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: james at pil.net (James Smallacombe) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:16:57 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: <199701220504.3013500@ossinc.net> Message-ID: >-- [ 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. You get the address space from where ever you get your connection, be it a competitor. It's known as "aggregation", and everyone on this list that's an ISP knows why it's neccessary. If you don't, then I assume you're here to learn, in which case you should lurk more and post less. >> 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? They're not. Just like the price your upstream provider charges for your Internet connection is not fixed or guaranteed. Ever hear of "competition"? >-- >David Hakala >Editor In Chief >Cyber Week >dhakala at ossinc.net >303-755-6985 James Smallacombe Internet Access for Bucks County james at pil.net And Philadelphia, PA. PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net "I'll plant Plantagenet, root him up who dares." 3Henry Vi, I,i From vancleef at microunity.com Wed Jan 22 12:36:09 1997 From: vancleef at microunity.com (Bob Van Cleef) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:36:09 -0800 Subject: Fee structure (was Re: Difficult childhood. ) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 01:33:34 EST." <3.0.32.19970122013331.00696d10@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199701221736.JAA04299@plotter.microunity.com> >> >>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. :-) And I was teaching classes on ARPA Net email 17 years ago... Enough nostalgia, some things never change. "Keep on target." -------- USENIX can be taken as one example of a not-for-profit organization that has multiple classes of membership. The "student/educational" ones do fit this discussion, but the individual, corporate, and supporting classes could. >From the USENIX web page: http://www.usenix.org/membership/classes.html (see it for more details) Classes of Membership There are several classes of membership, each with different benefits. Student: $25 [deleted] Individual: $70 Open to any individual or institution. Individual members may vote. Corporate: $325 Corporate membership is open to any individual or institution. Educational: $175 [deleted] Supporting: $1000 Open to any individual or institution that wants to support the Association to a greater degree than through the Corporate Membership fee. Notes: Corporate, Educational, and Supporting members have one designated representative who receives all benefits available to Individual members, plus copies of the proceedings from all conferences and symposia that are held during the term of membership. In addition to the above benefits, Supporting members receive the following additional benefits: one free ad in ;login:, on a space available basis ten attendees may attend USENIX conferences at the member price the one-time use of the USENIX and SAGE mailing list at half price cost your URL linked to our Supporting Members page on the USENIX Web site free SAGE publications such as A Guide to Developing Computing Policy Documents, the annual SAGE calendar, and the SAGE System Administrator Profile and Salary Survey new this year, a 10% discount of exhibit booth space rental fees ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> 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 vancleef at microunity.com Wed Jan 22 13:04:54 1997 From: vancleef at microunity.com (Bob Van Cleef) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:04:54 -0800 Subject: Let's be productive Message-ID: <199701221804.KAA04389@plotter.microunity.com> Let's hear it for hubris: > They will not have to pay a cent to ARIN. Please read the proposal. I've read it, and it is void of any of the historical references that would make it understandable. It simply floats, out of context, on the net, providing food for anger, but no nourishment for understanding. It is great, for a undated first draft, but that is all that it can be considered. -------- Let's hear it for arrogance: > It's known as "aggregation", and everyone on this list that's > an ISP knows why it's neccessary. If you don't, then I assume you're here > to learn, in which case you should lurk more and post less. Sorry, but there are many ways to allocate/distribute numbers - some more effective than others, some more desirable than others, but effectiveness and desirability do not guarantee acceptance. History shows otherwise. If something is a "given" than it needs to be stated and linked to ARIN in a way that people following the rumours on the net will discover it. Proclaiming something is "truth" based on discussions buried in some e-mail archive somewhere is foolish, arrogant, and counterproductive. -------- Let's talk facts: As of Jan 22 09:52:39 PST 1997, the ARIN web page http://www.arin.net/index.html has not been updated to reflect any of the discussions on this forum. The only thing new is Jeremiah's reading list at http://idt.net/~jeremiah/ Until some of the "clarifications" reach publication, the complaints will continue. Until individuals on both sides "try to understand" the positions of those on the other side, the arguments will continue. Learn to listen. Learn to place yourself in the other person's position. Then you will have learned how to communicate and not to pontificate. Before you post a message, ask yourself "is this a positive contribution to the discussion?" That question alone will cut down on the need for moderation. 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 markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Wed Jan 22 05:39:56 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:39:56 -0000 Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: <01BC0850.9D454620@tcsd.k12.ca.us> ---------- From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] 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. . . . . . 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. . . . . . Geez, Michael. Nobody said MCI was swahili for Satan. The fact is, MCI is a *business*, and a very successful one. They got that way because the work to make a *profit*. Both of these concepts are foreign to the 'net intellegentsia, so I'll explain. Businesses make a profit by selling goods or services for MORE than the COST of them. If MCI or any other right-thinking business buys blocks of addresses for $X, they will sell them for $X+profit. You continue to imply that large providers will simply reduce their profits in order to absorb the cost. Why in the world would you think that? This being said, I will refrain from further comments on the economic realities and misconceptions thereof. Obviously there sill always be those in the "Internet Community" for whom economics was *not* a required class. From michael at memra.com Wed Jan 22 13:58:15 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:58:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Michael D. Bathrick wrote: > > In spite of the awkward name, ARIN > > operates in an international venue and if necessary, can be incorporated > > outside the USA. > > I have yet to see participation of folks in this from outside US domains. memra.com is in Canada, iafrica.com is in South Africa. Both these countries get IP allocations from the Internic currently. .com is not a US domain, it is an international domain. 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 Wed Jan 22 14:40:01 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:40:01 -0500 Subject: Let's be productive Message-ID: <199701221940.OAA14206@rs1.internic.net> > Let's talk facts: > > As of Jan 22 09:52:39 PST 1997, the ARIN web page http://www.arin.net/index.html > has not been updated to reflect any of the discussions on this forum. The only > thing new is Jeremiah's reading list at http://idt.net/~jeremiah/ Until some of the > "clarifications" reach publication, the complaints will continue. Until individuals on > both sides "try to understand" the positions of those on the other side, the arguments > will continue. > > Learn to listen. Learn to place yourself in the other person's position. Then you will > have learned how to communicate and not to pontificate. Before you post a message, > ask yourself "is this a positive contribution to the discussion?" That question alone > will cut down on the need for moderation. > Good points all Bob...This is why I have been trying to hold any comments until the updated proposal draft is finished.... 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 james at pil.net Wed Jan 22 14:47:30 1997 From: james at pil.net (James Smallacombe) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:47:30 -0500 Subject: Let's be productive In-Reply-To: <199701221804.KAA04389@plotter.microunity.com> Message-ID: >-------- >Let's hear it for arrogance: More like "annoyance". This list is being flooded with frantic emails from people that don't seem to have a clue. Too much noise, not enough signal. Apologies to all that this post contributes to the former. "Let's be productive" is what I'd like to start seeing. >> It's known as "aggregation", and everyone on this list that's >> an ISP knows why it's neccessary. If you don't, then I assume you're here >> to learn, in which case you should lurk more and post less. > >Sorry, but there are many ways to allocate/distribute numbers - some more >effective than others, some more desirable than others, but effectiveness >and desirability do not guarantee acceptance. History shows otherwise. > >If something is a "given" than it needs to be stated and linked to ARIN in a >way that people following the rumours on the net will discover it. >Proclaiming >something is "truth" based on discussions buried in some e-mail archive >somewhere is foolish, arrogant, and counterproductive. "Buried in some email archive"? That's right up there with the assertion that understanding CIDR requires years of networking experience. It's not obscure, it's a fact of life already. If you're not already aware of it, than it's unlikely that ARIN will affect you directly. >As of Jan 22 09:52:39 PST 1997, the ARIN web page >http://www.arin.net/index.html >has not been updated to reflect any of the discussions on this forum. The >only >thing new is Jeremiah's reading list at http://idt.net/~jeremiah/ Until >some of the >"clarifications" reach publication, the complaints will continue. Until >individuals on >both sides "try to understand" the positions of those on the other side, >the arguments >will continue. > >Learn to listen. Learn to place yourself in the other person's position. >Then you will >have learned how to communicate and not to pontificate. Before you post a >message, >ask yourself "is this a positive contribution to the discussion?" That >question alone >will cut down on the need for moderation. That's pretty much the point I was trying to make, if you think about it. I was objecting to completely "non-positive contributions to the discussion." Justifiable admonishment does not pontification make. Sorry for this noise, I'll shut up now. James Smallacombe Internet Access for Bucks County james at pil.net And Philadelphia, PA. PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net "I'll plant Plantagenet, root him up who dares." 3Henry Vi, I,i From prez at berkshire.net Wed Jan 22 08:23:04 1997 From: prez at berkshire.net (Michael D. Bathrick) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:23:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > In spite of the awkward name, ARIN > operates in an international venue and if necessary, can be incorporated > outside the USA. I have yet to see participation of folks in this from outside US domains. From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Wed Jan 22 15:57:00 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:57:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <01BC0850.9D454620@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Mark Richmond wrote: > Geez, Michael. Nobody said MCI was swahili for Satan. > The fact is, MCI is a *business*, and a very successful one. They got that way because the work to make a *profit*. Both of these concepts are foreign to the 'net intellegentsia, so I'll explain. Businesses make a profit by selling goods or services for MORE than the COST of them. Of course MCI is a business, just like everyone else here. I think that almost every one of us is in this to make money. We may have other reasons too, but I think just about all of the people here understand the basics of economics. > > If MCI or any other right-thinking business buys blocks of addresses for $X, they will sell them for $X+profit. > > You continue to imply that large providers will simply reduce their profits in order to absorb the cost. Why in the world would you think that? I don't think anyone said that. I expect that you haven't fully thought this through, otherwise you might remember a little piece about the free market. I seem to recall a bit about supply and demand and an invisible hand. There are enough ISPs around that I'll be you can find one in every area that is willing to give you a block of IP addresses for a nominal charge. If what you say is true, then internet pricing would be going up not down. We've increased our backbone network speeds from T1 to 10Meg to T3 within the past year, I know for a fact that our dial-up costs have not increased 1500%. In fact they have dropped, because other providers dropped their prices. We also never charged a fee for the intial block of IP addresses, even though it does cost us something to keep the records and deal with the SWIPS. We only charged a small (<$100) fee for additional allocations in the past, even though it involved looking at the customer's network diagrams, offering suggestions, and often explaining CIDR, IP subnet-zero, IP classless, etc. We didn't make anything off of this, and in fact it usually cost us in terms of manpower to teach the customer. We took a long-term view though and justified it because it led to increased customer satisfaction, lighter loads on our routers, and is a generally accepted benefit to the internet. I guess we're just a bunch of Godless Communists who are in this as part of our plot to take over the world. Damn, and I thought we had hidden that fairly well. > This being said, I will refrain from further comments on the economic realities and misconceptions thereof. > > Obviously there sill always be those in the "Internet Community" for whom economics was *not* a required class. > Obviously there will always be those in the "Internet Community" who see everything new as some sort of conspiracy, including software that does automatic line wraps. Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From jeff.binkley at asacomp.com Wed Jan 22 08:17:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:17:00 -0500 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: <199701211349.WAA21959@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <35.262246.7@asacomp.com> DR>Jeff, DR>>So are we saying that by creating yet another beauracracy and DR>pumping >more money into it, that this will solve a management DR>problem ? DR>Management problem? What management problem? The problem is that DR>the subsidies that have funded the IP allocation and registration DR>service are going away and people will have to pay the costs DR>associated with that service instead of relying on the US government DR>or people registering domain names. That's not what some folks are arguing in here. Certain folks are saying the main thrust of this proposal is to manage address space, which in my opinion is either a management or engineering problem, not a business problem. If you are correct, then the question becomes how much funding is being lost ? Folks are throwing around all kinds of numbers for creating a new organization, do we know what it currently costs ? Lastly, if I understand the proposal correctly, Network Solutions are the ones who currently fund this function (with subsidies from other sources) and under the new proposal ARIN becomes a subsidiary of Network Solution, not a standalone entity ? If true then do they become able to break even with the revenues from domain registrations by shedding this responsibility and funding it through ARIN ? I can't believe that the current charges for domain registrations aren't enough to fund the NIC. I can believe they have major billing and accounting problems; having just experienced them myself. This to me is at the heart of the management problem I was referring to. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From hcb at clark.net Wed Jan 22 08:48:42 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:48:42 -0500 Subject: Numbering Really Big Networks Message-ID: Perhaps stepping back a bit, and looking at other context, helps. I will look at two other contexts in this note, and hope they add perspective. I like to ask people, "what's the biggest network in the worlds?" Many people answer "the Internet." "The US military" is the most common alternative answer. None of these are even close. It's the international telephone network (you know, I never looked at it before, but that is a great name for a conspiracy). Also important to this discussion is a "sub-conspiracy" called the North American Numbering Plan. Look at a telephone number, expanded to include all long-distance and international prefixes. It will begin with a national code such as 44 for the UK. Subordinate to that are city codes in the UK, and exchange and line numbers in that city. North American numbers have a 1 country code, and the familiar area code/exchange/line structure below that. Telephone routing (switching) operates at the broad levels of international/major national (continental)/local. International carriers interconnect countries; Interexchange Carriers (IXC) interconnect local areas, and local providers interconnect exchanges and lines. There are different technical requirements at each of these levels, much as there are different technical requirements for a small ISP that needs to support very good end user dialup, and a national provider for whom 155 MBPS links (and certainly routers!) are not fast enough. Especially due to the advent of new technologies requiring unique telephone numbers, there has been an extreme demand, especially in large metropolitan areas, on the telephone number space. This has led to certain area codes (e.g., 212, which once covered Manhattan) to fill up. There may be space left in Area Code 702 in the deserts of Nevada, but that isn't usable inside Area Code 212. Area code 212 has a fixed limit dictated by the 999-9999 phone number structure. So, there is a practical issue that certain area codes are exhausted. Telephone renumbering is a nasty issue for several reasons. First, if my area code changes, I have to change all my letterheads, etc. Second, anyone who has stored my number will have to change it, whether or not their number has changed or not. Third, there are several technical ways to introduce new area codes. The usual way is to split geographic areas, so half the people in them are affected. A newer model is "overlay," where additional area codes are applied to a single geographic area. The latter model requires 10-digit dialing for every number inside the local area, but doesn't force people to change their numbers. Advantages and disadvantages to both. How does this relate to ARIN? There has to be a central registry to assign area codes. There is a usually-hidden list of provider codes that also needs to be administered. When one gets a telephone number in a geographic area, the number assignment is given to the end user by their serving telephone company. That telephone company aggregates the subscriber into an exchange, and then an area code. If one moves their business to another area code, there is rarely a presumption that the phone number is portable. It was allocated to the aggregating provider. The telephone switching system has a finite address space, there is an extremely large capital investment designed to deal with this, and the system was not designed for portable addressing. IP wasn't really designed with either portable or nonportable numbers in mind. RFC760 started with an 8-bit prefix that soon proved unscalable, and changes were made. But that 8-bit prefix reflected IP was introduced for small research functions where lots of flexibility was practical, but has evolved into an environment much more constrained to maintain operational quality. An issue that concerns many people on the ARIN list is being "locked in" to a single upstream provider, assuming the general case is provider-based allocation. One concern here is the disincentive for people to go with small providers, because they may need to renumber as the small provider grows. Yes. This is a true statement. To say it is not -- to say I have provider independent phone number space -- is saying I get to move from (703)998-5819 in Virginia to Silicon Valley, and can reasonably expect to get (408)998-5819, or even keep (703)998-5819 with no call forwarding expense. There are two ways to look at this. One is that renumbering is anticompetitive and must not happen. The other says there are technical reasons to renumber, and probably good ones. Let's focus on making renumbering less painful, because it will be a fact of life. Let's also realize there are significant real world examples where even large end users might face renumbering of their Internet interfaces, but would have to renumber a very small portion of their users. Making renumbering easier is the focus of the IETF Procedures for Internet/Enterprise Renumbering (PIER) Working Group. It has a web page at http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/. Minutes and such are at http://ds.internic.net/ietf/pier/. PIER has produced several RFCs, and more are in the works. There is also a collection of renumbering case studies, which I _think_ the web page points to. With all due humility (yeah, right), two RFCs that might be of use to ARIN are http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2071.txt and http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2072.txt. The first is an overview of the renumbering problem by Paul Ferguson and myself, the second is an operational-planning-oriented document I wrote called the Router Renumbering Guide. From hcb at clark.net Wed Jan 22 08:16:13 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:16:13 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: <199701220504.3013500@ossinc.net> Message-ID: At 12:01 AM -0500 1/22/97, David Hakala wrote: >-- [ 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. Please give us implementable engineering suggestions about how to avoid buying such a resource from competitors in the next 6-18 months. > >> 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! It's routine practice for providers of all sizes to reject addresses and routes that cannot be verified, or are otherwise expected to be present on a given physical link. This is a basic operational protection against configuration errors and hacking. The addresses have to be registered somewhere to be verifiable. From hcb at clark.net Wed Jan 22 08:12:18 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:12:18 -0500 Subject: What Government Subsidy? In-Reply-To: <199701220504.3013600@ossinc.net> Message-ID: At 12:01 AM -0500 1/22/97, David Hakala wrote: >-- [ 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. > > Even in the short term, there are problems with the services provided by the NIC under the current structure. It seems silly to perpetuate some of them into its immediate structure, so there may not be a direct cost comparison. In other words, we could try to transfer the current budget including government money, but that may not be the right budget for the new organization. Current budget figures includes things like domain registration, which won't move, and service availability which we don't now have. From hcb at clark.net Wed Jan 22 08:09:13 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:09:13 -0500 Subject: Difficult childhood. In-Reply-To: <199701220504.3013700@ossinc.net> Message-ID: At 12:02 AM -0500 1/22/97, David Hakala wrote: >-- [ 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. > [stereotypes about BBS operators, ISPs, the Internet gang, etc., deleted] > >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. > No one is objecting to alternatives about how things should operate. It's a question of time perspective. Let's see. Is anyone looking at the problems and ways to overcome them? (Jeremiah, this might be worth putting on the web page). Limitations of BGP. IETF Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) working group/mailing list. Limitations of routing technology. Lots of marketplace discussion. Tagswitch mailing list. IETF MISR BOF, working on a charter as a working group. Alternative marketplace solutions in beta or limited deployment, including informational RFCs from Ipsilon. Bigger traditional routers from major manufacturers (see cisco-nsp mailing list). NIMROD working group and mailing list. Big-Internet mailing list. Limitations of operational procedures. North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) mailing list and meetings. Limitations of registry address allocation policies, not limited to North America. Limitations of a 32-bit address space, which is NOT the same as running out of IP addresses. A whole range of IPv6 working groups, connectathons, etc. IPv6 mailing list. NAIPR is intended to deal with an immediate problem IN THE PRESENT STRUCTURE. I don't like some things about the proposal and have said so. But it has no chance of getting its work done -- or even a consensus forming that NAIPR as conceived is a Really Bad Idea, if the scope of the discussion keeps widening beyond the focus here. I have really tried to avoid making any personal references to anyone's comments here. But I am going to make a slight exception here, David, and quote your words again: >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. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am on most of the mailing lists I cited above. So are many people here. I have never seen a posting from you on any of them. You may be a quiet lurker; I can't speak to that. But the quote immediately above gives a flavor, that perhaps I misconstrue, that you want every issue presented here for your convenience. And again I indulge in what might be improperly a personal reference. First and foremost, I am an engineer. But I've also been a working if part-time print and electronic journalist, earning at least part of my income from the pen, typewriter, and word processor since 1966 or 1967. > 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. That's nice. We who have chronicled a bit longer welcome you. Howard Berkowitz From the_innkeeper at sols.net Wed Jan 22 09:08:33 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:08:33 -0500 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? Message-ID: <199701221403.JAA11288@lists.internic.net> > 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, I very much tend to agree with you opn this one. Why not solve the problems instead of having the distinct possibility of creating more... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From pferguso at cisco.com Wed Jan 22 09:25:53 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:25:53 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970122092550.0069ffb0@lint.cisco.com> At 07:56 AM 1/22/97 -0500, Michael D. Bathrick wrote: >Lets face it - ISPs have a stake in this as well. We have a right to >voice our concerns. > Of course you do. So does everyone else. I think you misunderstood my point, which is that it would help keep the signal/noise ratio on the list to a bearable level if people would familiarize themselves with the proposal, and read the list archives, prior to voicing their concerns. - paul From the_innkeeper at sols.net Wed Jan 22 09:12:49 1997 From: the_innkeeper at sols.net (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:12:49 -0500 Subject: please define terms Message-ID: <199701221403.JAA11290@lists.internic.net> > 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. > Thank you very much Jeremiah...I will go an do some reading... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From pferguso at cisco.com Wed Jan 22 17:06:30 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:06:30 -0500 Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970122164126.0069e9d4@lint.cisco.com> Michael, I commend you -- you have the patience of a Saint. - paul At 11:12 PM 1/21/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >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 jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Wed Jan 22 09:38:06 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:38:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701220621.AAA29522@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > 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. But if your area code changes, you do have to change your phone number. Seeing as you are from Chicagoland, you should be very familiar with this Karl. I would love to see someone try to sue the telcos over that. :) Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From michael at memra.com Wed Jan 22 17:22:55 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:22:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: <35.262246.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > Lastly, if I understand the proposal correctly, ... > ... and under the new proposal ARIN becomes a subsidiary > of Network Solution, not a standalone entity ? Nope. ARIN would be a standalone non-profit organization that is owned by no-one and controlled by its members. > I can't believe that the current charges for domain registrations aren't > enough to fund the NIC. The point is that we want to break off the IP allocation from the domain name registration function. There is really no connection between the two except the historical accident that the NSF contracted with one company to do both jobs back when the net was a whole lot smaller and the NSFnet was *THE* backbone. > I can believe they have major billing and > accounting problems; having just experienced them myself. This to me is > at the heart of the management problem I was referring to. These problems are almost entirely with the domain registration function of the Internic and not with the IP allocation function. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us Wed Jan 22 17:27:27 1997 From: jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us (Jeffrey C. Ollie) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:27:27 -0600 Subject: [NAIPR] YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:08:33 EST." <199701221403.JAA11288@lists.internic.net> Message-ID: <199701222227.QAA12744@worf.netins.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:08:33 -0500, the_innkeeper at sols.net writes: > >Why not solve the >problems instead of having the distinct possibility of creating more... The creation of ARIN merely transfers allocation authority away from the InterNIC. Other than the necessity of fees, procedures for getting new allocations of addresses will not change (at least at first). I don't really see how that would cause many more problems. If you want to leave allocation authority with the InterNIC, you'd have to either get more money from the U.S. government (fat chance of that) or the InterNIC would have to charge fees for allocations (something that would cause even more upset). Any other solutions would take years to develop and implement. The mere fact that there are no other known solutions should make this clear. ARIN will happen. All that can be done is to argue about the details. [A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.] Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:27:27 -0600 From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:08:33 EST." <199701221403.JAA11288 at lists.internic.net> Subject: Re: [NAIPR] YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? To: naipr at internic.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news. iQCVAwUBMuaUVZwkOQz8sbZFAQHP+gP+L7mENS9Zg/Vsfxp+Ghl56TfnrTF2ojF/ e8oY4xpVE4MSmL7OO3fESCGleMkGmt3iSNOlYTZYazvRGhAoFH1m9LmQ49ie4mz4 CmI8c8/2HIhHPCm78KGY+BfKZSEwMH7jNRTSHMyGZmlEIVBMQ1ad2v26LZbIaZUa X2zNUtkDoe0= =dyvH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey C. Ollie | Should Work Now (TM) Python Hacker, Mac Lover | From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Wed Jan 22 17:49:31 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:49:31 -0500 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:22:55 PST." References: Message-ID: <199701222249.RAA14750@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:22:55 PST, you said: > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > > I can believe they have major billing and > > accounting problems; having just experienced them myself. This to me is > > at the heart of the management problem I was referring to. > > These problems are almost entirely with the domain registration function > of the Internic and not with the IP allocation function. Well, there's no billing problems with the IP allocation function because they don't currently bill for it. (Only half a smiley here). However, it *does* behoove us to understand exactly *why* the NSI people are having problems, lest ARIN go down the same path. I don't think anybody seriously claims that the NSI billing situation is not severely sub-optimal. I don't see much wisdom in proceeding with a second similar endeavor until we understand why the first one had problems. And yes, I *know* that "domaain names and IP addresses are *TOTALLY* different, so obviously there will be *no* screwups with sending bills to the wrong people, or turning IP allocations off for non-payment, or any of the other problems that the DNS side of the fence has had. Right? If you agree, send me private e-mail, I have some GREAT investment opportunities to tell you about... ;) -- 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 putz at parc.xerox.com Wed Jan 22 18:24:21 1997 From: putz at parc.xerox.com (Steve Putz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:24:21 PST Subject: ARIN proposal Message-ID: <97Jan22.152422pst."2469"@spoggles.parc.xerox.com> I have read the information on http://www.arin.net/, and would like to submit my request that the proposal *not* be implemented. In particular, the proposal does not explain why the proposed high fees are needed or how the money will be spent. Also the proposed non-profit organization does not have a published charter, goals or mission. Steve Putz Member of Research Staff Xerox Corporation Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Rd Palo Alto, CA 94304 From scharf at vix.com Wed Jan 22 11:36:55 1997 From: scharf at vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:36:55 -0800 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701221636.IAA06615@bb.home.vix.com> > > > 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. Karl, any of us who have been through one or more area code renumbering instances knows this is not true. It can happen, it does happen, just the Internet has smaller prefixes. Forced by at outside organization to change with no recourse or cost recovery. It just so happens that the people making the decisions are almost always an arm of the state government. Jerry From kent at songbird.com Wed Jan 22 19:31:20 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:31:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Jan 22, 97 08:16:13 am Message-ID: <199701230031.QAA28123@songbird.com> Howard C. Berkowitz allegedly said: > [...] > > Please give us implementable engineering suggestions about how to avoid > buying such a resource from competitors in the next 6-18 months. I must have missed the part about ARIN going away in 6-18 months... -- 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 Wed Jan 22 18:39:41 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:39:41 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: <199701230031.QAA28123@songbird.com> References: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Jan 22, 97 08:16:13 am Message-ID: At 4:31 PM -0800 1/22/97, Kent Crispin wrote: >Howard C. Berkowitz allegedly said: >> >[...] >> >> Please give us implementable engineering suggestions about how to avoid >> buying such a resource from competitors in the next 6-18 months. > >I must have missed the part about ARIN going away in 6-18 months... > >-- No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't speaking about ARIN. I was responding to complaints that people "should not" have to get address space from hierarchically higher-level aggregators with larger blocks, because unnamed routing technology "ought" to be immune to the factors motivating provider-based aggregation. There's certainly a lot of research going on in new routing paradigms. But I was referring to the reality that we have no proven alternatives in the short term. If there were not a need for aggregation to reduce the routing table sizes, much of the RFC2050-style incentives for registries to dole out only large blocks would be inappropriate. What I was saying was that in the near term, we don't have alternatives, and we would need a North American registry for the near term. At such time as alternative routing products are available that can deal with infinitely large tables, the whole aggregation paradigm needs to be revisited, and the guidance for registries will need to change. From kent at songbird.com Wed Jan 22 20:04:09 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:04:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Numbering Really Big Networks In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Jan 22, 97 08:48:42 am Message-ID: <199701230104.RAA30249@songbird.com> Howard C. Berkowitz allegedly said: > [...] > > An issue that concerns many people on the ARIN list is being "locked in" to > a single upstream provider, assuming the general case is provider-based > allocation. One concern here is the disincentive for people to go with > small providers, because they may need to renumber as the small provider > grows. This is not really the issue that I am concerned about, though, of course, it is an issue. There are two important places where your telephone company analogy breaks down -- first, the Telco's are a regulated monopoly, and there is political(public) oversight. Second, there aren't a hundred small direct competitors of Pacific Bell here in the SF Bay area, all getting their telephone numbers *and routing service* from PacBell. A small ISP can be in *direct* competition with its upstream provider. > There are two ways to look at this. One is that renumbering is > anticompetitive and must not happen. The other says there are technical > reasons to renumber, and probably good ones. Let's focus on making > renumbering less painful, because it will be a fact of life. Let's also > realize there are significant real world examples where even large end > users might face renumbering of their Internet interfaces, but would have > to renumber a very small portion of their users. I appreciate the technical issues, really I do. But it is a simple fact that small ISPs have to worry about renumbering, and big one's essentially don't. Small ISPs have the burden of an undeniable competitive disadvantage. If they have to renumber all their customers do as well -- oh, wait -- the customers wouldn't have to renumber, if they changed ISPs. So we have this technical problem. The solution is to set up a structure that will most likely, in the long run, get rid of small ISPs. Well, perhaps that's alarmist. But I really don't think so. Being large doesn't make a company non-aggressive. -- 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 Wed Jan 22 20:00:28 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:00:28 -0500 Subject: Numbering Really Big Networks In-Reply-To: <199701230104.RAA30249@songbird.com> References: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Jan 22, 97 08:48:42 am Message-ID: At 5:04 PM -0800 1/22/97, Kent Crispin wrote: >Howard C. Berkowitz allegedly said: >> >[...] >> >> An issue that concerns many people on the ARIN list is being "locked in" to >> a single upstream provider, assuming the general case is provider-based >> allocation. One concern here is the disincentive for people to go with >> small providers, because they may need to renumber as the small provider >> grows. > >This is not really the issue that I am concerned about, though, of course, >it is an issue. There are two important places where your telephone >company analogy breaks down -- first, the Telco's are a regulated >monopoly, and there is political(public) oversight. Second, there >aren't a hundred small direct competitors of Pacific Bell here in the SF Bay >area, all getting their telephone numbers *and routing service* from >PacBell. > >A small ISP can be in *direct* competition with its upstream >provider. No argument here. > >> There are two ways to look at this. One is that renumbering is >> anticompetitive and must not happen. The other says there are technical >> reasons to renumber, and probably good ones. Let's focus on making >> renumbering less painful, because it will be a fact of life. Let's also >> realize there are significant real world examples where even large end >> users might face renumbering of their Internet interfaces, but would have >> to renumber a very small portion of their users. > >I appreciate the technical issues, really I do. But it is a simple >fact that small ISPs have to worry about renumbering, and big one's >essentially don't. Small ISPs have the burden of an undeniable >competitive disadvantage. If they have to renumber all their >customers do as well -- oh, wait -- the customers wouldn't have to >renumber, if they changed ISPs. It is my contention that customers who do not move toward a flexible-to-renumber environment are ill-informed or fools. I do respect the need for preserving legacy investments. But large enterprises are tending to firewall and use private address space. > >So we have this technical problem. The solution is to set up a >structure that will most likely, in the long run, get rid of small >ISPs. A personal opinion only -- I think that in fact may very well be what happens, if we take a narrow view of an ISP that it's a routing provider. While I think this is getting a bit far afield, I think there are market niches where the smaller ISPs can dominate. But routing inherently has economies of scale. Where I think small ISPs can grow and prosper is in providing access services, hosting web servers and other end user services, firewall services, etc. Most of these services aren't, or should not be if implemented with good practices, fantastically dependent on static addresses. Domain names, yes. But dialup users can get dynamically assigned addresses. Firewalls can provide address translation and need registered address space on the outside. For personal perspective, this is my own email account, not a corporate one. It's with ClarkNet, a growing ISP in the Washington metropolitan area. Now, I deal routinely with the Big Guys, but I have not chosen to get my IP access from them. I like an environment where I know the operations and engineering staff. Sure, I know routing architects at most of the major carriers, but I wouldn't call them for support. Nontechnical end users may have different perspectives, but as we see the withdrawal from that market of PSI and Netcom, and the problems AOL is having, it may very well be that is a market unattractive to large companies. > >Well, perhaps that's alarmist. But I really don't think so. Being >large doesn't make a company non-aggressive. > Again no argument. But I think there are natural niches for small and large companies, and creative engineering and marketing can make small companies attractive when renumbering may occur -- if there are other benefits to customers, and if the ISP takes a proactive stance in making it easy to renumber. From russell at probe.net Wed Jan 22 21:56:21 1997 From: russell at probe.net (Tim Russell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:56:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <97Jan22.152422pst."2469"@spoggles.parc.xerox.com> from "Steve Putz" at Jan 22, 97 03:24:21 pm Message-ID: <199701230256.UAA29567@elwood.probe.net> Steve Putz (putz at parc.xerox.com) writes: > I have read the information on http://www.arin.net/, and would like to submit > my request that the proposal *not* be implemented. > > In particular, the proposal does not explain why the proposed high fees are > needed or how the money will be spent. Also the proposed non-profit > organization does not have a published charter, goals or mission. Now this message gets my vote for the best summary of my (and, I suspect, many other peoples') feelings on this matter. Allow me to sum up the position I'm in, to (hopefully) put a little perspective on this matter. I run Probe Technology, an ISP which, though small for many other areas, is definitely one of the three largest in the Omaha, Nebraska, US area. We started up almost exactly two years ago, and in that time have expanded from a 256k connection and 16 dialup lines to a full T1 that's somewhat rapidly nearing capacity and 120 (soon to be 144) dialup lines, 10 ISDN dialups, and a plethora of dedicated connections via frame relay and ISDN. We're expanding even more quickly as of late. Since usage on our MCI T1 has been climbing, we want to stay ahead of the game and get the ball rolling on a second T1 before the need becomes pressing, rather than after. Also, rather than add another T1 to MCI (who, I might add, has been an outstanding carrier for us), we'd like to take the plunge and get a second provider and multihome. This may seem like a big move for a small ISP; in our opinion, it isn't. While MCI has been great, there have been a handful of small periods where their network has, understandably, "melted down" and we've been off the net. This is unacceptable to us, if there's a way for us to avoid it. MCI has already told me that the cost of adding a second T1 to them will be double the cost of our current connection, i.e. no price breaks. Given that, it seems patently silly for me to add a second connection to them, adding to our dependence on their network and IP addresses. So, we'll be getting a bigger router and going to BGP. This will cost money, but it's money we're ready to spend to increase our reliability and bandwidth. We'll also want to get a block of provider-independent addresses to avoid future renumbering for us and our customers. We've gone through it once, early on - it wasn't fun, and I don't even want to think about it now. Yes, we'll be adding a CIDR block and the corresponding route in routers all over the net. I think this is a small price to pay to increase net availability to a large portion of Omaha. I'm certainly not willing to forgoe said reliability in the interest of saving a few bytes in a router, which will be taken up in any case by the next guy along who's more than willing to compete with us on the basis of our not being multi- homed. I'm willing to take someone else's entry and pay the expenses of memory and CPU cycles, I would expect the same from them. Even though $2500 a year may not seem like a large sum of money to some people on this list, it's a good chunk of money to us. That's not to say that we can't afford it; we certainly can. Nevertheless, it's not an amount that I'm willing to just blindly hand over to an organization that looks to me like it's wide open for Internic control and not especially accountable to its members. In fact, it looks like CIX all over again to me. Forgive me, but I simply don't see what it is in all this that makes $2500 an acceptable figure to charge for a block of addresses. IN-ADDR service, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't take any more resources to provide than a domain name, and neither does database maintenance on contacts for address blocks. Routes themselves will be maintained by the seperate backbone providers, not ARIN, so that's not a factor, again, unless I'm mistaken. I have no delusions that I'll get much of a say in the day-to-day operations of ARIN with a "small" provider membership, and as for the rest, it doesn't seem to me that the services rendered are more than that for a domain name, and are in fact less since updates will be less frequent. I'm /not/ willing to pay the overinflated salary of a CEO for an organization that has no competition and no need to compete. In fact, this seems to me to be one of those situations where anyone who wants the job will most likely be the worst candidate. So, given that, if someone can explain to me exactly what it is that requires such a large sum of money, I (and, I suspect, many others) will be much more willing to get behind this proposal. My main point in all this is that there are many areas of the country that rely on "small" ISPs, and simply brushing the issue off by saying that we'll only be paying an extra $10 to our current provider doesn't cut it. It offends me, in fact, because it isn't the issue. The issue is the future of the net as a whole, and whether it will be enhanced or not by accepting the current proposal. I hope my comments have added to the discussion. Please feel free to correct me on any points; I'm always open to (constructive) criticism, and although I've used the net daily since 1988, I know I'm definitely not the most knowledgable person out there. -- Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net "It has become appallingly clear that mankind's technology has finally surpassed his humanity." - Albert Einstein From scharf at vix.com Wed Jan 22 22:37:40 1997 From: scharf at vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:37:40 -0800 Subject: ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:56:21 CST." <199701230256.UAA29567@elwood.probe.net> Message-ID: <199701230337.TAA11378@bb.home.vix.com> Tim, What does dual homed have to do with provider independent space. As long as you don't want to punt MCI, just continue to use that space. If you want to dual home it to xyznet, all you do is get xyznet and MCI to annouce the more specific CIDR block. It costs the routing tables exactly as much as if you got a PI block and dual homed. This way you are dual homes and aren't out $2500. Jerry From shields at crosslink.net Wed Jan 22 22:54:07 1997 From: shields at crosslink.net (Michael Shields) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:54:07 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701210027.SAA06668@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> References: <009AEA8B.F09BD3C0.106@vec.net> <199701210027.SAA06668@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199701230354.WAA02823@daedalus.crosslink.net> > 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. Well, I've renumbered out of a /19 equivalent (two /21s and one /20), which were my old Net99 blocks. (Remember that if you can get PI space at /19 then we only need to worry about the pain of renumbering /20s and smaller networks.) It wasn't as bad as I thought. It's a scheduling hassle more than anything else -- most people didn't have a problem with renumbering, but rather with when they would have to renumber. They wanted to renumber on Tuesday and then changed their minds, or they wanted to renumber three months from now, and so on. It wasn't catastrophic, just a burden. A lawsuit would have been *much* more trouble. And although analogies are fairly useless I've also had to change my area code and my zip code, both with and without moving. (The USPS renumbered a bunch of Northern Virginia zip codes last year.) -- Shields, CrossLink. From jamie at comet.net Wed Jan 22 23:28:19 1997 From: jamie at comet.net (jamie dyer) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:28:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Just Bizness Message-ID: As a small ISP, IP addresses are a resource we try to use economically, i.e. use to make money, or at least not lose it. I have some problems with the ARIN proposal as it's stated now on the website, but overall it's not a huge deal. If we (comet.net) were to theoretically "rent" a /24 as individual static IPs, we'd be charging more in a month than ARIN does in a year. $10 a pop is our rate, maybe more or less in other areas. If a network has the wherewithall to maintain a PI block of /x, they can scrape up the cash to pay for the /x. IOW, if you're going to lose money on it, you didn't need it anyway. I'm glad to hear Section 1.1 of the proposal is getting rewritten. Many thanks to the folks who are working on the proposal and listening to the unwashed, snivelling masses (us). I hope we can see the non-profit charter at some point. I'm sure it'd garner its own NG. alt.flame.non-profit. Back to your regularly scheduled spam. 