. See how many > customers you have left and how likely it is YOU get sued based > on either a tort or equity claim. With both this situation and the web server situation there is no reason why you cannot maintain the old provider connection and the old provider addresses simultaneously with the new. You don't even need to run BGP to do this, you just end up with an asymmetrical network in which address block A travels via provider A and address block B travels via provider B. I find that ISP's usually change providers because of oversold capacity problems, i.e. the service is too slow, so the customer relations approcah is that they can stick with the old addresses and the old slow service or they can renumber and gain the speed boost as a benefit. Their choice. > You WILL lose a BOATLOAD of YOUR customers if you get boxed like this. The > only option you have left as an ISP is to sue the people who are putting > you in the box. In order to successfully sue for damages you have to prove to the courts that you have taken steps to minimize those damages. I believe that there are enough possible ways to minimize the damage that the few customer you may lose would not be a hardship in the vast majority of cases. Since most ISP's will run into renumbering when they are increasing capacity due to growth, there is an incentive for the customer to renumber and presumably there is enough new business to compensate the ISP for a few lost customers. I think it is wrong to imply that renumbering necessarily results in lost customers. If an ISP has a strong relationship with their customer and is proactive in explaining the reason for renumbering then they will not have problems. Far more business decisions are made based on personal relationships between customer and supplier than are made based on these sorts of technical issues. > The only way you can PREVENT having this happen with provider-based space is > to "marry" the company that has the block. Now, do you really want to do > that? Do you want to EVER be put in the position where you have a supplier > that you just CANNOT get rid of? No matter what you do? > > No businessperson in their right mind would accept this as a business > premise. I disagree with the basic premise. Especially since there is well understood technology that not only makes your customer independent of upstream address changes but also makes them independent of you, the supplier. It is to their benefit to learn about and use this technology especially since proxy technology also brings along the protection of a firewall. > Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of > sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can > justify them). I disagree. Not all ISP's have the same business planm or offer the same services. Those ISP's who have multihoming on the business plan already know about these renumbering requirements because they have been in place for over a year. It may be trial by fire to go through a renumbering but competent ISP's have already done so and survived with their customer base intact. > To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite > lawsuits -- I'm talking SERIOUS lawsuits here -- not based on some trivial > matter, or to annoy, but multi-million lawsuits which are based on *HARD* > damages to companies and their customer base! Anybody with that kind of money tied up already has PI (Provider Independent) address space. If not, they are bonehead incompetents because this subject has been broad public knowledge in the industry for a long time. > This is why we worked VERY hard to get Provider-Independant space when we > needed original space, maintain that stance through whatever process is > necessary today, and urge OTHERS to do so as well. It is also why ARIN must > be *CAREFULLY* constructed to insure that it meets the essential need of NOT > interfering with normal business operations and vendor/supplier > relationships. Nothing wrong with this at all. If an ISP really does have a business plan that requires /19 address space or better then there is no reason for ARIN to prevent them from getting that space. But the key thing is that it should not be possible to just buy /19 space and it should not be possible to just request the space and get it tomorrow. If the company has money to throw around they can hire consultants and network engineers to produce a workable and believable network architecture which justifies a /19. And if a company is so lazy that they can't prepare a network plan then they are arguably so incompetent that they could never reach the size which justifies a /19 anyway. > If it serves to tie INDIRECT customers to a given vendor, > not only will the vendors get sued but so will ARIN and its board -- and > THAT eventuality is a very un-good thing. My understanding is that ARIN is only applying the address allocation policies that have been agreed upon by the international Internet community, thus any lawsuits would have to include IANA and the IAB as well. I think the prospect of getting anywhere with such a lawsuit would be daunting to most any potential attacker. But if you seriously believe that this could happen then it is certainly possible to increase ARIN's fees to cover the legal fees and liability insurance that would be required. After all, nothing is cast in stone yet. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From lonewolf at driveway1.com Mon Jan 20 21:07:57 1997 From: lonewolf at driveway1.com (Larry Honig) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:07:57 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Membership Fee] Message-ID: <32E424FD.6BF7@driveway1.com> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Larry Honig Subject: Re: Membership Fee Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:48:26 -0500 Size: 2238 URL: From randy at psg.com Mon Jan 20 21:14:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 18:14 PST Subject: ARIN Proposal References: <199701210027.SAA06668@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: >> 2) Web servers. Folks, try forcing all the DNS caches on the net to >> flush instantly. Can't be done. You WILL screw customers if you >> renumber their servers. The depth of the "screwing" is not under >> your control, and will CERTAINLY by more than a full business day. >> You WILL lose customers over that event. > Instantly is a problem. However if the changes are planned you can adjust > the expire time of DNS downwards in steps so that there are only very > short term caches to be flushed at the switchover point. And, for a seamless transition, use an A RRset as opposed to a single A. >> You WILL lose a BOATLOAD of YOUR customers if you get boxed like this. The >> only option you have left as an ISP is to sue the people who are putting >> you in the box. Then you just stick the subpoena in the router and everything will be just fine. I can recommend a couple other places to stick the subpoenas. The number of Internet business that have sued into profitability is rather small. The number which have clued themselves to profitability is somewhat larger. randy From lonewolf at driveway1.com Mon Jan 20 21:21:03 1997 From: lonewolf at driveway1.com (Larry Honig) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:21:03 -0500 Subject: please define terms Message-ID: <32E4280F.3FFA@driveway1.com> I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, /19, /xx?? It seems that the "buying power" represented must be greater as the denominator decreases. Would a /1 allocate all 4 billion IPs? How does this map into - lets say - a scheme where I as an ISP would like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? Also, under IPv6 how would this look? Please give a specific example if possible. Thanks in advance. From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon Jan 20 21:24:20 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:24:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "Michael D. Bathrick" at Jan 20, 97 05:49:22 pm Message-ID: <199701210224.AA118423462@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Obviously an answer from someone who doesn't have enough time on his hands to check the facts, but does have time to toss off insulting one-liners. ---> Phil P.S. Scott Bradner is someone who has dedicated a vast amount of time to the Internet, its growth, its operation and its success. If it wasn't for people like him this debate would not be happening because the Internet would not be happening. Most of the outcry about this proposal has been reactive by people who haven't taken the time to actually read the proposal, and haven't read the list archives to see what is going on. As issues have been explained, some portion of the most vehment flamers are now okay with the basics of the proposal and are awaiting the second draft. Do people realize that this discussion is only a few weeks old? It has been public and will proceed with a speed effectively unmatched by most burocracy. Michael D. Bathrick supposedly said: > > Obviously an answer from someone in academia who has time on his hands - > something that a working ISP doesn't have. > > Mike > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Scott Bradner wrote: > > > > The very fact that this has been taking > > > place in a nearly 'secret' manner (in other words - without those whom > > > this plan will affect the most being notified > > > > notified - like posting drafts of the proposal to open > > mailing lists for comment, you mean notification like that?? > > > > Scott > > > From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon Jan 20 21:27:24 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:27:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Organization In-Reply-To: <199701202332.PAA29411@plotter.microunity.com> from "Bob Van Cleef" at Jan 20, 97 03:32:09 pm Message-ID: <199701210227.AA118813645@martigny.ai.mit.edu> I believe that is exactly what will happen. Try and remember that the orignal draft is only a few weeks old. The standards bodies that you refer to tpyically take months (or years) between revisions. I don't think a few weeks between is that bad, especially between the first and second cuts where there are a lot of changes. If there are subsequent revs, I expect they will take shorter periods since more of the material will stay the same. ---> Phil Bob Van Cleef supposedly said: > > Kim; > > > Then it became clear that there were many that didn't understand > > other parts of the proposal, so we thought it was wise to take the > > time to clarify the entire draft. > > May I make a suggestion that is radical? > > Make the current draft, and each subsequent revision "public." Include the rationale > for each change as part of the draft until the final release. I know that many "flames" > will result based on incomplete phrasing - but wouldn't it be more profitable to have the > flames focused on the document itself, instead of other people? > > You will never get the wording to the point that everyone will "understand it." However, > you can point to the reasons for the changes, as recorded in the "rationale" sections, > so that others can then suggest different ways of phrasing to achieve the end goal, > a finished document. > > Standards organizations have used this methodolgy for years with positive results. > Holding the document "until it is ready" only means that it will never get released > for review... > > Bob > ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> > Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 > MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 > 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com > From karl at MCS.NET Mon Jan 20 21:33:50 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:33:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "Randy Bush" at Jan 20, 97 06:14:00 pm Message-ID: <199701210233.UAA10408@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > >> 2) Web servers. Folks, try forcing all the DNS caches on the net to > >> flush instantly. Can't be done. You WILL screw customers if you > >> renumber their servers. The depth of the "screwing" is not under > >> your control, and will CERTAINLY by more than a full business day. > >> You WILL lose customers over that event. > > Instantly is a problem. However if the changes are planned you can adjust > > the expire time of DNS downwards in steps so that there are only very > > short term caches to be flushed at the switchover point. > > And, for a seamless transition, use an A RRset as opposed to a single A. Baloney. If the first connection attempt returns a RESET/REFUSED or worse, HANGS, the customer will click elsewhere. They will NOT wait for the connection to time out, and the browsers out there will NOT try multiple opens at once. There is *NO* seamless transition possible Randy. Show me ONE browser which works the way you dream about here. It doesn't exist. > >> You WILL lose a BOATLOAD of YOUR customers if you get boxed like this. The > >> only option you have left as an ISP is to sue the people who are putting > >> you in the box. > > Then you just stick the subpoena in the router and everything will be just > fine. I can recommend a couple other places to stick the subpoenas. > > The number of Internet business that have sued into profitability is rather > small. The number which have clued themselves to profitability is somewhat > larger. > > randy In other words, that something restrains trade and is therefore illegal in the US, and there ARE other viable options (like assigning any bona-fide ISP who asks a /19, which IS routeable), we should just screw people instead? Randy, you're in Dreamland. Of course, you ALSO have your own /16 in the historical Class "B" space, which is not subject to recall or trouble of this sort. Why don't you try living with your own lies before you claim that it is possible to do without SERIOUS disruption to your operations? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon Jan 20 21:34:02 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:34:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: please define terms In-Reply-To: <32E4280F.3FFA@driveway1.com> from "Larry Honig" at Jan 20, 97 09:21:03 pm Message-ID: <199701210234.AA119884044@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Larry Honig supposedly said: > > I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the > only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, > /19, /xx?? It seems that the "buying power" represented must be greater > as the denominator decreases. Would a /1 allocate all 4 billion IPs? > How does this map into - lets say - a scheme where I as an ISP would > like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - > not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? Also, under IPv6 how > would this look? Please give a specific example if possible. Thanks in > advance. > its easiest to work it backwards: /32 1 address /31 2 addresses /30 4 addresses /29 8 addresses /28 16 addresses ... /24 256 addresses (traditional class C) ... /16 65536 addresses (traditional class B) (or a block of 256 traditional Class C's) so 192/8 means the 65536 traditional class C addresses starting at 192.0.1.0 to 192.255.255.0 your examples would be written as 99.128.51/24 There are countless materials on this but I suggest looking at an RFC archive and searching for CIDR. (Try RFC 1518) From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Jan 20 22:22:57 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:22:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: please define terms In-Reply-To: <32E4280F.3FFA@driveway1.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the > only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, > /19, /xx?? An IP address is a 32 bit number. If you use the first 24 bits for the network address that refers to a specific ISP then this ISP has a /24 address block. If you use the first 19 bits .... this ISP has a /19. The largest size block being allocated is a /8 > like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - > not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? That's a /24. For examples you are supposed to use 192.0.2/24 although 10/8 is OK too. I.e. 192.0.2.0 through 192.0.2.255 or 10.0.0.0 through 10.255.255.255. > Also, under IPv6 how would this look? This is an utterly different animal and really only in use currently by researchers who tunnel it through IPv4 on the experimental 6bone. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From satchell at accutek.com Tue Jan 21 00:39:17 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:39:17 -0700 Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: At 9:27 PM 1/20/97, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >I believe that is exactly what will happen. Try and remember that the >orignal draft is only a few weeks old. The standards bodies that you refer >to tpyically take months (or years) between revisions. I don't think a few >weeks between is that bad, especially between the first and second cuts >where there are a lot of changes. If there are subsequent revs, I expect >they will take shorter periods since more of the material will stay the >same. Phil, I'm currently in Florida attending one of those standards bodies you refer to. I tend to edit documents, and more than once I've gotten two or three hours of sleep because I was taking comments from a meeting and "sleeping" at Kinkos in order to get a revision to the meeting the next day. I have also done the job of taking suggestions from a mailing list and incorporating them into a revision within 36 hours and posting the result to a bulletin board. One document I controlled went through five revisions in seven days. Substantial revisions for the most part, too, because the committee finally found a direction that everyone liked. I was paying for the privledge to do this, too, to the tune of around $3K in expenses. Thank Ghu I was earning money at the time. :) From the_innkeeper at sols.net Tue Jan 21 03:32:27 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 03:32:27 -0500 Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <199701210830.DAA13520@rs0.internic.net> Interesting Stephen....If more cost issues come up then I will inform all of my adventures and expenditures..... From the_innkeeper at sols.net Tue Jan 21 03:38:43 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 03:38:43 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701210836.DAA14319@rs0.internic.net> Hey Phil....Yes we are waiting....Where were you a few days ago???? Are you still in the ozone???? ---------- > Obviously an answer from someone who doesn't have enough time on his hands > to check the facts, but does have time to toss off insulting one-liners. > > ---> Phil > > P.S. Scott Bradner is someone who has dedicated a vast amount of time to > the Internet, its growth, its operation and its success. If it wasn't for > people like him this debate would not be happening because the Internet > would not be happening. > > Most of the outcry about this proposal has been reactive by people who > haven't taken the time to actually read the proposal, and haven't read the > list archives to see what is going on. As issues have been explained, some > portion of the most vehment flamers are now okay with the basics of the > proposal and are awaiting the second draft. Do people realize that this > discussion is only a few weeks old? It has been public and will proceed > with a speed effectively unmatched by most burocracy. > > > Michael D. Bathrick supposedly said: > > > > Obviously an answer from someone in academia who has time on his hands - > > something that a working ISP doesn't have. > > > > Mike > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Scott Bradner wrote: > > > > > > The very fact that this has been taking > > > > place in a nearly 'secret' manner (in other words - without those whom > > > > this plan will affect the most being notified > > > > > > notified - like posting drafts of the proposal to open > > > mailing lists for comment, you mean notification like that?? > > > > > > Scott > > > > > From the_innkeeper at sols.net Tue Jan 21 04:15:50 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 04:15:50 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701210907.EAA15994@lists.internic.net> I WILL adress EVERY question to you in Public from this point on since you have such a hard-on for AOP!!!!! I guess me and you will not be friends and will be combatants:-)...I find it interesting that you state that this is YOUR ballgame.....So I guees me and you are playing ball now Mike.....Not a safe thing to do bubby....I can get REAL mean and Nasty with my HillyBill attitude and the such...Of course most of us folks in the hills tend to be be ignorant!!!....I suggest me and you take this outta the list and get personal if this is what you wish........ ---------- > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Bob Van Cleef wrote: > > > > Maybe the web page didn't make it very clear, but the context of this list > > > has certainly made it clear that the suggested pricing is only a first > > > draft proposal. > > > > But Michael, the web page is the only standard against which comments can > > be made. Especially in light of the fact that many, clear and focused questions > > that have been posted to this mail list have been ignored, answered off-line, or > > dismissed with a hand-wave. Dredging through back e-mail is not acceptable. > > I agree with everything you say here. But the fundamental problem is that > IP allocation is a technical activity and the people who do it are not > skilled politicians. That's why I think we should cut them a lot more > slack. Especially since they have said that they put this before the > public for community input, i.e. their timeframe is to have an independent > registry running in April and it is only January right now. > > And while there is ample ammunition to criticize them for their political > skills I don't think it is terribly productive because I don't think we > want them to be better politicians. > > The people who have been firing postshots at the people and the proposal > have simply got to grow up and realize that this is a public process in > which they *MUST* either put up or shut up. There is no man behind the > curtain, no big brother, no overreaching government authority who will > tell us how to do things. This is our ball game, we set the rules and > those rules are for us, not for someone else. Since it is an international > venue, there is no government authority at all, period. In particular > the actions of AOP are reprehensible in the way they roused their members > to criticize this democratic process because the AOP executive seemingly > has never taken the time to learn how the Internet works even though it > has been a couple of years since they shifted their focus from BBS sysops > to ISP's. > > If this group of people on this mailing list cannot come to a rough > consensus on how the IP allocation function for North America can be moved > into the hands of the private sector, then there will be no ARIN. It's > that simple. > > My advice to anyone who has a criticism of the next draft ARIN proposal is > to never shoot down any point for which you cannot at least provide a > written rationale and, ideally, and alternative scenario or alternative > wording. This list is not for trashing proposals, it's for creating > proposals. In particular, many of the criticisms were both virulent and > vague. The writers seemed to assume that we should all just magically > understand where they are coming from. However, if they truly want to > represent their constituency, they will have to spell out where they are > coming from so that all of us can understand and appreciate their > position. > > And if we can all get on with that sort of productive work then I would > expect the individuals involved to to answer more questions in public and > we can fully see and participate in the process for working out the next > draft and the next and so on until we have a final consensus. > > > Based on my experience with things of this ilk, updating and expanding the web > > page should be "job one." And not just for Kim, who I suspected is under > > excessive pressure as is, but by a dedicated team of "volunteers" from the > > core team of those who claim to understand what is going on. > > Definitely. It is asking too much of Kim to do a full time job running the > current registry and then to also do the whole job of hashing out ARIN. > I'd like to point out that in a similar recent process run by the IAHC, > they had a person who was acting as librarian and webmaster to ensure > that their website was up to date. Even if it involves paying a > subcontractor, this would probably be a good idea. For instance there is > an ARIN FAQ that is still not on the website and the mailing list archive > is still not available at ftp://rs.internic.net/archives/NAIPR/ although a > decent web archive would be a better idea and make it more accessible to > most people. > > Nevertheless, I really cannot cast the blame on anyone. These are much > harder problems to deal with than they appear at first because there is no > organization to handle them when we are at the stage of trying to form a > new organization. > > 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 Tue Jan 21 04:19:05 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 01:19:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <199701210907.BAA06954@sidhe.memra.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > I find it interesting that you state that this > is YOUR ballgame I said *OUR* ball game, see.... > > curtain, no big brother, no overreaching government authority who will > > tell us how to do things. This is our ball game, we set the rules and > > those rules are for us, not for someone else. Since it is an The word "our" includes you and anyone else who cares about the future of the net. P.S. it can be unwise to reply to email late at night since tired people have a habit of falling into misunderstandings. 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 Jan 21 04:26:11 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 04:26:11 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701210921.EAA15689@rs4.internic.net> > > > > Michael D. Bathrick (prez at berkshire.net) wrote: > > > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the > > > average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. Else expect a major problem with > > > getting the folks you are regulating to co-operate. > > > > Perhaps it be useful to define some terms. What, for example, is the > > average 'mom & pop' ISP? Is it dual or multihomed? Do they get their > > IP allocation directly from the 'Nic now? > > > > I'd offhand guess "No" to both questions; if that's the case, they most > > likly are getting their blocks from an upstream provider instead of the > > NIC (or ARIN); therefore, the fees do not apply to them; there's nothing > > to deal with. > > > > But, perhaps you're concerned that the larger providers will pass along > > the costs; they indeed may; however, this is where the pricing models > > work to your favour; a few class 'C' blocks - which is what I'd assume > > a 'Mom & Pop' might have work out to be fairly inexpensive when part of > > a much larger allocation. > > > > It would be useful if you explained, in detail, how the proposed fees will > > impact your business. For example, share what a "typical" mom & pop would > > look like, if they are multihomed, where their current address blocks came > > from, and what they'll consume, address wise, in the next year or two. > > > > -- > > Charles T. Smith, Jr. > > VecNet, Inc. cts at vec.net > > Vice President, ISP/C > > This is a non-starter. > > ANY ISP which obtains non-portable blocks and then resells anything which > can't be instantly renumbered has a huge problem. > > Let's look at the possible places you get "screwed": > > 1) Static IP individual customers (I know that registries HATE this > practice, but it really *IS* quite address-conservative if you > do it right -- and for ISDN LAN-style connections it is the ONLY > way you get interoperability with all hardware across the board!) > > 2) Web servers. Folks, try forcing all the DNS caches on the net to > flush instantly. Can't be done. You WILL screw customers if you > renumber their servers. The depth of the "screwing" is not under > your control, and will CERTAINLY by more than a full business day. > You WILL lose customers over that event. > > 3) Dedicated connections. Go ahead. Call your customers and tell > them THEY have to renumber their LANs. Try it once. See how many > customers you have left and how likely it is YOU get sued based > on either a tort or equity claim. > > You WILL lose a BOATLOAD of YOUR customers if you get boxed like this. The > only option you have left as an ISP is to sue the people who are putting > you in the box. > > The only way you can PREVENT having this happen with provider-based space is > to "marry" the company that has the block. Now, do you really want to do > that? Do you want to EVER be put in the position where you have a supplier > that you just CANNOT get rid of? No matter what you do? > > No businessperson in their right mind would accept this as a business > premise. > > Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of > sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can > justify them). > > To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite > lawsuits -- I'm talking SERIOUS lawsuits here -- not based on some trivial > matter, or to annoy, but multi-million lawsuits which are based on *HARD* > damages to companies and their customer base! > > You'll see these suits by the hundreds, and the problem is that the eventual > effect of this will be the destruction of CIDR and provider-based addressing. > > This is why we worked VERY hard to get Provider-Independant space when we > needed original space, maintain that stance through whatever process is > necessary today, and urge OTHERS to do so as well. It is also why ARIN must > be *CAREFULLY* constructed to insure that it meets the essential need of NOT > interfering with normal business operations and vendor/supplier > relationships. If it serves to tie INDIRECT customers to a given vendor, > not only will the vendors get sued but so will ARIN and its board -- and > THAT eventuality is a very un-good thing. I hear many things here....Has it been considered that there are already NPOs who can do this job??? From the_innkeeper at sols.net Tue Jan 21 04:32:24 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 04:32:24 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701210924.EAA16188@lists.internic.net> > > Maybe the web page didn't make it very clear, but the context of this list > > has certainly made it clear that the suggested pricing is only a first > > draft proposal. > > But Michael, the web page is the only standard against which comments can > be made. Especially in light of the fact that many, clear and focused questions > that have been posted to this mail list have been ignored, answered off-line, or > dismissed with a hand-wave. Dredging through back e-mail is not acceptable. The Web page should always be the first point of reference.......I think that Kim needs be alleviated of some stuff here and let her concentrate on this proposal!!!!!! > Last week I posted a series of questions. I tried my best to make them non- > flamatory and focused. Except for an off-line telephone conversation with > Jerry Scharf (who knew me from my days at NASA) I basically received no > answers other than a terse "read the RFC." > > Based on my experience with things of this ilk, updating and expanding the web > page should be "job one." And not just for Kim, who I suspected is under > excessive pressure as is, but by a dedicated team of "volunteers" from the > core team of those who claim to understand what is going on. > > Bob > ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> > Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 > MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 > 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com From dhakala at ossinc.net Tue Jan 21 02:51:06 1997 From: dhakala at ossinc.net (David Hakala) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 02:51:06 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <199701210754.2861000@ossinc.net> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- ?? > > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. MB > The notion that the infrastructure should be tailored to the typical underequipped shoestring "ISP" such as those that have sprung up over the past couple years is debatable, IMHO. OK, I'll debate this one - since I barely have a clue as to what most of the other posts are about. (Thanks to everyone who cleared up /16 and /24 for us !) Mark, you switched the grounds of the argument in your reply to this unknown person. He/she's talking about price of entry, while you're talking about "infrastructure," the thing to which entry is sought. Of course I want a network that can handle a gazillion bits per second, even though my own ISP may only have a 256K pipe. But that's not the issue. Asphalt highways cost billions to build and maintain, but the cost of entry to the highway system is the price of a running car (let's ignore public transportation, bicycles and shoes, OK?). Would you restrict public highways to those who can afford a new Mercedes? If so, the diesel fuel tax will have to increase a thousandfold to pay for the maintenance of the roads those cars drive. The initial ARIN proposal contained a minimum fee of $2500/yr. for a /24 block of 256 IP addresses. That's astoundingly wasteful - like saying I have to buy a 256-seat bus in order to start a limo service! I thought the purpose of charging fees for IP addresses is to discourage such waste? If not, just what IS the purpose of this proposal? I don't find a clear statement of purpose in ARIN's initial proposal, just the vague platitude that "The stability of the Internet relies on the careful management of the IP addresses." Peddling them in lots of 256 or more doesn't even meet that goal. This arbitrarily high barrier to entry into the ISP market is anticompetitive on its face, and will never pass legal muster. If the mom-n- pop ISPs don't kill it, the Justice Dept. will. The average cost of an IP address drops precipitously under ARIN's initial proposal. For $2500 I can get 256 addresses or 8,192 addresses - a drop from about $9.76 each to under $0.31 each. The slope of the cost/address curve gets even worse as you get into the "medium and higher categories. This is stupid economics. Since public IP addresses are a finite resource, each additional address you want should cost *more* than the last one. That's how the real estate market works. As land becomes scarce, the price of a lot goes up. Why not license IP addresses one at a time for $10 each, 10 for $110, 50 for $1000, etc.? -- David Hakala Editor In Chief Cyber Week dhakala at ossinc.net 303-755-6985 From davidc at apnic.net Tue Jan 21 05:00:55 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:00:55 +0900 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:51:06 EST." <199701210754.2861000@ossinc.net> Message-ID: <199701211000.TAA19912@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> >I thought the purpose of charging fees for IP addresses is to discourage >such waste? Nope. It is to fund the registry. >This arbitrarily high barrier to entry into the ISP market is >anticompetitive on its face, and will never pass legal muster. If the mom-n- >pop ISPs don't kill it, the Justice Dept. will. Mom-n-pop ISPs generally get their addresses from their upstream providers. They should not be significantly affected by the ARIN fees. Regards, -drc From apb at IAFRICA.COM Tue Jan 21 05:49:45 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:49:45 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Please moderate this list In-Reply-To: <199701210907.EAA15994@lists.internic.net> Message-ID: Somebody said: > I WILL adress EVERY question to you in Public from this point on since you > have such a hard-on for AOP!!!!! I guess me and you will not be friends > and will be combatants:-)...I find it interesting that you state that this > is YOUR ballgame.....So I guees me and you are playing ball now > Mike.....Not a safe thing to do bubby....I can get REAL mean and Nasty with > my HillyBill attitude and the such...Of course most of us folks in the > hills tend to be be ignorant!!!....I suggest me and you take this outta the > list and get personal if this is what you wish........ Please could somebody turn this into a moderated list. What with the rants from AOP members who haven't bothered to read the proposal, the rants from folk who have read but misunderstood the proposal, the rants from folk who keep on repeating the same arguments about the self-perpetuating BoT (such arguments are valid, but boring after the first few times, and we have been assured that that part of the draft will be fixed in the next revision), the "what does /24 mean" questions from folk who haven't done their homework (nor read the list archives), and now the set of aggressive insults I quoted above, the S/N ratio is way too low for my taste. --apb (Alan Barrett) From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 06:48:51 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 06:48:51 -0500 Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121064848.006c53e4@lint.cisco.com> It might also be noteworthy to mention that ARIN is not a 'standards body'. - paul At 09:27 PM 1/20/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >I believe that is exactly what will happen. Try and remember that the >orignal draft is only a few weeks old. The standards bodies that you refer >to tpyically take months (or years) between revisions. I don't think a few >weeks between is that bad, especially between the first and second cuts >where there are a lot of changes. If there are subsequent revs, I expect >they will take shorter periods since more of the material will stay the >same. > >---> Phil > From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 06:53:24 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 06:53:24 -0500 Subject: please define terms Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121065318.006c53e4@lint.cisco.com> This is another glaring indication that people are tossing opinions into the discussion while being completely oblivious to the technology. So, I'll take another opportunity to mention the CIDR FAQ: http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html I also posted a 'recommended reading list' a few days ago; if someone would like for me to repost it, please speak up. It would be ideal if we could get a web page put together with these pointers to keep the signal/noise ratio on the list somewhat tolerable (pretty far gone for that, I'm afraid). - paul At 09:34 PM 1/20/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >Larry Honig supposedly said: >> >> I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the >> only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, >> /19, /xx?? It seems that the "buying power" represented must be greater >> as the denominator decreases. Would a /1 allocate all 4 billion IPs? >> How does this map into - lets say - a scheme where I as an ISP would >> like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - >> not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? Also, under IPv6 how >> would this look? Please give a specific example if possible. Thanks in >> advance. >> > >its easiest to work it backwards: > >/32 1 address >/31 2 addresses >/30 4 addresses >/29 8 addresses >/28 16 addresses >... >/24 256 addresses (traditional class C) >... >/16 65536 addresses (traditional class B) (or a block of 256 traditional > Class C's) > >so 192/8 means the 65536 traditional class C addresses starting at >192.0.1.0 to 192.255.255.0 > > >your examples would be written as 99.128.51/24 > > >There are countless materials on this but I suggest looking at an RFC >archive and searching for CIDR. (Try RFC 1518) > From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 07:14:08 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 07:14:08 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121071402.006d33e8@lint.cisco.com> Please, spare the rest of us your rants and childish threats. If you cannot conduct a rational, adult discussion, then please find another venue to insult the intelligence of the mailing list participants. The signal/noise ratio on this list has really become unfortunate. - paul At 04:15 AM 1/21/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: >I WILL adress EVERY question to you in Public from this point on since you >have such a hard-on for AOP!!!!! I guess me and you will not be friends >and will be combatants:-)...I find it interesting that you state that this >is YOUR ballgame.....So I guees me and you are playing ball now >Mike.....Not a safe thing to do bubby....I can get REAL mean and Nasty with >my HillyBill attitude and the such...Of course most of us folks in the >hills tend to be be ignorant!!!....I suggest me and you take this outta the >list and get personal if this is what you wish........ > From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 07:16:58 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 07:16:58 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121071656.006caf8c@lint.cisco.com> At 02:51 AM 1/21/97 -0500, David Hakala wrote: > >I thought the purpose of charging fees for IP addresses is to discourage >such waste? No -- it is a byproduct of the fees, thank goodness. The principal reason for the IP address fees, once again, is to fund the registry operation. *sigh* - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 07:18:38 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 07:18:38 -0500 Subject: Please moderate this list Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121071830.006d4f20@lint.cisco.com> I second the motion. - paul At 12:49 PM 1/21/97 +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > >Please could somebody turn this into a moderated list. What with the >rants from AOP members who haven't bothered to read the proposal, the >rants from folk who have read but misunderstood the proposal, the rants >from folk who keep on repeating the same arguments about the >self-perpetuating BoT (such arguments are valid, but boring after the >first few times, and we have been assured that that part of the draft will >be fixed in the next revision), the "what does /24 mean" questions from >folk who haven't done their homework (nor read the list archives), and now >the set of aggressive insults I quoted above, the S/N ratio is way too low >for my taste. > >--apb (Alan Barrett) > > From libove at LIBOVE.MINDSPRING.COM Tue Jan 21 08:21:34 1997 From: libove at LIBOVE.MINDSPRING.COM (Jay Vassos-Libove) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:21:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: To those responsible for the final design of ARIN - I am the network manager for a private company with a connection to the Internet, as well as a user of the Internet/NSF Net/ARPAnet for over a decade. Only recently did I become aware of the ARIN proposal. I strongly favor moving control over both Numbering and Domain Naming in to the hands of a by-the-network, of-the-network, and for-the-network non-profit corporation. However, the fee structure in the ARIN proposal at http://www.arin.net/ disturbs me. An annual membership fee of $1000 will eliminate most interested parties except for medium to large businesses (whether or not they be Internet Service Providers) and "Political Action Committees" (so to speak). I fear that this will result in poor representation for the small entrepeneur, to whom the Internet has heretofore been such a boon, and to the individual interest party (such as myself) with a historical and/or personal interest in the welfare of the Internet. Please consider annual membership fees based on tiers, or classified by the status (individual, small business, small ISP, medium sized business, medium sized ISP, etc) of the interested party, to accomodate interested individuals (such as myself) and small businesses who may be impacted by ARIN's policies and actions, and maintain a one-member-one-vote policy, so that money and size do not result in the usual "money has influence" politics which so far have been avoided on the Internet. Sincerely Jay Vassos-Libove libove at felines.org From davidc at apnic.net Tue Jan 21 08:04:51 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:04:51 +0900 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:27:39 CST." <199701210027.SAA06668@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199701211304.WAA21557@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Karl, >Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of >sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can >justify them). > >To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite >lawsuits Currently within APNIC and RIPE-NCC, if an organization pays the membersip fees, we allocate (or reserve for) them a /19 block. While at APNIC (and I assume RIPE) we do try to discourage everyone (not just end users) from getting provider independent blocks from the registry (we have a form letter that says "routers are falling over, blah blah blah"), we will do so if they insist (and they pay the membership fee). In both our cases (not wanting to speak for RIPE-NCC, but I believe this to be the case -- I'm sure they'll blast me if I'm off base), the fees have (apparently) had the effect of discouraging smaller ISPs from obtaining blocks from the registries directly. Do you consider this a level playing field? Regards, -drc From randy at psg.com Tue Jan 21 08:38:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 05:38 PST Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal References: Message-ID: Jay, What classes of membership would you suggest, and what would their different rights and privileges be? randy From jeff.binkley at asacomp.com Tue Jan 21 08:38:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:38:00 -0500 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: <199701180927.SAA13502@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <35.262027.7@asacomp.com> DR>Marc, DR>>I am and have been on hold for over 45 minutes dialed into the NIC's DR>>help line currently. "All representitives are busy. Please stay on DR>the >line". This is a toll call. You can forget my vote of DR>confidence as to >having the current InterNic infrastructure handling DR>any sort of new >arangement that might arise. DR>So I gather you support the concept of fees for allocation and DR>informational services. DR>Regards, DR>-drc So are we saying that by creating yet another beauracracy and pumping more money into it, that this will solve a management problem ? It never has before in the business world. If there are problems with Network Solutions, let's try and figure out how to solve them instead of recreating them. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at asacomp.com Tue Jan 21 08:38:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:38:00 -0500 Subject: GOOD INTENT AND SOMEW In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970119070929.00687e64@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <35.262030.7@asacomp.com> Paul, I tend to agree but it does bring up one question though. Why would a Cisco employee be so interested in this ? I don't see AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Bay Networks and others on this list posting comments on their position, yet many of them sit on the standards bodies. Is this a personal thing or a Cisco sponsored thing ? Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing PF>Great. Another conspiracy theorist. PF>Karl, may I suggest that you refrain from cisco-bashing and stick to PF>the issue at hand, which is the discussion of the ARIN proposal and PF>constructive comments regarding same? Is this too much to ask? PF>- paul PF>At 01:30 AM 1/19/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: PF>> PF>>Of course, the REASON we have this problem goes back a few years... PF>were you >on the net then? PF>> PF>>Remember the CISCO AGS+? Used to be the workhorse of the Internet. PF>>16MB of RAM, 68040 processor. Not a bad box (We still have some in PF>service as >interior routing devices). PF>> PF>>HOWEVER - its downfall was not just RAM space, but CPU horsepower PF>and >ARCHITECTURE. A basic architecture that was replicated not PF>once, but TWICE >by CISCO since they found out that it was PF>insufficient (first in the 7000 >series, and then again in the 7500!) PF>The first replication was bad enough >-- the second, IMHO, is PF>inexcusable. > PF>>CIDR was designed and pushed by CISCO engineers. It was done due to PF>the >fact that *CISCO DID NOT MAKE A DEVICE AT THE TIME WHICH DID NOT PF>HAVE >THOSE LIMITATIONS*. Unfortunately, neither did anyone else! PF>IF they had, >CISCO likely wouldn't HAVE a backbone business right PF>now -- and we wouldn't >be stuck with route aggregation concerns. PF>> PF>>So here we are in 1996. Several years later. CISCO *STILL* doesn't PF>make a >router with an intelligent architecture which can actually PF>handle the >offered loads. And guess who's name is on some of the PF>more-recent RFCs >regarding address allocations and such? PF>> PF>>CISCO employees. PF>> PF>>The "why" is left to the reader. PF>> PF>>BTW, that monopoly is about to be broken. Despite the fact that PF>this >industry has pampered a company that is stuck selling 1970's PF>technology in >1996 (when IMHO it should have forced them out of the PF>market or forced them >to adopt solutions which would WORK) it still PF>is happening -- some people >ARE in fact waking up to the opportunity PF>that is present despite the >railroading of the standards process. PF>> PF>>Of course, we also now have "BCP" documents and business practices PF>which >IMHO act to restrain trade and possibly violate anti-trust PF>laws... > PF> CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at asacomp.com Tue Jan 21 08:38:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:38:00 -0500 Subject: GOOD INTENT AND SOMEW In-Reply-To: <199701190544.AAA06681@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: <35.262029.7@asacomp.com> KH>> KH>> Gee I would also like to have a shot at becoming a multi KH>> Millon-air. I would quit my day job and any other job for a shot KH>> at this. Greed is an ugly thing. Who do these guys think they are KH>> kidding, somebody is going to get rich here. I wonder how much the KH>> 5 trustees are going to make from this deal? What if one of the Big KH>> Guys or may be three MCI Sprint AT&T etc. decide to buy all of the KH>> address space what do you think an IP address will cost then? KH>> KH>> Nathan KH>> KH>> Nathan KH>> KH>Have you even read the proposal? If so, you would see that the KH>Board of Trustees are made up of volunteers. You would also see KH>that ARIN will be a *non-profit* organization and you would see that KH>ARIN will not be selling address space, all of the current KH>justifications for address space will continue. I sympathize with your comments but we've got a lot of bad "non-profit" groups in this country. Of course there are good ones too. The problem is being able to distinguish them. Also I don't subscribe to the theory of non-profit != special interest; I believe often times it is. I am more concerned about the special interest part of this than the non- profit portion. The Internet itself is under attack from many different aspects right now. Everything from legel attacks, illegal attacks, hackers, monetary attacks and more. It is akin to the wild west and many folks see an opportunity to make a dime on it. Now to be able to do this they must be able to exert some form of power or control over this "wild west" to be able to influence their method of making money. My concern is determining where ARIN fits into all of this. I think our first reaction is to be skeptical until proof is presented to make us more fully understand the reasons for the proposal. Attacking the folks questioning the proposal won't make it more widely supported and will most likely have the opposite effect. Also for those who want to immediately discount arguments from ISPs, I only ask whether they have tried to run an ISP service in today's market ? I'd suggest more time be spent explaining why this proposal is even being put forth and what problems it hopes to solve. If there are problems with the NIC, then let's address them with the NIC and not try to replace it. If this proposal is for consolidating/aggregating address spaces then this is an engineering problem and not an economics problem. I have yet to see anyone fully define the problem that this proposal is trying to solve. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From randy at psg.com Tue Jan 21 08:52:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 05:52 PST Subject: GOOD INTENT AND SOMEW References: <199701190544.AAA06681@moses.internic.net> <35.262029.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: > Attacking the folks questioning the proposal won't make it more widely > supported and will most likely have the opposite effect. [ and in another message ] > Why would a Cisco employee be so interested in this ? ... From davidc at apnic.net Tue Jan 21 08:49:05 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:49:05 +0900 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:38:00 EST." <35.262027.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: <199701211349.WAA21959@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Jeff, >So are we saying that by creating yet another beauracracy and pumping >more money into it, that this will solve a management problem ? Management problem? What management problem? The problem is that the subsidies that have funded the IP allocation and registration service are going away and people will have to pay the costs associated with that service instead of relying on the US government or people registering domain names. Regards, -drc From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 08:58:26 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:58:26 -0500 Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121085821.006b9b34@lint.cisco.com> Jay, One issue which you may not be aware of, is that the allocation-based fees only apply to organizations which obtain their IP address allocations directly from ARIN; as per RFC2050, organizations should always be obtaining their addresses from their upstream provider(s) & will be virtually unaffected by this proposal. - paul At 08:21 AM 1/21/97 -0500, Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: >To those responsible for the final design of ARIN - > >I am the network manager for a private company with a connection to the >Internet, as well as a user of the Internet/NSF Net/ARPAnet for over a >decade. > >Only recently did I become aware of the ARIN proposal. > >I strongly favor moving control over both Numbering and Domain Naming in >to the hands of a by-the-network, of-the-network, and for-the-network >non-profit corporation. > >However, the fee structure in the ARIN proposal at http://www.arin.net/ >disturbs me. An annual membership fee of $1000 will eliminate most >interested parties except for medium to large businesses (whether or not >they be Internet Service Providers) and "Political Action Committees" (so >to speak). > >I fear that this will result in poor representation for the small >entrepeneur, to whom the Internet has heretofore been such a boon, and to >the individual interest party (such as myself) with a historical and/or >personal interest in the welfare of the Internet. > >Please consider annual membership fees based on tiers, or classified by >the status (individual, small business, small ISP, medium sized business, >medium sized ISP, etc) of the interested party, to accomodate interested >individuals (such as myself) and small businesses who may be impacted by >ARIN's policies and actions, and maintain a one-member-one-vote policy, so >that money and size do not result in the usual "money has influence" >politics which so far have been avoided on the Internet. > >Sincerely >Jay Vassos-Libove >libove at felines.org > From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 09:04:46 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:04:46 -0500 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121090441.006b9b34@lint.cisco.com> At 08:38 AM 1/21/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: >So are we saying that by creating yet another beauracracy and pumping >more money into it, that this will solve a management problem ? It >never has before in the business world. If there are problems with >Network Solutions, let's try and figure out how to solve them instead of >recreating them. > I'm afrid you do not understand the issues involved here. Funding from the current sources will trickle off after ARIN has capital funding established and is able to sustain itself. Keeping the InterNIC in it's current form is not an option at this point. - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 09:11:19 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:11:19 -0500 Subject: GOOD INTENT AND SOMEW Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121091117.006b9b34@lint.cisco.com> At 08:38 AM 1/21/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >I tend to agree but it does bring up one question though. Why would a >Cisco employee be so interested in this ? I don't see AT&T, MCI, >Sprint, Bay Networks and others on this list posting comments on their >position, yet many of them sit on the standards bodies. Is this a >personal thing or a Cisco sponsored thing ? > My interest & participation in this issue is of a personal nature and a result of years of direct personal involvement in the Internet community, and not as a cisco employee. DISCLAIMER: My opinions expressed in this forum are not representative of cisco Systems, Inc., and should not be construed as such. Why would cisco care how numbers are allocated? I believe if you check the subscription roster for this mailing list, you'll see that employees from several (if not all) of the organizations you mentioned above are subscribed to this mailing list. I just happen to be a vocal, opinionated subscriber. - paul From markb at INFI.NET Mon Jan 20 23:11:19 1997 From: markb at INFI.NET (Mark Borchers) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:11:19 +0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <199701211412.JAA25151@mh004.infi.net> > -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > > ?? > > The pricing for this service MUST be brought down to a level that the > average 'mom & pop' ISP can deal with. > > MB > The notion that the infrastructure should be tailored to the typical > underequipped shoestring "ISP" such as those that have sprung up over the > past couple years is debatable, IMHO. > Asphalt highways cost billions to build and maintain, but the cost of entry > to the highway system is the price of a running car (let's ignore public > transportation, bicycles and shoes, OK?). Would you restrict public highways > to those who can afford a new Mercedes? If so, the diesel fuel tax will have > to increase a thousandfold to pay for the maintenance of the roads those > cars drive. I certainly agree that keeping the cost of Internet access affordable is a worthwhile goal. But I think this metaphor causes some confusion between the cost of DOING business and the cost to the business's CUSTOMER. > The initial ARIN proposal contained a minimum fee of $2500/yr. for a /24 > block of 256 IP addresses. That's astoundingly wasteful - like saying I have > to buy a 256-seat bus in order to start a limo service! To keep it in perspective, that $2500 is the cost to be eligible to get a PI /24-/19 block from ARIN. If you get your address space from a your upstream provider, it's likely that you won't be faced with costs on that scale. If you're a home user (the guy driving the Chevy), the costs of operating ARIN will be amortized way, way down by the time you see any of them. > I thought the purpose of charging fees for IP addresses is to discourage > such waste? If not, just what IS the purpose of this proposal? I don't find > a clear statement of purpose in ARIN's initial proposal, just the vague > platitude that "The stability of the Internet relies on the careful > management of the IP addresses." Peddling them in lots of 256 or more > doesn't even meet that goal. As has been noted on the list, the fee scale refers to membership in the registry at various levels. It is not a cost per /24 (or /19 or whatever). > Since public IP addresses are a finite resource, each additional address you > want should cost *more* than the last one. That's how the real estate market > works. As land becomes scarce, the price of a lot goes up. Why not license > IP addresses one at a time for $10 each, 10 for $110, 50 for $1000, etc.? Well, maybe you have a point. But your point is antithetical to your highway driving/low-cost-of-entry model. To better state my original point, the ARIN proposal is just a way to deal with a cost of doing business that has previously been funded by the federal government. It spreads that cost around among address space holders who deal directly ARIN. Yes, the cost will probably trickle downstream to smaller ISP's. It's a legitimate cost of doing business and those who aren't able to meet it will simply, IMO, fall into the category of insufficiently capitalized operators. Mark Borchers InfiNet Network Engineering NOC: (757) 624-2295 ext. 3007 From kent at songbird.com Tue Jan 21 12:42:25 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:42:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701211304.WAA21557@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at Jan 21, 97 10:04:51 pm Message-ID: <199701211742.JAA28331@songbird.com> David R. Conrad allegedly said: > > Karl, > > >Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of > >sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can > >justify them). > > > >To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite > >lawsuits > > Currently within APNIC and RIPE-NCC, if an organization pays the > membersip fees, we allocate (or reserve for) them a /19 block. While > at APNIC (and I assume RIPE) we do try to discourage everyone (not > just end users) from getting provider independent blocks from the > registry (we have a form letter that says "routers are falling over, > blah blah blah"), we will do so if they insist (and they pay the > membership fee). > > In both our cases (not wanting to speak for RIPE-NCC, but I believe this > to be the case -- I'm sure they'll blast me if I'm off base), the fees have > (apparently) had the effect of discouraging smaller ISPs from obtaining > blocks from the registries directly. > > Do you consider this a level playing field? > > Regards, > -drc Clearly it is not a level playing field -- it is an unlevel playing field, designed to promote a certain hierarchical structure, motivated by perceived technological limitations. Other approaches are possible, but the consequences are thought to be bad -- for example, you could charge a single flat fee per address per year. It is thought that the result of such a policy is that the backbone routers would melt, or something similar, and the internet would become unusable.. OTOH, it would create much stronger pressures for improved router technology and perhaps accelerate a migration to IPv6. -- 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 hcb at clark.net Tue Jan 21 09:39:10 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:39:10 -0500 Subject: Basic Techical Background and Discussion Message-ID: I agree that the most meaningful participation in the NAIPR list requires significant background in addressing and routing practice. I respect people here who know when they don't know. I also respect people who are legitimate experts. To help the first group, here are some notes on things that might be less familiar, for example, to someone very experienced at web services but less so with other aspects of Internet service provision. I'll add references to bibliography provided by others. This is something of a coffee-free brain dump, so I apologize for any editing errors. Basic Terminology ----------------- In current Internet practice, the terms "network" and "subnet" are obsolete. Instead, address space is allocated in CIDR blocks, whose prefix length is shown with a value shown with a slash following the address: 192.168.0.0/24 is a "24-bit" prefix corresponding to a single Class C. The original IP RFC, http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc760.txt didn't have a concept of classes; everything was an 8-bit prefix that allowed as many as 200+ networks! Remember, this was 1981. Within the same year, it was realized that this was not enough, and classes were born in http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc791.txt I always regret it, but North American English is a language in which we drive on parkways and park in driveways. So when we speak of a "shorter" prefix such as 192.168.0.0/23, we speak of a block of addresses that can hold more, not less, hosts. In traditional subnetting, introduced a few years later in http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc950.txt we start with a classful prefix (i.e., a /8, /16, or /24 block corresponding to a Class A/B/C), and extend the prefix to the right, creating more and more prefixes that can hold less and less hosts. This is useful because individual media generally need unique prefixes, and LANs need those. Traditionally, addresses were assigned to organizations as Class A/B/C networks, and these networks were advertised on global Internet routers. Individual subnets were not advertised. People spoke of advertising summary routes that covered all their subnets. If you think of subnetting as extending the prefix to the right, summarization moved it back to the left. Some organizations and network providers had multiple contiguous networks assigned. The idea of supernetting was introduced in http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1338.txt as a means of summarizing multiple summaries, further reducing the number of routes reported. This was a 1992 RFC intended as a 3-year fix. It matured into CIDR. See http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html and a series of RFCs beginning with http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1518.txt The best table I know of to see how many addresses you'll get for a given prefix length is in http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1878.txt. Why was this needed? -------------------- Several reasons. One was a shortage of assignable prefixes in the Class B range. Class B's were too large for many enterprises, but Class C was too small. Assigning Class B's because they were convenient "trapped" many addresses, much as the area codes for Nevada and Rhode Island "trap" telephone numbers that would be useful to have in Lower Manhattan. Without getting into BGP details, and certainly not getting into the conspiracy theories, commercially supported routers started to have memory and CPU limitations in handling the global routing table, and in processing it when certain types of changes, some pathological, occurred. A general operational requirement was seen that short-term router survival depended on not having too many routes in the global routing table. Uncontrolled allocation was causing the number of routes to double every 5-9 months, but router power to handle more routes was doubling about every 18 months. Why Aggregate into the Big Guys? -------------------------------- The only method to reduce route growth about which consensus could be reached is to aggregate advertisements as much as possible. Since most organizations did not have physical connections to one another, just as a small telephone company in rural Texas does not have a physical connection to a small telephone company in rural Virginia, most organizations in fact connected to a "backbone," once a formal structure but now a group of large service providers. Since most organizations connected to large providers anyway, either directly or through local/regional providers, the idea of "provider-based aggregation" emerged. If smaller organizations could include their route advertisements in those of a major carrier, and people needed to go through that major carrier to reach them in any event, growth of the global routing tables could slow. Several conspiracies are usually brought out here: one of router manufacturers that they forced an aggregation strategy that preserved the life of their products, and one of major providers who wanted to "marry" small clients to them. I will simply wave to the black helicopters and go on; whether or not there is a conspiracy is a matter of faith. My personal position is there is not, but rather a series of decisions made on the fly to solve growth problems while maintaining compatibility. As several people have pointed out, there really has been an economic disincentive for small organizations to get "provider-independent (PI)" space, which is what the registries allocate. The registries encourage small organization to "borrow" address space from an "upstream" provider, and actively discourage them to get PI space. I believe the underlying reason has been to encourage aggregation for the stability of the global routing system, rather than presenting a bar to entry for small ISPs. Others will differ. What's the Problem with Provider-Based Aggregation -------------------------------------------------- A couple of things. One, if a small ISP or enterprise used address space suballocated from the major service provider block, and wanted to change providers, they (and their customers) would eventually have to change their numbers to those in the new provider's block. Two, this model assumes a strict hierarchy of enterprise, to regional, to national. What if the top-level provider breaks? Again without getting into BGP and operational practice detail, provider-based allocation becomes messy when a lower-level ISP or enterprise wants redundant connectivity through two or more major carriers. Do they get their own addresses that will then be advertised into the global routing table by both major carriers? If