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 | "History is one damn thing after another." -Churchill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From michael at memra.com Wed Jan 22 23:07:00 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:07:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <199701230256.UAA29567@elwood.probe.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Tim Russell wrote: > Even though $2500 a year may not seem like a large sum of money to > some people on this list, it's a good chunk of money to us. Even if you get a /24 now at no charge it won't do you a darn bit of good. If you are going to the BGP tutorial the day before the NANOG meeting http://www.nanog.org then you will have an opportunity to meet some of the people who will be filtering your /24 so as to make it virtually useless. BTW it is highly recommended that any ISP who is planning to multihome in the near future attend that tutorial on Feb 9th in San Francisco the day before the 2-day NANOG meeting. You see, ARIN or any other IP allocation agency does not run the net. There are other important parties as well such as the providers who operate the defaultless core of the net. These two groups don't always see eye to eye about how things should be done. Even making ARIN into a member controlled consortium is not likely to change this much because there will be no obligation for any network operators to do things the way ARIN thinks they should be done. Nor will there be an obligation for ARIN to do things the way the network operators think things should be done. ARIN is merely one piece in the puzzle. > Nevertheless, it's > not an amount that I'm willing to just blindly hand over to an organization > that looks to me like it's wide open for Internic control and not especially > accountable to its members. In the USA where it is proposed that ARIN be incorporated, a non-profit organization *IS* accountable to its members and no-one else presuming it follows the law. Certainly there is little opportunity for the Internic to control ARIN. In the first place, the Internic will likely disappear from sight once the NSF cooperative agreement expires. And in the second place, Network Solutions Inc. would only be eligible for one vote, the same as any other member. > In fact, it looks like CIX all over again to me. There is a big difference from the CIX fiasco. For one thing, people have learned from the mistakes of others. For another thing, the scope of ARIN is much more narrowly focussed than that of the CIX. And the CIX themselves, along with ISP/C, AOP and several other industry associations, will be watching what ARIN does. > Forgive me, but I simply don't see what it is in all this that makes > $2500 an acceptable figure to charge for a block of addresses. It would be nice if the RIPE and APNIC people on the list could post URL's for pages that give a breakdown of where their monies are spent. > that rely on "small" ISPs, and simply brushing the issue off by saying > that we'll only be paying an extra $10 to our current provider doesn't > cut it. It offends me, in fact, because it isn't the issue. The issue > is the future of the net as a whole, and whether it will be enhanced > or not by accepting the current proposal. ARIN is only one piece in the puzzle. There are a lot of other venues where decisions are made which affect the future of the net and those venues are arguably more important than ARIN itself since the policies that ARIN applies are largely created elsewhere. It will always be difficult for small providers to have a voice in such things simply because it takes a lot of study to understand who to talk to, when to talk, and what kind of an approach will be most effective in communicating real concerns in such a way that the listener takes those concerns seriously. I've been working for the past year and a half trying to get small to mid-size ISP's to band together in order to speak with one unified and strong voice. Last summer this finally started to come to fruition when several ISP's formed the ISP/C http://www.ispc.org but it is still slow going to build such an organization to a critical mass. I may seem like I'm some sort of ARIN booster. I'm not. Mostly what I support here is the open process to create ARIN. If you hunt through the archives of this list you will see that I was critical of some aspects of the initial proposal. I will likely find things to criticize in the revision as well. But I try to remember that everybody involved, both myself and the drafters of the ARIN proposal are only human. We all make mistakes, we all operate with an incomplete knowledge of the world, we are all very busy because this network is growing so fast. Let's not waste time flinging wild accusations around. Chances are those accusations are wrong and based on incomplete knowledge. It would be nice if the ARIN website were updated and a FAQ were posted there but in the interim we have http://idt.net/~jeremiah It would be nice if ftp://rs.internic.net/archives/NAIPR had an archive of the mailing list but in the interim you can send index NAIPR to listserv at internic.net to get a list of documents (I would guess the log to date is called LOG9701) and then send get NAIPR LOG9701 to pick up a copy of the list archives. If my memory of how to get stuff from a listserv is rusty, then forgive me and send help to listserv at internic.net to get some further instructions. 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 Wed Jan 22 23:35:00 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701230354.WAA02823@daedalus.crosslink.net> from "Michael Shields" at Jan 22, 97 10:54:07 pm Message-ID: <199701230435.WAA14177@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > > 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. > > Well, I've renumbered out of a /19 equivalent (two /21s and one /20), > which were my old Net99 blocks. (Remember that if you can get PI > space at /19 then we only need to worry about the pain of renumbering > /20s and smaller networks.) It wasn't as bad as I thought. > > It's a scheduling hassle more than anything else -- most people > didn't have a problem with renumbering, but rather with when they > would have to renumber. They wanted to renumber on Tuesday and then > changed their minds, or they wanted to renumber three months from now, > and so on. It wasn't catastrophic, just a burden. A lawsuit would > have been *much* more trouble. > > And although analogies are fairly useless I've also had to change my > area code and my zip code, both with and without moving. (The USPS > renumbered a bunch of Northern Virginia zip codes last year.) > -- > Shields, CrossLink. It depends what and who is on those blocks. If you have a network which has a boatload of space on it (all hard-coded into their machines -- say, Unix servers and such) they're *screwed* trying to do this. Yes, they can. But the point is, they shouldn't *HAVE TO* if you change a vendor relationship. The fact is that it serves to tie customers to vendors in the *indirect* case, and that is a problem. I believe that any ISP should get their own /19 at the outset. Among other things, if you EVER multi-home you NEED IT if you want the multihoming to do you ANY good. -- -- 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 Wed Jan 22 23:57:42 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:57:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <199701230337.TAA11378@bb.home.vix.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > Tim, > > What does dual homed have to do with provider independent space. As long as > you don't want to punt MCI, just continue to use that space. If you want to > dual home it to xyznet, all you do is get xyznet and MCI to annouce the more > specific CIDR block. It costs the routing tables exactly as much as if you got > a PI block and dual homed. > > This way you are dual homes and aren't out $2500. Jerry, I don't think you fully understand dual-homing. To truly dual-home, your entire network must be fully reachable through both providers. They only way to be fully reachable through both providers is to have both providers advertise *all* of your addresses. Because of limitations of the current routers, most large providers have stopped accepting new routes that are smaller than a /19. Since the route through MCI is smaller than a /19, it won't do any good for xyznet to advertise the present ip addresses, or anything else smaller than a /19. Therefore Tim needs to get at least a /19. He could get a /19 from either one of his prividers, but once you make the commitmant to dual-home, you almost always want you own block of addresses. That said, I still don't think that $2500 is an excessive fee for a /19. If a provider is large enough to make a commitmant to dual-home, and expend the money and the resources to do it correctly, they should be large enough to afford the cost. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From russell at probe.net Thu Jan 23 00:02:36 1997 From: russell at probe.net (Tim Russell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:02:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: from "Jeremiah Kristal" at Jan 22, 97 11:57:42 pm Message-ID: <199701230502.XAA06916@elwood.probe.net> > That said, I still don't think that $2500 is an excessive fee for a /19. > If a provider is large enough to make a commitmant to dual-home, and > expend the money and the resources to do it correctly, they should be > large enough to afford the cost. I would tend to agree. Still, though, the question is, what's the $2500 /for/? Is it for running the IN-ADDR.ARPA servers? Is it for maintaining the database of contacts, etc? If so, notwithstanding that I can afford it, it's overpriced BS. If it's to cut down the number of provider-independent CIDR blocks, and thus the number of routing table entries, then it's doubly BS and just delaying the inevitable slightly. I'd just like to know what paying my money gets me, and if it's too much money. Keep in mind, this is a MONOPOLY we're setting up, and worse, one with no government oversight and not much member oversight. -- Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net "It has become appallingly clear that mankind's technology has finally surpassed his humanity." - Albert Einstein From thomst at netcom.com Thu Jan 23 00:05:38 1997 From: thomst at netcom.com (Thom Stark) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:05:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaleable IP In-Reply-To: from "Brett L. Hawn" at Jan 18, 97 06:21:53 pm Message-ID: <199701230505.VAA24542@netcom9.netcom.com> Brett L. Hawn asks: > 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? The "something more scalable and useable" to which you refer is IPv6. Among other advantages, it offers more usable individual addresses than there are molecules in the Solar System. The problem has been, is and will be one of a chicken-and-egg variety: since IPv6 is not downwardly compatible with IPv4, in order to gain widespread acceptance, it must be supported by everyone from router manufacturers to IP stack vendors to software developers. The principal resistance to IPv6's adoption as a standard has come from Cisco Corp. and Microsoft Corp. Need any more than that statement be said? Thom Stark Email: thomst at netcom.com URL: http://www.dnai.com/~thomst finger thomst at netcom.com for my PGP Public Key (510) 526-9600 voice STARK REALITIES fax (510) 526-9063 POB 457 El Cerrito, CA ZIP 94530-0457 From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Jan 23 01:24:53 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:24:53 -0500 Subject: Scaleable IP Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970123012453.009bbd94@justin.erols.com> At 09:05 PM 1/22/97 -0800, Thom Stark wrote: >Brett L. Hawn asks: > >> 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? > >The "something more scalable and useable" to which you refer is IPv6. >Among other advantages, it offers more usable individual addresses than >there are molecules in the Solar System. > >The problem has been, is and will be one of a chicken-and-egg variety: >since IPv6 is not downwardly compatible with IPv4, in order to gain >widespread acceptance, it must be supported by everyone from router >manufacturers to IP stack vendors to software developers. The principal >resistance to IPv6's adoption as a standard has come from Cisco Corp. >and Microsoft Corp. Need any more than that statement be said? There are many people out there who do not believe that IPv6 is the panacea that you seem to believe it is from your statements. From my study of the current RFC's I agree with them. This being the case there may be valid reasons why people are fighting adoption of it. In any case this is off topic and should go to another list, maybe either alt.conspiracy or the like. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From crow at surfari.net Wed Jan 22 17:20:38 1997 From: crow at surfari.net (Kent Crow) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:20:38 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Re: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic Message-ID: <199701230613.WAA29241@oso.slonet.org> This is a filtering test. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:39:41 -0500 To: Kent Crispin From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Cc: dhakala at OSSINC.NET, pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu, naipr at internic.net At 4:31 PM -0800 1/22/97, Kent Crispin wrote: >Howard C. Berkowitz allegedly said: >> >[...] >> >> Please give us implementable engineering suggestions about how to avoid >> buying such a resource from competitors in the next 6-18 months. > >I must have missed the part about ARIN going away in 6-18 months... > >-- No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't speaking about ARIN. I was responding to complaints that people "should not" have to get address space from hierarchically higher-level aggregators with larger blocks, because unnamed routing technology "ought" to be immune to the factors motivating provider-based aggregation. There's certainly a lot of research going on in new routing paradigms. But I was referring to the reality that we have no proven alternatives in the short term. If there were not a need for aggregation to reduce the routing table sizes, much of the RFC2050-style incentives for registries to dole out only large blocks would be inappropriate. What I was saying was that in the near term, we don't have alternatives, and we would need a North American registry for the near term. At such time as alternative routing products are available that can deal with infinitely large tables, the whole aggregation paradigm needs to be revisited, and the guidance for registries will need to change. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Kent Crow crow at surfari.net Surfari Internet Provider Services http://www.surfari.net Grover Beach, CA Member ISP/C (805)473-6525 (voice) (805)473-6746 (modem) "More than any time in history Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly." - Woody Allen From crow at surfari.net Wed Jan 22 17:24:03 1997 From: crow at surfari.net (Kent Crow) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:24:03 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) Re: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and eco Message-ID: <199701230616.WAA29486@oso.slonet.org> again, a filterint test ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "Kent Crow" To: crow at surfari.net Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:20:38 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Re: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic Cc: dhakala at OSSINC.NET, pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu, naipr at internic.net Priority: normal This is a filtering test. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:39:41 -0500 To: Kent Crispin From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Cc: dhakala at OSSINC.NET, pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu, naipr at internic.net At 4:31 PM -0800 1/22/97, Kent Crispin wrote: >Howard C. Berkowitz allegedly said: >> >[...] >> >> Please give us implementable engineering suggestions about how to avoid >> buying such a resource from competitors in the next 6-18 months. > >I must have missed the part about ARIN going away in 6-18 months... > >-- No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't speaking about ARIN. I was responding to complaints that people "should not" have to get address space from hierarchically higher-level aggregators with larger blocks, because unnamed routing technology "ought" to be immune to the factors motivating provider-based aggregation. There's certainly a lot of research going on in new routing paradigms. But I was referring to the reality that we have no proven alternatives in the short term. If there were not a need for aggregation to reduce the routing table sizes, much of the RFC2050-style incentives for registries to dole out only large blocks would be inappropriate. What I was saying was that in the near term, we don't have alternatives, and we would need a North American registry for the near term. At such time as alternative routing products are available that can deal with infinitely large tables, the whole aggregation paradigm needs to be revisited, and the guidance for registries will need to change. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Kent Crow crow at surfari.net Surfari Internet Provider Services http://www.surfari.net Grover Beach, CA Member ISP/C (805)473-6525 (voice) (805)473-6746 (modem) "More than any time in history Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly." - Woody Allen ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Kent Crow crow at surfari.net Surfari Internet Provider Services http://www.surfari.net Grover Beach, CA Member ISP/C (805)473-6525 (voice) (805)473-6746 (modem) "More than any time in history Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly." - Woody Allen From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us Thu Jan 23 01:21:42 1997 From: jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us (Jeffrey C. Ollie) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:21:42 -0600 Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 CST." <199701230435.WAA14177@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199701230622.AAA05688@worf.netins.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes: > > [ on renumbering ] > >But the point is, they shouldn't *HAVE TO* if you change a >vendor relationship. So you've come up with some magical patch to the Cisco IOS and the BayRS that will keep MCI and Sprint running as the routing tables grow past the 100,000 mark? Unless you have, people will *HAVE TO* renumber when they move around. Letting everyone keep their IP addresses when vendors are switched will cause the routing table size to skyrocket. >I believe that any ISP should get their own /19 at the outset. Among other >things, if you EVER multi-home you NEED IT if you want the multihoming to do >you ANY good. Then let that ISP write up their justification and apply for a /19. [A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.] Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:21:42 -0600 From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 CST." <199701230435.WAA14177 at Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Subject: Re: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal To: naipr at internic.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news. iQCVAwUBMucDfJwkOQz8sbZFAQH+YQQAqT4Caj01GXo3YRMGxnpzsN5/ZdFn5gmU Q6EfL+SjbAd7gZfgjC/bnS9rBYpgFHFYLQmwShQF92d6N+Cywtb9dj1BCaqhT6OW IYMHsHU7i1/NOO4JcfOcnUNoLaASUzcMgCvQ4ct7JTokhme0jEItDz+xW+S0oYd9 bPKxlowUA+o= =hGc1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey C. Ollie | Should Work Now (TM) Python Hacker, Mac Lover | From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:25 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:25 -0700 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: I feel it important to note that mark Richmond quotes a portion of one of my messages here as a portion of his, and does so without attribution. Casual readers might assume that the entire message was from me (based on my signature block) but in fact only the last two paragraphs were authored by me. Mark, please fix your mailer software to handle quoting and attribution properly. Thank you. At 2:17 AM 1/21/97, Mark Richmond wrote: >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 satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:08 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:08 -0700 Subject: Classes of membership Message-ID: At 10:35 AM 1/21/97, Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: >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. In most organizations, there is a cost to the organization for each member. In part of a straw-man budget I posted here, I suggest that instead of setting membership fees on ability-to-pay, that those fees be set on cost-of-having-the-member. In that case, you have the member that is sent paper, the member that gets only paper ballots and everything else electronically, and the member that gets everything electronically (no paper). Using my assumptions from the straw-man budget, that would mean that the all-paper member would pay $250/year, the paper-ballot-only member would pay around $75/year, and the paperless member around $25/year. FWIW. From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:24:07 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:24:07 -0700 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: At 8:36 AM 1/22/97, Jerry Scharf wrote: >> > > 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. > >Karl, any of us who have been through one or more area code renumbering >instances knows this is not true. It can happen, it does happen, just the >Internet has smaller prefixes. Forced by at outside organization to change >with no recourse or cost recovery. It just so happens that the people >making the decisions are almost always an arm of the state government. There is another flaw in this analogy: there is an announcement, a parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final cut-over. I've been through this a couple of times with Chicago, New England, and Bay Area clients. (I'm also facing this with the idea to split Nevada into two area codes -- I'm in Northern Nevada and Clark County [Las Vegas/Henderson] run the state, so my area code is sure to change.) With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in what should have been a prior rock. From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:46 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:46 -0700 Subject: Let's be productive Message-ID: At 2:47 PM 1/22/97, James Smallacombe wrote: >"Buried in some email archive"? That's right up there with the assertion that >understanding CIDR requires years of networking experience. It's not obscure, >it's a fact of life already. If you're not already aware of it, than it's >unlikely that ARIN will affect you directly. One of my concerns is that there was no rationale for the proposal as posted, which would include abstracts of the issues and how those issues affect the proposal, as well as a bibliography of source material: FAQs, e-mail archives, digests, and white papers (should we be asking about "white pages" or has that been trademarked?) for a deeper understanding. I happen to feel that e-mail archives are virtually worthless for the newcomer to a topic because there is no way to gauge the quality of the information presented by each poster. Now if you have a poiter to a DIGEST of those e-mail messages, I'm very interested. Productivity isn't just moving forward with the proposal. It's also doing the messy paperwork of backing up the proposal with concrete facts such that the validity of the proposal becomes casual to the most obvious observer...or is that the other way around? I'm short on sleep from these damn standards meetings... From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:22:35 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:22:35 -0700 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: At 2:51 AM 1/21/97, David Hakala wrote: >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.? If the sole concern was number space allocation, you'd be right. What has come out of much of this discussion is that there is a serious side issue: backbone routing. It's a technical thing, not political. (At least not political on the surface, although what technical discussions are ever completely non-political.) I'm still learning about the problems myself so I can't talk intelligently myself. The pricing structure is designed to encourage the consolidation of IP addresses geographically (both in physical terms and in terms of the connectivity topology) so to reduce the capacity requirement on the router. You might think that routing is scalable, but some people I've talked to (plus papers I have in my files from my APRAnet days) show that there are significant problems that get real, real nasty as you increase the number of nodes at a given level. By the way, the gross revenue is to fund the registry and its operation. The rate schedule is not intended to *increase* total revenue, but to use revenue to encourage certain practices which are (arguably) in the best interest of the Internet. Stephen Satchell, a founding member of the Internet Press Guild From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:52 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:52 -0700 Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal Message-ID: At 3:57 PM 1/22/97, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: >Of course MCI is a business, just like everyone else here. I think that >almost every one of us is in this to make money. We may have other >reasons too, but I think just about all of the people here understand the >basics of economics. WHOOPS! Not everyone here is a for-profit enterprise, even though they may be part of an enterprise trying to be for-profit. As for understanding the basics of economics I submit that your rabid DILBERT reader understands well only personal economics...and some of the comments here from representatives of businesses exhibit the same sort of self-centered economic understanding. Without supporting numbers, many of the prior posters assumed that the actual cost of running the registry could be measured in tens of thousands of dollars a year. That's why I came up with my straw-man budget, the *only* detailed budget proposal I've seen on the list or the Web page. From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:20 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:20 -0700 Subject: Difficult childhood. Message-ID: At 1:47 PM 1/21/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >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'm not so such but this is Standing Operating Procedure in general. Look what happened when the IP Phone issue was put before the FCC and how the *internet community* reacted. So you complain when you're done to as you've done? :) From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:14 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:14 -0700 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: At 11:43 PM 1/21/97, David Schwartz wrote: > 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? But only because the United States Postal Service agrees to forward your mail for a year (or is it six months now) as you are able to get notices out. Ditto the telephone company when you move and they put an intercept on your telephone number for a set time. Question: are there any RFCs which discuss intercept/forwarding of IP packets based on IP address changes? If not, then perhaps it's time to consider putting one together. That way, when a customer changes providers the *old* provider would provide forwarding services for a limited time, just as one telephone operating company provides the intercept for an old customer who has moved. Much of the squawking I've seen on this list regarding changing providers could be fixed with such a scheme. Then the problem reduces to one of the multi-homed networks. From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 00:23:35 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:23:35 -0700 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: At 10:58 AM 1/22/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >memra.com is in Canada, iafrica.com is in South Africa. Both these >countries get IP allocations from the Internic currently. > >.com is not a US domain, it is an international domain. >From Albitz & Liu, _DNS and BIND_, aka "The Cricket Book", page 18: "You may notice a certain nationalistic prejudice in the examples [of top-level domain names]: all of them are primarily US organizations. That's easier to understand--and forgive--when you remember that the Internet began as the APRAnet, a US-funded research project." Elsewhere in the book, there is a discussion of spaces like ".com" in geographic spaces, such as ".com.au" for an Australian commercial enterprise. So please excuse some of us when we believe what *recommended* authors say about the Internet... :) From kent at songbird.com Wed Jan 22 16:20:48 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Jan 21, 97 11:12:07 pm Message-ID: <199701222120.NAA15936@songbird.com> Michael Dillon allegedly said: [...] > 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. Of course. However, it is an equally gross oversimplification to say that the obvious, factual bias towards large providers will not filter through to the small ISPs. And it is also a gross oversimplification to say that the large providers will be benign or neutral toward small competitors. In fact, it would be more than a gross oversimplification, it would represent total economic cluelessness. The fact that small ISPs have had explosive growth may mask things, but one would have to be willfully blind or chained by dogma to imagine that the goodwill of the large providers is any protection whatsoever for small ISPs. So, one way to look at this is that the technical necessity of the moment and the sleepiness of the large providers are giving cover to the implementation of a *fundamentally* anticompetitive system that has the potential to squeeze the small providers out of existence. The only protection they have is the goodwill/indifference of the large providers. And your point is that they haven't done anything so far, so therefore we shouldn't worry about it. Or did I misrepresent it? -- 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 michael at memra.com Thu Jan 23 01:31:23 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:31:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >.com is not a US domain, it is an international domain. > > >From Albitz & Liu, _DNS and BIND_, aka "The Cricket Book", page 18: > So please excuse some of us when we believe what *recommended* authors say > about the Internet... :) I guess that's my advantage in learning these things. I don't read books and I don't rely on experts. I get my info from the source, raw as that may be. http://www.altavista.digital.com has made that easier than it used to be but thousands of unsung heros who write FAQ's and build web page summaries of some specific area of knowledge are also major factors. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From dennis at JNX.COM Wed Jan 22 15:43:30 1997 From: dennis at JNX.COM (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:43:30 -0800 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:15:48 EST." <199701211618.2921200@ossinc.net> Message-ID: <199701222043.MAA13857@skank.jnx.com> > -- [ 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. No, the size of the IPv4 unicast routing table is a `forever' problem. If you didn't learn this from your research then you may not have grok'd the issue as well as you thought. I have no doubt that it is possible to build routers which can handle tables which are one or two orders of magnitude larger than we have now, but I also have no doubt that it is impossible to build routers where the size of the forwarding table that can be supported is infinite. That is, you can replace a one pound sack with a 20 pound sack, but you're not going to get 200 pounds of potatoes in either of them. And while you may find that 19 pounds of IPv4 unicast routes is perfectly adequate for your purposes, the consumption of your entire routing and forwarding path with IPv4 unicast routing information comes only at the expense of not being able to do other things which need to share the same resources. For example, if you fill your routers with IPv4 unicast routes you won't be able to deploy IPv6 simultaneously. Which means there'll never be a transition to IPv6 since the only possible strategy for this is to provide support for both. Or, if you stress your routing to the max with IPv4 unicast routes you won't ever be able to deploy a hot-routing, big forwarding path function such as IP multicast (or, more likely, the only places which will be allowed to originate multicasts will be big companies which pay big bucks to push ads into your browser). Or, if your forwarding path is cluttered with hoards of IPv4 unicast routes, you'll never be able to deploy such forwarding-state-intensive functionality as that needed to support RSVP. Of course one may have no interest in any of the above, and hence may feel perfectly free to consume the entire box (no matter how large) with IPv4 unicast routes anyway. The trouble is that if one does this then one also consumes the same resources in all one's competitors' routers, effectively preventing them from ever doing any of the above as well. Since one's competitors may have different priorities than you do they may be unhappy if you do this, and have no particular reason to allow you to do this. Even ignoring all of this, however, the fact is that even a 20 pound sack is still a lot easier to carry if you only put a pound or two of potatoes in there. If you keep the routing load smaller your boxes will respond to failures faster, and deal with problems better, and just in general exhibit better stability, no matter what their maximum rated carrying capacity might be. Fewer routes means better networks, pretty much independent of technology. So, while the technology will get better, there is no technological `silver bullet' which will fix the routing problem. Smaller will always be better, and I suspect there will never be a (technological) reason to radically loosen current allocation policies. Dennis Ferguson From michael at memra.com Wed Jan 22 15:46:28 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:46:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Comments on ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: <199701222120.NAA15936@songbird.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Kent Crispin wrote: > And it is also a gross oversimplification > to say that the large providers will be benign or neutral toward > small competitors. In fact, it would be more than a gross > oversimplification, it would represent total economic cluelessness. Given the fairly strict US laws regarding anti-trust with triple damages and the aility of anybody to lay charges, I would expect that the large providers, out of economic necessity, will bend over backwards to be benign and neutral toward small competitors within the context of ARIN. It is to the economic advantage of the large providers to pass on IP allocations to their customers (including small ISP's) at no additional charge. By doing so, they avoid antitrust charges and they develop good customer relationships. > The fact that small ISPs have had explosive growth may mask things, > but one would have to be willfully blind or chained by dogma to > imagine that the goodwill of the large providers is any protection > whatsoever for small ISPs. Perhaps I see things differently because I'm not an American. I certainly don't share the view that large companies are greedy grasping behemoths out to crush their competition. The world of commerce is a world of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". There really is little incentive for the large providers to "crush" the small ones. There are approximately 3,000 ISP's in North America. That means thate there is a lot of money to be made providing services to those ISP's. If one of the larger providers decided to start charging their ISP customers for IP addresses they would quickly find that they aren't so large any more. 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 Wed Jan 22 15:51:58 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:51:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701221636.IAA06615@bb.home.vix.com> from "Jerry Scharf" at Jan 22, 97 08:36:55 am Message-ID: <199701222051.OAA29502@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. > > Karl, any of us who have been through one or more area code renumbering > instances knows this is not true. It can happen, it does happen, just the > Internet has smaller prefixes. Forced by at outside organization to change > with no recourse or cost recovery. It just so happens that the people > making the decisions are almost always an arm of the state government. > > Jerry Ah, but that gores all oxen equally, and has nothing to do with supplier relationships. The restraint of trade issue here is that you create a tying situation between vendors and customers (ok if contractually agreed upon) which then extends to INDIRECT customers (NOT ok). Example: I'm an ISP. I have address space from an upstream provider. I sell you a T1, and give you some address space (which I got myself). Now, a year later, I *FIRE* that upstream provider (because their connectivity sucks, I don't like the way the President cuts his hair, etc. The reason isn't relavent to the discussion) *YOU*, as MY customer, have to renumber because *I* did something that is in BOTH OF OUR best interest as customers (me directly and you indirectly). Disrupting YOUR connectivity (which renumbering does) may in fact give rise to a cause of action towards me as the provider who sold the link to you! This result acts to FORCE me to retain that connection, even though the quality may be inferior (or, in fact, not just inferior but blatently unacceptable!) It also gives the SUPPLIER the ability to raise his or her prices, or constrain terms in the future, without ANY effective recourse. That is, the supplier is in the position where the customer CANNOT walk away because if the customer does *HIS* customers may be put out of business or have their operations severely disrupted -- even though he can find better service (or a better price) elsewhere. This may be an illegal tying arrangement in the United States. Until someone litigates the issue where the judge or jury would come down is unknown -- but the fact is that if you read the Sherman act (and others) you'll find language that certainly makes it appear that this is a blatent violation of those laws. "Engineering necessity" isn't a defense to this, because engineering necessity *DOESN'T EXIST* at the level we're talking about here. If ISPs get /19s from the appropriate NIC then the problem goes away, and further, doing so will NOT break the routing tables or network core hardware. Second, if you're multi-homed anything smaller than a /19 in 206 and above is USELESS because it won't be routeable on the second connection! So if you intend to, or are, multi-homed you MUST have Provider-Independant space *ANYWAY* for the addres space to be useful *AT ALL*. This has ALWAYS been true, and it ALWAYS will be. I'm not arguing that at the *END USER* attachment level people have to be able to "take it with them" -- at least not for the /24 or /23 crowd. If you're big enough to need a /19 or more, then you are, for all intents and purposes, a direct ISP analog whether or not you sell service to others. -- -- 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 michael at memra.com Thu Jan 23 01:45:44 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:45:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Question: are there any RFCs which discuss intercept/forwarding of IP > packets based on IP address changes? If not, then perhaps it's time to > consider putting one together. That way, when a customer changes providers > the *old* provider would provide forwarding services for a limited time, > just as one telephone operating company provides the intercept for an old > customer who has moved. This can be done right now as long as certain conditions are met. 1. Old provider must support IP tunneling at the endpoint of their network. 2. Customer must be willing to pay for the service because packets will traverse old provider's network just as before and then traverse at least part of the old provider's network a second time as they tunnel to their destination. This could be minimized if both old and new providers have a private exchange point nearby or there is a public exchange in that city. 3. Customer must have the expertise to handle this at their end, i.e. they will have to deal with the endpoint of an IP tunnel and make sure that their routing sends packets the right way. This is probably not hard because the tunnel is really only there for inbound traffic and they might as well send the outbound outside the tunnel. I think most people would rather take the one time hit of paying to renumber rather than taking a hit to set up a tunnel and then paying monthly for the service. 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 Thu Jan 23 01:50:27 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:50:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > There is another flaw in this analogy: there is an announcement, a > parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final > cut-over. > With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in > what should have been a prior rock. Actually, you can do this. The downside, of course, is that you have to pay for both the old T1 and the new T1 at the same time. And if one of your providers screws up and accidentally routes all their traffice down your T1 line your system will very likely send it out to the net down the other T1 creating a very inefficient bottleneck. Of course this last is not too likely but I have seen it happen. 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 Thu Jan 23 01:56:42 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:56:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701230622.AAA05688@worf.netins.net> from "Jeffrey C. Ollie" at Jan 23, 97 00:21:42 am Message-ID: <199701230656.AAA18517@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes: > > > > [ on renumbering ] > > > >But the point is, they shouldn't *HAVE TO* if you change a > >vendor relationship. > > So you've come up with some magical patch to the Cisco IOS and the > BayRS that will keep MCI and Sprint running as the routing tables grow > past the 100,000 mark? Unless you have, people will *HAVE TO* renumber > when they move around. Letting everyone keep their IP addresses when > vendors are switched will cause the routing table size to skyrocket. You are MISSING THE POINT. Please, please read what I have written before and what is below. Arguing points that aren't being made is non-productive. One last time: NOBODY is arguing for end customers who get assignments in the /32 to /20 range NOW being able to "take them with". Including me. HOWEVER, you *MUST* recognize past practice, you *MUST* recognize that people relied on representations made to them in the past (which are in fact CODIFIED in RFC2008; there is SPECIFIC language in there reflecting PAST HISTORY AND PRACTICE), and you *MUST NOT* try to abrogate those past policies and practices for *EXISTING* assignments. If you DO attempt any of these things you will create legal causes of action (if you don't believe me go talk to a real lawyer; I have). Some of these are *extremely* serious and will lead to multi-million dollar lawsuits, TROs and damage claims, and it is NOT in anyone's interest to foster lawsuits. We do NOT need to do things in policy that will engender legal fights. It is not in the best interest of the net to do so. LET'S AGREE NOT TO DO THOSE THINGS. RFC2008 recognized this as FACT -- that people HAVE had this represented to them until recently, and that they have relied on it when building their businesses. In fact, the entire reason that 2008 was WRITTEN was to *change this going forward*. Fine. We change it going forward. But you must recognize HISTORICAL allocation policies (which 2008 ALSO does) as well. Finally: ISPs who intend to multihome MUST have portable space. Period. It is NECESSARY for a multi-homed connection to *WORK AT ALL*. Further, if EVERY ISP in the United States had a /19 given to them TODAY it would add some 3,000 or so prefixes to the tables. This would NOT break the network. The HUGE majority of those ISPs will NEVER need more space; this is a ONE TIME hit. THE INTERNET WILL NOT BREAK IF WE RECOGNIZE THAT ISPS NEED PORTABLE SPACE. Again, I am *NOT* arguing that every customer who attaches to the network should be able to walk around with /24s that they get assigned *TODAY*. I *AM* saying that if you're in the ISP business, you should get assigned a /19 initially, and THAT SPACE IS YOURS. If you need MORE, then justify that you have ACTUALLY USED the /19 (and it should then be provided). Finally, Cisco and Bay aren't the only router vendors out there. Nor is the state of the art static. We are testing a device right now that claims to handle 150,000 prefixes with a recomputation rate of 20 full passes/second; if this is true then flapping is a non-issue (seriously folks; you can't really consider a route instability that lasts FIFTY MILLISECONDS to be significant!) Further, the architecture of that device should scale easily to the 500,000 prefix range with ~5-10 recomputations per second; this is STILL an instability boundary of ~200ms at worst, which is some two to three orders of magnitude better than ANYTHING that CISCO or Bay make right now. -- -- 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 hcb at clark.net Thu Jan 23 05:17:23 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 05:17:23 -0500 Subject: Trying to Summarize The Discussion (not addresses) Message-ID: Forgive me a certain amount of duplication of my responses to other posts, but I am trying to clarify some of the arguments by showing that several threads actually interrelate. 1. Procedural Issues --------------------- Much of the discussion focuses on the actual dollar fees proposed: their magnitude and their justification. IMHO, having actual values in the basic "charter" document is not useful and has contributed to the flame war. My own feeling is that the discussion/proposal will work better in three steps: 1. Consensus on the problem to be solved, the missions and functions of ARIN, and recognition of the issues that other bodies need to deal with. 2. Description of the work to be performed by ARIN, understanding by the community of the relevant guiding documents, etc. 3. Determining costs for those functions, and mapping them against predicted workload/market to determine fees. 2. Technical Issues -------------------- I believe the key to a technical discussion is being sure that we are not overcomplicating some issues by miring all of them in issues of IP allocation. There are other approaches. 2.1 Reachability -- the Key Issue ---------------------------------- >From a user perspective and what IMHO should be a business perspective, the issue is whether a given node is reachable or not. As long as my browser can find www.foo.com, I have solved my problem. www.foo.com is not, as people will notice, an IP address. It is a DNS name. In the PIER working group and elsewhere, there is a technical consensus that network endpoints -- certainly servers and to a lesser extent clients -- should be referred to by DNS name, not IP address. [Yes, I know DNS is not perfect, and there are cache timeouts, etc., to consider. Nevertheless...] Making extensive use of naming rather than addressing, in many respects, finesses a very large part of address portability issue. DNS has the capability of hiding the actual address from end users. DNS is best as a server solution. For client addressing, schemes such as DHCP and IPCP dynamic assignment will reduce the workload in renumbering. Do remember any of these dynamic schemes can give a semi-random address, or a fixed address based on some identifier such as MAC address. The key issue in making renumbering less painful is to minimize the number of places where renumbering has to be done (e.g., address assignment servers rather then every PC), not som much reducing the absolute numbers of addresses assigned. Yes, I know there are operational problems with fully dynamic addressing, where it is unpredictable what address one gets at a given time, and thus ping/traceroute/SNMP gets...interesting. There are ways of dealing with this today, ranging from manual procedures to proprietary servers for right now, the the Dynamic DNS Update work going on in the IETF. IPv6, incidentally, has a significant number of capabilities to simplify renumbering, although IPv6 does not help the routing table size problem. Yes, in a provider change in a provider-based addressing scheme, some hard-coded IP addresses will need to change. But good practices can minimize that. 2.2 The Routing Problem ------------------------- (this bullet has both procedural and technical aspects) Regardless of alternatives, there is an immediate problem that widely deployed routers cannot keep up with unconstrained growth in the number of globally advertised routes. Provider-based aggregation, at least in the short term, is the only widely demonstrated way to deal with this. RFC2008, RFC2050, and other policy documents reflect this as Best Current Practice, and the ARIN policies appear to reflect their view. I am NOT saying current router architecture is appropriate forever. I am NOT saying BGP is the be-all, end-all, of global routing. I am not even saying routing, as opposed to a hybrid of L3 and L2 forwarding technologies, is the model we should use forever. I can point to any number of open mailing lists where implementers and researchers point out the flaws of all of these. It's just that there is no clear consensus on the direction to take NOW. I am saying the problems are compounded by an overemphasis on end user address portability as the problem, when the real global issue is end user reachability. 2.3. Address Portability, Multihoming, etc. -------------------------------------------- While there is not universal agreement, I am hoping there is an increasing consensus that portability for a /24 and portability for a /19 or less are two different animals. There are any number of sources, from RFC2050 on, that repeat simply having provier-independent space doesn't mean it is globally routable. A significant and changing number of operational and technical issues govern the feasibility of specific multihomed configurations. IMHO, one should not try to do serious multihoming unless one has a large enough network to support in-house, operationally current BGP expertise. Until that point, I believe a sounder policy involves multiple links to a single provider, and a renumbering-friendly architecture that makes it relatively easy to change providers. 2.4 The Role of IPv6 --------------------- IPv6 is a solution to some problems, especially in the areas of automating configuration and making renumbering a fairly trivial issue. I have seen no router implementer suggest that going to IPv6, however, in any way improves the ability of a router to handle additional numbers of routes. The pure number of available addresses is not the problem we face today with scalability. It is the availability of routers, today, that cannot economically handle routing tables beyond a certain size. I cannot think of a serious argument that says IPv6 will improve this problem. It will be largely neutral for this specific problem. Yes, addresses are longer, but they may be a little cleaner to handle in hardware. Don't get me wrong, I think IPvt has a role in solving a broader problem of Internet growth, but it approaches it a different way. IPv6 and associated mechanisms such as DHCPv6 and stateless autoconfiguration are intended to make end user devices close to plug-and-play when the prefix changes. It's not that IPv6 would avoid the need to renumber, simply that it would make this much less difficult. Some of the arguments against it are that these autoconfiguration mechanisms can be retrofitted into an IPv4 environment. Another consideration is increasing use of firewalls that do address translation. There are additional discussions going on, such as the latest incarnation of Mike Odell's 8+8 proposal. IMHO, there is some brilliant thinking going on here, but aimed at a slightly different problem than increasing the number of routes that can be handled in a single router. Howard Berkowitz PSC International (but speaking as an individual whose boss is a reasonable human being who has no particular knowledge of, or opinions about, IP allocation, registries, etc.) From hcb at clark.net Thu Jan 23 04:43:56 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 04:43:56 -0500 Subject: Reachability (IP vs. DNS) was Re: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>... any of us who have been through one or more area code renumbering >>instances knows this is not true. It can happen, it does happen, just the >>Internet has smaller prefixes. Forced by at outside organization to change >>with no recourse or cost recovery. It just so happens that the people >>making the decisions are almost always an arm of the state government. > At 10:24 PM -0700 1/22/97, Stephen Satchell wrote, responding in part to the above, which was at a sufficient level of quoting that I am no longer sure who wrote it, >There is another flaw in this analogy: there is an announcement, a >parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final >cut-over. I've been through this a couple of times with Chicago, New >England, and Bay Area clients. (I'm also facing this with the idea to >split Nevada into two area codes -- I'm in Northern Nevada and Clark County >[Las Vegas/Henderson] run the state, so my area code is sure to change.) > >With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in >what should have been a prior rock. This isn't a criticism of Mr. Satchell; I am just trying to continue a thread where the quoting has gotten very confusing (to me at least). Let's try to avoid making every technical problem an IP problem that requires an IP solution. >From a user perspective and what IMHO should be a business perspective, the issue is whether a given node is reachable or not. As long as my browser can find www.foo.com, I have solved my problem. www.foo.com is not, as people will notice, an IP address. It is a DNS name. In the PIER working group and elsewhere, there is a technical consensus that network endpoints -- certainly servers and to a lesser extent clients -- should be referred to by DNS name, not IP address. [Yes, I know DNS is not perfect, and there are cache timeouts, etc., to consider. Nevertheless...] Making extensive use of naming rather than addressing, in many respects, finesses a very large part of address portability issue. DNS has the capability of hiding the actual address from end users. DNS is best as a server solution. For client addressing, schemes such as DHCP and IPCP dynamic assignment will reduce the workload in renumbering. Do remember any of these dynamic schemes can give a semi-random address, or a fixed address based on some identifier such as MAC address. The key issue in making renumbering less painful is to minimize the number of places where renumbering has to be done (e.g., address assignment servers rather then every PC), not som much reducing the absolute numbers of addresses assigned. Yes, I know there are operational problems with fully dynamic addressing, where it is unpredictable what address one gets at a given time, and thus ping/traceroute/SNMP gets...interesting. There are ways of dealing with this today, ranging from manual procedures to proprietary servers for right now, the the Dynamic DNS Update work going on in the IETF. IPv6, incidentally, has a significant number of capabilities to simplify renumbering, although IPv6 does not help the routing table size problem. Yes, in a provider change in a provider-based addressing scheme, some hard-coded IP addresses will need to change. But good practices can minimize that. Nothing is perfect. From hcb at clark.net Thu Jan 23 04:18:30 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 04:18:30 -0500 Subject: Just Bizness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:28 PM -0500 1/22/97, jamie dyer wrote: > As a small ISP, IP addresses are a resource we try to use >economically, i.e. use to make money, or at least not lose it. >I have some problems with the ARIN proposal as it's stated now >on the website, but overall it's not a huge deal. > If we (comet.net) were to theoretically "rent" a /24 as individual static >IPs, we'd be charging more in a month than ARIN does in a year. $10 a >pop is our rate, maybe more or less in other areas. If a network >has the wherewithall to maintain a PI block of /x, they >can scrape up the cash to pay for the /x. IOW, if you're going to lose >money on it, you didn't need it anyway. Are you saying here that the /24 will be split into static addresses for dialup users? Current allocation policies would not accept that usage as a justification for address space. This is not part of the ARIN proposal, but in the worldwide consensus document among registries. Yes, I know RFC 2050 is coauthored by some of the people writing ARIN. It has been, however, designated Best Current Practice by the IESG/IETF. These policies would expect you to use IPCP or other relevant dynamic addressing. From http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt. "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines," Section 2.1: > 7. Due to constraints on the available free pool of IPv4 address > space, the use of static IP address assignments (e.g., one > address per customer) for dial-up users is strongly discouraged. > While it is understood that the use of static addressing may > ease some aspects of administration, the current rate of > consumption of the remaining unassigned IPv4 address space does > not permit the assignment of addresses for administrative ease. > Organizations considering the use of static IP address assignment > are expected to investigate and implement dynamic assignment > technologies whenever possible. From hcb at clark.net Thu Jan 23 05:29:15 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 05:29:15 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 10:23 PM -0700 1/22/97, Stephen Satchell wrote: >At 11:43 PM 1/21/97, David Schwartz wrote: >> 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? > >But only because the United States Postal Service agrees to forward your >mail for a year (or is it six months now) as you are able to get notices >out. Ditto the telephone company when you move and they put an intercept >on your telephone number for a set time. > >Question: are there any RFCs which discuss intercept/forwarding of IP >packets based on IP address changes? If not, then perhaps it's time to >consider putting one together. That way, when a customer changes providers >the *old* provider would provide forwarding services for a limited time, >just as one telephone operating company provides the intercept for an old >customer who has moved. Not precisely. There have been proposals; I remember one from Tim Bass. The closest RFCs probably are: RFC1631 on Network Address Translation RFC1853, 1701/2 and others on IP tunneling RFC2072 on Router Renumbering > >Much of the squawking I've seen on this list regarding changing providers >could be fixed with such a scheme. Then the problem reduces to one of the >multi-homed networks. Referral/translation tools are commercially available, but can have major performance and operational impact. There's no single accepted way to do it. From Marilyn at styleshow.com Thu Jan 23 08:51:05 1997 From: Marilyn at styleshow.com (Marilyn Bardsley) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:51:05 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <199701231351.IAA43976@osceola.gate.net> SIGNOFF NAIPR PLEASE FORGIVE ME!! I tried to unsubscribe following the instructions and I could not get it to work. Marilyn at partyclothes.com The very best to you and yours! Marilyn Bardsley Marilyn at partyclothes.com http://www.styleshow.com ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MULTIPLES AT HOME Real Clothes for Real Women! The Fun, Fashionable and Affordable Way to Dress! Yes, these are the MULTIPLES that were sold a few years ago in the finest dept stores and were given national exposure recently on Home Shopping Network. MULTIPLES are known nationwide for comfort, versatility, easycare and STYLE! From satchell at accutek.com Thu Jan 23 07:59:07 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 05:59:07 -0700 Subject: Reachability (IP vs. DNS) was Re: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: At 4:43 AM 1/23/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >>From a user perspective and what IMHO should be a business perspective, the >>issue is whether a given node is reachable or not. As long as my browser >>can find www.foo.com, I have solved my problem. > >www.foo.com is not, as people will notice, an IP address. It is a DNS name. As I recall the threads (note the plural) there are actually two different problems that have been addresses: renumbering when you change providers, and the problem of reachability to a multi-homed ISP when that ISP is *supposed* to get its numbers from one of the upstream providers. Two different problems. >[snip] >Yes, in a provider change in a provider-based addressing scheme, some >hard-coded IP addresses will need to change. But good practices can >minimize that. Let's say that you are a mid-level provider and have 100 customers buying address space from you. Each of those 100 customers are ISPs with name servers -- by NSI decree, that's two hard-coded IP addresses per customer. (I don't kno any ISP that delegates all its name-service load to another provider -- I know I wouldn't if I wanted to be able to control third-level names myself.) Most ISPs also have "public" ftp and www servers, and because they are addressed by name THEY have to have hard-coded IP addresses that don't change over time. Then you have the engine that does dynamic address assignment for dial-in, which is usually a separate box. That's now a *minimum* of four hard-coded IP addresses. With four hundred addresses that have to be changed by 100 people outside of your organization, that's a problem. The DNS issue is a small one, and I seem to recall that some of the time-to-live issues were being addressed. The political issue -- the time it takes NSI to repoint records -- may well take care of itself as the process is better automated. If it ever is. In any case, the DNS discussion takes us even more off-topic. You mention "good practices". Can you be more explicit, or provide a pointer to good practices that would minimize the downstream-change problem? --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From markb at INFI.NET Wed Jan 22 23:23:20 1997 From: markb at INFI.NET (Mark Borchers) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:23:20 +0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701231424.JAA30588@mh004.infi.net> You probably want to read about renumbering in the IETF archives. Look for Internet Drafts with the word "pier" in their title (PIER being the renumbering working group). > > Question: are there any RFCs which discuss intercept/forwarding of IP > packets based on IP address changes? If not, then perhaps it's time to > consider putting one together. That way, when a customer changes providers > the *old* provider would provide forwarding services for a limited time, > just as one telephone operating company provides the intercept for an old > customer who has moved. > > Much of the squawking I've seen on this list regarding changing providers > could be fixed with such a scheme. Then the problem reduces to one of the > multi-homed networks. > > From davids at wiznet.net Thu Jan 23 09:46:51 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:46:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > There is another flaw in this analogy: there is an announcement, a > parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final > cut-over. I've been through this a couple of times with Chicago, New > England, and Bay Area clients. (I'm also facing this with the idea to > split Nevada into two area codes -- I'm in Northern Nevada and Clark County > [Las Vegas/Henderson] run the state, so my area code is sure to change.) > > With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in > what should have been a prior rock. This is rapidly getting way off-topic. That being said: Of course you do. I've assisted numerous organizations with renumbering and in many cases where this was necessary, we went through cut-over phases where both blocks were valid. In some cases, this cut-over phase lasted for over a year. On one case, it seems to be continuing indefinitely. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Thu Jan 23 09:56:07 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:56:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > At 8:36 AM 1/22/97, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > >Karl, any of us who have been through one or more area code renumbering > >instances knows this is not true. It can happen, it does happen, just the > >Internet has smaller prefixes. Forced by at outside organization to change > >with no recourse or cost recovery. It just so happens that the people > >making the decisions are almost always an arm of the state government. > > There is another flaw in this analogy: there is an announcement, a > parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final > cut-over. I've been through this a couple of times with Chicago, New > England, and Bay Area clients. (I'm also facing this with the idea to > split Nevada into two area codes -- I'm in Northern Nevada and Clark County > [Las Vegas/Henderson] run the state, so my area code is sure to change.) > > With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in > what should have been a prior rock. > You actually do have these options, or at least options that will provide the same functionality. One of the nice things about DNS is that it operates as an up-to-the-minute directory assistance. It is also referenced for almost every internet transaction. The problem with DNS is that since it is set up as a distributed, hierarchical system, it is impossible to make global updates intantly. The basic work-around is similiar to permissive dialing in the telco analogy. It is very easy to set up more than one IP address on an interface on all current versions of Unix (at least at that I am aware of) and possible to do it on WinNT. So, if a customer needs to renumber his workstations from 172.16.100.x to 192.168.100.x, he can set up the ip addresses to the new block and set the old ip addresses up as secondary addresses. This does require that the upstream provider allows the customer to use the old addresses for a short period of time, generally a week is more than enough time for all DNS caches to clear. It's not exactly perfect, but it will work for probably 99% of the cases, which is probably better than permissive dialing, at least according to the horror stories on comp.dcom.telecom.tech. :) ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From lonewolf at driveway1.com Thu Jan 23 10:14:49 1997 From: lonewolf at driveway1.com (Larry Honig) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:14:49 -0500 Subject: Mike Odell? Message-ID: <32E78069.4E5F@driveway1.com> Mr. Berkowitz just posted a reference to Mike Odell and an "8+8" proposal. Where can the newbie/lurker crowd find out more about this? Thanks in advance for tolerating an ongoing education process.(eg of course I don't know the entire scope of what I don't know. Flaming us for this is analagous to this entire debate, which, as it seems to me, turns on the fact that the Internet could have been perfect if only we knew about - and solved - all of these problems in advance!) Remember - the best is the enemy of the good. From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us Thu Jan 23 10:03:02 1997 From: jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us (Jeffrey C. Ollie) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:03:02 -0600 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:56:42 CST." <199701230656.AAA18517@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199701231503.JAA09305@worf.netins.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:56:42 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes: > >> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes: >> > >> > [ on renumbering ] >> > >> >But the point is, they shouldn't *HAVE TO* if you change a >> >vendor relationship. >> >> So you've come up with some magical patch to the Cisco IOS and the >> BayRS that will keep MCI and Sprint running as the routing tables grow >> past the 100,000 mark? Unless you have, people will *HAVE TO* renumber >> when they move around. Letting everyone keep their IP addresses when >> vendors are switched will cause the routing table size to skyrocket. > >You are MISSING THE POINT. Please, please read what I have written before >and what is below. Arguing points that aren't being made is non-productive. > >One last time: > >NOBODY is arguing for end customers who get assignments in the /32 to /20 >range NOW being able to "take them with". > >Including me. Uh, if people don't have to renumber when business relationships change then they must be "taking their networks with them". Allowing someone to break up a CIDR block when business relationships change is BAD. >HOWEVER, you *MUST* recognize past practice, you *MUST* recognize that >people relied on representations made to them in the past (which are in >fact CODIFIED in RFC2008; there is SPECIFIC language in there reflecting >PAST HISTORY AND PRACTICE), and you *MUST NOT* try to abrogate those past >policies and practices for *EXISTING* assignments. > >If you DO attempt any of these things you will create legal causes of action >(if you don't believe me go talk to a real lawyer; I have). Some of these >are *extremely* serious and will lead to multi-million dollar lawsuits, TROs >and damage claims, and it is NOT in anyone's interest to foster lawsuits. >We do NOT need to do things in policy that will engender legal fights. >It is not in the best interest of the net to do so. LET'S AGREE NOT TO >DO THOSE THINGS. > >RFC2008 recognized this as FACT -- that people HAVE had this represented >to them until recently, and that they have relied on it when building their >businesses. In fact, the entire reason that 2008 was WRITTEN was to *change >this going forward*. Fine. We change it going forward. But you must >recognize HISTORICAL allocation policies (which 2008 ALSO does) as well. Then those ISPs that made those mis-representations are going to have to live with the repercussions, aren't they? The last paragraph of section 5.3 of RFC 2008 states: The above shows that the absence of an explicit "address lending" policy from a current provider in no way ensures that renumbering will not be required in the future when changing providers. Organizations should be aware of this fact should they encounter a provider making claims to the contrary. Seems to me that RFC 2008 recognizes the need for renumbering. >ISPs who intend to multihome MUST have portable space. Period. It is >NECESSARY for a multi-homed connection to *WORK AT ALL*. Further, if EVERY >ISP in the United States had a /19 given to them TODAY it would add some >3,000 or so prefixes to the tables. This would NOT break the network. The >HUGE majority of those ISPs will NEVER need more space; this is a ONE TIME >hit. > >THE INTERNET WILL NOT BREAK IF WE RECOGNIZE THAT ISPS NEED PORTABLE SPACE. >Again, I am *NOT* arguing that every customer who attaches to the network >should be able to walk around with /24s that they get assigned *TODAY*. >I *AM* saying that if you're in the ISP business, you should get assigned >a /19 initially, and THAT SPACE IS YOURS. If you need MORE, then justify >that you have ACTUALLY USED the /19 (and it should then be provided). Well, then let each ISP write up a justification, submit it to ARIN, and pay their fees. I wouldn't think think that there would be much difficulty, especially if they are able explain themselves clearly. >Finally, Cisco and Bay aren't the only router vendors out there. Nor is >the state of the art static. We are testing a device right now that claims >to handle 150,000 prefixes with a recomputation rate of 20 full passes/second; >if this is true then flapping is a non-issue (seriously folks; you can't >really consider a route instability that lasts FIFTY MILLISECONDS to be >significant!) Further, the architecture of that device should scale easily >to the 500,000 prefix range with ~5-10 recomputations per second; this is >STILL an instability boundary of ~200ms at worst, which is some two to three >orders of magnitude better than ANYTHING that CISCO or Bay make right now. New hardware is a LONG term solution. Face it, no one's going to unload millions of dollars of Bay or Cisco equipment virtually overnight for a relatively untested piece of hardware. And I haven't seen anything that will give Bay or Cisco equipment the ability to handle orders of magnitude more routes or routing updates. So for the short term (on the order of 2-3 years, at least), we are stuck with ARIN or something ARIN-like because we need to limit the growth of the global routing table. There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. [A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.] Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:03:02 -0600 From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:56:42 CST." <199701230656.AAA18517 at Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Subject: Re: ARIN Proposal To: naipr at INTERNIC.NET -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news. iQCVAwUBMud9rJwkOQz8sbZFAQHFvgP+LvNV0xKIwdOO7n1qKicFzCuHmtTVcKx+ LbaLrqlyShjOSyjsx48Wt0L0EBcYZGFr6xqWz73yc8lEDy0rCyxW7NLxDCLtgTGI qybsyoEEq6JneLFNCe0Hsmjd4OHbc04KNdi4vqZkuvvy4zsFmZhQEoK/TNbe/jAh FaSGk7YJADE= =+wH6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey C. Ollie | Should Work Now (TM) Python Hacker, Mac Lover | From davidc at apnic.net Wed Jan 22 20:00:13 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:00:13 +0000 Subject: YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:17:00 EST." <35.262246.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: <199701230100.BAA00323@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> Jeff, >DR>The problem is that >DR>the subsidies that have funded the IP allocation and registration >DR>service are going away > >That's not what some folks are arguing in here. Certain folks are >saying the main thrust of this proposal is to manage address space, Perhaps that's what they are arguing here, but that is *NOT* what ARIN is about. ARIN is a proposal to fund the Americas registry. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES IN ADDRESS MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF ARIN. To be sure, as a result of the fees, there may be a realignment as providers unwilling or unable to obtain address space from ARIN go to their upstream provider for addresses, but I do not believe this is a primary goal. >If you are correct, then the question becomes how >much funding is being lost ? Folks are throwing around all kinds of >numbers for creating a new organization, do we know what it currently >costs ? Last I heard, the total amount of money NSF was paying InterNIC (before they got out) was around $2 million/year. >Lastly, if I understand the proposal correctly, Network >Solutions are the ones who currently fund this function (with subsidies >from other sources) and under the new proposal ARIN becomes a subsidiary >of Network Solution, not a standalone entity ? No. ARIN would be independent of NSI. NSI is simply providing the funding backstop until ARIN becomes established. >I can't believe that the current charges for domain registrations aren't >enough to fund the NIC. Separating Internet address allocation from the morass of domain name allocation is one of the features of ARIN. >I can believe they have major billing and >accounting problems; having just experienced them myself. This to me is >at the heart of the management problem I was referring to. And I suspect it is entirely related to the load resulting from DOMAIN NAME DELEGATIONS as opposed to address allocations -- remember: people aren't billed for address allocations. Regards, -drc From karl at MCS.NET Thu Jan 23 10:26:32 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:26:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 23, 97 09:46:51 am Message-ID: <199701231526.JAA01231@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > > There is another flaw in this analogy: there is an announcement, a > > parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final > > cut-over. I've been through this a couple of times with Chicago, New > > England, and Bay Area clients. (I'm also facing this with the idea to > > split Nevada into two area codes -- I'm in Northern Nevada and Clark County > > [Las Vegas/Henderson] run the state, so my area code is sure to change.) > > > > With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in > > what should have been a prior rock. > > This is rapidly getting way off-topic. That being said: > > Of course you do. I've assisted numerous organizations with > renumbering and in many cases where this was necessary, we went through > cut-over phases where both blocks were valid. In some cases, this > cut-over phase lasted for over a year. On one case, it seems to be > continuing indefinitely. > > DS There are many systems and other services where this is NOT SUPPORTED by the operating system vendors and DOES NOT WORK. Don't generalize the FreeBSD/BSDI/OpenBSD/Linux world to the rest of the planet. It doesn't apply. Further, you generally CANNOT bind one task (ie: a web server) to more than one address like this (well, ok, you can bind it to ALL addresses, but not a given subset). Multiple processes operating off the same data work in SOME, but not all, cases. -- -- 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 cts at vec.net Thu Jan 23 11:20:07 1997 From: cts at vec.net (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:20:07 EST Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <009AECA7.DA22A7E0.40@vec.net> > I believe that any ISP should get their own /19 at the outset. Among other > things, if you EVER multi-home you NEED IT if you want the multihoming to do > you ANY good. In a perfect world, I quite agree. However, there are currently around 4,200 ISP's in the list. Now, per Kim, 300 or so ISP's already get their address blocks directly from the 'NIC, so for the case of round numbers, let's say there are 4000 ISP's who are aware enough of services like the list that would qualify for that /19. That works out to slightly less than 2 /8's... if you pack them in as tight as you can. Again, in an ideal world, you'd reserve each ISP more room than you allocated... let's say for sake of discussion, we allocate enough space for each IS/P to have a /18... that ties up 4 /8's...or let's say we reserve a /16... that takes us up to around 15 /8's either in use or reserved. There appears to be that much space out there, in various reserved blocks; if we're looking only at the here and now, it looks like there's the space and more to do as you suggest. If - and despite dire warnings of industry consolidation - ISP's continue to grow at the current rates; if another two or three thousand ISP's startup up next year and the next year, each asking for their allocation, at some point in the next two - five years, depending on how liberal we are with reservations, space starts to get tight; and the above back of the envelope numbers do not take into account folks who already have allocations and need more. If it were certain that a replacement for IPv4 would be available in the next couple years, what you suggest might be workable; however, I've yet to be convinced that it's good policy for every startup ISP, such as a small 56K basement operation with 8 dialup modems being run by a high school junior to start out with a /19...at least until there's a handle on how long the current space must be made to last and what sort of growth we're going to see in that time. It may well be that a set of objective criteria can be worked out for where it makes sense to allocate a /19; given the number of open-ended issues, I have trouble agreeing that it should be applied across the board to all ISP's. From davids at wiznet.net Thu Jan 23 12:29:36 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:29:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701231526.JAA01231@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: Fine, but then it's the end user's network decisions that enforce the tying, not those of their provider. DS On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > There are many systems and other services where this is NOT SUPPORTED by the > operating system vendors and DOES NOT WORK. > > Don't generalize the FreeBSD/BSDI/OpenBSD/Linux world to the rest of the > planet. It doesn't apply. > > Further, you generally CANNOT bind one task (ie: a web server) to more than > one address like this (well, ok, you can bind it to ALL addresses, but not a > given subset). Multiple processes operating off the same data work in SOME, > but not all, cases. From jeff.binkley at asacomp.com Thu Jan 23 13:16:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:16:00 -0500 Subject: NUMBERING REALLY BIG NETW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.262493.7@asacomp.com> HC>Perhaps stepping back a bit, and looking at other context, helps. I HC>will look at two other contexts in this note, and hope they add HC>perspective. HC>I like to ask people, "what's the biggest network in the worlds?" HC>Many people answer "the Internet." "The US military" is the most HC>common alternative answer. HC>None of these are even close. It's the international telephone HC>network (you know, I never looked at it before, but that is a great HC>name for a conspiracy). Also important to this discussion is a HC>"sub-conspiracy" called the North American Numbering Plan. HC>Look at a telephone number, expanded to include all long-distance and HC>international prefixes. It will begin with a national code such as HC>44 for the UK. Subordinate to that are city codes in the UK, and HC>exchange and line numbers in that city. HC>North American numbers have a 1 country code, and the familiar area HC>code/exchange/line structure below that. HC>Telephone routing (switching) operates at the broad levels of HC>international/major national (continental)/local. International HC>carriers interconnect countries; Interexchange Carriers (IXC) HC>interconnect local areas, and local providers interconnect exchanges HC>different technical requirements and lines. There are at each of HC>different technical requirements these levels, much as there are for HC>a small ISP that needs to support very good end user dialup, and a HC>national provider for whom 155 MBPS links (and certainly routers!) HC>are not fast enough. HC>Especially due to the advent of new technologies requiring unique HC>telephone numbers, there has been an extreme demand, especially in HC>large metropolitan areas, on the telephone number space. This has HC>led to certain area codes (e.g., 212, which once covered Manhattan) HC>to fill up. There may be space left in Area Code 702 in the deserts HC>of Nevada, but that isn't usable inside Area Code 212. Area code 212 HC>has a fixed limit dictated by the 999-9999 phone number structure. HC>So, there is a practical issue that certain area codes are exhausted. HC>Telephone renumbering is a nasty issue for several reasons. HC>First, if my area code changes, I have to change all my letterheads, HC>etc. HC>Second, anyone who has stored my number will have to change it, HC>whether or not their number has changed or not. HC>Third, there are several technical ways to introduce new area codes. HC>The usual way is to split geographic areas, so half the people in HC>them are affected. A newer model is "overlay," where additional area HC>codes are applied to a single geographic area. The latter model HC>requires 10-digit dialing for every number inside the local area, but HC>doesn't force people to change their numbers. Advantages and HC>disadvantages to both. HC>How does this relate to ARIN? There has to be a central registry to HC>assign area codes. There is a usually-hidden list of provider codes HC>that also needs to be administered. HC>When one gets a telephone number in a geographic area, the number HC>assignment is given to the end user by their serving telephone HC>company. That telephone company aggregates the subscriber into an HC>exchange, and then an area code. HC>If one moves their business to another area code, there is rarely a HC>presumption that the phone number is portable. It was allocated to HC>the aggregating provider. The telephone switching system has a HC>finite address space, there is an extremely large capital investment HC>designed to deal with this, and the system was not designed for HC>portable addressing. HC>IP wasn't really designed with either portable or nonportable numbers HC>in mind. RFC760 started with an 8-bit prefix that soon proved HC>unscalable, and changes were made. But that 8-bit prefix reflected HC>IP was introduced for small research functions where lots of HC>flexibility was practical, but has evolved into an environment much HC>more constrained to maintain operational quality. HC>An issue that concerns many people on the ARIN list is being "locked HC>in" to a single upstream provider, assuming the general case is HC>provider-based allocation. One concern here is the disincentive for HC>people to go with small providers, because they may need to renumber HC>as the small provider grows. HC>Yes. This is a true statement. To say it is not -- to say I have HC>provider independent phone number space -- is saying I get to move HC>from (703)998-5819 in Virginia to Silicon Valley, and can reasonably HC>expect to get (408)998-5819, or even keep (703)998-5819 with no call HC>forwarding expense. HC>There are two ways to look at this. One is that renumbering is HC>anticompetitive and must not happen. The other says there are HC>technical reasons to renumber, and probably good ones. Let's focus HC>on making renumbering less painful, because it will be a fact of HC>life. Let's also realize there are significant real world examples HC>where even large end users might face renumbering of their Internet HC>interfaces, but would have to renumber a very small portion of their HC>users. HC>Making renumbering easier is the focus of the IETF Procedures for HC>Internet/Enterprise Renumbering (PIER) Working Group. It has a web HC>http://page at www.isi.edu/div7/pier/. Minutes and such are at HC>http://ds.internic.net/ietf/pier/. HC>PIER has produced several RFCs, and more are in the works. There is HC>also a collection of renumbering case studies, which I _think_ the HC>web page points to. With all due humility (yeah, right), two RFCs HC>that might be of use to ARIN are HC>http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2071.txt and HC>http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2072.txt. The first is an overview of HC>the renumbering problem by Paul Ferguson and myself, the second is an HC>operational-planning-oriented document I wrote called the Router HC>Renumbering Guide. Howard, Having worked for the phone company many years, I am very aware of your comments. There are a couple of other things to keep in mind when comparing this to the ARIN proposal. First, Bellcore was the governing body which originally setup the North American Numbering plan, which at that time was solely funded by AT&T, which was a monopoly. The plan, while still holding true today, had similar problems with allocations and limitations. Those were/are always handled as an enginering issue and not a monetary one. 800 service brought this to a head as they idea of portable 800 service and the switching of long distance carriers, for outbound service, came into issue. These were some of the main driving factors for the CCS7 switching system and national 800 database. The big difference here is that in the telephone world, the current holders of the keys are the access providers (i.e. RBOCs) and not the long distance companies. This is backwards to how the Internet is currently heading. As smaller internets develop and local/regional backbbones grow, I can see the Internet heading the same route. Then the whole issue and idea of registries takes on a different focus. On conclusion I am not sure the idea of a pay-for-admission body such as ARIN will solve the engineering issues that route consolidation apparently needs. I am more concerned that certain groups may decide to join ARIN so they can leverage their business agendas. Of course because we don't have and probably don't want something akin to the FCC, there does need to be some paletable solution. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From karl at MCS.NET Thu Jan 23 12:11:54 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:11:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <009AECA7.DA22A7E0.40@vec.net> from "Charles T. Smith, Jr." at Jan 23, 97 11:20:07 am Message-ID: <199701231711.LAA19066@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > I believe that any ISP should get their own /19 at the outset. Among other > > things, if you EVER multi-home you NEED IT if you want the multihoming to do > > you ANY good. > > In a perfect world, I quite agree. Well, actually in the current world I believe this is true. > However, there are currently around 4,200 ISP's in the list. Now, per > Kim, 300 or so ISP's already get their address blocks directly from the > 'NIC, so for the case of round numbers, let's say there are 4000 ISP's > who are aware enough of services like the list that would qualify for > that /19. Yep. > That works out to slightly less than 2 /8's... if you pack them in as > tight as you can. Again, in an ideal world, you'd reserve each ISP > more room than you allocated... let's say for sake of discussion, we > allocate enough space for each IS/P to have a /18... that ties up > 4 /8's...or let's say we reserve a /16... that takes us up to around > 15 /8's either in use or reserved. Allocate a /19. That's the routeable block size right now. > There appears to be that much space out there, in various reserved blocks; > if we're looking only at the here and now, it looks like there's the space > and more to do as you suggest. Correct. > If - and despite dire warnings of industry consolidation - ISP's continue > to grow at the current rates; if another two or three thousand ISP's > startup up next year and the next year, each asking for their allocation, > at some point in the next two - five years, depending on how liberal > we are with reservations, space starts to get tight; and the above back > of the envelope numbers do not take into account folks who already have > allocations and need more. Uh, no. I'd pack the blocks in, and deal with the fact that the routing table MIGHT, under that plan, double in 3-5 years. The hardware we have *RIGHT NOW* can handle this load. Remember that the vast majority of ISPs are NEVER going to get beyond the first /19. In fact, those who don't sell dedicated connectivity probably will never need anything near a /19, but they still HAVE TO HAVE IT if they want to multihome in the future -- and we CAN assign it. Right now we have 42,866 network entries in our BGP core (we run default-free). I have ~29MB free (out of 64MB) in most of my core 7513 hardware. Some of our edge devices have less (due to the people they exchange with, and the number of paths available there, consumption is slightly higher). HOWEVER, CISCO currently wastes about 50% of that RAM allocation. This I have *proven* by looking at other implementations and their RAM requirements. Assuming that CISCO tightens up their code (not unreasonable) I would expect to see that usage drop by perhaps 30% during that same time. If I go to 128MB of RAM (done with a chip swap on the 7513 RSP boards) using today's metrics and software I can handle ~140,000 routes. This is WAY beyond any rational estimate during that device's service life based on handing out /19s to people. The bigger issue is route flapping. The fix for flapping routes is an architecture which doesn't croak when they happen and which can recompute the table faster. The *short term* work-around (which we and basically everyone else these days uses) is dampening - which is working quite well. Core CPU utilization rates in our hardware right now are very reasonable. If we pack in the allocations, you get about 2 /8s. Let's assume we double the number of ISPs every year (this is frightening to think about, but let's assume it anyway). So instantly we need 2 /8s, in the first year we need 2 more /8s (for the first doubling), the second year we need 4 /8s and the third year we need 8 /8s. That's 16 /8s. Less than 1/4 of what is reserved right now in the historical Class "A" space. If you think we'll see THREE doublings in the next three years I frankly have to say you're nuts, but I'll be nice and give you that at this point. The issue is that we're still ok. > If it were certain that a replacement for IPv4 would be available in the > next couple years, what you suggest might be workable; however, I've yet > to be convinced that it's good policy for every startup ISP, such as a > small 56K basement operation with 8 dialup modems being run by a high > school junior to start out with a /19...at least until there's a handle > on how long the current space must be made to last and what sort of > growth we're going to see in that time. If you can live out of one Class "C" then the pain of renumbering isn't too horrid, even though its a pain in the ass. Where it becomes a problem is when you start selling dedicated service or hosting web sites. Remember too, that despite people bitching about static allocations, there ARE reasons for doing it that are fundamentally sound -- lots of people these days use their accounts to "punch through" corporate firewalls, and without a static address THIS DOES NOT WORK. I'd estimate that at least half of our so-called "personal" account holders are really "work-at-home" people who, with the security bar being raised as far as it has been these days, NEED this service. Also, there are ISDN and other "router-based" devices which customers use that also need a static allocation (or they don't work). > It may well be that a set of objective criteria can be worked out for > where it makes sense to allocate a /19; given the number of open-ended > issues, I have trouble agreeing that it should be applied across the board > to all ISP's. Once you go beyond the first /24 as an ISP (ie: the basement guy with a half-dozen computers and modems) you NEED PI space. - -- 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 Thu Jan 23 13:41:42 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:41:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 23, 97 12:29:36 pm Message-ID: <199701231841.MAA22065@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Again, I'm not arguing that END CUSTOMERS should be able to take /24s with them! Please, folks, read what I'm writing here, not what you're assuming. I'm talking about *ISPs*, not end customer attachments. -- -- 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 > Fine, but then it's the end user's network decisions that enforce > the tying, not those of their provider. > > DS > > On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > There are many systems and other services where this is NOT SUPPORTED by the > > operating system vendors and DOES NOT WORK. > > > > Don't generalize the FreeBSD/BSDI/OpenBSD/Linux world to the rest of the > > planet. It doesn't apply. > > > > Further, you generally CANNOT bind one task (ie: a web server) to more than > > one address like this (well, ok, you can bind it to ALL addresses, but not a > > given subset). Multiple processes operating off the same data work in SOME, > > but not all, cases. > From pferguso at cisco.com Thu Jan 23 14:09:30 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:09:30 -0500 Subject: Scaleable IP Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970123124231.00699560@lint.cisco.com> At 09:05 PM 1/22/97 -0800, Thom Stark wrote: > >The "something more scalable and useable" to which you refer is IPv6. Well, that has been the topic of much debate, and continues to be so. - paul From hcb at clark.net Thu Jan 23 14:20:03 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:20:03 -0500 Subject: Mike Odell? In-Reply-To: <32E78069.4E5F@driveway1.com> Message-ID: At 10:14 AM -0500 1/23/97, Larry Honig wrote: >Mr. Berkowitz just posted a reference to Mike Odell and an "8+8" >proposal. Where can the newbie/lurker crowd find out more about this? >Thanks in advance for tolerating an ongoing education process.(eg of >course I don't know the entire scope of what I don't know. Flaming us >for this is analagous to this entire debate, which, as it seems to me, >turns on the fact that the Internet could have been perfect if only we >knew about - and solved - all of these problems in advance!) Remember - >the best is the enemy of the good. It's an Internet draft for an address structure for IPv6. You can get Internet Drafts at http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts 1id-abstracts.txt in that directory is a file of abstracts of all Internet Drafts. Remember IPv6 is still bleeding edge, and ARIN is not now concerned with IPv6. The specific paper is: "8+8 - An Alternate Addressing Architecture for IPv6", M. O'Dell, 10/24/1996, This document presents an alternative addressing architecture for IPv6 which controls global routing growth with very aggressive topological aggregation. It also includes support for scalable multihoming as a distinguished service while freeing sites and service resellers from the tyranny of CIDR-based aggregation by providing transparent rehoming of both. From jeff.binkley at asacomp.com Thu Jan 23 13:16:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:16:00 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.262496.7@asacomp.com> SS>>The average cost of an IP address drops precipitously under ARIN's SS>initial >proposal. For $2500 I can get 256 addresses or 8,192 SS>addresses - a drop from >about $9.76 each to under $0.31 each. The SS>slope of the cost/address curve >gets even worse as you get into the SS>"medium and higher categories. This is >stupid economics. SS>> SS>>Since public IP addresses are a finite resource, each additional SS>address you >want should cost *more* than the last one. That's how SS>>the real estate market works. As land becomes scarce, the price of a SS>lot goes up. Why not license >IP addresses one at a time for $10 SS>each, 10 for $110, 50 for $1000, etc.? SS>If the sole concern was number space allocation, you'd be right. SS>What has come out of much of this discussion is that there is a SS>serious side issue: backbone routing. It's a technical thing, not SS>political. (At least not political on the surface, although what SS>technical discussions are ever completely non-political.) I'm still SS>learning about the problems myself so I can't talk intelligently SS>myself. SS>The pricing structure is designed to encourage the consolidation of SS>IP addresses geographically (both in physical terms and in terms of SS>the connectivity topology) so to reduce the capacity requirement on SS>the router. You might think that routing is scalable, but some people SS>I've talked to (plus papers I have in my files from my APRAnet days) SS>show that there are significant problems that get real, real nasty as SS>you increase the number of nodes at a given level. SS>By the way, the gross revenue is to fund the registry and its SS>operation. The rate schedule is not intended to *increase* total SS>revenue, but to use revenue to encourage certain practices which are SS>(arguably) in the best interest of the Internet. SS>Stephen Satchell, a founding member of the Internet Press Guild I understand this but believe it is the wrong way to approach the problem. You've said we have an engineering problem yet we are trying to solve it via economic pressures. Look at the federal government when they try to impose political pressures via economics. It doesn't work or has an effect they never anticipated. I'm saying if we have an engineering problem then come up with an engineering solution or technology will do it for you. Do we think that the current suite or routing protocols is then end of them ? Applying economic pressure may lead to the development of other solutions which will solve the engineering problem and leave ARIN 's function in question. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From pferguso at cisco.com Thu Jan 23 14:10:07 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:10:07 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970123135516.0069b578@lint.cisco.com> At 09:46 AM 1/23/97 -0500, David Schwartz wrote: > > Of course you do. I've assisted numerous organizations with >renumbering and in many cases where this was necessary, we went through >cut-over phases where both blocks were valid. In some cases, this >cut-over phase lasted for over a year. On one case, it seems to be >continuing indefinitely. > Having said that, I would encourage you to review RFC1916. - paul From karl at MCS.NET Thu Jan 23 23:13:41 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701240326.VAA06979@worf.netins.net> from "Jeffrey C. Ollie" at Jan 23, 97 09:25:20 pm Message-ID: <199701240413.WAA10454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > >This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this > >way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this > >fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen > >by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, > >board constitution, etc. > > This is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory. Nope. Its a concern that could turn into reality. I don't have a problem with ARIN as long as it doesn't, and that it is truly a neutral organization working to keep the 'net running smoothly AND on a reasonably-level playing field.. > >Did you READ all of 2008? Try this portion of RFC2008: > > > > [excerpt clipped for brevity] > The key word there is ASSUMED. The only people that will get are the > customer and the clueless ISP that made promises that they couldn't > keep. No. The key word is PRACTICED. Again, we're not talking about ISP<>direct customer links here. We're talking about, primarily, ISP/NSP relationships. And in that context, you could have a *MAJOR* anti-trust and racketeering problem. > You seem to be implying that the misguided promises of clueless ISPs > should be honored by the Internet community (to the detriment of the > Internet community). Perhaps I've read your statements wrong, so > please clarify if that is not the case. You have. I'm talking about NSP/ISP things here. Organizations which have or can justify /19s or better. Not the end-user attachmnet with a /24. The point is that ANY multi-homed ISP *MUST HAVE* PI space. Period. End of discussion. It *HAS* to be that way to work *AT ALL*. You know this. I know this. The rest of the ISP community that has ANY clue knows this. For this reason pretending that it isn't true is the biggest load of malarky that I've seen here -- by and large the people on this list KNOW that I'm right, posturing aside. Hell, one of them was trying to make the argument posting from a PI /16 in historical Class "B" space! Give me a break. We run default-free. We MUST have PI space. It is not an option, it is not negotiable, and it is not something we can bargain over. If we buy service from someone any space they give us at any rational size (ie: /19 or bigger) is *PRESUMED* to be portable, because *IT HAS TO BE* in order for the space to work for its intended purpose -- that is, non-preferrential routing based only on the "best" path as we can determine. By the way, the whole "flap" about this is relatively recent. Two years ago nobody bitched if you took space with you when you changed ISPs. That's a FACT, which is witnessed by the fact that lots of national ISPs have *ALLOWED CUSTOMERS TO COME TO THEIR NETWORKS WITH HOLE-PUNCHES IN OTHER ISPS BLOCKS!* If you want to raise hell about *historical* practice, start right there. The problem isn't with people allowing others to *leave*, its with ISPs *ACCEPTING* customers with hole-punch space and agreeing to announce it! > >Heh, wait a second. That was twice in three years that everyone went out, > >unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware. > > Replacing Bay with Bay and Cisco with Cisco is not comparable to > replacing with Brand X. I forgot to mention all of the money network > operators have tied up in Bay and/or Cisco training. Aha. So now it comes down to "I like the software interface better", not "does the box work better". I am beginning to understand the dynamic here. Never mind that the replacements that I'm looking at run about half the price of the CISCO hardware with "comparable" capabilities, and blow their doors off both in configuration flexibility AND performance. Oh, you DO need a brain to use them -- big whoopee deal. Of course, at ~2.4M pps I'll demand a brain from my engineers anyway :-) > >> There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN > >> won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. > > > >Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement > >anywhere in this discussion. > > Not directly you haven't, but the general tone of your statements has > led me to believe that you opposed ARIN. Nonsense. -- -- 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 Thu Jan 23 14:09:59 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:09:59 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970123135253.006af9f8@lint.cisco.com> At 09:23 AM 1/23/97 +0500, Mark Borchers wrote: >You probably want to read about renumbering in the IETF archives. >Look for Internet Drafts with the word "pier" in their title (PIER >being the renumbering working group). > Or better yet, surf to the PIER home page: http://www.isi.edu:80/div7/pier/papers.html - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Thu Jan 23 14:10:09 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:10:09 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970123135755.00692c3c@lint.cisco.com> At 09:03 AM 1/23/97 -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > >Seems to me that RFC 2008 recognizes the need for renumbering. > One might suggest that the existence of the PIER Working Group within the IETF is recognition enough that renumbering is a fact of life. - paul From mknewman at blkbox.COM Thu Jan 23 22:56:31 1997 From: mknewman at blkbox.COM (Marc Newman) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:56:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: No subject Message-ID: <9701232156.aa16724@blkbox.COM> remove From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Jan 23 22:45:05 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:45:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701232031.OAA25454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > Note that *colluding* to create a business practice which penalizes a > company in this fashion can be seriously ugly if someone decides to chase > it. If you create these situations, you're ASKING to be chased, and if you > do so in a collusive format you're asking for the Government to get involved. Which government? Canada? Bermuda? Cuba? > I WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION. I don't want to end up > being named in a RICO suit, and that's PRECISELY the concern that I have > in this regard. While some people might like to dismiss this entirely I think it is a serious issue that needs to be considered and I think that ARIN needs to budget an appropriate amount of money to retain a legal firm on an ongoing basis to advise the directors and employees regarding antitrust. And there needs to be an appropriate level of liability insurance purchased as well which takes into consideration the triple damages that RICO suits can lead to. > fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen > by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, > board constitution, etc. Right. 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 Thu Jan 23 15:31:56 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:31:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701231503.JAA09305@worf.netins.net> from "Jeffrey C. Ollie" at Jan 23, 97 09:03:02 am Message-ID: <199701232031.OAA25454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > >NOBODY is arguing for end customers who get assignments in the /32 to /20 > >range NOW being able to "take them with". > > > >Including me. > > Uh, if people don't have to renumber when business relationships > change then they must be "taking their networks with them". Allowing > someone to break up a CIDR block when business relationships change is > BAD. Not if they're ISPs and are getting sizeable blocks. The FIX is to issue portable /19s to ISPs in the FIRST PLACE, instead of trying to refer them all back to their providers. Note that *colluding* to create a business practice which penalizes a company in this fashion can be seriously ugly if someone decides to chase it. If you create these situations, you're ASKING to be chased, and if you do so in a collusive format you're asking for the Government to get involved. This is an *very ungood* thing. I WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION. I don't want to end up being named in a RICO suit, and that's PRECISELY the concern that I have in this regard. This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, board constitution, etc. > >HOWEVER, you *MUST* recognize past practice, you *MUST* recognize that > >people relied on representations made to them in the past (which are in > >fact CODIFIED in RFC2008; there is SPECIFIC language in there reflecting > >PAST HISTORY AND PRACTICE), and you *MUST NOT* try to abrogate those past > >policies and practices for *EXISTING* assignments. > > Then those ISPs that made those mis-representations are going to have > to live with the repercussions, aren't they? > > The last paragraph of section 5.3 of RFC 2008 states: > > The above shows that the absence of an explicit "address lending" > policy from a current provider in no way ensures that renumbering > will not be required in the future when changing providers. > Organizations should be aware of this fact should they encounter a > provider making claims to the contrary. > > Seems to me that RFC 2008 recognizes the need for renumbering. Did you READ all of 2008? Try this portion of RFC2008: "Address ownership" is one possible address allocation and management policy. The "address ownership" policy means that part of the address space, once allocated to an organization, remains allocated to the organization as long as that organization wants it. Further, that portion of the address space would not be allocated to any other organization. Often, such addresses are called "portable." It was assumed that if an organization acquires its addresses via the Rekhter & Li Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 2008 October 1996 "address ownership" policy, the organization would be able to use these addresses to gain access to the Internet routing services, regardless of where the organization connects to the Internet. While it has never been explicitly stated that various Internet Registries use the "address ownership" allocation policy, it has always been assumed (and practiced). ------- End Note that this document EXPLICITLY acknowledges that HISTORICALLY it has always been ASSUMED AND PRACTICED that address blocks are *OWNED* by those to whom they are delegated. You can change things going forward with BCPs and the like. BUT YOU MUST RECOGNIZE THE PAST AND THE RELIANCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE PLACED ON THOSE PAST POLICIES. If you fail to do so, you WILL run into trouble. Guaranteed. > >Again, I am *NOT* arguing that every customer who attaches to the network > >should be able to walk around with /24s that they get assigned *TODAY*. > >I *AM* saying that if you're in the ISP business, you should get assigned > >a /19 initially, and THAT SPACE IS YOURS. If you need MORE, then justify > >that you have ACTUALLY USED the /19 (and it should then be provided). > > Well, then let each ISP write up a justification, submit it to ARIN, > and pay their fees. I wouldn't think think that there would be much > difficulty, especially if they are able explain themselves clearly. Assuming that ARIN actually uses rational processes, yes. > New hardware is a LONG term solution. Face it, no one's going to > unload millions of dollars of Bay or Cisco equipment virtually > overnight for a relatively untested piece of hardware. And I haven't > seen anything that will give Bay or Cisco equipment the ability to > handle orders of magnitude more routes or routing updates. Bullshit. How quickly did 7513s show up in PRODUCTION? Didn't we hear this SAME argument in 1993 when the AGS+ was falling over, and again in 1995 when the 7000/SSP2 was falling over? Heh, wait a second. That was twice in three years that everyone went out, unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware. How did that happen? And why don't you think it will happen again? > So for the short term (on the order of 2-3 years, at least), we are > stuck with ARIN or something ARIN-like because we need to limit the > growth of the global routing table. > > There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN > won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement anywhere in this discussion. -- -- 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 jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us Thu Jan 23 22:25:20 1997 From: jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us (Jeffrey C. Ollie) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:25:20 -0600 Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:31:56 CST." <199701232031.OAA25454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199701240326.VAA06979@worf.netins.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:31:56 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes: > >Note that *colluding* to create a business practice which penalizes a >company in this fashion can be seriously ugly if someone decides to chase >it. If you create these situations, you're ASKING to be chased, and if you >do so in a collusive format you're asking for the Government to get involved. > >This is an *very ungood* thing. > >I WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION. I don't want to end up >being named in a RICO suit, and that's PRECISELY the concern that I have >in this regard. > >This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this >way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this >fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen >by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, >board constitution, etc. This is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory. The only "business practice" here is that clueless ISPs are doomed to failure. But then, that's a law of nature, and not specific to the Internet. >> Then those ISPs that made those mis-representations are going to have >> to live with the repercussions, aren't they? >> >> The last paragraph of section 5.3 of RFC 2008 states: >> >> [ excerpt clipped for brevity ] >> >> Seems to me that RFC 2008 recognizes the need for renumbering. > >Did you READ all of 2008? Try this portion of RFC2008: > > [excerpt clipped for brevity] > >Note that this document EXPLICITLY acknowledges that HISTORICALLY it has >always been ASSUMED AND PRACTICED that address blocks are *OWNED* by those >to whom they are delegated. > >You can change things going forward with BCPs and the like. BUT YOU MUST >RECOGNIZE THE PAST AND THE RELIANCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE PLACED ON THOSE PAST >POLICIES. If you fail to do so, you WILL run into trouble. Guaranteed. The key word there is ASSUMED. The only people that will get are the customer and the clueless ISP that made promises that they couldn't keep. You seem to be implying that the misguided promises of clueless ISPs should be honored by the Internet community (to the detriment of the Internet community). Perhaps I've read your statements wrong, so please clarify if that is not the case. >How quickly did 7513s show up in PRODUCTION? Didn't we hear this SAME >argument in 1993 when the AGS+ was falling over, and again in 1995 when the >7000/SSP2 was falling over? > >Heh, wait a second. That was twice in three years that everyone went out, >unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware. Replacing Bay with Bay and Cisco with Cisco is not comparable to replacing with Brand X. I forgot to mention all of the money network operators have tied up in Bay and/or Cisco training. >> So for the short term (on the order of 2-3 years, at least), we are >> stuck with ARIN or something ARIN-like because we need to limit the >> growth of the global routing table. >> >> There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN >> won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. > >Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement >anywhere in this discussion. Not directly you haven't, but the general tone of your statements has led me to believe that you opposed ARIN. [A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.] Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:25:20 -0600 From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:31:56 CST." <199701232031.OAA25454 at Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Subject: Re: ARIN Proposal To: naipr at INTERNIC.NET -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news. iQCVAwUBMugrpJwkOQz8sbZFAQGohAP+OHcTdJk1HOg/yBbbHgllGJF/LQDDKKoq Pm/GPre/DTJhNg22p8HVIBJkf72Zw2kzVQ4m0l9hD0KChUVYajCvB2jSvcI05mUM qafChGsaGbnjVels5yDXl78Y79Gi0bJfMZfaMqTnZK4XtIuBcUJPzZlz8y2fK5KI 2t6U8Cd3bIs= =3Fii -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey C. Ollie | Should Work Now (TM) Python Hacker, Mac Lover | From karl at MCS.NET Thu Jan 23 23:13:41 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701240326.VAA06979@worf.netins.net> from "Jeffrey C. Ollie" at Jan 23, 97 09:25:20 pm Message-ID: <199701240413.WAA10454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > >This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this > >way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this > >fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen > >by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, > >board constitution, etc. > > This is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory. Nope. Its a concern that could turn into reality. I don't have a problem with ARIN as long as it doesn't, and that it is truly a neutral organization working to keep the 'net running smoothly AND on a reasonably-level playing field.. > >Did you READ all of 2008? Try this portion of RFC2008: > > > > [excerpt clipped for brevity] > The key word there is ASSUMED. The only people that will get are the > customer and the clueless ISP that made promises that they couldn't > keep. No. The key word is PRACTICED. Again, we're not talking about ISP<>direct customer links here. We're talking about, primarily, ISP/NSP relationships. And in that context, you could have a *MAJOR* anti-trust and racketeering problem. > You seem to be implying that the misguided promises of clueless ISPs > should be honored by the Internet community (to the detriment of the > Internet community). Perhaps I've read your statements wrong, so > please clarify if that is not the case. You have. I'm talking about NSP/ISP things here. Organizations which have or can justify /19s or better. Not the end-user attachmnet with a /24. The point is that ANY multi-homed ISP *MUST HAVE* PI space. Period. End of discussion. It *HAS* to be that way to work *AT ALL*. You know this. I know this. The rest of the ISP community that has ANY clue knows this. For this reason pretending that it isn't true is the biggest load of malarky that I've seen here -- by and large the people on this list KNOW that I'm right, posturing aside. Hell, one of them was trying to make the argument posting from a PI /16 in historical Class "B" space! Give me a break. We run default-free. We MUST have PI space. It is not an option, it is not negotiable, and it is not something we can bargain over. If we buy service from someone any space they give us at any rational size (ie: /19 or bigger) is *PRESUMED* to be portable, because *IT HAS TO BE* in order for the space to work for its intended purpose -- that is, non-preferrential routing based only on the "best" path as we can determine. By the way, the whole "flap" about this is relatively recent. Two years ago nobody bitched if you took space with you when you changed ISPs. That's a FACT, which is witnessed by the fact that lots of national ISPs have *ALLOWED CUSTOMERS TO COME TO THEIR NETWORKS WITH HOLE-PUNCHES IN OTHER ISPS BLOCKS!* If you want to raise hell about *historical* practice, start right there. The problem isn't with people allowing others to *leave*, its with ISPs *ACCEPTING* customers with hole-punch space and agreeing to announce it! > >Heh, wait a second. That was twice in three years that everyone went out, > >unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware. > > Replacing Bay with Bay and Cisco with Cisco is not comparable to > replacing with Brand X. I forgot to mention all of the money network > operators have tied up in Bay and/or Cisco training. Aha. So now it comes down to "I like the software interface better", not "does the box work better". I am beginning to understand the dynamic here. Never mind that the replacements that I'm looking at run about half the price of the CISCO hardware with "comparable" capabilities, and blow their doors off both in configuration flexibility AND performance. Oh, you DO need a brain to use them -- big whoopee deal. Of course, at ~2.4M pps I'll demand a brain from my engineers anyway :-) > >> There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN > >> won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. > > > >Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement > >anywhere in this discussion. > > Not directly you haven't, but the general tone of your statements has > led me to believe that you opposed ARIN. Nonsense. -- -- 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 Thu Jan 23 23:13:41 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701240326.VAA06979@worf.netins.net> from "Jeffrey C. Ollie" at Jan 23, 97 09:25:20 pm Message-ID: <199701240413.WAA10454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > >This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this > >way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this > >fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen > >by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, > >board constitution, etc. > > This is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory. Nope. Its a concern that could turn into reality. I don't have a problem with ARIN as long as it doesn't, and that it is truly a neutral organization working to keep the 'net running smoothly AND on a reasonably-level playing field.. > >Did you READ all of 2008? Try this portion of RFC2008: > > > > [excerpt clipped for brevity] > The key word there is ASSUMED. The only people that will get are the > customer and the clueless ISP that made promises that they couldn't > keep. No. The key word is PRACTICED. Again, we're not talking about ISP<>direct customer links here. We're talking about, primarily, ISP/NSP relationships. And in that context, you could have a *MAJOR* anti-trust and racketeering problem. > You seem to be implying that the misguided promises of clueless ISPs > should be honored by the Internet community (to the detriment of the > Internet community). Perhaps I've read your statements wrong, so > please clarify if that is not the case. You have. I'm talking about NSP/ISP things here. Organizations which have or can justify /19s or better. Not the end-user attachmnet with a /24. The point is that ANY multi-homed ISP *MUST HAVE* PI space. Period. End of discussion. It *HAS* to be that way to work *AT ALL*. You know this. I know this. The rest of the ISP community that has ANY clue knows this. For this reason pretending that it isn't true is the biggest load of malarky that I've seen here -- by and large the people on this list KNOW that I'm right, posturing aside. Hell, one of them was trying to make the argument posting from a PI /16 in historical Class "B" space! Give me a break. We run default-free. We MUST have PI space. It is not an option, it is not negotiable, and it is not something we can bargain over. If we buy service from someone any space they give us at any rational size (ie: /19 or bigger) is *PRESUMED* to be portable, because *IT HAS TO BE* in order for the space to work for its intended purpose -- that is, non-preferrential routing based only on the "best" path as we can determine. By the way, the whole "flap" about this is relatively recent. Two years ago nobody bitched if you took space with you when you changed ISPs. That's a FACT, which is witnessed by the fact that lots of national ISPs have *ALLOWED CUSTOMERS TO COME TO THEIR NETWORKS WITH HOLE-PUNCHES IN OTHER ISPS BLOCKS!* If you want to raise hell about *historical* practice, start right there. The problem isn't with people allowing others to *leave*, its with ISPs *ACCEPTING* customers with hole-punch space and agreeing to announce it! > >Heh, wait a second. That was twice in three years that everyone went out, > >unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware. > > Replacing Bay with Bay and Cisco with Cisco is not comparable to > replacing with Brand X. I forgot to mention all of the money network > operators have tied up in Bay and/or Cisco training. Aha. So now it comes down to "I like the software interface better", not "does the box work better". I am beginning to understand the dynamic here. Never mind that the replacements that I'm looking at run about half the price of the CISCO hardware with "comparable" capabilities, and blow their doors off both in configuration flexibility AND performance. Oh, you DO need a brain to use them -- big whoopee deal. Of course, at ~2.4M pps I'll demand a brain from my engineers anyway :-) > >> There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN > >> won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. > > > >Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement > >anywhere in this discussion. > > Not directly you haven't, but the general tone of your statements has > led me to believe that you opposed ARIN. Nonsense. -- -- 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 jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us Thu Jan 23 23:54:45 1997 From: jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us (Jeffrey C. Ollie) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:54:45 -0600 Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 CST." <199701240413.WAA10454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199701240454.WAA27925@worf.netins.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes: > >> >This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this >> >way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this >> >fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happe >n >> >by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters >, >> >board constitution, etc. >> >> This is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory. > >Nope. Its a concern that could turn into reality. I don't have a problem >with ARIN as long as it doesn't, and that it is truly a neutral organization >working to keep the 'net running smoothly AND on a reasonably-level playing >field.. The fact that the folks at the InterNIC are running this public mailing list (which they appear to be listening to) ought to allay most concerns. Sure, there are problems with the first draft of the proposal but we've received assurances that they should be corrected in the next draft. I just hope that they get the new proposal out soon so some of the uproar will die down. [ discussion of RFC 2008 deleted ] As I was typing this, I started wondering what past address block allocations really have to do with ARIN. Other than some maintenance activities, ARIN's concern is really future address block allocations. >> Replacing Bay with Bay and Cisco with Cisco is not comparable to >> replacing with Brand X. I forgot to mention all of the money network >> operators have tied up in Bay and/or Cisco training. > >Aha. So now it comes down to "I like the software interface better", not >"does the box work better". I am beginning to understand the dynamic here. > >Never mind that the replacements that I'm looking at run about half the >price of the CISCO hardware with "comparable" capabilities, and blow their >doors off both in configuration flexibility AND performance. Oh, you DO >need a brain to use them -- big whoopee deal. > >Of course, at ~2.4M pps I'll demand a brain from my engineers anyway :-) No, I think that the software interface on BOTH Bay and Cisco routers are poor (and all of the other routers and terminal servers that I've seen). Personally, I would like to get my hands on some of the really cool new stuff out there and give it a whirl. Hell, I wish that some of the companies that are building these new boxes were located closer to me and were hiring when I was looking for a new job a couple of months ago. But I wouldn't bet a business on them yet. >> >Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement >> >anywhere in this discussion. >> >> Not directly you haven't, but the general tone of your statements has >> led me to believe that you opposed ARIN. > >Nonsense. I stand corrected. [A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.] Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:54:45 -0600 From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 CST." <199701240413.WAA10454 at Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Subject: Re: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal To: naipr at internic.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news. iQCVAwUBMuhAmZwkOQz8sbZFAQFC/wP/VT/namYIdDqplCuwRops5m/x9TOYtPqL 6r84L1ijSgPNeDfZZEBvf5JQglLcSVPnS/gIpzjld8+bocbp6qURbX1AGGVAARhf Yts9JG2nv0aETltSc+FSHrVEYzza43VyD+hUg9y2KylYLnEX3rl5kNLyLoL0d+NF qAFdNjQ9n5g= =gbMh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey C. Ollie | Should Work Now (TM) Python Hacker, Mac Lover | From pferguso at cisco.com Thu Jan 23 10:54:13 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:54:13 -0500 Subject: Mike Odell? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970123105411.0072c84c@lint.cisco.com> Mike O'Dell is the Area co-Director of the Operations Area in the IETF. His draft on the 8+8 addressing structure for IPv6 can be found at: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/specs/specifications.html along with the other IPv6 specifications. - paul At 10:14 AM 1/23/97 -0500, Larry Honig wrote: >Mr. Berkowitz just posted a reference to Mike Odell and an "8+8" >proposal. Where can the newbie/lurker crowd find out more about this? >Thanks in advance for tolerating an ongoing education process.(eg of >course I don't know the entire scope of what I don't know. Flaming us >for this is analagous to this entire debate, which, as it seems to me, >turns on the fact that the Internet could have been perfect if only we >knew about - and solved - all of these problems in advance!) Remember - >the best is the enemy of the good. > From karl at MCS.NET Thu Jan 23 23:13:41 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:13:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701240326.VAA06979@worf.netins.net> from "Jeffrey C. Ollie" at Jan 23, 97 09:25:20 pm Message-ID: <199701240413.WAA10454@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > >This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this > >way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this > >fashion. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen > >by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters, > >board constitution, etc. > > This is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory. Nope. Its a concern that could turn into reality. I don't have a problem with ARIN as long as it doesn't, and that it is truly a neutral organization working to keep the 'net running smoothly AND on a reasonably-level playing field.. > >Did you READ all of 2008? Try this portion of RFC2008: > > > > [excerpt clipped for brevity] > The key word there is ASSUMED. The only people that will get are the > customer and the clueless ISP that made promises that they couldn't > keep. No. The key word is PRACTICED. Again, we're not talking about ISP<>direct customer links here. We're talking about, primarily, ISP/NSP relationships. And in that context, you could have a *MAJOR* anti-trust and racketeering problem. > You seem to be implying that the misguided promises of clueless ISPs > should be honored by the Internet community (to the detriment of the > Internet community). Perhaps I've read your statements wrong, so > please clarify if that is not the case. You have. I'm talking about NSP/ISP things here. Organizations which have or can justify /19s or better. Not the end-user attachmnet with a /24. The point is that ANY multi-homed ISP *MUST HAVE* PI space. Period. End of discussion. It *HAS* to be that way to work *AT ALL*. You know this. I know this. The rest of the ISP community that has ANY clue knows this. For this reason pretending that it isn't true is the biggest load of malarky that I've seen here -- by and large the people on this list KNOW that I'm right, posturing aside. Hell, one of them was trying to make the argument posting from a PI /16 in historical Class "B" space! Give me a break. We run default-free. We MUST have PI space. It is not an option, it is not negotiable, and it is not something we can bargain over. If we buy service from someone any space they give us at any rational size (ie: /19 or bigger) is *PRESUMED* to be portable, because *IT HAS TO BE* in order for the space to work for its intended purpose -- that is, non-preferrential routing based only on the "best" path as we can determine. By the way, the whole "flap" about this is relatively recent. Two years ago nobody bitched if you took space with you when you changed ISPs. That's a FACT, which is witnessed by the fact that lots of national ISPs have *ALLOWED CUSTOMERS TO COME TO THEIR NETWORKS WITH HOLE-PUNCHES IN OTHER ISPS BLOCKS!* If you want to raise hell about *historical* practice, start right there. The problem isn't with people allowing others to *leave*, its with ISPs *ACCEPTING* customers with hole-punch space and agreeing to announce it! > >Heh, wait a second. That was twice in three years that everyone went out, > >unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware. > > Replacing Bay with Bay and Cisco with Cisco is not comparable to > replacing with Brand X. I forgot to mention all of the money network > operators have tied up in Bay and/or Cisco training. Aha. So now it comes down to "I like the software interface better", not "does the box work better". I am beginning to understand the dynamic here. Never mind that the replacements that I'm looking at run about half the price of the CISCO hardware with "comparable" capabilities, and blow their doors off both in configuration flexibility AND performance. Oh, you DO need a brain to use them -- big whoopee deal. Of course, at ~2.4M pps I'll demand a brain from my engineers anyway :-) > >> There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN > >> won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc. > > > >Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN? I've not made that statement > >anywhere in this discussion. > > Not directly you haven't, but the general tone of your statements has > led me to believe that you opposed ARIN. Nonsense. -- -- 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 Fri Jan 24 01:40:35 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:40:35 -0500 Subject: NUMBERING REALLY BIG NETW Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970124014033.006b0670@lint.cisco.com> One thing that I've been wanting to mention, but haven't done so til this point, is that the comparisons of the data networks to the phone networks are, I believe, inappropriate. No comparison here. In fact, the primary reason I left Sprint was that there were too many people that believed otherwise. - paul At 01:16 PM 1/23/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >On conclusion I am not sure the idea of a pay-for-admission body such as >ARIN will solve the engineering issues that route consolidation >apparently needs. I am more concerned that certain groups may decide to >join ARIN so they can leverage their business agendas. Of course because >we don't have and probably don't want something akin to the FCC, there >does need to be some paletable solution. > From pferguso at cisco.com Fri Jan 24 02:02:02 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:02:02 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970124020159.006c1b84@lint.cisco.com> At 11:11 AM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > >HOWEVER, CISCO currently wastes about 50% of that RAM allocation. This I >have *proven* by looking at other implementations and their RAM requirements. >Assuming that CISCO tightens up their code (not unreasonable) I would expect >to see that usage drop by perhaps 30% during that same time. > Karl, Can we please dispense with the "cisco is evil, never trust them, they can't build boxes worth squat" bashing? The last thing I had heard, this list was established to discuss IP address allocation strategies with regard to ARIN; if you continue to derail the discussion here, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see decisions being made with complete disregard to what Karl Denniger thinks is important. I don't think you want that, and I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to work with you, as opposed to working against you. But what the hell. - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Fri Jan 24 02:03:33 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:03:33 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970124020329.006b9914@lint.cisco.com> At 12:41 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > >I'm talking about *ISPs*, not end customer attachments. > ISP's *are* end-customers, Karl. Please wake up. - paul -- Paul Ferguson || || Consulting Engineering || || Herndon, Virginia USA |||| |||| tel: +1.703.397.5938 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. e-mail: pferguso at cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s From karl at MCS.NET Fri Jan 24 09:34:29 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:34:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970124020159.006c1b84@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jan 24, 97 02:02:02 am Message-ID: <199701241434.IAA29205@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > At 11:11 AM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > > >HOWEVER, CISCO currently wastes about 50% of that RAM allocation. This I > >have *proven* by looking at other implementations and their RAM requirements. > >Assuming that CISCO tightens up their code (not unreasonable) I would expect > >to see that usage drop by perhaps 30% during that same time. > > Karl, > > Can we please dispense with the "cisco is evil, never trust them, > they can't build boxes worth squat" bashing? > > The last thing I had heard, this list was established to discuss > IP address allocation strategies with regard to ARIN; if you continue > to derail the discussion here, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to > see decisions being made with complete disregard to what Karl Denniger > thinks is important. I don't think you want that, and I would certainly > appreciate the opportunity to work with you, as opposed to working > against you. > > But what the hell. > > - paul You can be pissed off all you'd like. The FACT is, when deficient engineering ends up driving public policy it makes for poor policy. The FACT is, if this had been addressed back in 1993 we wouldn't have the wars now that are raging over CIDR blocks and providers being screwed (funny how it only happens to the smaller companies) on almost a daily basis -- injuring their businesses -- at the sufferance and whim of national firms. The FACT is, that its not even all CISCO's fault! Lots of it comes down to a simple "I don't want to pay what it costs" argument. Look. I've been at this for a LONG time Paul. I know how to engineer networks so they don't fall apart and croak when they have a bad hair day. I also know that doing so costs real money. And finally, I know that published claims, and the number of slots in a box, has NOTHING to do with its real capacity in the real world. When I have an "event" with a BGP peer and see my forwarding performance go in the toilet for 2-3 minutes, I call it unacceptable. Period. The fact is that we're not REALLY in route-table-space trouble right now, and if we're SENSIBLE about how we allocate space to ISPs we NEVER WILL BE. We're in flap-rate trouble right now, but that's because someone didn't properly separate functions within their hardware, and allows one to interfere with the other. CISCO will either get with the program (and with three years of lead time, you have no excuse for failing to do so) or you die. This is how it should be. You've got fair warning, an allocation policy that says that ISPs get /19s won't break the route table bank for several (ie: 3 or more) years, and that's PLENTY of time to both (1) get hardware which can handle this out there, and (2) amortize the EXISTING installed equipment to the point that nobody will go bankrupt buying the new stuff. My point is that CISCO has ALREADY had three years of time to do this, and fair notice that it was a problem (in 1993), and has utterly failed to address the REAL issue in a fashion which is ACTUALLY a fix. Since that's the case, I now discount any opinion of "doom and gloom" from anyone who works for your company -- since your firm has proven it can't deliver, and you've had two engineering cycles to do so. And by the way, I buy a LOT of your hardware. For now. -- -- 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 Fri Jan 24 09:25:28 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:25:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970124020329.006b9914@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jan 24, 97 02:03:33 am Message-ID: <199701241425.IAA28934@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > At 12:41 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > >I'm talking about *ISPs*, not end customer attachments. > > > > ISP's *are* end-customers, Karl. Please wake up. > > - paul > > -- > Paul Ferguson || || > Consulting Engineering || || > Herndon, Virginia USA |||| |||| > tel: +1.703.397.5938 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. > e-mail: pferguso at cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s Not in this context. -- -- 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 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jan 24 12:17:01 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:17:01 -0500 Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:54:45 CST." <199701240454.WAA27925@worf.netins.net> References: <199701240454.WAA27925@worf.netins.net> Message-ID: <199701241717.MAA23330@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:54:45 CST, you said: > As I was typing this, I started wondering what past address block > allocations really have to do with ARIN. Other than some maintenance > activities, ARIN's concern is really future address block allocations. Well, based on other postings made today, there seems to be a large (or at least vocal) contingent that feel that the past allocation policy was at least slightly flawed, at least in practice (see the postings regarding providers who announce hole-punched routes from a customer who used to be connected to a competitor). We've also seen discussion of different ways the *new* policy should work. Therefor, it may be a good idea to review the historic record and see what worked and what didn't in the old scheme before we start creating a new one.... Remember that unless we decide otherwise, ARIN will probably use the same allocation policies that are used now - so if the current ones are flawed (competitive bias, or CIDR-unfriendly, or inspired by black helicopters, or whatever your favorite bugaboo is), we should speak up now, while we can.... The biggest problem with creating an organization to handle the deceptively simple-looking task of handing out blocks of "" is that we don't have a consensus on how to handle "". For this paragraph "" refers to any allocation of electron-movement related resources (see the FCC botch of the initial cellular phone space auction, or the NSI hassles with trademarks versus domain names, or the recent flaps re: the copyright treaties and whether viewing a work with a Web browser is "copying" or not....) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at cisco.com Fri Jan 24 15:04:22 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:04:22 -0500 Subject: ARIN proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970124150418.006a3154@lint.cisco.com> Steve, As has been indicated on more than one occasion, an updated proposal will appear on the http://www.arin.net web page within the next few day, which should address your concerns and correct most of the ambiguity in the current proposal. - paul At 03:24 PM 1/22/97 PST, Steve Putz wrote: >I have read the information on http://www.arin.net/, and would like to submit >my request that the proposal *not* be implemented. > >In particular, the proposal does not explain why the proposed high fees are >needed or how the money will be spent. Also the proposed non-profit >organization does not have a published charter, goals or mission. > >Steve Putz >Member of Research Staff >Xerox Corporation >Palo Alto Research Center >3333 Coyote Hill Rd >Palo Alto, CA 94304 > -- Paul Ferguson || || Consulting Engineering || || Herndon, Virginia USA |||| |||| tel: +1.703.397.5938 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. e-mail: pferguso at cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s From kimh at internic.net Fri Jan 24 15:18:37 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:18:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199701242018.PAA08484@jazz.internic.net> The revised ARIN proposal has been posted. You can find it at www.arin.net. We have moved the naipr mailing list to arin.net also. The next step will be to post ARIN's proposed budget. I'm not exactly sure when this will be - hopefully within a couple of weeks. The ARIN website also contains a faq and a list of the proposed Board of Trustees along with a recommended reading list. If you would like to see other information posted or other questions added to the faq, please let me know. Thanks, Kim Hubbard From pferguso at cisco.com Fri Jan 24 15:06:55 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:06:55 -0500 Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970124150646.006b30fc@lint.cisco.com> At 08:23 AM 1/22/97 -0500, Michael D. Bathrick wrote: >On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > >> In spite of the awkward name, ARIN >> operates in an international venue and if necessary, can be incorporated >> outside the USA. > >I have yet to see participation of folks in this from outside US domains. > I haven't seen any responses to this one, so I'll point out that ARIN is an acronym for American (Americas?) Registry for Internet Numbers. RIP-NCC and the APNIC (Europe and Asia, respectively) have had a fee-based system in place for quite some time. - paul From randy at psg.com Fri Jan 24 23:43:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 20:43 PST Subject: Scaling ARIN proposal for small ISPs - and economic reality References: <3.0.32.19970124150646.006b30fc@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > I have yet to see participation of folks in this from outside US domains. Maybe they do not feel up to our level of good manners, consideration for the ideas of others, and positive outlook on works for the general good. While I do not question your assertion of what you have seen, others of us have recognized overseas participants. randy From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jan 24 16:43:59 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:43:59 -0500 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <199701242144.QAA26170@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> And a number of things have been changed. First things that I noticed were as follows: 1) The fee table for non-ISP's is now just for /19 through /16. The clause that says '16+ is $10K per /16' is replaced by a simple $10K. I am unclear on whether this is an upper cap (does a /14 cost $40K or $10K)? 2) The 'self perpetuating board' problem has in fact been (essentially) fixed. The only "gotcha" is that there are still a few "proposed" and "suggested" in there. I expect that they will of course be removed as the full proposal shapes up, so I don't see any gotcha here. 3) In the 'Frequently Asked Questions', the following appears: --- begin quote 10. How will the money be spent? This organization would be collecting many millions of dollars. The registration fees are strictly for the operational costs of ARIN. Among ARIN's responsibilities will be the management of IP numbers, autonomous system numbers, IN-ADDR.ARPA inverse mapping, database maintenance and verification of reassignment information. Operational costs to support these services will include equipment, connectivity, facilities and personnel. The membership fees will pay for facilities for the bi-annual membership meetings, expenses related to Board of Trustee meetings and other membership services as suggested by the membership. The Board of Trustees and Advisory Council are voluntary positions and involve renumerations. The initial estimates show that the cost of all these activities will be less than 3 million dollars per year. Over the last year, the InterNIC allocated IP 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 80% of all ARIN revenue. If every one of those ISPs sign up for membership that would be an additional $300K and another $200K per year for ASNs. Total revenue for ARIN per year is expected to be less than $3M per year. ---- end quote All in all, a vast improvement. The people at ARIN *are* listening ;) /Valdis (who doesn't see black helicopters, but likes it all to be spelled out anyhow ;) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From justin at EROLS.COM Fri Jan 24 17:13:38 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:13:38 -0500 Subject: ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970124171334.00b622d4@justin.erols.com> At 12:41 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: >Again, I'm not arguing that END CUSTOMERS should be able to take /24s with >them! > >Please, folks, read what I'm writing here, not what you're assuming. > >I'm talking about *ISPs*, not end customer attachments. So you are in effect arguing that /you/ shouldn't have to renumber if you change a vendor relationship, but your customers should. (Hey, don't let them lock me into a contract with my vendor but lets make sure it sucks for my customers if they try and leave me.) Makes sense. Can we move this to PAGAN or PIARA or somewhere where it is more appropriate? Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Jan 25 01:46:55 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:46:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701242018.PAA08484@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > The ARIN website also contains a faq and a list of the proposed Board > of Trustees Hmmm... You might want to flesh out the info about Raymundo Vega a bit more... Raymundo Vega, director of the Computing and Networking Division of the CICESE in Ensenada, Mexico since 1992. CICESE is a research and postgraduate studies facility that was influential in introducing computer technology in Latin America and in 1989 was the second site in Mexico to connect to the Internet. Mr. Vega has a Masters degree in Geophysics and began his career in 1980 as a researcher in the applied geophysics department of CICESE. He does research in processing and modelling geophysical data and participates in annual symposiums dedicated to developing networks in Latin America. He also belongs to the technical committee of Mexico's National Technology Network (RTN) and was a founding member of the Internet Society of Mexico, a chapter of ISOC. Since Raymundo's name will not be familiar to most people who check the website, I think it is necessary to explain his credentials in at least as much detail as some of the other proposed board members. Any errors in the above are likely due to my misinterpretation of the Spanish language original documents I used as my information sources. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU Sat Jan 25 01:57:54 1997 From: MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU (Aveek Datta) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 01:57:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Perpetuating IPv4? Message-ID: I've looked over the new proposal and website, and overall I also feel that its definitely a great improvment over the original one. However one question still remains. Isn't ARIN's plan perpetuating IPv4 and the starvation of IPs that will result? While I do not personally know much about IPv6 or IPv8, it does seem that at least the former is coming of age and might be useable in the not so far future. Is ARIN's plan to continue to 'stick' with IPv4 as long as possible, basically "rationing" out IP addresses? Or is there any plans to switch to systems with less starvation problems? I apologize if I'm missing a crucial step here; my knowledge of IP comes from discussions on domain names that go off-topic. :) Aveek Datta, Net.Admin ML.ORG Free Domain Services === READ THIS: Do not CC: mailing list messages/responses to me through email Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu From karl at MCS.NET Fri Jan 24 17:39:17 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:39:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970124171334.00b622d4@justin.erols.com> from "Justin W. Newton" at Jan 24, 97 05:13:38 pm Message-ID: <199701242239.QAA15759@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > At 12:41 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > >Again, I'm not arguing that END CUSTOMERS should be able to take /24s with > >them! > > > >Please, folks, read what I'm writing here, not what you're assuming. > > > >I'm talking about *ISPs*, not end customer attachments. > > So you are in effect arguing that /you/ shouldn't have to renumber if you > change a vendor relationship, but your customers should. (Hey, don't let > them lock me into a contract with my vendor but lets make sure it sucks for > my customers if they try and leave me.) Makes sense. Can we move this to > PAGAN or PIARA or somewhere where it is more appropriate? > > Justin Newton > Network Architect > Erol's Internet Services No, I'm arguing that if you change a vendor relationship of your own free will, you should have to abide the agreement(s) you entered into there. But the people *downstream* from you shouldn't be affected by it. If they are, then you are per-se making it nearly impossible in many cases to make that change! -- -- 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 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jan 24 17:51:53 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:51:53 -0500 Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:36:53 PST." <199701241936.LAA29691@bb.home.vix.com> References: <199701241936.LAA29691@bb.home.vix.com> Message-ID: <199701242251.RAA15700@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> (Note: I do *NOT* make it a practice of replying to private mail back to a mailing list. However, I feel the point is sufficiently important that we may wish to explicitly re-address it). I also probably botched my commentary, which *should* have left the impression that "the historic context is important because it mostly works, and you need to at least understand it to intelligently discuss what its shortcomings are.... On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:36:53 PST, Jerry Scharf said: > How many times do we have to say that the allocation policy is controlled by > the IANA (well kindof mostly...) and documented RFC2050. That is not open for > debate; what is used in the Internic, RIPE and APNIC now will be used by ARIN. > What is open for debate is how ARIN is organized and how costs are recovered > for doing this work. Well, the only problem with RFC2050 is that saying "We comply with RFC2050" leaves a few policy issues open. The basic problem is that 2050 is only a BCP document, and not a full set of guidelines. As you read the following, remember that the registry has to make judgement calls on some things, and the registry is free within the context of RFC2050 to say "yes" or "no" to some things. Much of the recent discussion has in fact pivoted around the fact that some things within RFC2050 are either not fully discussed, or arguably less than perfect. Also, remember that RFC2050 is a "Best Current Practice", and *not* a Standard - as such, it *is* subject to being modified if somebody suggests a Better Way. For instance, in section 2.1 (point 4), it talks about "slow-start" allocation for ISP's. As has been pointed out, this may *NOT* be a "best practice" given the growth of multihomed small-medium sized ISPs. Feel free to please flame *EVERYBODY* who participated in that discussion (if you already have, apologies for suggesting it ;) In particular, point 4 says: ..... registry. Please note that projected customer base has little impact on the address allocations made by the parent registries. Initial allocation will not be based on any current or future routing restrictions but on demonstrated requirements. This may need to be relaxed a bit - unless you are going to *ENFORCE* a requirement that *EVERY* start-up ISP *WILL* go through a renumbering phase (as when they start up, they will only qualify for a /24 - when they get big enough for a /19, they *will* get hit). Remember - they can't get a *routable* /19 until they can qualify. Should make trying to get multihomed quite challenging. A "Denninger Commando" could probably make a strong case that in a geographic locality where there exist a number of ISP's who are *already* (a) multihomed and (b) grandfathered, a requirement that prohibits a startup ISP from multihoming until they grow (when not multihoming is a competitive weakness), is an unfair restraint of free trade. Is that to be an explicit intention? And yes, I see part (b) in section 3, discussing if "the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection". This only says that you can't even *talk* to the regional registry unless you qualify under the rules. It doesn't say anything about the registry rejecting your request because you're not big enough, multihomed or not. Section 3.1 talks about "25% immediate utilization rate". This means that to get that magic /19, you need 2,000 addresses *in use*. And Section 2.1, point 7, says you should use DHCP or similar when at all possible, which means that (for instance, making up numbers) if 90% of your users use DHCP and dynamic SLIP/PPP, and only 10% are active at a given time, you'll need 20K customers or so before you get big enough for that /19 so you can multihome effectively. Especially in smaller, rural areas, it may be *quite* difficult to get to 20K customers if you drop everybody's access when your ONE upstream provider loses their connectivity, if your 3 local competitors who got grandfathered in are multihomed and don't lose until 2 or 3 upstream providers simultaneously Lose Big. I think we need some verbiage someplace regarding multi-homing and its requirements. Note that said verbiage can easily be written without violating anything in RFC2050. As a straw-man proposal, just saying the following as policy would probably suffice to cover most of these points: "ARIN will allocate a /19 to an ISP, even if their current requirements only warrant a /22, if the ISP submits a business plan indicating a move to multihoming within the next ?? months". Would this address most of the issues re: multihoming? Also, RFC2050 et al never really *do* address the issue of recovery of CIDR space - as has been noted, "current practice" is that some large ISP's will cheerfully announce blocks that came along with a customer who got them from a competitor. This can be Particularly Bad if for instance, ISP1 gets a CIDR block, splits it 4 ways, gives it to 4 customers. 2 customers leave for ISP2, who starts announcing their part of the original CIDR block. ISP1 reports the half block as "freed". What does ARIN do in this situation? Do they register the block on behalf of ISP2 when they see an announcement for it? Do they blindly re-assign the block? Do they wait for ISP2 to *tell* them? Is there a procedure planned for dealing with this? -- 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 icarvs at prtc.net Fri Jan 24 00:09:15 1997 From: icarvs at prtc.net (icarvs) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 21:09:15 PST Subject: Basic Techical Background and Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Conversation with last message Message-ID: Thank you. Leonardo Ramos Planning Director Sociedad de Desarrollo ---------- > 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 michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Jan 25 04:09:13 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 01:09:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701242251.RAA15700@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > a requirement that prohibits a startup ISP from multihoming until > they grow (when not multihoming is a competitive weakness), is > an unfair restraint of free trade. This may well be an issue in the USA now that the IP allocation function is no longer perceived as a government function funded by the NSF but is perceived as a private consortium function. > "ARIN will allocate a /19 to an ISP, even if their current requirements > only warrant a /22, if the ISP submits a business plan indicating > a move to multihoming within the next ?? months". That should be "reserve" not allocate. And the reservation would need a time limit on it after which the reserved space could be allocated to someone else. There would need to be more than just a business plan but also some solid basis in fact such as bank loan documents, signed P.O.'s for routers and other equipment, signed customer contracts, etc. You can't just do this based on somebody's nice looking document. This is not an easy problem to solve because as you may know, the vast majority of new business startups fail within the first year. ISP's have not been following that rule of thumb for a while now because of some very unique circumstances. But the times they are a-changing and we are getting into a more normal situation where people with big plans run around trying to get a business to fly and end up flopping. The rules can't be based on the aberrations of the past 3 years. However, Jerry does have a point about separating the issues of forming ARIN and tweaking the rules for IP allocation. The rules can be tweaked at any time after ARIN is formed and it is likely that the participation of a larger number of North American ISP's will cause some changes. I think Jerry is trying to point out that tweaking the rules isn't on the critical path to privatizing ARIN, but working out the control structure and the fee structure is on the critical path so it is best to do that first. In addition, some of the issues that you raised might be better discussed on the NANOG mailing list (or at a NANOG meeting). http://www.nanog.org for more info on both. And for those ISP's who have plans to become multihomed but are not yet familiar with defaultless routing, BGP, etc. it might be a good idea to take in the BGP tutorial the day before the Feb 10-11 NANOG meeting in San Francisco. Also, review the mailing list archives and NANOG meeting minutes at the website. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sat Jan 25 05:50:13 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 05:50:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. In-Reply-To: <199701242144.QAA26170@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> from "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" at Jan 24, 97 04:43:59 pm Message-ID: <199701251050.FAA10512@moses.internic.net> > > --==_Exmh_-1214289140P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > And a number of things have been changed. First things > that I noticed were as follows: > > 1) The fee table for non-ISP's is now just for /19 through /16. > The clause that says '16+ is $10K per /16' is replaced by a simple $10K. > I am unclear on whether this is an upper cap (does a /14 cost $40K or $10K)? Sorry, I left the per /16 off in error. I'll fix it - although this is an issue the BoT is still reviewing. > > 2) The 'self perpetuating board' problem has in fact been (essentially) fixed. > The only "gotcha" is that there are still a few "proposed" and "suggested" > in there. I expect that they will of course be removed as the full proposal > shapes up, so I don't see any gotcha here. > Yes, this is still a proposal. Once accepted, the "proposed and suggesteds" will be removed. > 3) In the 'Frequently Asked Questions', the following appears: > > --- begin quote > 10. How will the money be spent? This organization would be collecting > many millions of dollars. > > The registration fees are strictly for the operational costs of > ARIN. Among ARIN's responsibilities will be the management of IP > numbers, autonomous system numbers, IN-ADDR.ARPA inverse mapping, > database maintenance and verification of reassignment > information. Operational costs to support these services will include > equipment, connectivity, facilities and personnel. > > The membership fees will pay for facilities for the bi-annual > membership meetings, expenses related to Board of Trustee meetings and > other membership services as suggested by the membership. The Board of > Trustees and Advisory Council are voluntary positions and involve > renumerations. > > The initial estimates show that the cost of all these activities > will be less than 3 million dollars per year. > > Over the last year, the InterNIC allocated IP 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 80% of all ARIN revenue. If every one of those > ISPs sign up for membership that would be an additional $300K and > another $200K per year for ASNs. Total revenue for ARIN per year is > expected to be less than $3M per year. > ---- end quote > > All in all, a vast improvement. The people at ARIN *are* listening ;) And listening, and listening, and listening :-) Kim > > /Valdis (who doesn't see black helicopters, but likes it all to be > spelled out anyhow ;) > > > > --==_Exmh_-1214289140P > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > > -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBMuktHdQBOOoptg9JAQEqWgQAnPH748ylc6VBaprcV7lJiEgJjQF4s1M4 > l+mJC4yxijwpySzXxVUzULAZ015JLTVZyrwhWj3t5ERXNomNk4EKPq5kMdwSqj8e > ustPer4hqDJbe8E5fl5/EwyblBaEkhO8nuAauwS2viB2N9zgpEPkgLJq8UVWvJYN > 4uH0hZpLnds= > =Es6S > -----END PGP MESSAGE----- > > --==_Exmh_-1214289140P-- > From blh at NOL.NET Sat Jan 25 09:21:20 1997 From: blh at NOL.NET (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:21:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: hrmm Message-ID: So I'm sitting here reading where Gabriel Battista clains that NSI has lost money with Internic the past 2 years in a row and I'm wondering to myself about several things: 1: If they're _losing_ money, just how is it that they can afford to throw 9 million dollars into the pot to start ARIN? 2: How incompetent do you have to be to lose money on a virtual monoply that everyone in the northern hemisphere has to go to? (exluding the obvious .us TLDs and the every so laughable alternic) 3: Should we allow someone this incompetent to have _any_ say so in something as crucial as ARIN? [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From tomn at internic.net Sat Jan 25 07:59:49 1997 From: tomn at internic.net (Tom Newell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 07:59:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: NAIPR list move Message-ID: <199701251259.HAA05188@dylan.internic.net> You may have noticed that we moved the NAIPR list from an InterNIC mailing list host (lists.internic.net) running Listserv to an ARIN host (arin.net) running majordomo. Due to sendmail queueing on the lists.internic.net host, you may continue to receive posts from that address for up to 3 days. Mail sent to the old list address will be redirected to the arin.net site. The archives for the list remain available at: ftp://rs.internic.net/archives/naipr but will be hosted at the arin.net site shortly (probably after the APRICOT meeting). If due to the transition you experience any problems, please drop me a note and I'll look into it. regards, Tom -- Tom Newell tomn at internic.net +1 703 742 4796 Mngr, Info & Educ Svcs InterNIC Registration Services PGP Key fingerprint = 5E 86 3D 13 73 19 69 08 6B 54 6A 7D AD A2 37 6D From tomn at internic.net Sat Jan 25 09:37:46 1997 From: tomn at internic.net (Tom Newell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:37:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: NAIPR List Moves Message-ID: <199701251437.JAA05637@dylan.internic.net> You may have noticed that we moved the NAIPR list from an InterNIC mailing list host (lists.internic.net) running Listserv to an ARIN host (arin.net) running majordomo. Due to sendmail queueing on the lists.internic.net host, you may continue to receive posts from that address for up to 3 days. Mail sent to the old list address will be redirected to the arin.net site. The archives for the list remain available at: ftp://rs.internic.net/archives/naipr but will be hosted at the arin.net site shortly (probably after the APRICOT meeting). If due to the transition you experience any problems, please drop me a note and I'll look into it. regards, Tom -- Tom Newell tomn at internic.net +1 703 742 4796 Mngr, Info & Educ Svcs InterNIC Registration Services PGP Key fingerprint = 5E 86 3D 13 73 19 69 08 6B 54 6A 7D AD A2 37 6D From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Sat Jan 25 11:55:24 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 11:55:24 -0500 Subject: hrmm Message-ID: At 9:21 1/25/97, Brett L. Hawn wrote: >So I'm sitting here reading where Gabriel Battista clains that NSI has lost >money with Internic the past 2 years in a row and I'm wondering to myself >about several things: >... >3: Should we allow someone this incompetent to have _any_ > say so in something as crucial as ARIN? I'd like to point out that the "default game plan" with respect to address assignment is that NSI will continue to perform this function unless consensus (and funding :-) is reached very shortly on an alternative like ARIN. If you have a desire to see less NSI involvement, then one good start would be to come to closure on a proposal which (while not perfect) can at least enjoy a wide base of support. This base needs to include ISP's (large and small), end-users, IANA, I***, _and_ NSI (since they have a legitimate interest in this matter due to existing agreements). /John From ahp at HILANDER.COM Sat Jan 25 13:58:49 1997 From: ahp at HILANDER.COM (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:58:49 -0500 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. In-Reply-To: <199701242144.QAA26170@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>; from "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" on Jan 24, 1997 16:43:59 -0500 References: <199701242144.QAA26170@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 1997, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > 2) The 'self perpetuating board' problem has in fact been > (essentially) fixed. The only "gotcha" is that there are still a > few "proposed" and "suggested" in there. I expect that they will of > course be removed as the full proposal shapes up, so I don't see any > gotcha here. I disagree about the problem with the board selection being fixed. The candidates are selected by the Advisory board. This would be fine, except for the fact that the advisory board itself is still selected by the board of trustees. Still, the membership has no direct say in the election of any of the board members (trustees or advisory). This is hardly fixed. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Sat Jan 25 15:54:56 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:54:56 -0800 Subject: New ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <01BC0ABE.F7A6D0A0@jfbb.atmnet.net> Kim, The new proposal is much improved with respect to increased membership influence. Recognizing that there is a delicate balance between membership authority and the ability to run an effective organization, how these issues are handled in the articles and bylaws becomes a critical factor, and it important that input is solicited in how these documents are structured. As an example, the ISOC bylaws do not require the process that is currently being used to elect its Trustees, and are thus (IMHO) out of synch with how ISOC operates. It would be great if ARIN started with a world class set of bylaws and kept them in synch with the evolution of the organization. Is there a schedule for: A. Incorporation of the entity? B. Development of the bylaws? C. Accepting Members? D. Electing the Advisory Council? -- Jim Browning From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Sat Jan 25 16:01:31 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:01:31 -0800 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <01BC0ABF.E33BA720@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Alec H. Peterson[SMTP:ahp at HILANDER.COM] >Sent: Saturday, January 25, 1997 10:59 AM > >On Jan 24, 1997, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> >> 2) The 'self perpetuating board' problem has in fact been >> (essentially) fixed. The only "gotcha" is that there are still a >> few "proposed" and "suggested" in there. I expect that they will of >> course be removed as the full proposal shapes up, so I don't see any >> gotcha here. > >I disagree about the problem with the board selection being fixed. >The candidates are selected by the Advisory board. This would be >fine, except for the fact that the advisory board itself is still >selected by the board of trustees. Still, the membership has no >direct say in the election of any of the board members (trustees or >advisory). This is hardly fixed. Only the initial Advisory Council, after that it is elected by the membership. Perhaps this is to allow the membership to grow to critical mass (representing a broad spectrum) before it begins to wield its influence. Kim? -- Jim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Jan 25 16:06:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:06:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > I disagree about the problem with the board selection being fixed. > The candidates are selected by the Advisory board. This would be > fine, except for the fact that the advisory board itself is still > selected by the board of trustees. It is expected that the initial Advisory Council will develop procedures to fill vacancies on the Council. These procedures, as envisioned, would allow ARIN's membership to elect future Advisory Council members. Sounds to me like this is the sequence: 1. Internic names a Board of Trustees 2. BoT creates the non-profit organization according to the results of the discussions on this list and elsewhere. 3. Members join ARIN. 4. BoT picks Advisory Council from among the members. 5. AC meets and sets procedures for electing their replacements. One thing that may be a problem here is getting the AC election procedures into the by-laws of the organization which may require a general meeting of the members to accomplish. I'm not familiar with the specifics of US law regarding non-profits so I may be wrong about this. I also think that people would be more comfortable if an election procedure existed from day one. This would remove step 5 and make step 4 become: ARIN members elect the first Advisory Council members Another legal problem that might be questioned is Kim Hubbard's position on the Board of Trustees. Since she is currently an employee of the Internic IP allocation function, I think most people have assumed she would also be an employee of ARIN. And in a non-profit organization there is often a restriction against employees being Board members. Does Kim intend to be an employee of ARIN? If so, has the conflict of interest issue with regard to non-profits been examined by a lawyer? In general, it appears that the whole question of who sits on the BoT and the AC, and how they are chosen, is being left totally open to the members of ARIN to change at any time. In that case, it may be wise to name the initial BoT with a fixed term of office at which point they all resign and the new procedures create a new board. While some people may feel this could be disruptive, I don't think so because at that point in time ARIN will be operational and will have employees and members to provide stability. Perhaps the real question is: do the potential members of ARIN want to see all these procedural and structural things decided up front, or do they prefer to do this after ARIN gets operational which is presumably some time in April? 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 Sat Jan 25 16:11:01 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:11:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970124171334.00b622d4@justin.erols.com> from "Justin W. Newton" at Jan 24, 97 05:13:38 pm Message-ID: <199701252111.PAA21319@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > At 12:41 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > >Again, I'm not arguing that END CUSTOMERS should be able to take /24s with > >them! > > > >Please, folks, read what I'm writing here, not what you're assuming. > > > >I'm talking about *ISPs*, not end customer attachments. > > So you are in effect arguing that /you/ shouldn't have to renumber if you > change a vendor relationship, but your customers should. (Hey, don't let > them lock me into a contract with my vendor but lets make sure it sucks for > my customers if they try and leave me.) Makes sense. Can we move this to > PAGAN or PIARA or somewhere where it is more appropriate? > > Justin Newton > Network Architect > Erol's Internet Services No, that's not what I'm arguing. READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. If *I* change a vendor relationship, whether or not *I* have to renumber should depend on what I negotiated in the FIRST PLACE. However, if *I* change a vendor relationship, the people downstream from *ME* should not have to renumber. If they do, then that operates to restrain trade by forcing me NOT TO change that vendor relationship. -- -- 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 perry at PIERMONT.COM Sat Jan 25 17:23:33 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 17:23:33 -0500 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:06:48 PST." Message-ID: <199701252223.RAA14218@jekyll.piermont.com> Michael Dillon writes: > Another legal problem that might be questioned is Kim Hubbard's position > on the Board of Trustees. Since she is currently an employee of the > Internic IP allocation function, I think most people have assumed she > would also be an employee of ARIN. And in a non-profit organization there > is often a restriction against employees being Board members. Does > Kim intend to be an employee of ARIN? If so, has the conflict of interest > issue with regard to non-profits been examined by a lawyer? Even if there is no legal problem, it isn't necessarily the best idea. I also noted that the ARIN board has an even number of slots. This isn't a good idea. Boards should always be odd. Perry From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Sat Jan 25 19:08:48 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:08:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <199701260008.TAA09326@newdev.harvard.edu> Michael, The initial board will have fixed terms of 1,2 & 3 years in order to ensure stability in the organization the reason that we did not establish the AC election process is because we think that the initial AC should do that - voice of the members and all that. Scott From cts at VEC.NET Sat Jan 25 19:17:56 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:17:56 EST Subject: Revised Proposal & BoT Message-ID: <009AEE7C.EF32E4C5.68@vec.net> Overall, a good step in the right direction; there are several things I'd like to see solidified in the next version. I'm slightly uncomfortable with two aspects of the Board of Trustees. Given that the intent is to split the name and address registrations, having the COO of NSI as a member of the board of trustees may pose at least the appearance of a conflict of interest; yet I also see the value of having Dr. Telage's input readily available; as a compromise, I'd suggest making this slot one of those to expire after one year. As others have noted, an even number of Trustees is not a good thing; I suggest this be raised to 7. Likewise, the Advisory Council should contain an odd number of members. I would also like to see the methods of filling vacant seats on both the BoT and the Advisory Council developed in detail and incorporated in a set of bylaws rather than after the organization is formed. To this end, as much of the proposal suggests that the advisory council and BoT work together to resolve these issues, that it would not be out of place for the BoT to name an interim council prior to writing by-laws and articles of incorporation. Michael Dillon wrote: > Perhaps the real question is: do the potential members of ARIN want to > see all these procedural and structural things decided up front, or do > they prefer to do this after ARIN gets operational which is presumably > some time in April? I'd rather see them decided up front; it's much easier to get things right the first time than to try and back patch them later, and it's never been my first choice to buy a pig-in-a-poke. -- Charles T. Smith, Jr. VecNet, Inc. From rvega at cicese.mx Sat Jan 25 19:44:41 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 16:44:41 -0800 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <199701260044.QAA00435@knuth.cicese.mx> > I also noted that the ARIN board has an even number of slots. This > isn't a good idea. Boards should always be odd. > > Perry > you are right if you expect to vote, what about deciding by consensus?? is it enough to make it explicit from the begining?? Raymundo From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Sat Jan 25 21:01:11 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:01:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <199701260201.VAA09433@newdev.harvard.edu> > what about deciding by consensus?? I agree here, I think in general it would not be a good thing if a organization of this type could not generate enough support for a proposal to develop consensus yet passed it anyway. Scott From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Jan 25 22:08:44 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:08:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701252111.PAA21319@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> from "Karl Denninger" at Jan 25, 97 03:11:01 pm Message-ID: <199701260308.WAA26366@linux.silkroad.com> Hi Karl, FYI: I've submitted a paper to IEEE which discusses, factually, the problems with provider based addressing based on CIDR. The paper is full on fact with minimal opinions (contrast this discussion list :) based directly from RFC quotations, plus a discussion of the 'anti-competitive' nature of provider based addressing as *currently* implemented. Also, are references from Stevens, Comer, and most the other 'goodmen authors of IP books': ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.silkroad.com/papers/ \title{ Internet Exterior Routing Protocol Development: Problems, Issues, and Misconceptions } ------------------------------------------------------ The paper has over 40 references, in fact, it has just about all relevent IEEE references on the subject, I could find. In addition, there is an appendix on the Telephone Call Routing Model and one on Anti-Competiveness in Telecom (based on Frieden's Artech House book). Unfortunately, the file is only available to researchers, hence, the format is postscript, gzipped. Best Regards, Tim ------------------- As a side note, while I'm in town and answering mail .... After working of these issues for years, I also have a very concrete technical solution (very simple and came to me in a dream, during REM sleep, a few weeks ago) for a scalable global routing paradigm (which works for both IPv4 and IPv6). However, I'm so disenchanted with the way the IETF has handled ERP development, I'm planning to publish it only *after* applying for patent! Sorry, but I'm not giving this away to our favorite router vendors for free (because they have argued vituperously to keep what they have, so let them keep it :) However, there is really no need to charge for address space; well no technical reason.... From 72450.3066 at COMPUSERVE.COM Sun Jan 26 00:35:02 1997 From: 72450.3066 at COMPUSERVE.COM (Rol Murrow [ IJD in CT ]) Date: 26 Jan 97 00:35:02 EST Subject: Oppose more ISP fees Message-ID: <970126053502_72450.3066_EHB49-2@CompuServe.COM> To INTERNIC representatives: Regarding - proposed additional fees for registration of ISP's >From Rol Murrow Chairman, Air Care Alliance President, EVAC Northeastern Representative, AOPA I am providing my own comments regarding proposed fees to be charged ISP's as suggested by NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Additional fees are unnecessary and completely contrary to the interests of the public in expanding public access through the internet. I am involved with more than thirty struggling volunteer-based public service organizations, most of which already find the domain name registration costs to be excessive. In effect, high costs prevent them from developing public exposure on the internet, to the great detriment of the public in learning about such valuable services. In addition, we are at a critical stage when large entities are moving to dominate access to the internet. Hefty ISP fees would discourage competition and experimentation on the part of small independent internet service providers. The costs would be passed on to their customers, and being divided among a smaller number of customers would result in higher per-customer charges - a real disincentive to experimentation and the encouragement of new businesses providing internet access. Please do whatever you can to prevent any such deleterious prising schemes, and act to reduce the existing fee structure. It is both in the interest of the public and the many small organizations providing public service. Rol Murrow From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Jan 26 00:26:46 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:26:46 -0700 Subject: Fees (was: I see the Web page has been updated today..) Message-ID: >> The registration fees are strictly for the operational costs of >> ARIN. Among ARIN's responsibilities will be the management of IP >> numbers, autonomous system numbers, IN-ADDR.ARPA inverse mapping, >> database maintenance and verification of reassignment >> information. Operational costs to support these services will include >> equipment, connectivity, facilities and personnel. >> >> The membership fees will pay for facilities for the bi-annual >> membership meetings, expenses related to Board of Trustee meetings and >> other membership services as suggested by the membership. The Board of >> Trustees and Advisory Council are voluntary positions and involve >> renumerations. Why is the ARIN dealing with a *domain* problem, IN-ADDR.ARPA? Because this is a *name* issue and not an *address* issue, I suggest the registry not be involved in this hassle. Rationale: a system administrator need only deal with one agency to fix all domain name problems; by having ARIN manage a name space the problem becomes one of dealing with multiple agencies on the same problem. I believe that the whole process of dealing with IN-ADDR.ARPA needs to be automated so that reverse mapping becomes less painful to deal with. I also feel that the registration fees also need to take care of the overhead issues like expenses related to Board of Trustees meetings. Membership fees should be applied *only* to membership expenses. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Jan 26 00:26:40 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:26:40 -0700 Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal Message-ID: At 1:09 AM 1/25/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >That should be "reserve" not allocate. And the reservation would need a >time limit on it after which the reserved space could be allocated to >someone else. There would need to be more than just a business plan but >also some solid basis in fact such as bank loan documents, signed P.O.'s >for routers and other equipment, signed customer contracts, etc. You can't >just do this based on somebody's nice looking document. This is not an >easy problem to solve because as you may know, the vast majority of new >business startups fail within the first year. ISP's have not been >following that rule of thumb for a while now because of some very unique >circumstances. But the times they are a-changing and we are getting into a >more normal situation where people with big plans run around trying to >get a business to fly and end up flopping. The rules can't be based on the >aberrations of the past 3 years. Can we then make the same requirement of the not-for-profit organization that is going to administer the Registry? That is, must they show their IRS acceptace letter, bank loan documents, signed POs for routers and other equipment, signed customer contracts, &c? After all, what's good for the goose... (This is only a half-joking statement. While the credentials of the proposed Trustees look good, I notice that all discussion of having the MEMBERS vote for the people has gone by the wayside. I'm not sure why. Indeed, why should the Board of Advisors get into the act? Do we *really* need the Electorial College?) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Jan 26 00:26:27 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:26:27 -0700 Subject: Perpetuating IPv4? Message-ID: At 1:57 AM 1/25/97, Aveek Datta wrote: >I've looked over the new proposal and website, and overall I also feel >that its definitely a great improvment over the original one. However >one question still remains. Isn't ARIN's plan perpetuating IPv4 and >the starvation of IPs that will result? While I do not personally know >much about IPv6 or IPv8, it does seem that at least the former is coming >of age and might be useable in the not so far future. > >Is ARIN's plan to continue to 'stick' with IPv4 as long as possible, >basically "rationing" out IP addresses? Or is there any plans to switch >to systems with less starvation problems? > >I apologize if I'm missing a crucial step here; my knowledge of IP comes >from discussions on domain names that go off-topic. :) The ARIN proposal is for an organization which is to be created in the short term. IPng (IP Next Generation) is further out on the planning horizon. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 26 03:01:51 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:01:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Indeed, why should the Board of Advisors get into the act? Do we *really* > need the Electorial College?) I think there is a stronger case for using that model here than in electing your country's president. For those who are not aware of what the Electoral College is, in the USA Americans do NOT elect their president. Instead, they elect members to an electoral college which then casts its ballots for the president. The EC members are under no obligation to support the candidate of the party whose support placed them in the electoral college. Supposedly this would protect the country from an populist leader who got a lot of votes but who was judged to be unstable by more thoughtful people. Someone like Russia's Zhirinovskiy. In the case of ARIN it is essential that the people running the organization understand the technical aspects of routing and IP address allocation. This is true even if router technology changes or BGP routing falls out of use on the global network. The main reason this is necessary is that ARIN is not really a servant of its members. It must conform to international IP allocation standards because it is merely one amongst three IP allocation authorities and in time it will be one amongst five. The BoT needs to maintain a balance between the external standards for dealing with an international public resource and the needs of its members. This is actually rather common among non-profit organizations. There is a stated mission for the organization and the members are those who support the mission and wish to influence how the mission is accomplished. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From mleber at HE.NET Sun Jan 26 03:49:23 1997 From: mleber at HE.NET (Mike Leber) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:49:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NAIPR] ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slight correction... On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > Instead, they elect members to an electoral college which then casts its > ballots for the president. The EC members are under no obligation to > support the candidate of the party whose support placed them in the > electoral college. This is no longer true. It once was, but now most of the larger states, such as California, have state laws that force the electoral college to vote the same as the popular vote in that state. Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | | mleber at he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 26 03:56:11 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:56:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fees (was: I see the Web page has been updated today..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Why is the ARIN dealing with a *domain* problem, IN-ADDR.ARPA? Because > this is a *name* issue and not an *address* issue, Did you read through the stuff on the reading list at http://www.arin.net ? The .ARPA top level domain is no longer used for anything except the IN-ADDR.ARPA subdomain. This domain is an integrated part of the IP addressing system and is used to provide reverse mapping of numbers to addresses. For instance, if a server receives a request from 192.0.2.39 and wishes to discover the domain name of the host with that address, it looks up the PTR record for 39.2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA and discovers that the host is named freddy.example.com. This is a required service on the Internet in order to support logging facilities such as those provided by most webservers. Therefore, IN-ADDR.ARPA has nothing whatsoever to do with domain name registries. It is merely a case of using existing the existing DNS technology to do the job rather than re-inventing the wheel. > I believe that the whole process > of dealing with IN-ADDR.ARPA needs to be automated so that reverse mapping > becomes less painful to deal with. Most ISP's have already automated this process, unless they don't understand how the DNS works. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Jan 26 11:10:40 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:10:40 -0500 Subject: Oppose more ISP fees In-Reply-To: <970126053502_72450.3066_EHB49-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: >To INTERNIC representatives: > >Regarding - proposed additional fees for registration of ISP's > >>From Rol Murrow Chairman, Air Care Alliance > President, EVAC > Northeastern Representative, AOPA > >I am providing my own comments regarding proposed fees to be charged ISP's as >suggested by NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. > >Additional fees are unnecessary and completely contrary to the interests of >the public in expanding public access through the internet. I am involved >with more than thirty struggling volunteer-based public service >organizations, most of which already find the domain name registration costs >to be excessive. In effect, high costs prevent them from developing public >exposure on the internet, to the great detriment of the public in learning >about such valuable services. Could you clarify this a bit? Are you saying that the additional fees are unnecessary because the function is adequately funded through other means, or that fees are detrimental to the functioning of certain organizations that contribute to the common good? If the former, are there proposed functions that you consider not needed, thus reducing costs on which fees should be set? If the latter, where do you believe the funding should come from? Perhaps a tax on for-profit Internet users? From specific governent funding> > >In addition, we are at a critical stage when large entities are moving to >dominate access to the internet. Hefty ISP fees would discourage competition >and experimentation on the part of small independent internet service >providers. The costs would be passed on to their customers, and being >divided among a smaller number of customers would result in higher >per-customer charges - a real disincentive to experimentation and the >encouragement of new businesses providing internet access. Could you define what you mean by "small?" Does a small provider, during its experimental phase, need provider-independent address space? I tend to have a concern that many small providers cannot justify the technical expertise that lets them reliably participate in multihomed BGP routing. > >Please do whatever you can to prevent any such deleterious prising schemes, >and act to reduce the existing fee structure. It is both in the interest of >the public and the many small organizations providing public service. > > Rol Murrow From dfazio at MR.NET Sun Jan 26 13:34:20 1997 From: dfazio at MR.NET (Dennis Fazio) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:34:20 -0600 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. In-Reply-To: <199701252223.RAA14218@jekyll.piermont.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 17:23:33 -0500 perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) wrote: >I also noted that the ARIN board has an even number of slots. This >isn't a good idea. Boards should always be odd. No, actually the number of people on a board should always be even (if you are worrying about tie votes--and if you are, you are worrying too much ;-) ). If you have a set of good people on your board, they are, by definition, in high demand and you will almost always have somebody absent. If you want an odd number at the meeting to do business and vote, you are just as or more likely get that if the number of seats filled is even. -- Dennis Fazio Minnesota Regional Network -- Gabnet: (612) 362-5850 From ahp at HILANDER.COM Sun Jan 26 14:32:21 1997 From: ahp at HILANDER.COM (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:32:21 -0500 Subject: I see the Web page has been updated today.. In-Reply-To: <01BC0ABF.E33BA720@jfbb.atmnet.net>; from "Jim Browning" on Jan 25, 1997 13:01:31 -0800 References: <01BC0ABF.E33BA720@jfbb.atmnet.net> Message-ID: On Jan 25, 1997, Jim Browning wrote: > > Only the initial Advisory Council, after that it is elected by the > membership. Perhaps this is to allow the membership to grow to critical > mass (representing a broad spectrum) before it begins to wield its > influence. That is true, but the specific procedure has not been layed out. In fact, all it says is that the initial Advisory Counsil will develop the selection procedures, which leaves _a lot_ of open territory. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ From justin at EROLS.COM Sun Jan 26 20:58:20 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:58:20 -0500 Subject: Proposed changes to the proposal WAS:Re: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970126205819.01348eb0@justin.erols.com> At 07:08 PM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Michael, > The initial board will have fixed terms of 1,2 & 3 years in >order to ensure stability in the organization > the reason that we did not establish the AC election process >is because we think that the initial AC should do that - voice of the >members and all that. I'm still curious as to how a BoT selected committee is the voice of the membership. I would like to recommend the following changes to the proposal... 1) It is explicitly stated that after the originally BoT appointed AC's terms expire (terms which are not explicitly stated in the current draft) the new AC is selected by the members from among member nominated choices. (self-nomination is allowed). 2) No BoT or AC member can hold a paid position inside the non-profit. (There is too much conflict of interest there). If we /have/ to have a BoT or AC member that works for the non-profit it should definately be a non-voting position. 3) The originally appointed BoT cannot make any changes to the original by-laws (which is what I am assuming this proposal is going to become) without a membership vote. This prevents the BoT from making changes which could in effect change all of the progress that has been made in this proposal (yes, this proposal is a BIG improvement over the last one). 4) A mechanism is added for removing deadwood BoT or AC emmbers who are not pulling their load or are acting against the best interests of the membership. So, what do you all think? Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From arinlist at gix.com Sun Jan 26 20:29:44 1997 From: arinlist at gix.com (Christopher McKeen) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:29:44 -0400 Subject: Legal Obligation(s) of ARIN services?? Message-ID: <19970127022942.AAA5588@chris> In this posting "ARIN" refers to an entity that will operate a pay IP Address registry. If ARIN would become a reality, ISP's will be paying out thousands of dollars per year for the 'privilege' of having numeric addresses for their machines and modems. If so, then these fees then would be considered a commercial purchase of service(s). To what extent will ARIN assume its legal obligations to its customers and assure them that these services will be carried out in the professional and reliable manner that represents the price paid for these services? For example: Suppose John Q. Isp pays ARIN for address space registration. At some point in time ARIN fails to administer service or fails to maintain service in such a way that causes John Q. Isp financial and 'professional image' damages. Does John Q. Isp have legal recourse to recover those damages through a lawsuit against ARIN in a U.S. Court of Law? Thank you, Chris From kozowski at STRUCTURED.NET Sun Jan 26 22:24:39 1997 From: kozowski at STRUCTURED.NET (Eric Kozowski) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:24:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed changes to the proposal WAS:Re: I see the Web page has been updated today.. Message-ID: <199701270324.TAA06364@teufel.structured.net.> >I'm still curious as to how a BoT selected committee is the voice of the >membership. I would like to recommend the following changes to the >proposal... > > >1) It is explicitly stated that after the originally BoT appointed AC's >terms expire (terms which are not explicitly stated in the current draft) >the new AC is selected by the members from among member nominated choices. >(self-nomination is allowed). > >2) No BoT or AC member can hold a paid position inside the non-profit. >(There is too much conflict of interest there). If we /have/ to have a BoT >or AC member that works for the non-profit it should definatly be a >non-voting position. > >3) The originally appointed BoT cannot make any changes to the original >by-laws (which is what I am assuming this proposal is going to become) >without a membership vote. This prevents the BoT from making changes which >could in effect change all of the progress that has been made in this >proposal (yes, this proposal is a BIG improvement over the last one). > >4) A mechanism is added for removing deadwood BoT or AC members who are not >pulling their load or are acting against the best interests of the membership. > >So, what do you all think? Justin, well thought out list of proposed changes. Since it looks like ARIN is going to happen in one form or another, I agree that these changes should be added. Your item #4 obviously needs to be expanded on a bit. How do you determine who is "deadwood" or "not pulling their load"? Does that even need to be determined? Should a (super?)majority of the membership be able to fire BOT or AC members at will? IMO, it is of the utmost importance that the BOT and AC are responsible to the membership if ARIN is to come into existance and move forward smoothly and without legal action pursued against it. -- Eric Kozowski Senior Network Engineer eric at structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (503)656-3235 FAX http://www.structured.net/ (800)881-0962 Voice PGP Key fingerprint = 2E 5F 3E 6D AA 61 AA 14 D8 FB A4 15 CE 2C D8 8C 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759 From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 26 22:40:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:40:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Justin's proposed changes. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970126205819.01348eb0@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > 2) No BoT or AC member can hold a paid position inside the non-profit. > (There is too much conflict of interest there). If we /have/ to have a BoT > or AC member that works for the non-profit it should definately be a > non-voting position. I'm inclined to agree with this. I presume you are saying that the executive director should have a permanent non-voting seat on the BoT? I wonder how this would work out if the BoT were planning to make its decisions by consensus rather than by vote. Unless there is some codified system for determining presence or absence of consensus it is hard to have a non-voting person present at the discussions. Does anyone have any information about organizations that HAVE worked with some sort of codified consensus decision making system? I can think of possible ways to do this but unless they are tested elsewhere I'm not sure the ARIN membership would like to see such a thing. For instance, there could be 3 states of a vote rather than the traditional two, for and against. I am for the motion. I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along. I am against the motion. If those three states were weighted 1, 0.5 and 0 then one could say that consensus was reached when the sum of the voting states was greater than 50% of the number of members. Thus, on a board with 6 members, if 1 member is opposed to a motion and all others are willing to go along we have a voting status equal to 5 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 2.5 which is less than the total of 3.0 required. However, if one of those people changed to support the motion the voting state would be 1 * 1 + 4 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 3.0 which passes the motion. I would consider the former example to be a lack of consensus but the latter example to indicate consensus. However, at the other end of the spectrum, a vote of 3 in favor and 3 opposed would also total 3.0 and I would consider this state to indicate no consensus at all. Therefore I would modify the above algorithm to say that consensus exists under one of the following 2 conditions which don't require a weighted algorithm at all: 1) no one is against the motion 2) 1 person is against the motion but at least one person supports the motion and all others either support the motion or are willing to go along. Once consensus is codified by some scheme such as this, the presence of non-voting members in the discussion cannot influence the presence of consensus. This also allows for a record of who voted how because the three voting states are discrete as opposed to a loose consensus system in which there is no clear indication of how an individual voted. I know some people will point to the IETF and the IETF credo here in support of the system of loose consensus. However the IETF has the "running code" proviso which places some limits on the loose consensus. In the case of ARIN, the BoT has to interface to normal "majority rules" entities such as the membership who elect the Advisory Council and may even elect the BoT. Therefore I believe that if consensus is to be used to make decisions within the BoT, it must be a codified form of consensus. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Jan 26 22:51:14 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:51:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Legal Obligation(s) of ARIN services?? Message-ID: <199701270351.TAA06960@zocalo.net> > ISP's will be paying out thousands of dollars per year for the > 'privilege' of having numeric addresses for their machines and > modems. This is not correct. ARIN is not selling addresses. ARIN is uniquely registering integers. The service provided is maintenance of a registry, and a guarantee that no integer will be multiply registered. > Does John Q. Isp have legal recourse to recover those damages > through a lawsuit against ARIN in a U.S. Court of Law? It's your constitutional right to sue and be sued. Of course you can sue anyone you like. Doesn't mean that the suit won't be thrown out, or decided against you. You don't need any special right, or even cause, to sue the ARIN. It's just a bad idea. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Jan 26 22:50:03 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:50:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Legal Obligation(s) of ARIN services?? In-Reply-To: <19970127022942.AAA5588@chris> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Christopher McKeen wrote: > Does John Q. Isp have legal recourse to recover those damages through a > lawsuit against ARIN in a U.S. Court of Law? If ARIN is incorporated in the USA then it is not exempt from US law. Any individual or company always has the right to ATTEMPT to recover damages by filing a lawsuit. Now, it *IS* possible to give up that right by entering into a contract, but in order for such contracts to be valid they have to made without duress. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From justin at EROLS.COM Sun Jan 26 23:15:41 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:15:41 -0500 Subject: Comments on the FAQ Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970126231540.0129b9ac@pop.erols.com> I have a few comments on the FAQ on the web page that possibly should be addressed.... Frequently Asked Questions 6. Do you charge by the allocation? No. ARIN has a flat annual charge for each entity that comes to ARIN for IP address space. The fees that are paid in any year are based on the amount of address space allocated to that entity in the prior year. The goal is to have a simple mechanism to predict and allocate costs for anyone, both for ARIN's budget purpose and the registrants. --------------------MY COMMENTS BELOW---------------- Doesn't this conflict with the draft proposal section 2.3? 11. I was assigned a Class C in 1994, will I be charged a registration fee? No. The registration fees detailed in the ARIN proposal are only for new requests. Previously assigned IP numbers will not be charged a registration fee. --------------------MY COMMENTS BELOW---------------- They will, however, be charged the annual maintenance fee. This should be mentioned here to keep people from saying that they were lied to later on. Both are little things, but they should probably be addressed. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From blh at NOL.NET Sun Jan 26 23:10:36 1997 From: blh at NOL.NET (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:10:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: question about in-addr.arpa Message-ID: One thing I've not quite figured out is why ARIN is proposing to do in-addr.arpa for IPs. Last I checked that should be maintained by the folks the IPs are registered to no? I know I myself and Networks On-Line do the in-addr.arpa for our /19's, and MCI (when you can get them to get off their butts to do something) will swip out IPs to the folks they delegate IPs to. This in and of itself is a large portion of the 'database maintenace' we're supposed to be paying for, and really isn't needed. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Jan 26 23:00:34 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:00:34 -0700 Subject: Legal Obligation(s) of ARIN services?? Message-ID: At 9:29 PM 1/26/97, Christopher McKeen wrote: >To what extent will ARIN assume its legal obligations to its customers >and assure them that these services will be carried out in the professional >and reliable manner that represents the price paid for these services? In my understanding of the function of a Registry, the sole purpose of said Registry is to make sure that any address issued to an applicant is not in legitimate use by another person. That's all. In the case of the IP Registry for the Americas, the problem is compounded by technical concerns having to do with the ability to route addresses through backbone services -- and there are guidelines published in RFCs detailing how such problems shall be addressed. In the discussion of the updated proposal, Kim says that ARIN would also take on the responsibility for maintaining the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name space, that space which is used to map IP numbers back to domain names. (I have registered my disagreement with the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space management idea, because it means that a system administrator would have to deal with ARIN for *part* of its domain-name service, and with another organization for another part of domain-name service. We give out numbers. The Domain Name assignment system, currently part of NSI's function, associates numbers with names and names with numbers.) It's a book-keeping job. >Does John Q. Isp have legal recourse to recover those damages through a >lawsuit against ARIN in a U.S. Court of Law? Of course, for errors and omissions. Under my modification of the ARIN charter, we would not maintain name servers of any kind, so any failure of, say, reverse lookups would be the responsibiity of the Domain Name manager, not ARIN. The only error we could make is to issue the *same* addresses to multiple entities. Such problems would be covered under Errors & Omissions liability insurance. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Jan 27 01:12:41 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 01:12:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: question about in-addr.arpa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > One thing I've not quite figured out is why ARIN is proposing to do > in-addr.arpa for IPs. Last I checked that should be maintained by the folks > the IPs are registered to no? I know I myself and Networks On-Line do the > in-addr.arpa for our /19's, and MCI (when you can get them to get off their > butts to do something) will swip out IPs to the folks they delegate IPs to. > This in and of itself is a large portion of the 'database maintenace' we're > supposed to be paying for, and really isn't needed. Speaking of swip...anyone know why Sprint/Centel flat out refused to swip the block they assigned to us when we opened a new POP with a Sprint T1? The whois data for our block brings up: Sprint/Centel (NETBLK-CMDS-TLH) 1313 Blair Stone Rd. P.O. Box 2214 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Netname: NETBLK-CMDS-TLH Netblock: 199.44.0.0 - 199.44.255.0 Maintainer: SCEN It became a real PITA, because they dragged their heals when it came to setting themselves up a secondary DNS for our ??.44.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA domains. We ended up running with no reverse DNS for about a week. I wonder if they've changed policy in the past months. UUNET had no trouble swip'ing the block they assigned us. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From apb at IAFRICA.COM Mon Jan 27 04:05:17 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:05:17 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Legal Obligation(s) of ARIN services?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stephen Satchell wrote: > In my understanding of the function of a Registry, the sole purpose of > said Registry is to make sure that any address issued to an applicant is > not in legitimate use by another person. That's all. No. An important function of the registry is to check that applications for address space are reasonable. (That there is a legitimate need for the address space requested.) > In the discussion of the updated proposal, Kim says that ARIN would also > take on the responsibility for maintaining the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name > space, that space which is used to map IP numbers back to domain names. That's very sensible. ARIN would know which address blocks are issued to which organisations, and would be able to keep the in-addr.arpa delegations in synch with the address assignments. > (I have registered my disagreement with the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space > management idea, because it means that a system administrator would have > to deal with ARIN for *part* of its domain-name service, and with > another organization for another part of domain-name service. They are very different parts, and it's convenient to separate them. --apb (Alan Barrett) From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Mon Jan 27 05:07:19 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:07:19 +0100 Subject: Legal Obligation(s) of ARIN services?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:00:34 MST." References: Message-ID: <9701271007.AA09556@ncc.ripe.net> satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) writes: * In the discussion of the updated proposal, Kim says that ARIN would also * take on the responsibility for maintaining the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name * space, that space which is used to map IP numbers back to domain names. (I * have registered my disagreement with the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space management * idea, because it means that a system administrator would have to deal with * ARIN for *part* of its domain-name service, and with another organization * for another part of domain-name service. We give out numbers. The Domain * Name assignment system, currently part of NSI's function, associates * numbers with names and names with numbers.) * * It's a book-keeping job. To help answer why ARIN should handle in-addr.arpa delegations; Scenario; Assuming ARIN is allocated xxx.0.0.0/8 by IANA they handle the in-addr.arpa zone for this. This also brings responsibilities with it. If ARIN gives xxx.1.0.0/16 to ISP GOOD then they could be responsible for that /16. Suppose ARIN registers xxx.2.0.0/17 to ISP ABLE and xxx.2.128.0/17 to ISP CAN. Who handles the reverse delegations for xxx.2.0.0/16? I would suggest the same people that handle xxx.0.0.0/8, in this scenario ARIN. John Crain From cts at VEC.NET Mon Jan 27 08:41:59 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:41:59 EST Subject: Proposed changes to the proposal Message-ID: <009AEFB6.6C6A704A.6@vec.net> >I'm still curious as to how a BoT selected committee is the voice of the >membership. I would like to recommend the following changes to the >proposal... > > >1) It is explicitly stated that after the originally BoT appointed AC's >terms expire (terms which are not explicitly stated in the current draft) >the new AC is selected by the members from among member nominated choices. >(self-nomination is allowed). I like this, and would suggest taking it a step further: Than an interim AC be appointed by the BoT, with a term to expire at the first meeting of the Arin membership, to be held not more than 3 months from the incorporation of the organization. At that meeting, all members of the AC will be up for election, with one third serving a 1 year term, one third serving a 2 year term, and the remaining serving a 3 year terms. All future terms will be for three years. >3) The originally appointed BoT cannot make any changes to the original >by-laws (which is what I am assuming this proposal is going to become) >without a membership vote. This prevents the BoT from making changes which >could in effect change all of the progress that has been made in this >proposal (yes, this proposal is a BIG improvement over the last one). Agreed. Though this makes the most sense if the models for BoT and AC election are set in stone up front, by the bylaws. >4) A mechanism is added for removing deadwood BoT or AC members who are not >pulling their load or are acting against the best interests of the membership. > >So, what do you all think? I think this is also reasonable and important. From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Mon Jan 27 09:34:13 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:34:13 -0500 Subject: Oppose more ISP fees Message-ID: <199701271427.JAA09993@info.netsol.com> > >>From Rol Murrow Chairman, Air Care Alliance > > President, EVAC > > Northeastern Representative, AOPA > > > >Additional fees are unnecessary and completely contrary to the interests of > >the public in expanding public access through the internet. I am involved > >with more than thirty struggling volunteer-based public service > >organizations, most of which already find the domain name registration costs > >to be excessive. In effect, high costs prevent them from developing public > >exposure on the internet, to the great detriment of the public in learning > >about such valuable services. > > Could you clarify this a bit? Are you saying that the additional fees are > unnecessary because the function is adequately funded through other means, > or that fees are detrimental to the functioning of certain organizations > that contribute to the common good? > > If the former, are there proposed functions that you consider not needed, > thus reducing costs on which fees should be set? > > If the latter, where do you believe the funding should come from? Perhaps > a tax on for-profit Internet users? From specific governent funding> I think Rol may have a point he may not intend to have Howard. Maybe he is saying there should be something built in for other non-profit organizations to receive limited IPs for their internal use at a possible discounted cost?? At least this is what I am getting out of the statement. 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 hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Jan 27 09:52:23 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:52:23 -0500 Subject: Oppose more ISP fees In-Reply-To: <199701271427.JAA04143@mail.clark.net> Message-ID: At 9:34 AM -0500 1/27/97, The Innkeeper wrote: >> >>From Rol Murrow Chairman, Air Care Alliance >> > President, EVAC >> > Northeastern Representative, AOPA >> > >> >Additional fees are unnecessary and completely contrary to the interests >of >> >the public in expanding public access through the internet. I am >involved >> >with more than thirty struggling volunteer-based public service >> >organizations, most of which already find the domain name registration >costs >> >to be excessive. In effect, high costs prevent them from developing >public >> >exposure on the internet, to the great detriment of the public in >learning >> >about such valuable services. >> >> Could you clarify this a bit? Are you saying that the additional fees >are >> unnecessary because the function is adequately funded through other >means, >> or that fees are detrimental to the functioning of certain organizations >> that contribute to the common good? >> >> If the former, are there proposed functions that you consider not needed, >> thus reducing costs on which fees should be set? >> >> If the latter, where do you believe the funding should come from? >Perhaps >> a tax on for-profit Internet users? From specific governent funding> > >I think Rol may have a point he may not intend to have Howard. Maybe he is >saying there should be something built in for other non-profit >organizations to receive limited IPs for their internal use at a possible >discounted cost?? At least this is what I am getting out of the statement. That certainly is a way to interpret it. I have two concerns about any special handling of not-for-profits. First, let's assume that ARIN fees are significantly passed on to end users by large providers. Would you agree this gives a small not-for-profit needing a small prefix (say a /24 or a /20) a special incentive to get provider-independent space? In other words, while the not-for-profit might not have a full justification for a direct allocation per RFC2050 criteria, this is an exception to those rules. Let's again assume this incentive exists. It would appear to be behavior that runs contrary to the technical drivers for provider-based aggregation that are well established in RFC2050. If these groups are especially small, they also might tend to try to administer provider-independent space without also being able to fund the in-house staff that operationally can handle an address block in the global routing system. Second, there certainly have been taxes on communications services to subsidize certain things in the common good. A not infrequent one is a telephone tax to pay for local enhanced 911 service. I have a philosophical problem with this, although I understand the political reasons it often is done. If 911 is a social good -- and I believe it is -- why should it be subsidized only by telephone users? The general population draws benefit from it. I would far rather, if a municpality needs funding for 911, to see them fund it through general taxes. In like manner, we might all agree the provision of some service is a Good Thing and we want it to happen, but if that service helps the general population, why should it be funded out of Internet users rather than general taxes, etc. This approach reminds me of something I personally hated in college. The university bookstore was extremely proud that "all of its profits went to scholarship funds." I did not have a scholarship, so what those signs meant to me is the bookstore was not discounting to all students, but making me -- in very marginal financial conditions -- subsidize the scholarship students. I also look at things such as the Combined Federal Campaign charity contribution system. Originally, it was for a small number of generally accepted charitable associations. After litigation, its ranks were thrown open to literally thousands of not-for-profit organizations, raising the administrative costs of the program. By establishing special handling for small not-for-profits, we open the possibility of raising ARIN costs, and thus fees, because of the increased workload of handling many small requests. I have no problem at all with having some mechanisms to encourage Internet visibility of small not-for-profits. But I think the funding mechanism should be out of general taxes (i.e., a fund for small NFP is established out of taxes, and the NFP applies for grants under it), or from voluntary foundations. Howard Berkowitz > >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 scharf at VIX.COM Mon Jan 27 11:40:05 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:40:05 -0800 Subject: question about in-addr.arpa In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jan 1997 01:12:41 EST." Message-ID: <199701271640.IAA03787@bb.home.vix.com> please folks, lets keep this on topic. ISPs not swiping their customers are way out of bounds. Jerry From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Jan 27 11:54:58 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:54:58 -0500 Subject: Oppose more ISP fees In-Reply-To: Your message of "26 Jan 1997 00:35:02 EST." <970126053502_72450.3066_EHB49-2@CompuServe.COM> References: <970126053502_72450.3066_EHB49-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: <199701271654.LAA36694@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On 26 Jan 1997 00:35:02 EST, you said: > Additional fees are unnecessary and completely contrary to the interests of > the public in expanding public access through the internet. I am involved > with more than thirty struggling volunteer-based public service > organizations, most of which already find the domain name registration costs > to be excessive. In effect, high costs prevent them from developing public > exposure on the internet, to the great detriment of the public in learning > about such valuable services. Hmm.. let's see. 30+ organizations, and *most* of them find $50/year for a domain name to be difficult? How do they manage to pay their ISP for access so they can USE the domain name? If they are that strapped for cash, what "valuable services" are they going to be able to provide? If the organization is running so close to the edge that $50/year is a major crunch, perhaps they need to either investigate new fundraising methods, or re-examine the scale of their mission. In either case, I doubt that even with a full 100% rebate from the DNS people, that such organizations are going to make it. In any case, that's a matter to discuss with the folks at NSI, not at ARIN. Not that most volunteer organizations *dont* have a constant struggle for fiscal survival, but this particular claim really sounds like a red herring to me. Now, if the appeal was for a break for non-profits who were big enough and active enough to benefit from multi-homing, then I'd be willing to listen a bit more.... -- 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 blh at NOL.NET Mon Jan 27 12:05:53 1997 From: blh at NOL.NET (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:05:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: question about in-addr.arpa In-Reply-To: <199701271640.IAA03787@bb.home.vix.com> Message-ID: the initial address space allocation. The subscription fees will include inverse addressing (in-addr) service, updates, and maintenance. this isn't very descriptive, perhaps it should be re-written to say in-addr.arpa _delegations_ rather than being so easy to misread. I understand that all they intend to do is the delegation of in-addr.arpa but its very easy to look at that and say 'what? so they're going to charge me to do what my .rev files already do?' I'll grant that my snipe at MCI was off topic (I vent now and then *chuckle*) but the fact remains that this is easily misread. On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > please folks, lets keep this on topic. ISPs not swiping their customers are > way out of bounds. > > Jerry > > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From darin at GOOD.NET Mon Jan 27 13:17:10 1997 From: darin at GOOD.NET (Darin Wayrynen) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:17:10 -0700 (MST) Subject: Oppose more ISP fees In-Reply-To: <199701271427.JAA09993@info.netsol.com> from "The Innkeeper" at Jan 27, 97 09:34:13 am Message-ID: <199701271817.LAA01100@indy.good.net> > > I think Rol may have a point he may not intend to have Howard. Maybe he is > saying there should be something built in for other non-profit > organizations to receive limited IPs for their internal use at a possible > discounted cost?? At least this is what I am getting out of the statement. > > 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 I feel so charitable today. So much that I am willing to donate my Class A Address space (10.0.0.0) for charitable use, free of cost! This network is magical as it will only work locally (so using it for internal use is a perfect match for it's powers) and an organization can use it without fear of it clashing with another organization's usage of it. I'm sorry, but the logic of this thread is a perfect example of why it is necessary to have a ARIN's Board comprised of people who understand the way the current IP allocation schemes work. For the uninformed RFC 1597 states: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the following three blocks of the IP address space for private networks: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 Darin -- \//// ( o o ) 'shredding packets from coast to coast' ======oOO-(.)-OOo======================================================== Darin Wayrynen, VP of Technology, (602) 303-9500 ext 3234, darin at good.net From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Jan 27 16:25:29 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:25:29 -0500 Subject: Oppose more ISP fees Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970127162519.0069faec@lint.cisco.com> Not meaning to pick-at-nits, RFC1597 has been obsoleted by RFC1918. - paul At 11:17 AM 1/27/97 -0700, Darin Wayrynen wrote: > >For the uninformed RFC 1597 states: > >The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the >following three blocks of the IP address space for private networks: > > 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 > 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 > 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Jan 27 17:48:20 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:48:20 -0500 Subject: Perpetuating IPv4? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970127174815.0069b73c@lint.cisco.com> IPv8 is a by-product of Jim Fleming's active imagination, and it remains to be seen when and/or if IPv6 will become a real, deployable possibility. ARIN's immediate interest will be the allocation of IPv4, and discussions concerning IPv6 (or any other version) are not applicable on this list. It should also be pointed out that the public perception of an IPv4 address shortage is tainted by the popular press and not quite accurate. - paul At 01:57 AM 1/25/97 -0500, Aveek Datta wrote: >I've looked over the new proposal and website, and overall I also feel >that its definitely a great improvment over the original one. However >one question still remains. Isn't ARIN's plan perpetuating IPv4 and >the starvation of IPs that will result? While I do not personally know >much about IPv6 or IPv8, it does seem that at least the former is coming >of age and might be useable in the not so far future. > >Is ARIN's plan to continue to 'stick' with IPv4 as long as possible, >basically "rationing" out IP addresses? Or is there any plans to switch >to systems with less starvation problems? > >I apologize if I'm missing a crucial step here; my knowledge of IP comes >from discussions on domain names that go off-topic. :) > >Aveek Datta, Net.Admin ML.ORG Free Domain Services > > >=== READ THIS: Do not CC: mailing list messages/responses to me through email > Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu > _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org > _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org > (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu > From 72450.3066 at COMPUSERVE.COM Mon Jan 27 19:03:50 1997 From: 72450.3066 at COMPUSERVE.COM (Rol Murrow [ IJD in CT ]) Date: 27 Jan 97 19:03:50 EST Subject: Oppose more ISP fees Message-ID: <970128000349_72450.3066_EHB85-2@CompuServe.COM> Greetings to all on the internic mailer, especially to those who were kind enough to contact me! I have pasted below the message which I received which led to my writing my comments, sent several days ago. I did not know that I was sending them to a mailing list, nor did I realize that a continuing discussion had been taking place among you all. My comments were based solely on the attached message! One respondent accused me of bad manners in commenting without checking out the list - of which I was blissfully unaware. I will apologize for my ignorance. If it turns out I have bad manners, then I'll apologize for them, too! However, except for a couple of VERY WELCOME constructive comments I have received primarily a number of seemingly overheated criticisms of my message, with little information leading me to other conclusions. I stand behind my underlying intent of supporting the lowest possible cost for access to the internet and for registration of domain names, both for users and for ISP's. If my comment was inappropriate, I apologize, but it was based on what I learned in the attached message. One respondent indicated he felt that the volunteer groups I work with must be pretty marginal if they can't afford the costs of registering a domain, and he quoted a very low figure for the cost ($50/year). However, several days ago a local ISP quoted me $150 setup charge plus $25/month maintenance to register a domain name for a nonprofit, all volunteer group which helps organize communities following disasters. This $450 for the first year was on top of the actual dialup access charges. I was told that almost all that cost was simply being passed on from the powers that be that are in charge of domain registration. If this was BS, then I was acting on false info and would be pleased to know what ISP's are really charged for domain name registration and maintenance. That respondent also seemed to question the value of the service provided by groups that have such budget restraints. Actually, while there are a few exceptions, most of the groups are composed entirely of volunteers paying for the group's expenses out of their own pockets and avoiding extensive fund-raising efforts and paid staffs. Every penny counts. The services they provide include arranging airplane transportation for needy patients who can't afford air charter and can't travel long distances by auto, but who may live in rural areas and need transport to large medical facilities in the cities for diagnosis or treatment. Other missions include emergency organ and tissue transport from areas without air service, disaster relief, and animal counts for nonprofit agencies. The air transport itself is likewise provided by volunteer pilots who donate their time and their planes, or the costs to rent a plane, out of their own pockets. The transportation aids thousands of patients a year and many others needing these services. I think keeping the costs down for and promoting the work of these worthy and caring folks are perfectly reasonable objectives. The attached message seems to indicate some hefty new, additional charges for ISP's. My comment was meant to oppose them and I was trying to support the small providers. Sorry if my good intents were misdirected. That message follows FYI. Please don't send me any more direct email messages. I will check out the site and comment further if needed. If you want to learn more about the Air Care Alliance, please check out our web page maintained by Angel Flight of Florida, at http://www.angelflightfla.org/aircareall.org/acahome.html The site provides links to several of the groups which have their own web sites, too, and to the national 800 number we use to direct inquiries. I would be very happy to hear of any suggestions to help get more of these groups online and up and running with their own sites at minimum possible cost, and regarding the least expensive way of getting a domain name registered. Thanks and best wishes to you all, Rol Murrow, Chairman, Air Care Alliance Storrs, CT -------------Forwarded Message----------------- >From "Mark Wexler", INTERNET:mwexler at interaccess.net Date 1/16/97 5:50 PM RE Fw ISP assigned number fees > > > >============================================================= > >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. > > Send the 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 > >====================================================================== > > > > ________________________________ > Dale A. Mulert 813-949-9211 > http://www.reddesign.com > Dale at reddesign.com > ________________________________ > "sorry no cool quote" > > ----End Forwarded Message(s)---- From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Jan 28 02:44:49 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:44:49 -0800 Subject: question about in-addr.arpa Message-ID: At 8:40 AM 1/27/97, Jerry Scharf wrote: >please folks, lets keep this on topic. ISPs not swiping their customers are >way out of bounds. Jerry, the subject is out of bounds when we're told that ARIN does *not* maintain the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space. Part of the rationale for the need for high connectivity and boudacious computing power is to serve this domain -- and I just don't see it myself. Further to this: the discussion of why there will be only 300-400 organizations dealing with ARIN itself has to do with aggregation. That being the fact, it becomes germane whether the owners of /16s selling /24s are providing adequate service. If they don't (and the discussion to date says not) then this part of the proposal needs work, in my view. Or did Kim make an announcement I missed? --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Jan 28 04:17:51 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:17:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: question about in-addr.arpa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Jerry, the subject is out of bounds when we're told that ARIN does *not* > maintain the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space. ARIN will not maintain the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space. ARIN will allocate IP address blocks to providers. When a provider is allocated an IP address block, they will set up their own nameserevers to serve up the IN-ADDR.ARPA name space for those IP address blocks, either directly or by delegating to other nameservers. However, there needs to be a top level nameserver for the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain that points to the nameservers operated by those who have received IP address blocks. The natural entity to operate this top level nameserver is ARIN since the entries in this top level nameserver will need to change in sync with the IP address allocations that ARIN makes. > Part of the rationale for the need > for high connectivity and boudacious computing power is to serve this > domain -- and I just don't see it myself. IN-ADDR.ARPA is an absolutely essential and crucial part of the Internet infrastructure. There need to be multiple redundant nameservers serving up this top level and they need to be colocated at high bandwidth exchange points to minimize the turnaround time for queries. The servers themselves don't need to be too fancy. The average server grade Pentium running BSD will do just fine. So I don't expect this to be a significant cost item and I don't expect any ISP's to complain about this since tey are the ones who take the flak when things run slow or break. > If they don't (and the discussion to date > says not) then this part of the proposal needs work, in my view. We all know this. That's why there is a website and why this mailing list exists. No doubt people are chewing over the latest proposal trying to figure out how best to *IMPROVE* the parts that they think are weak. There's no hurry, might as well take some time and get it done right. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From randy at PSG.COM Tue Jan 28 04:32:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 97 01:32 PST Subject: question about in-addr.arpa References: Message-ID: Hi Michael, > However, there needs to be a top level nameserver for the IN-ADDR.ARPA > domain that points to the nameservers operated by those who have received > IP address blocks. The natural entity to operate this top level nameserver > is ARIN Let's not get too Ameri-centric. E.g. ARIN will run 199.in-addr.arpa, but APNIC should run 202.in-addr.arpa. Hence the in-addr.arpa domain would continue to be run by IANA, possibly by delegation to the usual quiet vic..., uh, volunteers, yes? randy From dan at mc.net Tue Jan 28 06:15:13 1997 From: dan at mc.net (Dan Rothstein) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 05:15:13 -0600 Subject: another org to give money to? Message-ID: <32EDDFC1.23C4@mc.net> Is it really necessary to develop another orginization to collect money? The registration process as it stands works fine. My company will be registering 700 domains this year at a cost of $150.00 per 2 years. That means I will be sending you $70,000. Now you want more? This is absurd! You are hosting DNS. If you pursue this course of action I will be recommending all our customers dump their .com and use another domain server. Don't be greedy. It will end a very lucrative deal for you. -- Dan Rothstein dan at mc.net (847)516-5700 http://www.mc.net From hcb at CLARK.NET Tue Jan 28 08:32:10 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:32:10 -0500 Subject: another org to give money to? In-Reply-To: <32EDDFC1.23C4@mc.net> Message-ID: At 5:15 AM -0600 1/28/97, Dan Rothstein wrote: >Is it really necessary to develop another orginization to collect money? >The registration process as it stands works fine. My company will be >registering 700 domains this year at a cost of $150.00 per 2 years. That >means I will be sending you $70,000. Now you want more? This is absurd! >You are hosting DNS. If you pursue this course of action I will be >recommending all our customers dump their .com and use another domain >server. > >Don't be greedy. It will end a very lucrative deal for you. > >-- >Dan Rothstein dan at mc.net >(847)516-5700 http://www.mc.net Dan, When I saw this posting, I followed up on your web page, and am very positivel impressed. You are pioneering responsible spam policy that I wish every ISP, and certainly every NANOG participant, would read and support similar policies. Your domain registration fees to your users obviously are marginal to cover your own costs, and are clearly well-motivated. I hope I am not letting my frustration over several recent postings unfairly fall over onto you. At least from my first look, you run an excellent ISP. However, this is one more blast about principally DNS issues, following Rol Murrow's blast on how domain registration fees and other ill-defined charges hurt small nonprofits and startup ISPs, without saying who should subsidize these people. This, and some other postings, were triggered in part by a news release from some people that at the time did not make a clear distinction between naming and addressing issues. Your comments about domain registration fees from NSI, and your possible recommendation to your customers to use another TLD, may be right on. I do not pretend to be a DNS expert, certainly not an expert on DNS economics. But this list doesn't deal with DNS pricing! The whole ARIN proposal involves separating the DNS process from the address and ASN allocation process, two processes with different economics and different technical characteristics. Don't get me wrong. I don't as yet endorse the fee structure in the ARIN proposal, because I don't yet really understand its derivation. It might be right; it might be wrong. With 20/20 hindsight, I believe it was unwise to publish any dollar figures for services until there was much more consensus on the ARIN scope and functions, leading to a budget, leading to a fee structure. Early publication of fees of mystical origin upset many people and caused avoidable flaming. But can we please accept that DNS costs are outside the scope of this list? Howard Berkowitz PSC International (since we have been acquired again recently, this may not be the exactly correct corporate name. PSC something-or-other *wink*) From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Jan 28 09:06:23 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:06:23 +0100 Subject: another org to give money to? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jan 1997 05:15:13 CST." <32EDDFC1.23C4@mc.net> References: <32EDDFC1.23C4@mc.net> Message-ID: <9701281406.AA17943@ncc.ripe.net> Dan Rothstein writes: * Is it really necessary to develop another orginization to collect money? * The registration process as it stands works fine. My company will be * registering 700 domains this year at a cost of $150.00 per 2 years. That * means I will be sending you $70,000. Now you want more? This is absurd! * You are hosting DNS. If you pursue this course of action I will be * recommending all our customers dump their .com and use another domain * server. Hmm.. Did you read the ARIN proposal? This is about registering IP numbers, not domains. The reasons why it can't continue being handled in its present manner have been discussed at length on this list, please read the archives. John Crain From shields at CROSSLINK.NET Tue Jan 28 10:01:29 1997 From: shields at CROSSLINK.NET (Michael Shields) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:01:29 -0500 Subject: Justin's proposed changes. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.32.19970126205819.01348eb0@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: <199701281501.KAA08722@daedalus.crosslink.net> > I am for the motion. > I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along. > I am against the motion. > > If those three states were weighted 1, 0.5 and 0 then one could say that I believe the "0.5" vote is commonly called abstention. -- Shields, CrossLink. From nsoward at SPRYNET.COM Tue Jan 28 10:23:13 1997 From: nsoward at SPRYNET.COM (Nathan Soward) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:23:13 -0500 Subject: another org to give money to? References: <32EDDFC1.23C4@mc.net> Message-ID: <32EE19E1.5667@sprynet.com> Dan Rothstein wrote: > > Is it really necessary to develop another orginization to collect money? > The registration process as it stands works fine. My company will be > registering 700 domains this year at a cost of $150.00 per 2 years. That > means I will be sending you $70,000. Now you want more? This is absurd! > You are hosting DNS. If you pursue this course of action I will be > recommending all our customers dump their .com and use another domain > server. > > Don't be greedy. It will end a very lucrative deal for you. > > -- > Dan Rothstein dan at mc.net > (847)516-5700 http://www.mc.net Hi Dan, Thought I would respond to your message since you are about get told in a firm way you do not know what you are talking about. I have been lurking here for sometime after a similar start. Might I suggest you do the same, for a while. Now, after listening for sometime to all of the suggestions and reasons why we need a separate registry mainly because Europe and Asia have one and the NSF is no longer going to send Internic money. Then might I propose that instead of all this board of trustee, membership meetings etc etc. Why not just leave the registration where it is, let Kim continue to run it and add $2.00 per year to the cost of each DNS making it cost $52.00 instead of $50.00. In this way the end users are truly paying the bill. Answer to why it will not work: 1. This is probably to simple 2. Some would receive no glory 3. It might even cost less since a lot of the costs being proposed are already being paid for by the DNS people. Buildings, computers, Lawyers, billing, management, etc. 4. This is just plane non-sense it will never fly. 5. It would cost less each year since more names are being registered Nathan PS. Dan, It only cost $50.00 per year for each name. $100.00 in advance for the first two years. The other $50.00 is kept by the guy doing the setup for you. Yes, you can do it yourself if you know how and save the $50.00. From console at mc.net Tue Jan 28 10:28:07 1997 From: console at mc.net (Lance Laureys) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:28:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: changes on isp charge Message-ID: The charges that are supposedly gonna be implemented for isp from 2500 to 20,000 IS TOTALLY outrageous. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason as for these charges to take effect. Most all internet service providers can NOT just toss out 20,000 just like that, as it is hard for most all of us to keep going because of the growth of customers that are overwhelming each and every internet service provider such as mc.net. Online service provider themself could use that money to make a new system for just a few sites to get their customers satisfied. As internic itself the current charges are reasonable but for the new charges the dramatic change is completely not necessary to any effect. ~~~~~~~~ Email: Console or Wolf @mc.net ~ WOLF ~ Lance Laureys ~~~~~~~~ http://sunkiller.mc.net From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Tue Jan 28 13:30:52 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:30:52 -0500 Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. Message-ID: <32EE45DB.4AA@driveway1.com> Howdy. Another semi-informed lurker here. Let me address two groups who seem to be speaking at cross purposes on this list: the technical "ins", who would certainly include people like Michael, Kim, Howard, Jon, (don't let my omission be taken as any sort of "diss", folks, but since I don't have years of clock time on this issue I obviously don't know all of the players), and the technical newbies, who, while not idiots at all (and who may be closer to the realities of grubbing for the cash which keeps little operations alive than the gurus on the mountain), don't seem to grok the essential differences between the registration of names and the registration of numbers. It seems to me that the continued confusion on this point - the need for ARIN when there is already a perceived vehicle for registration of names - is significant. Lets define a new term: the client/server ratio. At present, most users (the AOL-mailbox crowd) have a very HIGH client-server ratio; eg., most of their interaction is browsing or passive reception of email, and very little originates that gets propagated out onto the Web. Let's call the people with a high client/server ratio "the public". Now, for symmetry, define the "trade" as those entities (who may be individuals, companies or government agencies, or whatever) with a LOW client/server ratio. Of course, there may be gradations within these groups - the operators of IX points, or the participants in peering agreements that swap terabytes of data per hour clearly won't have the same interests, capital at risk (or available), speed to maneuver, etc., as the mythical "Mom 'n Pop" ISP - but both groups, to the public, appear as providers. Out of their aggregated self-interest, the public places a higher value on certain features of the communications network than does the trade. One example is the ease-of-finding a site, by using a name rather than a static IP, or even a dynamic IP. Trademark owners know this phenomenon well, and the reason that trademark owners spend money suing infringers is that their trademarks are truly valuable. The trade, on the other hand, is concerned about issues that the public never even hears about - unreachable routes, efficiency of routing algorithms, backbone capacity, etc. Some interesting questions can be asked. At what point - that is, how much does the public's client/server ratio have to shift - will the END-USER of communications services desire - or actually *need* - published (you could use the routing term "advertised") names, in name space, in something close to real-time? How quickly will IPv6 - or other extended addressing schemes - be practicable, and exactly how - and to what - will the addresses be assigned (for example, to every electron-passing piece of silicon, at the device level, at the appliance level, at some evanescent applications level?) How will name space have to adapt to the expansion of address space? How will pointer-to-pointer services, like LDAP, facilitate this? How will the the regulatory process (and ARIN smells to me like a regulatory entity in the making, no matter how it gets dressed up) affect this assignment process? Will it end up over-weighting the legitimate rights of capital, or will it short-shrift them? To the public, I would submit, the proliferation of regulatory bodies (even voluntary, associative bodies such as ARIN) seems unnecessary, complex, and a flim-flam, even if, to the trade, the regulated items (names versus IP's) seem obviously different, and hence in need of differing regulatory procedures. The uninformed comments which confuse DNS registration issues with IP registration issues could be taken as a plea to rationalize the process IN THE EYES OF THE END-USER. This is a large-scale political issue, so the public-relations element should not be dismissed. If this is , then, of course, flame away. From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Tue Jan 28 14:22:47 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:22:47 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97.] Message-ID: <32EE5207.150C@driveway1.com> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Larry Honig Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:30:52 -0500 Size: 4386 URL: From rvega at cicese.mx Tue Jan 28 16:47:25 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:47:25 -0800 Subject: Justin's proposed changes. Message-ID: <199701282147.NAA01787@knuth.cicese.mx> > > I am for the motion. > I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along. > I am against the motion. > > If those three states were weighted 1, 0.5 and 0 then one could say that > consensus was reached when the sum of the voting states was greater than > 50% of the number of members. Thus, on a board with 6 members, if 1 member > is opposed to a motion and all others are willing to go along we have > a voting status equal to 5 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 2.5 which is > less than the total of 3.0 required. However, if one of those people > changed to support the motion the voting state would be > 1 * 1 + 4 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 3.0 which passes the motion. This is voting with a few more bits of resolution. Raymundo. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jan 28 17:16:46 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:16:46 -0500 Subject: changes on isp charge Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970128171632.006a8710@lint.cisco.com> Another shining example of noise. Have you even bothered to read the proposal, read the 'recommended reading' list, or try to learn about what you are oppossing? Obviously not. *sigh* - paul At 09:28 AM 1/28/97 -0600, Lance Laureys wrote: >The charges that are supposedly gonna be implemented for isp from 2500 to >20,000 IS TOTALLY outrageous. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason as for these >charges to take effect. Most all internet service providers can NOT just >toss out 20,000 just like that, as it is hard for most all of us to keep >going because of the growth of customers that are overwhelming each and >every internet service provider such as mc.net. Online service provider >themself could use that money to make a new system for just a few sites to >get their customers satisfied. As internic itself the current charges are >reasonable but for the new charges the dramatic change is completely not >necessary to any effect. > >~~~~~~~~ Email: Console or Wolf @mc.net >~ WOLF ~ Lance Laureys >~~~~~~~~ http://sunkiller.mc.net > > > From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Tue Jan 28 18:22:00 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:22:00 -0500 Subject: Justin's proposed changes. Message-ID: At 15:40 1/28/97, Stephen Satchell wrote: >In my experience, just one dissenting vote has led, in further >deliberation, to a solution that not only pleased the lone dissenter, >but also proved to be "Aha! insight" to the rest of the committee >-- and proved to be far more useful than either the original proposal >or the "compromise" that the lone dissenter wouldn't buy. Presuming the dissenting voter has read the relevant background, I would generally concur with the above. There any times when discussion only generates heat and light, and such can often be traced to lack of common background reading (particular on mailing lists with hundreds of participents). It is sometimes necessary to depart from 100% consensus at such times, both to make forward progress and to spare to objector the embarassment of a public dismantling of their logic and assumptions. /John From dltooley at SPEAKEASY.ORG Tue Jan 28 22:18:13 1997 From: dltooley at SPEAKEASY.ORG (Doug Tooley) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:18:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Justin's proposed changes; Regarding: Consensus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Consensus is a tricky tool. Very often it is used as a technique to manipulate discussion. A position can be put forth and an effective advocate can then turn the subject of the discussion away from the merits of the proposal to a single tune -- "you're not going to interfere with the **group** are you?". What is more important that majority vs. consensus is an open and informed debate. Requirements for notice, ample time for discussion of all proposals, can, with a group of thinking professionals, lead to good decisions. Full disclosure is also important. There are of course techniques of using any political system to one's individual benefit -whether it be a professionally oriented organization or the U.S. Congress. Those techniques are though are not the same ones that work in office politics or business to business competition. In our government a system of checks and balances helps - this is in part through having complementary, and somewhat overlapping, authorities that can call a duck a duck, if it is to their advantage. Personally I'd like to hear a lot more from the IX folks on this one... From hcb at CLARK.NET Tue Jan 28 22:23:55 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:23:55 -0500 Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. In-Reply-To: <32EE45DB.4AA@driveway1.com> Message-ID: At 1:30 PM -0500 1/28/97, Larry Honig wrote: >Howdy. Another semi-informed lurker here. Let me address two groups who >seem to be speaking at cross purposes on this list: the technical "ins", >who would certainly include people like Michael, Kim, Howard, Jon, >(don't let my omission be taken as any sort of "diss", folks, but since >I don't have years of clock time on this issue I obviously don't know >all of the players), and the technical newbies, who, while not idiots at >all (and who may be closer to the realities of grubbing for the cash >which keeps little operations alive than the gurus on the mountain), >don't seem to grok the essential differences between the registration of >names and the registration of numbers. > >It seems to me that the continued confusion on this point - the need for >ARIN when there is already a perceived vehicle for registration of names >- is significant. Lets define a new term: the client/server ratio. At >present, most users (the AOL-mailbox crowd) have a very HIGH >client-server ratio; eg., most of their interaction is browsing or >passive reception of email, and very little originates that gets >propagated out onto the Web. Let's call the people with a high >client/server ratio "the public". Now, for symmetry, define the "trade" >as those entities (who may be individuals, companies or government >agencies, or whatever) with a LOW client/server ratio. Of course, there >may be gradations within these groups - the operators of IX points, or >the participants in peering agreements that swap terabytes of data per >hour clearly won't have the same interests, capital at risk (or >available), speed to maneuver, etc., as the mythical "Mom 'n Pop" ISP - >but both groups, to the public, appear as providers. You may very well be on to something, although I am still trying to grok the terminology. Don't feel bad about that, because we went through a very similar discussion (on the Big-Internet list if I remember) about some related ideas in Dave Crocker's http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1775.txt , "To Be 'On' the Internet." See if you can define your terms building on 1775, which reflects some consensus. > >Out of their aggregated self-interest, the public places a higher value >on certain features of the communications network than does the trade. >One example is the ease-of-finding a site, by using a name rather than a >static IP, or even a dynamic IP. Trademark owners know this phenomenon >well, and the reason that trademark owners spend money suing infringers >is that their trademarks are truly valuable. The trade, on the other >hand, is concerned about issues that the public never even hears about - >unreachable routes, efficiency of routing algorithms, backbone capacity, >etc. In a funny way, this may be worth reinforcing. I'm less thinking of the issue of the intuitive ease of finding playboy.com, but the need to impress on end users and newer ISPs the need to use names rather than hard-coded addresses wherever possible, which MASSIVELY reduces the renumbering problem. > > >Some interesting questions can be asked. At what point - that is, how >much does the public's client/server ratio have to shift - will the >END-USER of communications services desire - or actually *need* - >published (you could use the routing term "advertised") names, Actually, I'd avoid "advertised" so it stays unambiguously related to routing. >in name >space, in something close to real-time? How quickly will IPv6 - or other >extended addressing schemes - be practicable, and exactly how - and to >what - will the addresses be assigned (for example, to every >electron-passing piece of silicon, at the device level, at the appliance >level, at some evanescent applications level?) I wouldn't call that the architecture of V6. It's much more intended as a long address where you can do autoconfiguration -- at the very least, there is a local address part (closest to what you suggest above) plus a how-to-get-to-it routing part that changes. Again...v6 is NOT A SHORT TERM SOLUTION to anything we are dealing with. (Yes, if Jim Bound is listening, I will submit to being chained and whipped, muttering "but it still moves.") >How will name space have >to adapt to the expansion of address space? How will pointer-to-pointer >services, like LDAP, facilitate this? How will the the regulatory >process (and ARIN smells to me like a regulatory entity in the making, >no matter how it gets dressed up) affect this assignment process? Will >it end up over-weighting the legitimate rights of capital, or will it >short-shrift them? To the public, I would submit, the proliferation of >regulatory bodies (even voluntary, associative bodies such as ARIN) >seems unnecessary, complex, and a flim-flam, even if, to the trade, the >regulated items (names versus IP's) seem obviously different, and hence >in need of differing regulatory procedures. Education is a part of this (disclaimer -- I am in the education business). We have seen some flames launched already due to confusion between names and addressing. > >The uninformed comments which confuse DNS registration issues with IP >registration issues could be taken as a plea to rationalize the process >IN THE EYES OF THE END-USER. This is a large-scale political issue, so >the public-relations element should not be dismissed. If this is TOPIC>, then, of course, flame away. I've spent a reasonable amount of time on Capitol Hill. While there can be a great deal of furor and lawsuits, Congress usually winds up with enough sense to avoid legislating technology, and there are checks and balances to it. The Exon bill was an aberration. What is more typical is a dividing-up-the-kill as we see with telecom interests. Rather than get too far off the track in politics -- which, as Rep. Gingrich has demonstrated, is a Bad Idea for a not-for-profit, there very well may be a need for ARIN to take on an education function. If it does, that needs to be considered in the mission and budget. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Jan 28 15:40:47 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:40:47 -0800 Subject: Justin's proposed changes. Message-ID: At 7:40 PM 1/26/97, Michael Dillon wrote: > I am for the motion. > I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along. > I am against the motion. I look with some distaste at this proposal. If the goal is concensus, and if more than one person is not satisfied with the proposal, you should work harder to find a solution that is at least equally distasteful to everyone. In my experience, just one dissenting vote has led, in further deliberation, to a solution that not only pleased the lone dissenter, but also proved to be "Aha! insight" to the rest of the committee -- and proved to be far more useful than either the original proposal or the "compromise" that the lone dissenter wouldn't buy. Just remember: "The impossible just takes a little longer." --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Jan 28 16:01:43 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:01:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Justin's proposed changes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > At 7:40 PM 1/26/97, Michael Dillon wrote: > > I am for the motion. > > I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along. > > I am against the motion. > > I look with some distaste at this proposal. If the goal is concensus, and > if more than one person is not satisfied with the proposal, you should work > harder to find a solution that is at least equally distasteful to everyone. I agree completely. But I'm pointing out that if the board intends to use consensus decision-making then the system of determining consensus needs to be codified or else they will not be able to have ex-officio board members. However I don't claim to have the one true system for codifying a consensus decision-making process. Options: 1) Traditional voting board with majority rule and an ex-officio (i.e. non-voting) position for the executive director who is an employee of the organization. 2) Consensus board with no ex-officio positions, i.e. meetings are only open to voting members. 3) Consensus board using a codified system of consensus decision making that ensures that ex-officio members do not participate in the decision. 4) Consensus board with no codified system that simple muddles through and handles the ex-officio member on an ad-hoc basis. IMHO, only options 1, 2 and 3 are likely to lead to a strong, stable board. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jcutle01 at ISCG.EDS.COM Tue Jan 28 15:19:05 1997 From: jcutle01 at ISCG.EDS.COM (James R. Cutler) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97.] In-Reply-To: <32EE5207.150C@driveway1.com> Message-ID: >It seems to me that the continued confusion on this point - the need for >ARIN when there is already a perceived vehicle for registration of names >- is significant. Let me try to reduce the confusion: No new terms needed. ARIN is for Internet Protocol Address Assignment and Registration. Names are indeed delegated elsewhere. (with the sole exception of delegation of subdomains of .in-addr.arpa.) See the IAHC mailing list. - James R. Cutler EDS Mail Stop 4165 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48007-7012 Phone: 810-265-7514 FAX: 810-265-7514 EDS Internal Web: World Wide Web: From hcb at clark.net Tue Jan 28 21:10:15 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:10:15 -0500 Subject: Justin's proposed changes. In-Reply-To: <199701282147.NAA01787@knuth.cicese.mx> Message-ID: At 1:47 PM -0800 1/28/97, Raymundo Vega Aguilar wrote: >> >> I am for the motion. >> I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along. >> I am against the motion. >> >> If those three states were weighted 1, 0.5 and 0 then one could say that >> consensus was reached when the sum of the voting states was greater than >> 50% of the number of members. Thus, on a board with 6 members, if 1 member >> is opposed to a motion and all others are willing to go along we have >> a voting status equal to 5 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 2.5 which is >> less than the total of 3.0 required. However, if one of those people >> changed to support the motion the voting state would be >> 1 * 1 + 4 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 3.0 which passes the motion. > >This is voting with a few more bits of resolution. > >Raymundo. Given the policy of restricting ARIN to IPv4, clearly voting must not involve more than 32 bits of resolution. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Wed Jan 29 10:06:13 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:06:13 -0800 Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. Message-ID: At 10:23 PM 1/28/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >Rather than get too far off the track in politics -- which, as Rep. >Gingrich has demonstrated, is a Bad Idea for a not-for-profit, there very >well may be a need for ARIN to take on an education function. If it does, >that needs to be considered in the mission and budget. I believe that including education in some form in the charter is a wonderful idea, and one that doesn't add a huge burden in terms of cost, overhead, or staff. Much of the educational materials can be prepared by the (volunteer) Board of Trustees, Board of Advisors, and other interested parties so that the cost of preparation is nil to ARIN. Integrating that information into the Web site for ARIN should be trivial, and would constitute the backbone for the more informal "How To Get Allocations" information that should be central to the site. It would also mean that the rationale for the existance of ARIN would become a living document (not just a FAQ) that could be written to be understood by technical and non-technical alike. For this reason, I'd like to propose that the fee for membership in ARIN be more flexible to encourage this sort of thing. Time and expertise is more valuable to a not-for-profit than money, because contributions of time and effort means that a function gets done and the organization doesn't have to raise money to cover the expense of getting that function done. Every member has to cover the cost of servicing the member, but anything above and beyond should be able to be paid in sweat equity. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Jan 29 10:30:06 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:30:06 -0500 Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 7:06 AM -0800 1/29/97, Stephen Satchell wrote: >At 10:23 PM 1/28/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >>Rather than get too far off the track in politics -- which, as Rep. >>Gingrich has demonstrated, is a Bad Idea for a not-for-profit, there very >>well may be a need for ARIN to take on an education function. If it does, >>that needs to be considered in the mission and budget. > > >I believe that including education in some form in the charter is a >wonderful idea, and one that doesn't add a huge burden in terms of cost, >overhead, or staff. Much of the educational materials can be prepared by >the (volunteer) Board of Trustees, Board of Advisors, and other interested >parties so that the cost of preparation is nil to ARIN. Integrating that >information into the Web site for ARIN should be trivial, and would >constitute the backbone for the more informal "How To Get Allocations" >information that should be central to the site. Disclaimer here that I am a network educator, and am writing a textbook on addressing. With those experiences, writing or coauthoring a couple of addressing-related RFCs, and redesigning the IP address teaching method for one major vendor, preparing _good_ educational materials is not a trivial task! I've worked for a large not-for-profit networking organization, and we found that educational material development usually needed to be done by our staff or by contractors. We invited our members to contribute, but we saw very little over several years. > >It would also mean that the rationale for the existance of ARIN would >become a living document (not just a FAQ) that could be written to be >understood by technical and non-technical alike. I think that is a much more achievable goal. > >For this reason, I'd like to propose that the fee for membership in ARIN be >more flexible to encourage this sort of thing. Time and expertise is more >valuable to a not-for-profit than money, because contributions of time and >effort means that a function gets done and the organization doesn't have to >raise money to cover the expense of getting that function done. Every >member has to cover the cost of servicing the member, but anything above >and beyond should be able to be paid in sweat equity. > >--- >Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations > for contact and other info >Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From randy at PSG.COM Wed Jan 29 10:41:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 07:41 PST Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space and Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. References: Message-ID: > I believe that including education in some form in the charter is a > wonderful idea, and one that doesn't add a huge burden in terms of cost, > overhead, or staff. The content of this list over the last weeks should have made clear how much education is needed. It is scary. That the lack of it predominates the content may give a clue to just how large and grody a job it is at the registries. When someone calls up ARIN screaming about their domain name, or that their shoes don't fit, or ... you're just not going to be able to send them to a consultant. Stridency seems to be inversely proportional to clue, as has been well demonstrated here. randy From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Wed Jan 29 05:07:39 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:07:39 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_Confusing_Name_Space_with_Address_Space_a?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?nd_Technical_routing=09_issues=2C_and_the_LAND_RUSH_of_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=2797=2E?= Message-ID: <01BC0DCC.43527C60@tcsd.k12.ca.us> < offtopic > I am compelled to offer the following observation: Casual use of the terms 'grok' and / or 'grody' is grounds for immediate inclusion in the "internet intelligentsia". Whether or not this is a *good * thing is up to the observer. < /offtopic > From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Jan 29 17:31:24 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:31:24 -0500 Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space a nd Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:10 PM -0800 1/29/97, Stephen Satchell wrote: >At 2:07 AM 1/29/97, Mark Richmond wrote: >>< offtopic > >>I am compelled to offer the following observation: >> >>Casual use of the terms 'grok' and / or 'grody' is grounds for immediate >>inclusion in the "internet intelligentsia". >> >>Whether or not this is a *good * thing is up to the observer. > >Just for the record, my 14 years as a magazine writer has conditioned me >not to use "in" terms, which is why some people might get the idea that I'm >clueless. Lack of use of insider-speak should not be an indicator. I grok that this was a tongue in cheek remark. > >Also, the use of insider terms can be used as a way of building a wall >between insiders and the rest of the world, and that rest of the world can >include the sugar daddies who fund the startup of ISPs. Not a good thing >to separate yourself from your fund sources, eh? Insider slang is one thing. Insider jargon may actually have a benefit of precise meaning. > >I might ask some of you who use the term "grok" if you know the SOURCE of >the word and its first usage? (Being an RAH fan, I already know the >answer, and the key words are "Mike" and "Man From Mars".) > Some of us may identify more with Jubal, and ethanol brotherhood. I insist, however, that I have never implemented routing on a Babbage machine. From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Wed Jan 29 19:27:16 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:27:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Opposing IP charges. In-Reply-To: from "Tamara Spry" at Jan 29, 97 09:34:30 am Message-ID: <199701300027.AA060694038@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Tamara Spry supposedly said: > > RE: Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a new entity that > would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000.... > > I am responding as a corporate professional that uses the Internet for > business resources and happen to work for a large ISP in Colorado. I am > opposing your act to charge for IP addressing based on the same issues the > AOP has explained previously... > > 1. WHY? What costs do you need to cover? > 2. IF you feel the need to charge, will the money be used to better the > network infrastructure for surely you must realize that the amounts you are > requesting are quite large and will bring in MILLIONS! > > I look forward to hearing your case as I continue to follow it. Thanks. > > Tamara L. Spry, Account Manager > spry at sni.net > Tamara, Let me quickly let you know that the questions you have asked have been raised numerous times by people who have not read the proposal (draft 2), the FAQ and the mailing list archives. I would suggest that you go do all three of those things before proceeding. You may save yourself a lot of frustrated sounding (or hostile) email from those of us who have answered your questions about 15 times now. ---> Phil From spry at SNI.NET Wed Jan 29 11:34:30 1997 From: spry at SNI.NET (Tamara Spry) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:34:30 -0700 Subject: Opposing IP charges. Message-ID: RE: Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000.... I am responding as a corporate professional that uses the Internet for business resources and happen to work for a large ISP in Colorado. I am opposing your act to charge for IP addressing based on the same issues the AOP has explained previously... 1. WHY? What costs do you need to cover? 2. IF you feel the need to charge, will the money be used to better the network infrastructure for surely you must realize that the amounts you are requesting are quite large and will bring in MILLIONS! I look forward to hearing your case as I continue to follow it. Thanks. Tamara L. Spry, Account Manager spry at sni.net SuperNet, Inc. Colorado's Oldest and Largest Internet Provider High Speed Access, Dial In Access, Web Development, Web Hosting http://www.sni.net/ One Denver Place 999 18th Street #2640 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 296-8202 ext. 153 From satchell at accutek.com Wed Jan 29 16:10:41 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:10:41 -0800 Subject: Confusing Name Space with Address Space a nd Technical routing issues, and the LAND RUSH of '97. Message-ID: At 2:07 AM 1/29/97, Mark Richmond wrote: >< offtopic > >I am compelled to offer the following observation: > >Casual use of the terms 'grok' and / or 'grody' is grounds for immediate >inclusion in the "internet intelligentsia". > >Whether or not this is a *good * thing is up to the observer. Just for the record, my 14 years as a magazine writer has conditioned me not to use "in" terms, which is why some people might get the idea that I'm clueless. Lack of use of insider-speak should not be an indicator. Also, the use of insider terms can be used as a way of building a wall between insiders and the rest of the world, and that rest of the world can include the sugar daddies who fund the startup of ISPs. Not a good thing to separate yourself from your fund sources, eh? I might ask some of you who use the term "grok" if you know the SOURCE of the word and its first usage? (Being an RAH fan, I already know the answer, and the key words are "Mike" and "Man From Mars".) > >< /offtopic > --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From woody at ZOCALO.NET Fri Jan 31 00:37:44 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:37:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199701310537.VAA22990@zocalo.net> I think, Tim, that you're the only person who's mentioned "charging for IP address space." You'll recall that all anyone else is interested in doing is providing registry services. Which is by no means a monopolized service. If you'll recall, I already undercut the ARIN with my Half-Used Post-It (tm) Registry, wherein you're designated in perpetuity the sole and exclusive holder of the integer... Um... Oops, maybe I lost that Post-It... Yeah, well, that's the problem with these cut-rate competitive registries, you know? Ah, no, here it is... You've got 42, Paul Jimenez got 41, and Wayne Bouchard (Primenet) is delegated the range 24-31, from which he's operating a competitive registry on an old dry-cleaning ticket. In order to under-cut me, though, I think he must be running it as a loss-leader. What was your point, again, Tim? I'm sorry, I seem to have forgotten. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Fri Jan 31 02:03:36 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:03:36 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: Tim, Please be precise: Do you consider the existance of a single entity performing assignments _or_ establishment of fees for such a service to constitute the violation of the Sherman antitrust statutes? I'm very interested in the reasoning involved here. /John From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Fri Jan 31 02:13:40 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:13:40 -0700 (MST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701310517.AAA08936@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: Oh dear, there are so many problems with your letter I don't know where to begin. 1) So-called "anti-trust" laws are immoral, and are just another way to put the screws to business, already America's most popular scapegoat. Need someone to blame so that you can get rights-violating laws passed in your favor? Blame it on business! Karl Marx invented the technique, Socialists of this century perfected it. I can quote all the laws protecting slavery as an institution in the 1800's, in an attempt to justify slavery. But it doesn't matter, because slavery is *wrong* and so is anti-trust. If you simply don't want to pay for IP address allocation, fine, just say so, but don't weasel out like this. The job has to be done, and has to be done by one body. It's being done by one body *right now*, it used to be done by one body back when it was subsidized by the government. 2) IP addresses are not a "national resource". There is no such thing as a "national resource". IP addresses are not 'scarce', either. Their limitation of number is purely a technical limitation, and one that can be (and is being) addressed by engineers (such as IPv6). (I'll note that the exact same is the case of radio frequencies - their 'scarcity' is a technical limitation, as new technologies make it possible to put more and more communications in smaller bands). 3) *Someone* has to allocate IP addresses to ensure that you don't have different people trying to use the same address. Considering that people are finally beginning to realize that the government should stick to basics (police and courts), and stop trying to run everyone's business, people with an interest in this (i.e., who *care that it works and works well*) are trying to set up an organization to handle this. It took Apple *five years* just to get the FCC to give them a frequency band for wireless LANs. This is the organization of absolutely clueless bureaucrats you want controlling the Internet??? I'd much rather pay people who know what they're doing, to do the job right, and have an interest in the smooth functioning of the system. Bureaucrats only have an interest in keeping their jobs, at the expense of the taxpayer (i.e., you, from whom they have a never-ending supply of your money). 4) Examples of irganizations that charge money to allocate numbers are plentiful. PCI controller cards have manufacturer and product IDs that are assigned by the PCI consortium - which costs money to join. Ethernet hardware address allocations are controlled by the IEEE, and it costs $1000 to get an allocation. And now IP addresses join the other unique identifiers that private organizations have allocated perfectly well in the past and will allocate perfectly well in the future. If you wish to evade the fact, ignore the knowledge that someone has to do this, and those people have to not only eat, but maintain an organizational structure which allows the job to be done efficiently and properly - then I pity you. Ignoring reality is something people who run to the government all the time are good at, and something I thought we were getting past. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, it *is* the current administration that tried to enslave the medical profession. -- On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Tim Bass wrote: > > USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 2: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ? 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty > > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of > the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be > punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by > both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Opinion: IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because > it is a national resource. Those planning to charege for it might > consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national and > scarce resource, such as IP address space. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 1: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ? 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty > > Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with > foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to > be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if > any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Opinion: Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address > space without competition, fixing a price might be considered > a violation under federal code. > > > Action: Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice > and the Federal Trade Commission. > > > In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form > NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these > federal codes. > > Best Regards, > > Tim Bass > > ------- > mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 > http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Fri Jan 31 02:55:11 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:55:11 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 12:17 AM 1/31/97, Tim Bass wrote: >USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 2: >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >? 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty Well, let's punch a few holes in your argument. First, the principles of ARIN can be traced to standards set by the IETF, a standards body recognized by the American National Standards Institute and which operate under rules reviewed and approved by ANSI as required by ANSI's definition of "standards provider." In those standards (the RFCs mentioned in the recommended-reading list) it is made clear that IP addresses are a resource requiring management in order to permit the proper functioning of the Internet as an aggregate of a number of independent organizations operating in a co-operative environment. Further, the allocation, deallocation, and maintenance of IP addresses is considered to be an administrative matter, as opposed to a matter requiring standardization. An example of the latter is the list of well-known socket addresses. As a not-for-profit organization operating as an association of interested individuals (including legal fictions such as corporations) in which membership is available to all there can be no trust. In order for a trust to exist, there has to be a bar to membership. (Now that brings up an interesting question about our membership requirements with relation to being considered a trust -- too high a fee or a requirement to "own" IP addresses could be considered discriminatory.) For examples of similar organizations operating in the United States, I direct your attention to the Ethernet address registry, BELLCORE (North American Numbering Plan), and of course the IETF itself. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 03:21:20 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:21:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701310537.VAA22990@zocalo.net> Message-ID: > I think, Tim, that you're the only person who's mentioned "charging > for IP address space." You'll recall that all anyone else is > interested in doing is providing registry services. I don't agree with your analogy -- An address registered with any other registry is a worthless address. ARIN is the sole source for address assignment which will be recognized in the routing of the Internet. The "service" of registration with ARIN is an and necessary act for one to obtain a usable network address. Remember, JD Rockefeller of the Standard Oil Company didn't have a monopoly on the pumping of oil -- anybody could drill a well. But any producer who wanted to sell crude oil had but one buyer -- the Standard Oil Company. Standard Oil was the sole provider of refining "services". By your argument, Standard Oil didn't have a monopoly. Yes, others can establish address registries. However ARIN is the exclusive source for addresses within the only address space that is recognized by the routing of the internet. So whether ARIN behaves in a benign way or not, one must recognize that it's position is one of immense power subject to no competitve controls and no regulatory authority. --karl-- From woody at ZOCALO.NET Fri Jan 31 03:03:16 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:03:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199701310803.AAA27199@zocalo.net> > An address registered with any other registry is a worthless > address. Yes, others can establish address registries. However > ARIN is the exclusive source for addresses within the only > address space that is recognized by the routing of the internet. Is that so? I think that Messrs. Karrenberg and Conrad might be somewhat taken aback to find that all the integers they'd registered had been of no use to the registrants. If your contention were true, nobody would be using the other registries. As the other registries appear to be doing a lively business, I must conclude that you're being wilfully and purposely clueless for rhetorical purposes. Um, maybe that's being too generous. What about ISPs, who sub-delegate? What about transfers of currently-outstanding ranges to people who wish to start competing registries? They would be in no way beholden to the ARIN. I don't see any more point to your rant than to Tim's. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Fri Jan 31 00:17:06 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:17:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199701310517.AAA08936@linux.silkroad.com> USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ? 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opinion: IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because it is a national resource. Those planning to charege for it might consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national and scarce resource, such as IP address space. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 1: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ? 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opinion: Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address space without competition, fixing a price might be considered a violation under federal code. Action: Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these federal codes. Best Regards, Tim Bass ------- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From tfox at FOXBERRY.COM Fri Jan 31 10:07:01 1997 From: tfox at FOXBERRY.COM (Fox, Thomas L.) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:07:01 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <01BC0F5E.8165B4C0@tfox.foxberry.com> 1) So-called "anti-trust" laws are immoral, and are just another way to put the screws to business, already America's most popular scapegoat. Immoral or not, it is the law. 2) IP addresses are not a "national resource". There is no such thing as a "national resource". IP addresses are not 'scarce', either. Their limitation of number is purely a technical limitation, and one that can be (and is being) addressed by engineers (such as IPv6). (I'll note that the exact same is the case of radio frequencies - their 'scarcity' is a technical limitation, as new technologies make it possible to put more and more communications in smaller bands). The issue of "IP addresses as a national resource" is open for debate on many levels, not the least of which is your analogy to very-much-regulated radio frequencies. From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Fri Jan 31 10:38:24 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:38:24 +0000 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <19970131153821.AAA20883@LOCALNAME> I've been "lurking" a long while, trying to catch up on all the technical sides to the question, but your response, Jawaid, forced me to jump in. >1) So-called "anti-trust" laws are immoral, and are just another way to > put the screws to business, already America's most popular scapegoat. > Need someone to blame so that you can get rights-violating laws passed > in your favor? Blame it on business! Karl Marx invented the technique, > Socialists of this century perfected it. Your "opinion" of current law doesn't matter. You can't ignore current law simply because you've decided you don't agree with it. We still live in a country ruled by the majority and current anti-trust laws will or won't be overturned if they are deemed by the majority of Americans to be no longer valid. Despite his size and volume level, Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily a majority. In my opinion, without some form of anti-trust laws, AT&T or someone like them would be running the entire show and there wouldn't be any discussion here about how we should allocate anything on the Internet. Personally, I believe current anti-trust laws protect businesses, especially small businesses, as much as they protect individuals. Have they been abused and over-extended? Yes, if you ask me. Have businesses ever abused the consumer and attempted to dominate markets unfairly? I believe history would also show this to be true. > I can quote all the laws protecting slavery as an institution in the > 1800's, in an attempt to justify slavery. But it doesn't matter, > because slavery is *wrong* and so is anti-trust. Laws protecting slavery are not current law. They were overturned by a majority of the American people and are no longer valid, thus your point isn't valid. It's your right to demonstrate in the streets against anti-trust laws, to write your opinions that they must be eliminated, to petition your government to eliminate them and to vote for people who promise to eliminate them. If you are successful, and enough people agree with you, they will go the way of the laws protecting slavery. For now, it's law. > >2) IP addresses are not a "national resource". There is no such thing as > a "national resource". IP addresses are not 'scarce', either. Their > limitation of number is purely a technical limitation, and one that > can be (and is being) addressed by engineers (such as IPv6). (I'll > note that the exact same is the case of radio frequencies - their > 'scarcity' is a technical limitation, as new technologies make it > possible to put more and more communications in smaller bands). IP addresses may or may not be a "national resource." There ARE national resources which must be protected. Whether IP addresses are limited enough and valuable enough to warrant such protection hasn't at this time determined. I believe that is precisely Mr. Bass's point. He believes IP address space is a national resource -- but at least he states it clearly as his opinion. >> Opinion: IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because >> it is a national resource. Those planning to charege for it might >> consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national and >> scarce resource, such as IP address space. Note here Mr. Bass, based on his quotation of the code, was stating an opinion that anyone considering a move such as ARIN's should study this code. I, too, disagree with his statement that IP addresses are a national resource. As I said above, that is yet to be determined. But at least he stated clearly it was an opinion. >> Opinion: Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address >> space without competition, fixing a price might be considered >> a violation under federal code. >> >> >> Action: Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice >> and the Federal Trade Commission. >> >> >> In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form >> NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these >> federal codes. >> Again, note Mr. Bass is clearly stating an opinion. And his opinion even includes the wording that "fixing a price MIGHT be considered..." Opinion can be agreed with or not. Even better, Mr. Bass recommends an action, suggesting that a formal advisory from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission be sought. Followed by another clearly stated opinion. This could hardly be considered an attempt to weasel out of anything, as you stated, Jawaid. I don't necessarily agree with all of Mr. Bass's opinions, Jawaid, but I do agree with his recommendation. Better to find out what the regulatory agencies think about ARIN's proposal now than have them come in after it's all set up and rolling. In my opinion, you would better serve the purposes of this discussion if you clearly identify your opinions. Merely believing something is true doesn't make it fact, even if you attempt to state it as fact. --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jan 31 11:04:42 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:04:42 +0100 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:38:24 GMT." <19970131153821.AAA20883@LOCALNAME> References: <19970131153821.AAA20883@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: <9701311605.AA05950@ncc.ripe.net> Alan Bechtold writes: * I've been "lurking" a long while, trying to catch up on all the technical * sides to the question, but your response, Jawaid, forced me to jump in. * I don't necessarily agree with all of Mr. Bass's opinions, Jawaid, but I do * agree with his recommendation. Better to find out what the regulatory * agencies think about ARIN's proposal now than have them come in after it's * all set up and rolling. This may indeed be an interesting question. I think that as the original InterNIC situation was influenced by the US government, which is basically the same system of having a tiered structure that will be in place with ARIN, that they wouldn't have too many problems with the proposal. The main change is the funding. Has anybody actually asked the agencies about this? John Crain From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 11:36:10 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:36:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701310803.AAA27199@zocalo.net> Message-ID: > > An address registered with any other registry is a worthless > > address. Yes, others can establish address registries. However > > ARIN is the exclusive source for addresses within the only > > address space that is recognized by the routing of the internet. > > Is that so? I think that Messrs. Karrenberg and Conrad might be > somewhat taken aback to find that all the integers they'd registered > had been of no use to the registrants. OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting someone to give you routing. > If your contention were true, nobody would be using the other > registries. As the other registries appear to be doing a lively > business, I must conclude that you're being wilfully and purposely > clueless for rhetorical purposes. Under this proposal ARIN will be the sole ultimate authority for IP address allocations within North America. So yes, I am clueless as to what other registries you could possibly be thinking of. > What about ISPs, who sub-delegate? What about transfers of > currently-outstanding ranges to people who wish to start competing > registries? They would be in no way beholden to the ARIN. I don't > see any more point to your rant than to Tim's. ISPs who "sub-delegate". Take note of the "sub" part. The ultimate source is ARIN. As for existing address reassignment -- good point -- I guess one could say that some small portion of the allcated space will be traded on a black market of sorts. By-the-way, please drop the abusive tone; it doesn't do anyone any good and the main victim is your own credibility. --karl-- From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Fri Jan 31 12:10:57 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:10:57 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:58:44 -0400." References: Message-ID: <199701311710.MAA36766@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:58:44 -0400, Dick desJardins said: > The IP address space itself belongs to the Federal government, > I believe. The fee is not for the address, the fee is for Umm.. the Federal government owns it, or does the 'Federal government' merely happen to be the body that delegated the administration of said space to a body that people in other countries are willing to listen to just because it's easier that way? Note that there's a distinction here that makes a big difference if you happen to live outside the US and/or its partially owned subsidiaries Canada and Mexico. There's a *big* moral and legal difference between "The US Government owns the address space" and "The US government funded the NSF, which delegated the paperwork handling to IANA, which everybody else just decided to listen to merely because listening was more interoperable than trying to use a competing registry (as the people who are trying to start up an alternate DNS TLD are finding out). I would *love* to see what legalistic maneuvers the "federal government" would use to get a German TCP/IP user to return the integers he stole ;) -- 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 desjardi at EOS.NASA.GOV Fri Jan 31 08:58:44 1997 From: desjardi at EOS.NASA.GOV (Dick desJardins) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:58:44 -0400 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701310517.AAA08936@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: Although I am not a lawyer, this seems pretty silly to me. The IP address space itself belongs to the Federal government, I believe. The fee is not for the address, the fee is for administering the allocation of the address, which the Federal government has made available to the Internet community at no charge (in fact, the Federal government has added millions of dollars value-added to get the Internet community naming and addressing administration to work fairly and in full visibility and control by we the people of the Internet community). Dick ---- At 12:17 AM -0500 1/31/97, Tim Bass wrote: >USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 2: >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >? 