they use only one carrier's address space, how does the rest of the world know they are reachable through the second carrier? There are no perfect answers to either problem, especially the second. The general strategy to deal with the first is to recognize virtually all enterprises and ISPs will need periodically to renumber for an assortment of reasons, and to accept this. Once this is accepted, effort can be expended to make old and expecially new networks "renumbering friendly." Techniques for doing this have been the focus of the IETF PIER Working Group, see http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2071.txt and http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1338.txt . The crackers of the world have helped us in a perverse way; most firewalls can do address translation and avoid the need to renumber many internal addresses in a provider change. Multihoming really doesn't yet have a clean solution. There are workarounds and proposals, but no consensus. Dealing with multihoming, however, has other aspects for the small ISP. Using a personal example, I was very happy, when I had a quadruple heart bypass, that my surgeon did several per week. One's chances of survival are much better in a place that does such operations frequently. And so it is with operational BGP. There are nuances to BGP configuration and troubleshooting, especially in multihoming, that are hard to work with if you don't work with them frequently, follow the appropriate intercarrier operational mailing lists, etc. Small providers usually can't justify staff that has this specialized expertise, and IMHO are better off outsourcing this to an experienced carrier until they grow to a size when they can have in-house experts. It usually works out that they can afford such at roughly the same time they can justify provider-independent space from the registries under the current guidelines in http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt Howard Berkowitz PSC International From hcb at clark.net Tue Jan 21 14:26:21 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:26:21 -0500 Subject: Correction on technical note--bad RFC reference Message-ID: When you don't put down the right RFC number, and you wrote it, a coffee shortage is demonstrated. Corrected paragraph: There are no perfect answers to either problem, especially the second. The general strategy to deal with the first is to recognize virtually all enterprises and ISPs will need periodically to renumber for an assortment of reasons, and to accept this. Once this is accepted, effort can be expended to make old and expecially new networks "renumbering friendly." Techniques for doing this have been the focus of the IETF PIER Working Group, see http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2071.txt and http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2072.txt . The crackers of the world have helped us in a perverse way; most firewalls can do address translation and avoid the need to renumber many internal addresses in a provider change. From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Tue Jan 21 09:11:33 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 14:11:33 GMT Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: <5652.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > What classes of membership would you suggest, and what would their different > rights and privileges be? > We should follow the APNIC and RIPE models, with merely a "privilege" of additional votes: Membership is open to any person or organization that operates a network or local registry, has registered or desires to register an Internet address block, Autonomous System Number, or other value in the range(s) assigned to this Registry, and has paid the appropriate membership dues: Membership dues shall be assessed annually, based on the self-reported member size, by the following schedule: rate vote recommended size enterprise: $50 1 /21 or less small: $800 2 /19 or less medium: $6,400 3 /17 or less large: $25,600 4 /16 super: $25,600 * N 4 In addition to the membership dues, an initiation fee shall be assessed new Members that have not previously been allocated any Internet address blocks, by the following schedule: $1,000 each Note, that's self-reported! Apparently, there is an issue with requiring financial statements for APNIC or RIPE (or ISP/C), which use income for the classes, and thus they decided on self-reporting. In this case, widespread use of private non-global addresses [rfc-1918] could alter the fee, and the member should be able to choose size. And note the use of an initiation fee to provide for training expenses (as both APNIC and RIPE), instead of inflated membership rates. There was a _lot_ of support for splitting the initial training/education out. WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From ae687 at FREENET.CARLETON.CA Tue Jan 21 21:06:55 1997 From: ae687 at FREENET.CARLETON.CA (Billy Biggs) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:06:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970121085821.006b9b34@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: Paul, Since this organization will affect the internet population as a whole via deciding who is allowed allocations and also managing the basic state of network resources for internet users in North America, I believe it would be better served by a larger membership base. While the end user would almost never go directly to ARIN for allocations, the policies governing who does get them would be, in my opinion, of more general intrest. Lower fees for voting members would greatly improve this proposal as far as I'm concerned. --Billy On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Jay, > > One issue which you may not be aware of, is that the allocation-based > fees only apply to organizations which obtain their IP address allocations > directly from ARIN; as per RFC2050, organizations should always be obtaining > their addresses from their upstream provider(s) & will be virtually unaffected > by this proposal. > > - paul > > At 08:21 AM 1/21/97 -0500, Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: > > >To those responsible for the final design of ARIN - > > > >I am the network manager for a private company with a connection to the > >Internet, as well as a user of the Internet/NSF Net/ARPAnet for over a > >decade. > > > >Only recently did I become aware of the ARIN proposal. > > > >I strongly favor moving control over both Numbering and Domain Naming in > >to the hands of a by-the-network, of-the-network, and for-the-network > >non-profit corporation. > > > >However, the fee structure in the ARIN proposal at http://www.arin.net/ > >disturbs me. An annual membership fee of $1000 will eliminate most > >interested parties except for medium to large businesses (whether or not > >they be Internet Service Providers) and "Political Action Committees" (so > >to speak). > > > >I fear that this will result in poor representation for the small > >entrepeneur, to whom the Internet has heretofore been such a boon, and to > >the individual interest party (such as myself) with a historical and/or > >personal interest in the welfare of the Internet. > > > >Please consider annual membership fees based on tiers, or classified by > >the status (individual, small business, small ISP, medium sized business, > >medium sized ISP, etc) of the interested party, to accomodate interested > >individuals (such as myself) and small businesses who may be impacted by > >ARIN's policies and actions, and maintain a one-member-one-vote policy, so > >that money and size do not result in the usual "money has influence" > >politics which so far have been avoided on the Internet. > > > >Sincerely > >Jay Vassos-Libove > >libove at felines.org > > From libove at LIBOVE.MINDSPRING.COM Tue Jan 21 10:35:50 1997 From: libove at LIBOVE.MINDSPRING.COM (Jay Vassos-Libove) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:35:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Classes of membership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Randy Bush wrote: > What classes of membership would you suggest, and what would their different > rights and privileges be? The very question begs my point -- I don't want "large" members to have more "rights" than "small" members. However, I acknowledge that many people and industries have interest in the Internet, and that any organization such as ARIN could easily be overwhelmed by everyone (literally) being a "member". The only "classes" that I had in mind, and I don't like the idea really, were in terms of cost. Frequently, the same level of service is granted to different sized organizations based on their ability to pay... but that is unfair. The most important concept, to me, about the operation of bodies which manage the Internet is that everyone be heard equally, and that presence, size, and money do not give greater access to the forum of ideas and decision making. Perhaps my concerns are best answered by having all, or perhaps only final, discussion open to all interested parties - not just high paying "members", and allowing the net at large to vote on final proposals. A compromise, if this is too much to swallow for the paying members, or if this would result in so few paying members as to prohibit reasonable operation of ARIN, would be to have initial proposal formulation be in the hands of the paying members, but to still allow the net at large enough of a voice to override any wildly unpopular proposals created by the paying members? Beyond that, I'm afraid that I don't have any magic bullets to this very very difficult question. -Jay From cts at vec.net Tue Jan 21 10:34:19 1997 From: cts at vec.net (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:34:19 EST Subject: Please moderate this list Message-ID: <009AEB0F.1F71F160.9@vec.net> >Please could somebody turn this into a moderated list. What with the >rants from AOP members who haven't bothered to read the proposal, the >rants from folk who have read but misunderstood the proposal, the rants >from folk who keep on repeating the same arguments about the >self-perpetuating BoT (such arguments are valid, but boring after the >first few times, and we have been assured that that part of the draft will >be fixed in the next revision), the "what does /24 mean" questions from >folk who haven't done their homework (nor read the list archives), and now >the set of aggressive insults I quoted above, the S/N ratio is way too low >for my taste. As much as I would like to see that happen, I see a downside in that there are those would would use this as proof that their "black helicopter" theories are true. I'd rather see consistantly off topic users removed instead of moderation. From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jan 21 10:58:22 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:58:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701211304.WAA21557@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at Jan 21, 97 10:04:51 pm Message-ID: <199701211558.JAA02554@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > Karl, > > >Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of > >sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can > >justify them). > > > >To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite > >lawsuits > > Currently within APNIC and RIPE-NCC, if an organization pays the > membersip fees, we allocate (or reserve for) them a /19 block. While > at APNIC (and I assume RIPE) we do try to discourage everyone (not > just end users) from getting provider independent blocks from the > registry (we have a form letter that says "routers are falling over, > blah blah blah"), we will do so if they insist (and they pay the > membership fee). > > In both our cases (not wanting to speak for RIPE-NCC, but I believe this > to be the case -- I'm sure they'll blast me if I'm off base), the fees have > (apparently) had the effect of discouraging smaller ISPs from obtaining > blocks from the registries directly. > > Do you consider this a level playing field? > > Regards, > -drc For ISPS that sell no dedicated or fixed-address services (ie: Web hosting, private line, ISDN with fixed address, basically anything tied to a given DNS entry) this is fine. The impact of them being *forced* to renumber is minimal. Not only are there no "downstream" issues of significant import, but in addition their entire inside plant is likely only a few machines and devices -- a couple of hours work and they're done. For any ISP that sells any of those "tied" services, any move which makes it un-feasible (and by that I mean any event which causes SIGNIFICANT barriers to entry to be raised) is IMHO a per-se anti-trust problem, at least in the United States. The bar, in this case, isn't your inside plant (even though that might involve tens or even hundreds of man hours). Its the *MILLIONS* of dollars in cost and damage you end up imposing on your *customers* when the event happens. If you think people will stay out of the courts during these events I have to frankly question your sanity. I personally do not feel that a $5,000 annual fee is a significant entry barrier if someone is selling T1s! The $2500 thing is a red herring; /24s aren't routeable anyway. The number to focus on is the number for a /19, which *IS* globally routeable. My problem with ARIN is that NOWHERE do the current documents address very real control and succession issues. Kim has said these problems are being fixed. If they truly *ARE* fixed, and enough "defense" is put in the charter to prevent the barrier from suddenly turning into $50,000 a year, or a few corporations ending up with effective "control" of ARIN without recourse, then I have no singificant gripe. Again, Kim has said the document is under revision. I want to see those revisions and read them carefully before I pass judgement myself. I also want to make it crystal clear that this organization, and others like it, absolutely will not tolerate malicious (or "unintentional" but unwarranted) interferance with our operations and customers. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From kimh at internic.net Tue Jan 21 10:53:10 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: please define terms In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970121065318.006c53e4@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jan 21, 97 06:53:24 am Message-ID: <199701211553.KAA06378@jazz.internic.net> > Paul, We're going to add a recommended reading list to the ARIN page. Kim > This is another glaring indication that people are tossing opinions > into the discussion while being completely oblivious to the technology. > > So, I'll take another opportunity to mention the CIDR FAQ: > > http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html > > I also posted a 'recommended reading list' a few days ago; if someone > would like for me to repost it, please speak up. It would be ideal if > we could get a web page put together with these pointers to keep the > signal/noise ratio on the list somewhat tolerable (pretty far gone for > that, I'm afraid). > > - paul > > At 09:34 PM 1/20/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > > >Larry Honig supposedly said: > >> > >> I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the > >> only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, > >> /19, /xx?? It seems that the "buying power" represented must be greater > >> as the denominator decreases. Would a /1 allocate all 4 billion IPs? > >> How does this map into - lets say - a scheme where I as an ISP would > >> like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - > >> not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? Also, under IPv6 how > >> would this look? Please give a specific example if possible. Thanks in > >> advance. > >> > > > >its easiest to work it backwards: > > > >/32 1 address > >/31 2 addresses > >/30 4 addresses > >/29 8 addresses > >/28 16 addresses > >... > >/24 256 addresses (traditional class C) > >... > >/16 65536 addresses (traditional class B) (or a block of 256 traditional > > Class C's) > > > >so 192/8 means the 65536 traditional class C addresses starting at > >192.0.1.0 to 192.255.255.0 > > > > > >your examples would be written as 99.128.51/24 > > > > > >There are countless materials on this but I suggest looking at an RFC > >archive and searching for CIDR. (Try RFC 1518) > > > From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Tue Jan 21 21:33:29 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:33:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: please define terms In-Reply-To: <199701211553.KAA06378@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: I'm actually working on putting the list up right now. It should be up tonight, and then I'll post the URL, I'm still not sure which server it will reside on. I also plan on putting up an unofficial faq if there aren't any objections. Jeremiah On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > Paul, > > We're going to add a recommended reading list to the ARIN page. > > Kim > > > This is another glaring indication that people are tossing opinions > > into the discussion while being completely oblivious to the technology. > > > > So, I'll take another opportunity to mention the CIDR FAQ: > > > > http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html > > > > I also posted a 'recommended reading list' a few days ago; if someone > > would like for me to repost it, please speak up. It would be ideal if > > we could get a web page put together with these pointers to keep the > > signal/noise ratio on the list somewhat tolerable (pretty far gone for > > that, I'm afraid). > > > > - paul > > > > At 09:34 PM 1/20/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > > > > >Larry Honig supposedly said: > > >> > > >> I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the > > >> only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, > > >> /19, /xx?? It seems that the "buying power" represented must be greater > > >> as the denominator decreases. Would a /1 allocate all 4 billion IPs? > > >> How does this map into - lets say - a scheme where I as an ISP would > > >> like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - > > >> not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? Also, under IPv6 how > > >> would this look? Please give a specific example if possible. Thanks in > > >> advance. > > >> > > > > > >its easiest to work it backwards: > > > > > >/32 1 address > > >/31 2 addresses > > >/30 4 addresses > > >/29 8 addresses > > >/28 16 addresses > > >... > > >/24 256 addresses (traditional class C) > > >... > > >/16 65536 addresses (traditional class B) (or a block of 256 traditional > > > Class C's) > > > > > >so 192/8 means the 65536 traditional class C addresses starting at > > >192.0.1.0 to 192.255.255.0 > > > > > > > > >your examples would be written as 99.128.51/24 > > > > > > > > >There are countless materials on this but I suggest looking at an RFC > > >archive and searching for CIDR. (Try RFC 1518) > > > > > > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Tue Jan 21 21:54:17 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:54:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: please define terms In-Reply-To: <199701211553.KAA06378@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: I've put up a very basic recommended reading list at http://idt.net/~jeremiah. If I have to move it (which I doubt) I'll set up a link to the new location. I will also be adding to it tonight and tomorrow and whenever there is a request to add something. I will also be working on a small faq and maybe some additional info from the list. I will not put up anything without permission. Jeremiah On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > Paul, > > We're going to add a recommended reading list to the ARIN page. > > Kim > > > This is another glaring indication that people are tossing opinions > > into the discussion while being completely oblivious to the technology. > > > > So, I'll take another opportunity to mention the CIDR FAQ: > > > > http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html > > > > I also posted a 'recommended reading list' a few days ago; if someone > > would like for me to repost it, please speak up. It would be ideal if > > we could get a web page put together with these pointers to keep the > > signal/noise ratio on the list somewhat tolerable (pretty far gone for > > that, I'm afraid). > > > > - paul > > > > At 09:34 PM 1/20/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > > > > >Larry Honig supposedly said: > > >> > > >> I'm sorry to brutally expse my ignorance of terms, but I may not be the > > >> only neophyte here so I will do it anyway. What exactly is meant by /24, > > >> /19, /xx?? It seems that the "buying power" represented must be greater > > >> as the denominator decreases. Would a /1 allocate all 4 billion IPs? > > >> How does this map into - lets say - a scheme where I as an ISP would > > >> like to allocate (in IPv4 syntax) all the numbers between (for example - > > >> not a real sequence) 99.128.51.0 and 99.128.51.255? Also, under IPv6 how > > >> would this look? Please give a specific example if possible. Thanks in > > >> advance. > > >> > > > > > >its easiest to work it backwards: > > > > > >/32 1 address > > >/31 2 addresses > > >/30 4 addresses > > >/29 8 addresses > > >/28 16 addresses > > >... > > >/24 256 addresses (traditional class C) > > >... > > >/16 65536 addresses (traditional class B) (or a block of 256 traditional > > > Class C's) > > > > > >so 192/8 means the 65536 traditional class C addresses starting at > > >192.0.1.0 to 192.255.255.0 > > > > > > > > >your examples would be written as 99.128.51/24 > > > > > > > > >There are countless materials on this but I suggest looking at an RFC > > >archive and searching for CIDR. (Try RFC 1518) > > > > > > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From lonewolf at driveway1.com Tue Jan 21 22:19:10 1997 From: lonewolf at driveway1.com (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: "Basic Training"] Message-ID: <32E5872E.2A0B@driveway1.com> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Larry Honig Subject: "Basic Training" Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:51:07 -0500 Size: 803 URL: From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Tue Jan 21 03:41:08 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:41:08 -0000 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <01BC0776.DA8F6FE0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Paul; Your comment does nothing to further this discussion. The AOP has *not* requested it's members to write. It has *informed* us that there is an issue to consider, and where to find out more about it. That is the appropriate role of a professional organization. Your lack of knowledge about AOP notwithstanding, it is made up of ISP's and many others who live and work online, and take these matters seriously. Your employer can tell you more about it. I have yet to see anything on this list that justifies the fee structure proposed. What I do see is the same sort of petty bickering that has immobilized so many previous attempts at 'net improvement. The bottom line, as always, is this: who gets paid, and why? If the internet community is to surrender control of such a vital resource to anyone in particular (an eventual certainty, at least) then why should it nbe this proposal? Enough of the 'I said / You said' BS. Why is this a good idea? ---------- From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 2:10 PM To: Mark Richmond Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR Folks, It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. Does this mean that you DO completely understand the ARIN proposal? This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. This kind of irresponsible reply is contributing to the noise level. ... and so is mine. My apologies. May we continue with the meat of the matter? Why is this a good idea? From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 11:44:58 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:44:58 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121114453.0069f118@lint.cisco.com> At 08:41 AM 1/21/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > >Enough of the 'I said / You said' BS. Why is this a good idea? > Because it's the only reasonable way to fund a registry that is losing it's government subsidy. Clear enough? - paul From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Tue Jan 21 11:44:31 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:44:31 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:00:55 +0900." <199701211000.TAA19912@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: <199701211000.TAA19912@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <199701211644.LAA20926@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:00:55 +0900, "David R. Conrad" said: > >I thought the purpose of charging fees for IP addresses is to discourage > >such waste? > Nope. It is to fund the registry. Back on Sunday, Stephen Satchell posted a strawman economic analysis of the costs of running ARIN. Others have posted corrections regarding his WAG numbers, but I'm pretty convinced that his estimate of $2.5M/year is in at least the right ballpark. Has anybody conducted an analysis of the expected registry load at the currently proposed cost levels, and compared that to either Satchell's numbers or other, more accurate business plans? It might quell a lot of concerns if we can avoid the sort of bad press that happened with the "Domain Names will be a $300M/year cash cow" flamefests. For that matter, (slightly off topic), are there any hard numbers available on what the *actual* nameserver finances-to-date are? If so, they might be helpful to review to make sure the ARIN proposal is in the right ballpark.... I can't speak for others, but I know that the $2.5M for a /8 certainly made *me* blow a gasket on first reading. And so far, I've not seen any hard numbers that make me feel any better about it... -- 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 davidc at apnic.net Tue Jan 21 22:42:24 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:42:24 +0900 Subject: My Opinion on IP Addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:53 CST." <199701211656.KAA29015@unix2.interkan.net> Message-ID: <199701220342.MAA23877@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Sigh. >What ARIN is proposing could >make our break my operation along with hundreds of other Internet Service >providers. It would appear InterKan gets their address space from BBN Planet. If so, the impact of the ARIN proposal on your organization would be dependent on how BBN Planet decides to amortize its US $20,000/year cost over *ALL* their customers. Given BBN planet has quite a few customers, I imagine the amount of additional charges you would face (and the likely amount of address space you have) would be sub $1.00 per year, assuming BBN Planet decides to go through the hassle of trying to recover the cost. I'm a bit skeptical this will break you. You would only pay a fee to ARIN if you obtain resources from ARIN directly. >Someone should be working on expanding the >numbers to 999 instead of charging $999.95 for the numbers. Lets face it, >32 bit would not be that hard to change to over the 8 bit coding of the >current system. Hell even 16 bit would vastly improve the number >problem!!!! (65535.65535.65535.65535 everybody could have their own class >A). It would appear you don't quite understand how IP addresses work, however please see the various press reports, books, articles, etc. on IPv6. >I totally agree with the Association of Online Professionals in their >fighting this proposal. Strange. Someone just sent a note that stated (in part): ] The AOP has *not* requested it's members to write. It has ] *informed* us that there is an issue to consider, and where to find ] out more about it. yet it would appear you haven't bothered to research before you posted. It would be nice if AOP would inform its members about how to read archives, but I guess that's a bit too much to ask. Regards, -drc From dhakala at ossinc.net Tue Jan 21 10:57:55 1997 From: dhakala at ossinc.net (David Hakala) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 10:57:55 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <199701211600.2918800@ossinc.net> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > I certainly agree that keeping the cost of Internet access affordable is a > worthwhile goal. But I think this metaphor causes some confusion between the > cost of DOING business and the cost to the business's CUSTOMER. OK, I'll grant you that a car dealership costs more than a car. What happens in an industry when barriers to entry as a seller are artificially raised? Competition decreases and consumer prices increase. > To keep it in perspective, that $2500 is the cost to be eligible to get a PI > /24-/19 block from ARIN. > As has been noted on the list, the fee scale refers to membership in the > registry at various levels. It is not a cost per /24 (or /19 or whatever ). Your preceding two statements seem to contradict each other. The small-to-XL fee scale most certainly *is* the price of getting and keeping IP addresses . Quoting ARIN's Web page: "The annual ISP fee is based on the total allocation of address space received in the previous year. First-time allocations will be charged a fee based on the amount of address space allocated." If you want X addresses, you pay $Y. Oddly, end-users pay their registration fees only once. Why? Car dealers pay annual business license fees, and car drivers pay annual ownership fees. Under ARIN's model, annual ISP fees must be higher to offset revenues not realized from end-users. Then there's another $1000 per year to have a voice in the political process . As many people have noted on this list, that's steep enough to exclude all but medium-large corporate entities from the process. Last but not least, the fee for an Autnomous System Number is only $500, plus an unspecified annual maintenance fee. It's pretty obvious that ARIN would very much like to encourage ASes. Not a bad idea at all. > > Since public IP addresses are a finite resource, each additional address you > > want should cost *more* than the last one. That's how the real estate market > > works. As land becomes scarce, the price of a lot goes up. Why not license > > IP addresses one at a time for $10 each, 10 for $110, 50 for $1000, etc. ? > Well, maybe you have a point. But your point is antithetical to your highway > driving/low-cost-of-entry model. No; my first car costs me only $10, but adding another car to a fleet of 100 would cost much more. > To better state my original point, the ARIN proposal is just a way to deal > with a cost of doing business that has previously been funded by the federal > government. Ah, now we're moving towards a cost-based fee structure, rather than some unexplained numbers. What has the government been spending on address space allocation? > It spreads that cost around among address space holders who deal > directly ARIN. Yes, the cost will probably trickle downstream to smaller ISP's. If the cost is not inflated by markup along the way, then I see no problem. But that is not how multi-tiered distribution systems work. > It's a legitimate cost of doing business and those who aren't able to meet it will simply, IMO, fall into the category of insufficiently capitalized operators. I see no legitimacy in an arbitrary requirement that one license addresses at a cost of at least $2500 per year. No one has revealed the cost of allocating addresses, so any suggested price is suspect. The proffered alternative - getting addresses from one's larger competitors - is a prescription for anticompetitive behavior. -- David Hakala Editor In Chief Cyber Week dhakala at ossinc.net 303-755-6985 From dhakala at ossinc.net Tue Jan 21 11:15:48 1997 From: dhakala at ossinc.net (David Hakala) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 11:15:48 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <199701211618.2921200@ossinc.net> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > The issue is the amount of explicit route entries that the present > generation of routers can handle. I grok the issue, Jeremiah. I researched Sprint's blocking policy and the related route flapping issues rather thoroughly when I edited Boardwatch Magazine. But that's a temporary technical problem - "the current generation of routers" will yield to new technology. You can't perpetuate a nonprofit organization with a transient purpose - and *every* organization seeks to perpetuate itself. I'm repeatedly told on this list that the purpose of ARIN's fees is to "fund registry operations." A nice, uncontroversial and permanent goal. But no one's revealed what registry operations cost - only what ARIN wants to charge. And those charges patently favor large ISPs. -- David Hakala Editor In Chief Cyber Week dhakala at ossinc.net 303-755-6985 From berg at ESKIMO.COM Tue Jan 21 13:52:21 1997 From: berg at ESKIMO.COM (Berg) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:52:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Please moderate this list Message-ID: <199701211852.KAA24115@eskimo.com> There is NO point in moderating a list designed for discussion of a proposal, EXCEPT if you want to squelch discussion. From davids at wiznet.net Tue Jan 21 23:43:55 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:43:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701211558.JAA02554@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: > For any ISP that sells any of those "tied" services, any move which makes it > un-feasible (and by that I mean any event which causes SIGNIFICANT barriers > to entry to be raised) is IMHO a per-se anti-trust problem, at least in the > United States. I think it's a technical fact of life. If you move, you have to notify your friends, change your mailing address everywhere it appears, change your phone number, maybe drive further to work, and so on and so forth. Is this grounds for an action against your landlord? DS From jay at autoexit.com Tue Jan 21 23:48:13 1997 From: jay at autoexit.com (Jay Ryerse) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:48:13 -0800 Subject: remove Message-ID: <32E59C0D.14BF@autoexit.com> please remove From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Tue Jan 21 08:22:12 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:22:12 -0000 Subject: Difficult childhood. Message-ID: <01BC079E.1EDF2920@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Michael: Several of your posts have indicated that you consider the AOP unimportant because it is "a bunch of BBS sysops". I know you know better than that, but I find it interesting that you say that even in jest, considering the amount of your own experience and background in that area. Could this be Delayed Stress Syndrome from your years as a Maximus BBS Operator? Back On Topic: I am anxiously awaiting the revision that will be posted on the website. No further comments on the previous version from this quarter. From woody at zocalo.net Tue Jan 21 23:56:22 1997 From: woody at zocalo.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:56:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701220456.UAA11334@zocalo.net> You seem to have things a bit backwards... The intent here is for the Internet community, as you call it, to reclaim control over the IP address space here in the US from NSI/SAIC, as well as to reduce the cost of administering the address space by moving from a tax/govt/nsf/grant model to direct funding. What of that do you find objectionable? -Bill Woodcock ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Jan 21 16:47:38 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:47:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Difficult childhood. In-Reply-To: <01BC079E.1EDF2920@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Mark Richmond wrote: > Several of your posts have indicated that you consider the AOP > unimportant because it is "a bunch of BBS sysops". No, I think they are doing a disservice to their members by not stepping beyond being a bunch of BBS sysops and learning how the Internet infrastructure operates. There is no point in outrageous outcries against a non-existent Internet emperor. But there is plenty of room for any organization or individual who wants to educate themselves about how things operate and then participate as an equal in these and other discussions. > I know you know better than that, but I find it interesting that you say > that even in jest, considering the amount of your own experience and > background in that area. Could this be Delayed Stress Syndrome from > your years as a Maximus BBS Operator? Two and 1/2 years as sysop of Fidonet 1:353/350 You would be surprised how many ISP's are run by people who started out as BBS sysops. They did the hard work of learning how to operate in the new world of the Internet and are understandably annoyed when someone jumps up and claims to know it all. None of us know it all. That's why things like the formation of ARIN get discussed in public on a mailing list like this. It is not unheard of for public commentary to completely change the direction of an initiative like ARIN. But in order for that to happen it must be INFORMED commentary. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Tue Jan 21 08:59:20 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:59:20 -0000 Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: <01BC07A3.4D9E1280@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Paul: TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. When will we be able to agree that costs will ALWAYS be passed along? Whether or not I get my block from ARIN, at some point the numbers came from there, with the fee attached. Are you aware of any Large ISP's or other philantropic organizations that might pay that fee so that a small or medium-sized ISP could make a bigger profit? Me either. ---------- From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] One issue which you may not be aware of, is that the allocation-based fees only apply to organizations which obtain their IP address allocations directly from ARIN; as per RFC2050, organizations should always be obtaining their addresses from their upstream provider(s) & will be virtually unaffected by this proposal. - paul From michael at memra.com Tue Jan 21 12:18:29 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:18:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: please define terms In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970121065318.006c53e4@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > So, I'll take another opportunity to mention the CIDR FAQ: > > http://www.rain.net/faqs/cidr.faq.html > > I also posted a 'recommended reading list' a few days ago; if someone > would like for me to repost it, please speak up. I'd rather see this on the ARIN website. Maybe posting a copy of it to webmaster at internic.net would help get this done? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From markr at lightspeed.net Tue Jan 21 04:17:33 1997 From: markr at lightspeed.net (Mark Richmond) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:17:33 -0000 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <01BC077B.F102DDC0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> An example: Crudnuts Industries has the class 'C' block of 198.xxx.yyy. As a class 'C' address holder, what will be their obligations to ARIN in year one? In years 3 through X? As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at $2500. All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you suggest. For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and upstream port costs. This is why I'm asking for a comprehensive rationale. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Wed Jan 22 00:34:04 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:34:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: recommended reading list Message-ID: I have the basic ARIN recommended reading list up at http://idt.net/~jeremiah. Please take a look at it and give me some feedback. It's very basic, but all the links appear to work and it passes the spellcheck. If there are any suggestions/criticisms/flames, please send them my way. If the people working on the ARIN proposal would rather that there were an official reading list, I will remove this (or host the official list if asked). I am also interested in putting together a FAQ, so feel free to send questions, with or without answers. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From the_innkeeper at sols.net Tue Jan 21 17:36:47 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 17:36:47 -0500 Subject: Please moderate this list Message-ID: <199701212227.RAA14485@lists.internic.net> > Somebody said: > > I WILL adress EVERY question to you in Public from this point on since you > > have such a hard-on for AOP!!!!! I guess me and you will not be friends > > and will be combatants:-)...I find it interesting that you state that this > > is YOUR ballgame.....So I guees me and you are playing ball now > > Mike.....Not a safe thing to do bubby....I can get REAL mean and Nasty with > > my HillyBill attitude and the such...Of course most of us folks in the > > hills tend to be be ignorant!!!....I suggest me and you take this outta the > > list and get personal if this is what you wish........ > > Please could somebody turn this into a moderated list. What with the > rants from AOP members who haven't bothered to read the proposal, the > rants from folk who have read but misunderstood the proposal, the rants > from folk who keep on repeating the same arguments about the > self-perpetuating BoT (such arguments are valid, but boring after the > first few times, and we have been assured that that part of the draft will > be fixed in the next revision), the "what does /24 mean" questions from > folk who haven't done their homework (nor read the list archives), and now > the set of aggressive insults I quoted above, the S/N ratio is way too low > for my taste. > We were having a very good and productive discussion till I received the previous comment which you so graciously did not 'quote' the complete text from Alan....I apologized BEFORE I made thos comments sir... 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 Jan 22 01:21:57 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 00:21:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 21, 97 11:43:55 pm Message-ID: <199701220621.AAA29522@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > For any ISP that sells any of those "tied" services, any move which makes it > > un-feasible (and by that I mean any event which causes SIGNIFICANT barriers > > to entry to be raised) is IMHO a per-se anti-trust problem, at least in the > > United States. > > I think it's a technical fact of life. > > If you move, you have to notify your friends, change your mailing > address everywhere it appears, change your phone number, maybe drive > further to work, and so on and so forth. Is this grounds for an action > against your landlord? > > DS That's not the analog here. If you move, *I* don't have to change *MY* phone number. Its not the direct effects (which we can all agree are properly contractual matters) -- its the INDIRECT damages which are the problem and give rise to a tying arrangement argument. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From pferguso at cisco.com Wed Jan 22 01:33:34 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 01:33:34 -0500 Subject: Difficult childhood. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970122013331.00696d10@lint.cisco.com> At 01:47 PM 1/21/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >Two and 1/2 years as sysop of Fidonet 1:353/350 > I was the moderator of the virus.info discussion list on fidonet about 7 years ago. Imagine that. :-) - paul From libove at libove.mindspring.com Tue Jan 21 11:45:56 1997 From: libove at libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Cost of IP blocks (Non-issue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Ferguson correctly pointed out: > One issue which you may not be aware of, is that the allocation-based > fees only apply to organizations which obtain their IP address allocations > directly from ARIN; as per RFC2050, organizations should always be obtaining > their addresses from their upstream provider(s) & will be virtually unaffected > by this proposal. It is true that the cost of e.g. a Class C block to an end-user, from an IP address reseller who got an e.g. /19 block of addresses from ARIN would only need to be ~$80/yr to cover the 1/32 of the /19 block. (Even if I'm off by a bit, $160/yr is still not much). My real concern is with the cost of interested parties having their say in the ARIN organization, not with the cost of IP space. Jay Vassos-Libove libove at libove.MindSpring.com +1 770 552 0543 home +1 404 705 2867 work Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. The SouthEast Regional Internet Society SERIS - Enhancing Your Time On-Line From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Jan 21 12:16:47 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:16:47 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970121121643.00698818@lint.cisco.com> At 09:42 AM 1/21/97 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: > >Clearly it is not a level playing field -- it is an unlevel playing >field, designed to promote a certain hierarchical structure, motivated >by perceived technological limitations. > This is not a 'perceived' limitation, it is fact. This has been hashed out in innumerable discussions within the IETF; I have no stomach to reiterate them again here. >Other approaches are possible, but the consequences are thought to be >bad -- for example, you could charge a single flat fee per address per >year. It is thought that the result of such a policy is that the >backbone routers would melt, or something similar, and the internet >would become unusable.. OTOH, it would create much stronger pressures >for improved router technology and perhaps accelerate a migration to >IPv6. > IPv6 solves no problems in this regard. I would venture to say that this, itself, is a 'perceived technological' solution. It is not. - paul From michael at memra.com Wed Jan 22 01:46:55 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:46:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: <199701211600.2918800@ossinc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, David Hakala wrote: > The proffered alternative - getting addresses from one's larger competitors > - is a prescription for anticompetitive behavior. I find it hard to understand how anyone on this list could make such a statement. In the Internet industry there is no alternative, *NONE*, to dealing with your larger competitors. You must buy network access from them or you simply cannot connect to the Internet, period. Given such a reality it is hard to see how getting addresses from your larger competitors, otherwise known as suppliers, can be seen in such a negative light. While the possibility does exist for anti-competitive behavior, the address allocation procedures which ARIN will administer are not the source of the problem. If the major network operators ceased to use BGP and implemented some new magical routing technology that did not require hierarchical address assignments, then ARIN would no longer allocate addresses in the same way. Regardless of the technical details behind the policies and procedures that are set for all IP allocation authorities in the world, the fundamental fact remains that the IPv4 address space is limited in size and that we must ensure that it is used frugally to maximize the useful lifetime of IPv4 on the global Internet. Therefore some sort of allocation authority is necessary and the choices become much clearer. Who will do the necessary work? Who will pay the costs of doing the job properly? So far the popular answer to those questions is: a consortium of the larger ISP's and other large users of IPv4 address space. So far this model has been proven to work remarkably well in practice and has not given rise to any anticompetitive behavior that I am aware of. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From dhakala at ossinc.net Wed Jan 22 00:01:58 1997 From: dhakala at ossinc.net (David Hakala) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 00:01:58 -0500 Subject: What Government Subsidy? Message-ID: <199701220504.3013600@ossinc.net> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > At 08:41 AM 1/21/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > > > >Enough of the 'I said / You said' BS. Why is this a good idea? > > > Because it's the only reasonable way to fund a registry that is losing it's > government subsidy. Clear enough? As soon as someone tells us how much government money is being lost, we'll be able to calculate how big ARIN's fees should be. -- David Hakala Editor In Chief Cyber Week dhakala at ossinc.net 303-755-6985 From dhakala at ossinc.net Wed Jan 22 00:02:02 1997 From: dhakala at ossinc.net (David Hakala) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 00:02:02 -0500 Subject: Difficult childhood. Message-ID: <199701220504.3013700@ossinc.net> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > No, I think they {Assn. of Online Professionals - www.aop.org} are doing a disservice to their members by not stepping beyond > being a bunch of BBS sysops and learning how the Internet infrastructure > operates. Michael, I'm not sure if the above comes from your or your correspondent. In any case, "you" erroneously place "Internet people" above BBS operators. Actually, both classes are pitifully maladapted to today's online economy. I am not a member of AOP, not an ISP and it's been 9 years since I ran a BBS . But I've chronicled online activities - BBS, Internet and "commercial online services" for international magazines and newspapers since 1988. I'm a bit familiar with the cultures and their clashes. BBS operators tend to be hard-scrabbling entrepreneurs, while old-school Internet folks tend to be "What? Me Worry?" government tit-suckers. The Internet gang is currently full of itself, inflated over its lionization in the press and the halls of Congress. They are complacent, technocratic and utterly out of touch with economic reality. They are completely unprepared to survive in the business world, which begins the moment one mentions charging money for that which was previously "free." BBS operators - most of whom have now become - in effect if not in affections - Internet Service Providers, are paranoid of government and big- business "crackdowns," and intensely concerned with every item on their balance sheets. They often miss the forest for the trees. My point is that the "Internet Communuty" is no wiser than AOP on these or any other economic issues. AOP brings to the table its legacy of paranoia, while government-supported Internet academics bring their PollyAnna notions that all will work out if we just tweak the code of economics a bit. There are very few people - perhaps 20 among the millions who could participate in this list - who could make any intelligent, profound and actionable comments. They are notably absent. I suspect they are off getting things done while we sit here endlessly bickering. This list is a red herring. > There is no point in outrageous outcries against a non-existent > Internet emperor. One need look no further than the InterNIC to find an existant "Internet Emperor," and a damned inadequate one. Competent in its individual talent, but inadequate. > But there is plenty of room for any organization or > individual who wants to educate themselves about how things operate We are trying to solve a problem that is apparently caused by "how things operate." I would prefer to hear how things *should* operate, from people unpolluted by doctrine. -- David Hakala Editor In Chief Cyber Week dhakala at ossinc.net 303-755-6985 From dhakala at ossinc.net Wed Jan 22 00:01:54 1997 From: dhakala at ossinc.net (David Hakala) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 00:01:54 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <199701220504.3013500@ossinc.net> -- [ From: David Hakala * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > Your analysis has a few fundamental flaws. A "few?" Egad, I must have been inadvertently sober. :) > 1. Most startup ISP's will never deal with the Internic directly. They will > get their addresses from their upstream providers and only see the trickle down I keep hearing this, and I keep asking what sense it makes for me to buy my most vital resource from my competitors. Just because this is how it *has* been doesn't mean it should continue to be so. If ARIN charges fees based on individual IP addresses, it could become the truly neutral party in this scenario. > 2. The price is not for the IP addresses, its for the act of registering the > addresses. It will not be possible for someone to walk in and purchase IP > addresses without having technical justifications for needing them. I fail to see a pragmatic distinction, unless you're saying that I can be willing and able to license addresses (I've studiously avoided the term "buy") and ARIN could still refuse a license for reasons it need not have or reveal. That possibility REALLY scares me! > 3. The prices are skewed so that it is much more likely that the Mom & Pop ISP > will want to get the better prices and go with their upstream provider to keep > block asssignments routing entries minimized. I don't get it - how are the prices my upstream provider charges guaranteed to be lower than those that ARIN charges? -- David Hakala Editor In Chief Cyber Week dhakala at ossinc.net 303-755-6985 From michael at memra.com Tue Jan 21 12:07:45 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:07:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: <199701210754.2861000@ossinc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, David Hakala wrote: > This arbitrarily high barrier to entry into the ISP market is > anticompetitive on its face, and will never pass legal muster. If the mom-n- > pop ISPs don't kill it, the Justice Dept. will. First of all, it's not a barrier to entry. It has been pointed out several times that small ISP's would end up with no more than a $10 or $20 charge for a /24. And the Justice Dept. is not relevant to the situation since it is an American government agency. In spite of the awkward name, ARIN operates in an international venue and if necessary, can be incorporated outside the USA. 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 Wed Jan 22 02:12:07 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:12:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <01BC07A3.4D9E1280@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Mark Richmond wrote: > Are you aware of any Large ISP's or other philantropic organizations > that might pay that fee so that a small or medium-sized ISP could make a > bigger profit? Me either. The large ISP's pay those fees because they want two things. Simplicity and control. By getting large enough aggregate blocks of IP addresses which they can announce globally via BGP and which other providers will listen to, they gain better control over their operations, their network architecture and so on. It is important to note that no-one has to listen to a BGP announcement that they do not want to listen to and most providers do filter the BGP announcements they hear to ignore certain types of announcement, mostly blocks that they consider too small. Currently there is general agreement amongst providers that a /19 block is big enough that it will not be ignored. The simplicity they gain is from having a somewhat unified address space with only a small number of large aggregate blocks visible to the world that are subdivided in such a way that they roughly match the provider's internal network topology. Now, you seem to think that the larger ISP's wouldn't pay the fees to help the smaller ISP's make a larger profit. Yet the entire commercial Internet industry grew up in 1994 because the large providers were willing to sell access to smaller ISP's and allow them to resell services. There was a big uproar back then about a plan that some CIX members were pushing that would have seen the smaller ISP's virtually cut off from the Internet but this plan was effectively scuttled by another large provider who did not want to go along with it because they made a lot of money selling access to smaller ISP's. The fundamental fact is that large providers make a lot of money selling access services to small ISP's and it's fairly easy money as well since providing a bunch of T1's requires a lot less support services than providing dialup access directly. Let's remember that there are a lot of forces at play here and it is a gross oversimplification to paint the large providers as demonic forces out to monopolize the net and squash the small ISP. This is simply not the case. Early last year I wrote a document that may be of use for those of you preparing a FAQ. It is at htp://sidhe.memra.com/rough.txt but please don't point any links at that site since it is the proxy server for my home LAN and is only a dedicated dialup modem connection. But feel free to copy it to your own server or to quote paragraphs in a FAQ. 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 Tue Jan 21 12:05:25 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:05:25 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701211742.JAA28331@songbird.com> References: <199701211304.WAA21557@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at Jan 21, 97 10:04:51 pm Message-ID: At 9:42 AM -0800 1/21/97, Kent Crispin wrote: >David R. Conrad allegedly said: >> >> Karl, >> >> >Therefore, every ISP must be an ARIN "associate" if they have an ounce of >> >sense, and they must be able to get those magic /19s (or larger if they can >> >justify them). >> > >> >To fail to provide that on a *level* playing field is going to invite >> >lawsuits >> >> Currently within APNIC and RIPE-NCC, if an organization pays the >> membersip fees, we allocate (or reserve for) them a /19 block. While >> at APNIC (and I assume RIPE) we do try to discourage everyone (not >> just end users) from getting provider independent blocks from the >> registry (we have a form letter that says "routers are falling over, >> blah blah blah"), we will do so if they insist (and they pay the >> membership fee). >> >> In both our cases (not wanting to speak for RIPE-NCC, but I believe this >> to be the case -- I'm sure they'll blast me if I'm off base), the fees have >> (apparently) had the effect of discouraging smaller ISPs from obtaining >> blocks from the registries directly. >> >> Do you consider this a level playing field? >> >> Regards, >> -drc > >Clearly it is not a level playing field -- it is an unlevel playing >field, designed to promote a certain hierarchical structure, motivated >by perceived technological limitations. > >Other approaches are possible, but the consequences are thought to be >bad -- for example, you could charge a single flat fee per address per >year. It is thought that the result of such a policy is that the >backbone routers would melt, or something similar, and the internet >would become unusable.. >OTOH, it would create much stronger pressures >for improved router technology and perhaps accelerate a migration to >IPv6. > Pressures for improved router technology certainly. But it is questionable if real alternatives, fully supported, are available in the short term to help. Longer term, of course--there are any number of approaches being explored. But they are in the research and advanced development. IPv6 is not inherently going to help the routing table growth problem. It helps many other problems, especially renumbering. Provider change would probably be much easier with fully evolved v6. Howard From jmg at INTERKAN.NET Tue Jan 21 11:53:53 1997 From: jmg at INTERKAN.NET (Justin M. Geering) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:53 -0600 Subject: My Opinion on IP Addresses Message-ID: <199701211656.KAA29015@unix2.interkan.net> To whom it may concern, (please read this through and let me know what you think) I am a small ISP administrator in Kansas and I am appalled at the actions that are taking place behind closed doors. What ARIN is proposing could make our break my operation along with hundreds of other Internet Service providers. My C class bank of IP numbers is crucial for me. I can not operate without it, and to start charging yearly fees of that magnitude, is ridiculous. I realize that IP numbers are running out, but why take it out on us little guys who have no way of paying fees in the ten thousand dollar range. And another thing, much of the nation's Internet providers are already by passing many of smaller towns in the nation, if ARIN did this these place will most likely never get a chance to have access to the Internet....at least at a fair market price. If anything, ARIN should be working on expanding the 255 limit of TCI/IP. No matter what ARIN does, we will run out of IP addresses under the current system. You can't stop that. Someone should be working on expanding the numbers to 999 instead of charging $999.95 for the numbers. Lets face it, 32 bit would not be that hard to change to over the 8 bit coding of the current system. Hell even 16 bit would vastly improve the number problem!!!! (65535.65535.65535.65535 everybody could have their own class A). Stop trying to band aid the problem and fix it! What I have read sounds like ARIN is proposing to just make a buck on the Internet and damn the rest of us out here and all the millions of users. If I have to pay $10,000 for my IP numbers, I am going to have to raise my prices and pass it on to the customers. And if ARIN does not think that will stifle the growth of the Internet, they are DEAD wrong. Sounds like someone would then need to take a basic economics class in college and look up a word called overhead in the dictionary. We in the industry understand the current limits. Look at the new web servers and browsers that no longer need an individual IP address for each virtual web domain, that is a great way to save IP addresses. We are doing our part to conserve IP addresses, what is ARIN doing? Besides looking to make a buck and ruin free enterprise on the net. Anyone who is on the design of this plan that grew up with the Internet would know that this is totally against everything the Internet originally ever stood for (and hyped about in the media). Freedom of knowledge. I totally agree with the Association of Online Professionals in their fighting this proposal. Obviously whoever is on the ARIN panel is blind or as monopolistic as some unnamed large software company from the Redmond. Free your mind....or prepare to fight the power and numbers of the Internet ARIN.... (the above is not necessarily the opinion of InterKan.Net, Inc. and is solely the opinion and words of JazzManG) _____________________________________________ Justin M. Geering www.interkan.net Web Master Phone: (913) 565-0991 InterKan.Net, Inc. Email: jmg at interkan.net From apb at IAFRICA.COM Wed Jan 22 03:12:58 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:12:58 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <01BC0776.DA8F6FE0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: Mark Richmond said: > The bottom line, as always, is this: who gets paid, and why? The folk who do the hard work of vetting applications and allocating address blocks to entities that qualify, get paid for that hard work. This is a good idea because the community needs somebody to vet the applications and allocate the address blocks. Is it necessary for me to explain that end users and small ISPs will not need to pay ARIN, because they should be getting their address space from their upstream providers? Is it necessary for me to explain that the upstream providers will be in a position to pass on address space to their customers at prices at least an order of magnitude lower than $2500 per /24 prefix, or that typical dialup providers will be in a position to pass on the cost to their end users at prices of the order of a few cents per user (once off, not per year), if they bother to pass the cost on at all? Is it necessary for me to explain that, even after it is formed, ARIN is expected to continue to respond to the needs of the community and to modify its fee structure and allocation policies accordingly? Is it necessary for me to point out that RIPE and APNIC seem to be getting along adequately, with the funding and support of their respective parts of the community? Perhaps it is necessary for me to point out that, if ARIN ever loses the support of the community that it purportedly serves, the community will just ignore ARIN and makes another plan. ARIN will not have guns with which to force an unwilling community to do its bidding. > If the internet community is to surrender control of such a vital > resource to anyone in particular (an eventual certainty, at least) > then why should it nbe this proposal? ARIN is not about the Internet community surrendering control of anything. ARIN is about retaining control of address allocation in the community, where it belongs, despite the imminent loss of US government funding for this activity. --apb (Alan Barrett) \begin{off-topic} Messages that contain headers with "'weirdly quoted'" stuff like this: Cc: "'aop at cris.com'" , "'naipr at lists.internic.net'" and lines longer than 450 characters, do not enhance the reputation of the folk who post such messages. \end{off-topic} From lonewolf at driveway1.com Tue Jan 21 14:51:07 1997 From: lonewolf at driveway1.com (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:51:07 -0500 Subject: "Basic Training" Message-ID: <32E51E2B.1AF9@driveway1.com> My thanks to all who have helped with the bibliographic info re CIDR basics. I apologized in advance for not being a 12-year networking pro, but those who flame those of us who are a) newbies here and b) have some legit interest in the questions raised EVEN ABSENT some of the basics might reflect that we did ask nicely (No flames taken personally) Great discussions, and end of my wasting bandwidth. From apb at IAFRICA.COM Wed Jan 22 06:17:07 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:17:07 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <01BC077B.F102DDC0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: Mark Richmond said: > An example: > Crudnuts Industries has the class 'C' block of 198.xxx.yyy. > As a class 'C' address holder, what will be their obligations to ARIN in > year one? In years 3 through X? They will not have to pay a cent to ARIN. Please read the proposal. > As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at > $2500. All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you > suggest. You appear to have misunderstood the ARIN proposal and/or the way IP address allocation works in the Internet. Please go back and read the message from Kim in which she explained that there are approximately 300 ISPs that get address space directly from the InterNIC. The usual case will be that a large ISP gets a large block from ARIN (say a /16, costing $20000). The usual case will *not* be that a small ISP gets a small block from ARIN (say a /24 costing $2500). The usual case will be that a small ISP gets a small block from its upstream provider, which should be able to afford to charge $100 or so for a /24 (since $20000/256 = $78.125). > For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't > changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and > upstream port costs. Sorry, I fail to see the relationship between port costs and address assignment. > Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations > for contact and other info Now I'm confused. Why does it say Stephen Satchell at the end of a message from Mark Richmond? --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at IAFRICA.COM Wed Jan 22 06:40:12 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:40:12 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: <199701220504.3013500@ossinc.net> Message-ID: David Hakala wrote: > I keep hearing this, and I keep asking what sense it makes for me to > buy my most vital resource from my competitors. Just because this is > how it *has* been doesn't mean it should continue to be so. Please review the last n years of cidrd discussion. > > 2. The price is not for the IP addresses, its for the act of > > registering the addresses. It will not be possible for someone > > to walk in and purchase IP addresses without having technical > > justifications for needing them. > > I fail to see a pragmatic distinction, unless you're saying that I can > be willing and able to license addresses (I've studiously avoided the > term "buy") and ARIN could still refuse a license for reasons it need > not have or reveal. That possibility REALLY scares me! Oh, they would reveal the reason: "Insufficient justification", or words to that effect. One of the main points of the registry is that it checks each application to ensure that address space is not wasted. > I don't get it - how are the prices my upstream provider charges > guaranteed to be lower than those that ARIN charges? You guarantee it, by choosing a provider that does not attempt to rip you off. --apb (Alan Barrett) From prez at berkshire.net Wed Jan 22 07:56:57 1997 From: prez at berkshire.net (Michael D. Bathrick) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:56:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <01BC0776.DA8F6FE0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: On Saturday, January 18, 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of > Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization > representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's ) have been encouraged to > deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of > the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. Interesting that all small ISPs with concerns are thrown into the same pool - since I am not a member of AOP does that mean my opinions are of more importance than a member of AOP, or is it just "small & medium sized ISP's" you have a problem with? Or, perhaps, dissention? Lets face it - ISPs have a stake in this as well. We have a right to voice our concerns. Mike From james at pil.net Wed Jan 22 10:16:57 1997 From