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty > >Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or >conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of >the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, >shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be >punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any >other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by >both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Opinion: IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because > it is a national resource. Those planning to charege for it might > consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national and > scarce resource, such as IP address space. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 1: >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty > >Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or >conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or >with >foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make >any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to >be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, >shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, >if >any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, >or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Opinion: Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address > space without competition, fixing a price might be considered > a violation under federal code. > > >Action: Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice > and the Federal Trade Commission. > > >In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form >NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these >federal codes. > >Best Regards, > >Tim Bass > >------- >mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 >http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 Dick desJardins EOS Network Manager GSFC Code 505, Greenbelt MD 20771 Phone 301-614-5329 FAX -5267 From jpw at INTERKAN.NET Fri Jan 31 12:33:52 1997 From: jpw at INTERKAN.NET (Jonathan Wylie) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:33:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Output of your job "jpw" In-Reply-To: <199701310005.TAA27157@lists.internic.net> Message-ID: Then why did I receive 20 messages last night and why am I still receiving messages today??? On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, L-Soft list server at InterNIC Registration Services (1.8b) wrote: > > ok > Confirming: > > SIGNOFF NAIPR > You have been removed from the NAIPR list. > > Summary of resource utilization > ------------------------------- > CPU time: 0.010 sec Device I/O: 1 > Overhead CPU: 0.010 sec Paging I/O: 0 > CPU model: sun4m > From desjardi at EOS.NASA.GOV Fri Jan 31 11:56:45 1997 From: desjardi at EOS.NASA.GOV (Dick desJardins) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:56:45 -0400 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701311710.MAA36766@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> References: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:58:44 -0400." Message-ID: Well, first, the NSF is part of the Federal government. My view is that the government owned the numbers to start, but quickly created an open administration function that allowed anyone to get numbers. So very quickly the Internet community got a lot of numbers, including your German example. Now the majority of the numbers have been allocated. (Note that I'm referring specifically to IPv4 addresses -- not to DSN domains or IPv6 addresses or other numbers. IPv4 addresses came first, and were clearly the result of US Government funded research.) Maybe it's similar to the early US laws that gave land to homesteaders. After a time the homesteaders got clear title, and they then owned that land. Since the numbers were given away by a prototyping activity and research project rather than by a legal process (law specifically passed by Congress), with the intent to create the Internet community as an open community (that is the way IANA was run from the beginning, as history shows clearly), there is not much "law" that applies. My own view would be that it would be impossible to coerce the German organization or in fact any organization in the US or any other country to give back their numbers -- therefore such discussion is moot. Note that this does not mean that at some future time the numbers might not be subject to other evolution within the Internet community that would apply to all numbers equally (whatever that might be -- the Internet has not stopped evolving! :-) Dick (my own views) ---- At 12:10 PM -0500 1/31/97, Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: >On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:58:44 -0400, Dick desJardins said: >> The IP address space itself belongs to the Federal government, >> I believe. The fee is not for the address, the fee is for > >Umm.. the Federal government owns it, or does the 'Federal government' >merely happen to be the body that delegated the administration of >said space to a body that people in other countries are willing to >listen to just because it's easier that way? > >Note that there's a distinction here that makes a big difference if you >happen to live outside the US and/or its partially owned subsidiaries >Canada and Mexico. There's a *big* moral and legal difference between >"The US Government owns the address space" and "The US government funded >the NSF, which delegated the paperwork handling to IANA, which everybody >else just decided to listen to merely because listening was more interoperable >than trying to use a competing registry (as the people who are trying to >start up an alternate DNS TLD are finding out). > >I would *love* to see what legalistic maneuvers the "federal government" >would use to get a German TCP/IP user to return the integers he stole ;) >-- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Engineer > Virginia Tech > > > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Untitled 1 (????/----) (00007F62) Dick desJardins EOS Network Manager GSFC Code 505, Greenbelt MD 20771 Phone 301-614-5329 FAX -5267 From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Fri Jan 31 13:26:06 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:26:06 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 11:36 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting >someone to give you routing. Karl, One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet providers need to be considered when performing allocations, but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" to the Internet provider community. /John From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 31 13:51:00 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:51:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > I think, Tim, that you're the only person who's mentioned "charging > > for IP address space." You'll recall that all anyone else is > > interested in doing is providing registry services. > > I don't agree with your analogy -- An address registered with any other > registry is a worthless address. ARIN is the sole source for address > assignment which will be recognized in the routing of the Internet. Well, you are simply wrong about this. ARIN is not the sole source. If any organization is the sole source of IPv4 addresses that can be used on the global public Internet, it is IANA. IANA normally delegates the job of allocating IP addresses to other registries although it does sometimes allocate addresses directly. There are currently three such registries. Reseau IP Europeens (RIPE) allocates addresses to organizations in Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa. Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) allocates addresses to organizations in Asia, Australia and Oceania. Both RIPE and APNIC are non-governmental industry organizations. The third registry is the Internic which allocates IP addresses in North America, South America and South Africa. The Internic is currently operated by a private company under contract to the US government's National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is not in the business of funding commercial activities and now that the Internet has transitioned from a research activity into a commercial activity they have withdrawn any future funding. The contract they have with Network Solutions Inc. will expire in 1998 and it will not be renewed. This means that someone else has to take over the job of running the IP address registry and doing IP allocations. It makes a lot of sense to create a non-profit industry organization such as ARIN to do this job and that is what people are currently dicussing on the NAIPR mailing list. We are still hashing out the structure of ARIN, how much people will pay for membership, how to recover the costs involved in doing IP allocation according to the international standards set by the IETF, and so on. > The "service" of registration with ARIN is an and necessary act for one to > obtain a usable network address. Even today before ARIN has been formed there are organizations that have bypassed the Internic and received network addresses directly from IANA. > Yes, others can establish address registries. However ARIN is the > exclusive source for addresses within the only address space that is > recognized by the routing of the internet. I think I have quite clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on this point. The website at http://www.arin.net contains a reading list that you should read to familiarize yourself with before making such innaccurate and inflammatory comments. In addition you should read through the NAIPR archives available at the website since a number of people have posted tutorial material to the list. > So whether ARIN behaves in a benign way or not, one must recognize that > it's position is one of immense power subject to no competitve controls > and no regulatory authority. ARIN itself will be the regulatory authority and will be subject to direct control by all organizations who receive IP address allocations since they will be the members of ARIN. If you have any argument with the outline of ARIN as it appears on the website, then remember that it is currently in the proposal stage and you are wasting time by attacking it for being wrong. A more productive use of your time would be to point out where it is weak and explain how it could be changed for the better. I notice that you copied the antitrust people at the US Department of Justice so I am doing the same. Although I must confess that I don't see why they would have jurisdiction over an international organization such as ARIN. Doesn't your country have some other government department that handles international affairs? I can assure you that if the US Department of Justice did step in and attempt to do anything with ARIN, it would not take long for the matter to come to the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs here in Canada. The entire purpose of ARIN is for the Internet industry to continue to self-regulate and thus to keep the cost burden off the taxpayers of our countries and put that burden on the industry which benefits most from the Internet. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 14:12:04 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:12:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting > >someone to give you routing. > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > to the Internet provider community. That's a really good point. I had been assuming (yes, I know that that is a bad idea ;-) that an address allocation from "the" source would come with an implied warranty that it would be routable. Although it may not be directly germaine to the establishment of ARIN, there could be some trouble from the assignees if some of the assignments turn out to be non-routable. --karl-- From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Fri Jan 31 14:14:01 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:14:01 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:56:45 -0400." References: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:58:44 -0400." Message-ID: <199701311914.OAA20760@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:56:45 -0400, Dick desJardins said: > Well, first, the NSF is part of the Federal government. Very true. But.. The Federal Communications Commission is part of the federal government as well, and it does *NOT* claim to "own" the radio frequency spectrum. It merely allocated them in a sane manner to prohibit interference. > My view is that the government owned the numbers to start, > but quickly created an open administration function that allowed > anyone to get numbers. So very quickly the Internet community Umm.. that might be "your view". The issue is, of course, what the *lawyer's* and *courts* view is. There's a lot of precedent for viewing it as "allocation of a scarce resource", but I've yet to see cited any segment of the US Code, or case law, or anything else, that confers ownership of the IP address space on the federal government. Of course, if somebody actually *does* produce such a citation, I'll be more than willing to switch *my* view. ;) > got a lot of numbers, including your German example. Now the > majority of the numbers have been allocated. (Note that I'm In actuality, I doubt that a "majority" have been allocated, given that the last time I checked a few weeks ago, a *large* chunk of the 1.x.x.x - 126.x.x.x range was allocated to "IANA Reserved". The real issue is no longer "running out of address space", it's how many tiny chunks the already allocated part is split into. If the IP space was up to 80%, but CIDR both (a) lowered it to only 400 globally known prefixes and (b) kept the growth rate down to 1% a year due to continued aggregation, we'd have no issues here. If on the other hand it was "30% allocated and broken up 50,000+ ways" (the actual situation currently), we'd be looking for a solution.... -- 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 hcb at CLARK.NET Fri Jan 31 14:17:24 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:17:24 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <9701311704.AA07312@ncc.ripe.net> References: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:36:10 PST." Message-ID: At 6:04 PM +0100 1/31/97, John LeRoy Crain wrote: > Karl Auerbach writes: > * > * > > An address registered with any other registry is a worthless > * > > address. Yes, others can establish address registries. >However > * > > ARIN is the exclusive source for addresses within the only > * > > address space that is recognized by the routing of the >internet. > * > > * > Is that so? I think that Messrs. Karrenberg and Conrad might be > * > somewhat taken aback to find that all the integers they'd registered > * > had been of no use to the registrants. > * > * OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting someone to > * give you routing. > >He was talking about RIPE NCC and APNIC. The fact is that ARIN is >not the only Regional Internet Registry. If RIPE NCC issues >195.x.x.x than it should be routable. NONE of the registries have any power to make prefixes globally routable. RIPE, APNIC, and don't configure anyone's BGP advertisements. From davids at WIZNET.NET Fri Jan 31 14:21:29 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:21:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The representation is that such addresses will be globally unique, that is, not conflict with any other addresses released by ARIN or any of the other regional registries authorized by IANA to assign IPv4 address space. The assurance of routability comes from a simple principle: When /24's were assigned and considered routable, thousands of them were issued. No one is going to pick your /24 out of the pile to filter. If you want to sell Internet access, you can't be implementing a policy that makes a significant fraction of the Internet unreachable to your customers, regardless of the beneficial consequences for your routers. So you can be reasonable assured that a block allocated by ARIN, Internic, APNIC, or RIPE that is routable today will remain routable for awhile. If you want to attack what you think is a monopoly, it's really IANA you should be attacking. ARIN is simply the transfer of some of Internic's present duties to a new body. So can we get this off this list, please? DS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeane L. Dixon, world renowned psychic, died Saturday (1/25) at age 79. There was almost universal sadness and lament throughout the world of celebrity psychics. Contacted at her home, Dionne Warwick's spokeswoman said that "[Miss] Warwick is beside herself -- none of us expected this to happen". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, John Curran wrote: > At 11:36 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting > >someone to give you routing. > > Karl, > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > to the Internet provider community. > > /John From rvega at cicese.mx Fri Jan 31 14:36:43 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:36:43 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199701311936.LAA04018@knuth.cicese.mx> Well I'm not a lawyer too, but it seems to me that the antitrust law (like many other) is NOT applied always as it is written, there are in the US monoplies that have been sued by other corporations. I'm a football fan and i remember a few years ago there was someting called the world league, they sued the NFL arguing that it is a monopoly finaly the judge ruled that it was a monopoly and but the world league was to receive only one dollar not the several million dollars they asked. So one thing is what the law says and a diferent matter the way it is applied. See you raymundo. From karl at MCS.NET Fri Jan 31 14:44:39 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:44:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701310517.AAA08936@linux.silkroad.com> from "Tim Bass" at Jan 31, 97 00:17:06 am Message-ID: <199701311944.NAA16484@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Someone ought to look at the way some providers try to tie customers (especially other ISPs) to themselves through address allocation policies... as well as the Internic/IANA/NSF arrangement for domain names and the IAHC's activities in that area as well. $10 Million per violation is a pretty strong deterrent... -- -- 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 > > USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 2: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ? 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty > > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of > the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be > punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by > both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Opinion: IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because > it is a national resource. Those planning to charege for it might > consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national and > scarce resource, such as IP address space. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 1: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ? 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty > > Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with > foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to > be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if > any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Opinion: Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address > space without competition, fixing a price might be considered > a violation under federal code. > > > Action: Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice > and the Federal Trade Commission. > > > In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form > NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these > federal codes. > > Best Regards, > > Tim Bass > > ------- > mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 > http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 > > > > > > From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Fri Jan 31 15:14:40 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:14:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199701312014.PAA12489@linux.silkroad.com> In response to a few of the more interesting points: In my opinion, the Justice department will not find any tangible differences if: (1) you give IP address space away for free and then charge money, in this case $2500.00 to register a Class C prefix; or (2) charge $2500.00 for the address space. The effects are the same, in my opinion, and it does not really matter what guise or spin is placed it, fraudulent or not, the effect is, according to the proposals, a user of IP address space will pay to use it and they must pay a single registry in the US (or part of some pyramid scheme of registries). The mission of the Antitrust division of USDoJ states: http://gopher.usdoj.gov/atr/atrovrvw.htm For over six decades, the mission of the Antitrust Division has been to promote and protect the competitive process -- and the American economy -- through the enforcement of the antitrust laws. The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every level of business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade, such as price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power. The Division is also committed to ensuring that its essential efforts to preserve competition for the benefit of businesses and consumers do not impose unnecessary costs on American businesses and consumers. The historic goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through lower prices, better quality and greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anticompetitive restraints. ----------- In my opinion, provider based addressing schemes whereas address space must be purchased, rented, lease, or registered in a non-competitively manner might be consider anti-competitive by USDOJ. In addition, creating a routing paradigm, for whatever goal, which is causal to to creating an anti-competitive downstream dependency between ISPs might be of interest to USDOJ. This type of anti-competitive scheme is antipodic to the direction of US Telecom laws, from my limited knowledge of these laws. Certainly, the Justice Department can answer these questions much better than 'us engineers'. Finally, in my opinion, it does not really matter what practices are accepted in foreign countries. Firms operating in the US are subject, I believe, to US Laws, so it is really off topic to discuss what is happening abroad. Businesses practices abroad do not supersede US Federal Law. The US has traditionally, it seems, lead the world in anticompetitive laws which protect US consumers and US businesses. The 'rest of the world' has lagged Telecommunications reforms in the US dramatically. I have faxed the Antitrust division of DoJ a copy of my paper on the subject of problem with exterior routing protocols and provider based addressing (as currently implemented). http://www.silkroad.com/papers/ (in case anyone cares to read what facts DoJ now has in their possession) I don't have the answers, but from my research on the subject and studying the intent and mission of USDOJ Antitrust Division and the FTC, in the area of anti-competitive processes, the current proposals by ARIN and the current ISP implementations of CIDR and provider based addressing are areas which DoJ Antitrust might be interesting in. I hope they will take interest, seek comment, create an open forum for discussion, and issue a formal advisory. Again, it is only my opinion, and it has been for quite a few years, the Internet is moving toward anti-competitive practices and this is primarily due to the provider based paradigm as implemented today. Best Regards, Tim -- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 15:56:59 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I don't agree with your analogy -- An address registered with any other > > registry is a worthless address. ARIN is the sole source for address > > assignment which will be recognized in the routing of the Internet. > > Well, you are simply wrong about this. ARIN is not the sole source. If any > organization is the sole source of IPv4 addresses that can be used on the > global public Internet, it is IANA. IANA normally delegates the job of > allocating IP addresses to other registries although it does sometimes > allocate addresses directly. There are currently three such registries. Ok, so there is an agreement among the registries to divide the "market" into geographic areas. And in each geographic area there is but one place where one can go to get an address block. That only reinforces the notion that there are anti-competitive forces afoot. There are things, of which address allocation may be one, in which this kind of monopoly is appropriate and legal. > ... The contract they have with Network Solutions Inc. will > expire in 1998 and it will not be renewed. I wish I could be so sure... who in NSF or otherwise in a position to make this happen has said that there will be no renewall? > > The "service" of registration with ARIN is an and necessary act for one to > > obtain a usable network address. > > Even today before ARIN has been formed there are organizations that have > bypassed the Internic and received network addresses directly from IANA. Yes, most of us who have old allocations obtained them from IANA, or for even older allocations, from the "numbers czar". For the most part, however, it is a near impossibility for most businesses to go directly to IANA and not be referred right back to the internic. > > Yes, others can establish address registries. However ARIN is the > > exclusive source for addresses within the only address space that is > > recognized by the routing of the internet. > > I think I have quite clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on this > point. The website at http://www.arin.net contains a reading list that you > should read to familiarize yourself with before making such innaccurate > and inflammatory comments. Please calm down. What is becoming clear is that ARIN addresses are not guaranteed to be coordinated with routing in any way. Which only raises the question -- if what ARIN gives isn't routable, then what good is ARIN at all? In other words, why should one pay ARIN money to obtain a block of numbers which might turn out to be useless? As a practical matter, I'm pretty sure that this won't happen. However, it does mean that after I get my numbers from ARIN, I'm going to probably have to pay yet another fee to yet another organization to get those numbers "activated". How many gauntlets are ISPs going to have to run? > > So whether ARIN behaves in a benign way or not, one must recognize that > > it's position is one of immense power subject to no competitve controls > > and no regulatory authority. > > ARIN itself will be the regulatory authority and will be subject to direct > control by all organizations who receive IP address allocations since they > will be the members of ARIN. Your sense of what consitutes "regulation" is rather odd. In my country, any organization which has monopoly status over a resource is usually subject to some degree of public oversight, not just "regulation by its membership". > I notice that you copied the antitrust people at the US Department of > Justice I didn't start this thread, I'm just keeping the cc list. Although I must admit, that they should be looking into this, as should the folks in your government. > why they would have jurisdiction over an international organization such An "international organization" is not immune from national laws. Shell Oil may be an "international organization" but that doesn't block national jurisdiction. To use this list's favorite pejoritive word -- there are a lot of people who post here who are "clueless" regarding legal principles. --karl-- From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Fri Jan 31 14:48:29 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:48:29 -0600 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <19970131153821.AAA20883@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: Alan Bechtold wrote: >Your "opinion" of current law doesn't matter. You can't ignore current law >simply because you've decided you don't agree with it. We still live in a >country ruled by the majority and current anti-trust laws will or won't be >overturned if they are deemed by the majority of Americans to be no longer >valid. Despite his size and volume level, Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily a >majority. We were supposed to be the first government of laws, not of men - but "the majority" is now a justification for any evil act. I don't buy it, and neither should you. And this has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. >In my opinion, without some form of anti-trust laws, AT&T or someone like >them would be running the entire show and there wouldn't be any discussion >here about how we should allocate anything on the Internet. Personally, I >believe current anti-trust laws protect businesses, especially small >businesses, as much as they protect individuals. People are scared to death to discuss pricing of their services on the inet-access mailing list for ISPs, for fear of looking like they're "colluding". That doesn't sound like "protecting small businesses" to me. You forget that AT&T *did* run the show for many years - as a government-supported monopoly. So, government-enforced monopolies are good, natural monopolies are bad. If, in the absence of anti-trust laws, AT&T managed to gain control of 95% of the market - they'd have *earned* it. Every business is at the mercy of their customers - if a person decides that a product is no longer of enough value to justify the amount of money asked for that product, they take their money elsewhere. This is what history really shows, that no business can become dominant (hell, no business can even exist) without the consent of their customers. "Big Business", aside from whatever undue influence can be gained by buying legislators, are exactly like small businesses - it's a voluntary association of people working together on a common goal. The only difference is the size. "Size" is often used as a wedge of divisiveness, just like white/black, male/female, employer/employee, manager/worker, are exploited - hatreds are created by manipulating fear, prejudice, and envy, and used as political tools - and the result is laws that chain one group to another. Cisco owns over 80% of the router market. Why? They're the best there is. They have earned their position, and their customers know it - and that's why 80% of people who buy routers buy Cisco. That's what 'market share' is - the number of people who *choose* of their own free will to buy a product. Why is it that this recognition of achievement, this recognition by people of a great value, why is this called "against the public good"? Anti-trust laws are evil because they chain businesses to a set of non-objective laws that are self-contradictory. You violate anti-trust if you charge too little, you violate it if you charge the same as everyone else, and you violate it if you charge far more than everyone else. You're held as a criminal if you do so good a job that nobody wants to buy from anyone else, being the best is held as a great evil. There is no way to be in compliance with the anti-trust laws - whether you'll be prosecuted is a function of whether you have friends in Washington or not, or whether you annoy someone in Washington. >Have they been abused and >over-extended? Yes, if you ask me. Have businesses ever abused the consumer >and attempted to dominate markets unfairly? I believe history would also >show this to be true. I have no idea what you mean by "unfair". Is it unfair that Microsoft leveraged its wealth to enter the Internet market? Is it unfair that some on inet-access have leveraged their personal wealth to start up ISPs, when others (like myself) started from scratch with literally nothing? Is it unfair that some companies draw the best talent, and other companies have to make do with lesser talent? I also don't know what you mean by "abuse the consumer". Why should anyone, any one of us, ever ask less for our effort than what we can get? Why should we sacrifice ourselves? Why shouldn't I set prices as high as the market will bear? >Laws protecting slavery are not current law. They were overturned by a >majority of the American people and are no longer valid, thus your point >isn't valid. It's your right to demonstrate in the streets against >anti-trust laws, to write your opinions that they must be eliminated, to >petition your government to eliminate them and to vote for people who >promise to eliminate them. If you are successful, and enough people agree >with you, they will go the way of the laws protecting slavery. For now, it's >law. What I was saying is that the mere fact that a body of words is "law", does not morally justify it. Instead of cowering before Washington's power and threats, we should do what is *right* - construct ARIN as it needs to be constructed - and if what is *right* conflicts with the law, then the law must change - and the majority be damned. Henry David Thoreau said "The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free." >IP addresses may or may not be a "national resource." There ARE national >resources which must be protected. Whether IP addresses are limited enough >and valuable enough to warrant such protection hasn't at this time >determined. I believe that is precisely Mr. Bass's point. He believes IP >address space is a national resource -- but at least he states it clearly as >his opinion. Protected - for what purpose? From whom? For whose use? Against whose rights? 1/3 of Colorado is "national forest" (so-called "national resource"). Instead of being used to make people's lives better, there it sits, as a monument to the election campaign of some politician. I don't want the Internet to become a political tool for some grubby bureaucrat. But running to the government crying "anti-trust, anti-trust!" will do just that. >Note here Mr. Bass, based on his quotation of the code, was stating an >opinion that anyone considering a move such as ARIN's should study this >code. I, too, disagree with his statement that IP addresses are a national >resource. As I said above, that is yet to be determined. But at least he >stated clearly it was an opinion. I don't believe in "opinions". You either state what you know to be right, or don't say anything if you don't know. "Opinion" used to mean "this is what I know is true"; now it's used to mean "The following words have no meaning, please don't hold me to it, it's only an opinion". >Again, note Mr. Bass is clearly stating an opinion. And his opinion even >includes the wording that "fixing a price MIGHT be considered..." Opinion >can be agreed with or not. Even better, Mr. Bass recommends an action, >suggesting that a formal advisory from the Department of Justice and the >Federal Trade Commission be sought. Followed by another clearly stated >opinion. > >This could hardly be considered an attempt to weasel out of anything, as you >stated, Jawaid. He has stated that setting up ARIN is a violation of the "anti-trust" laws - and the whole issue here is the money involved. A single, "monopolistic" organization allocates IP addresses *right now*. Tim Bass isn't damning Internic for this, only the ARIN proposal - because ARIN will charge for something that NSI has been subsidizing up till now. The only issue of any major import in these discussions is money - so why shouldn't I think that Tim Bass' reason behind attacking ARIN with the anti-trust whip is money? That's the reason behind any anti-trust prosecution - someone has something of value, and you want to get it without earning it. >I don't necessarily agree with all of Mr. Bass's opinions, Jawaid, but I do >agree with his recommendation. Better to find out what the regulatory >agencies think about ARIN's proposal now than have them come in after it's >all set up and rolling. Do what needs to be done - and if it conflicts with the closed fantasy world that bureaucrats have constructed for themselves - be happy to tear down their shabby little walls for them. Going to them and asking their "permission" only legitimizes them. Should a slave ask his master's permission before trying to escape? That says "You have a right to be doing what you're doing." >In my opinion, you would better serve the purposes of this discussion if you >clearly identify your opinions. Merely believing something is true doesn't >make it fact, even if you attempt to state it as fact. This is an issue of epistemology - I don't believe in "knowledge" as separate from "truth". Kant believed (much as Plato did) that people are forever doomed to never be able to know truth, that knowledge of the world around them is not in their power to posess - truth and knowledge to Kant were separate, incompatible things. This view of our minds as disconnected from reality has permeated the 20th century - but it's wrong, as every achievement of mankind shows. We achieve because we *can* know and control the world around us. If you want to attack the validity of your own knowledge, I certainly cannot stop you, but please speak only for yourself. >Alan R. Bechtold -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business (888) HYPERMALL bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From scharf at VIX.COM Fri Jan 31 16:26:32 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:26:32 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:12:04 PST." Message-ID: <199701312126.NAA12856@bb.home.vix.com> karl at CAVEBEAR.COM said: > Although it may not be directly germaine to the establishment of > ARIN, there could be some trouble from the assignees if some of the > assignments turn out to be non-routable. Not if is clearly stated that routability is not and can not be guaranteed when the numbers are issued. This is the case today from all the registries, and I would be very surprised if this changes. Jerry From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Fri Jan 31 16:54:07 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:54:07 -0500 Subject: Anti-trust concerns vs. reliable address space concerns Message-ID: <32F269FF.6F07@driveway1.com> Pertaining to this: a TECHIE might come up with a solution as follows: somewhere in the actual IP address (lets call it IPv4.022??) the SOURCE OF AUTHORITY resides (probably at the MSB end), so then the world is not tied to a single source of routing address space, but rather a pointed-to-list of SOA's which can replicate addresses til the cows come mooing home without stepping on each other (oh - did I forget the part where two SOA's both want the same SOA ID?) Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable addresses being issued? Or addresses being unintentionally replicated? How does the newly assigned address block get validated as kosher right now other than in the "dreaded real world test"? Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > > >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting > > >someone to give you routing. > > > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > > to the Internet provider community. > > That's a really good point. I had been assuming (yes, I know that that is > a bad idea ;-) that an address allocation from "the" source would come > with an implied warranty that it would be routable. > > Although it may not be directly germaine to the establishment of ARIN, > there could be some trouble from the assignees if some of the assignments > turn out to be non-routable. > > --karl-- From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 31 16:46:41 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:46:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Although it may not be directly germaine to the establishment of ARIN, > there could be some trouble from the assignees if some of the assignments > turn out to be non-routable. It's a free market. If an ISP wants to refuse to route your IP addresses for any reason whatsoever, they will do so. ARIN has nothing to do with this other than to warn assignees that there is no guarantee of routability. Routability or lack thereof is a commercial market decision. 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 Fri Jan 31 16:58:36 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:58:36 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:12 AM -0800 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting >> >someone to give you routing. >> >> One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures >> that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" >> address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet >> providers need to be considered when performing allocations, >> but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" >> to the Internet provider community. > >That's a really good point. I had been assuming (yes, I know that that is >a bad idea ;-) that an address allocation from "the" source would come >with an implied warranty that it would be routable. This is explictly NOT the case. From RFC2050, section 4: 5. Due to technical and implementation constraints on the Internet routing system and the possibility of routing overload, major transit providers may need to impose certain restrictions to reduce the number of globally advertised routes. This may include setting limits on the size of CIDR prefixes added to the routing tables, filtering of non-aggregated routes, etc. Therefore, addresses obtained directly from regional registry (provider-independent, also known as portable) are not guaranteed routable on the Internet. > >Although it may not be directly germaine to the establishment of ARIN, >there could be some trouble from the assignees if some of the assignments >turn out to be non-routable. Let's say ARIN gives out a /24 recycled out of 192.x.x.x. A perfectly reasonable prefix. Provider independent. To whom do the "assignees" turn if they have a perfectly unique prefix that is filtered out by a significant number of major carriers? BTW, RFC2050 does make a distinction between allocations and assignments. You are speaking here of an allocation. OK. Let's say I start my own ISP. I do not provide transit service, but I multihome to two higher-level providers, and provide PPP access to my customers. Let's extend your assumption of implied warranty further. In my contract with my customers, I state explicitly that I reserve the right to filter out traffic from recognized spamming sites. In this context, I define spamming by traffic characteristics, not content. Do my customers then have a right to sue me because I have an "implied warranty" of letting a PPP customer have access to anything in the net? Howard Berkowitz > > --karl-- From davids at WIZNET.NET Fri Jan 31 17:25:12 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:25:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: <32F26078.6220@driveway1.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable > addresses being issued? Of course there are. If you go to Internic now and request a /24 and are issued one, it will be unroutable. Assignment and routability are two separate issues. Address being unique on the Internet and address being routable on the Internet are different issues. David Schwartz From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 31 17:36:24 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:36:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199701312014.PAA12489@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Tim Bass wrote: > In my opinion, the Justice department will not find > any tangible differences if: > > (1) you give IP address space away for free and then > charge money, in this case $2500.00 to register > a Class C prefix; or > > (2) charge $2500.00 for the address space. However, the proposal for the creation of ARIN specifies neither of the two options you mentioned. ARIN is charging a sliding scale membership fee based on the amount of IP address space allocated to an organization. However, no-one has to join ARIN and therefore no-one has to pay this fee. If you recieve your /24 (formerly called Class C) address block from your upstream ISP it is not likely to cost more than a nominal fee, if any, since ISP's will all have a /19 or larger. Since a /19 contains 32 of the /24 address blocks and since an ISP with a /19 pays $5000 membership fee to ARIN it is unlikely that they would charge more than $156 if anything. In fact, most ISP's are likely to charge no more than a simple administrative fee that covers their direct costs to register your use of the /24 and do any router configuration necessary. The membership fees that they pay to ARIN are overhead costs just like phone bills and office rental. > the proposals, a user of IP address space will pay > to use it and they must pay a single registry in the > US (or part of some pyramid scheme of registries). You have failed to establish that ISP's will be treating IP address blocks as a service which is bought at wholesale and sold at retail. Even then, it is a stretch to call this a pyramid scheme. The amount of money involved is so trivial that most ISP's are likely to consider ARIN fees to be an overhead expense. > They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade, such as > price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers likely to reduce the > competitive vigor of particular markets, and predatory acts designed to > achieve or maintain monopoly power. Allocation of IP addresses cannot be considered "trade" any more than allocation of telephone numbers and area codes and therefore are beyond the jurisdiction of the US government. > The Division is also committed to ensuring that its essential efforts to > preserve competition for the benefit of businesses and consumers do not > impose unnecessary costs on American businesses and consumers. Two different groups have worked up some rough budget figures for ARIN's operation and independently arrived at numbers between $2 million and $3 million. ARIN's fees are intended to cover those costs and are intended to be roughly related to the degree of benefit an organization receives from ARIN. Such small amounts of money can hardly be considered to impose unnecessary costs on business or consumers. The only area in which IP addressing can impose a significant cost on business is the requirement to renumber all of an organizations computers if they change ISP's. However, there is abundant information available on the web and elsewhere warning people about this and recommending measures that businesses can take to minimize this renumbering cost. In any case, this renumbering cost is not something imposed either directly or indirectly by ARIN but is a result of the pratices of the Internet backbone providers. And those practices were developped to cope with a hard technological limitation in the routers which run the Internet backbone. It does not appear that ARIN's activities fall under the "essential effort" of the US Department of Justice. > In my opinion, provider based addressing schemes whereas address space > must be purchased, rented, lease, or registered in a non-competitively > manner might be consider anti-competitive by USDOJ. Not if they understand that IP addresses are not any more interchangeable than street addresses are. If you want to change your street address then it will cost you some money to move, but that's life. > In addition, creating a routing paradigm, for whatever goal, which > is causal to to creating an anti-competitive downstream dependency > between ISPs might be of interest to USDOJ. It might be but it does not concern ARIN. The routing paradigm was created by network service providers working within the IETF standards organization. It can also be changed within that organization should a better idea come along that can be proved to work with two interoperable implementations. ARIN, RIPE and APNIC do not create the IP allocation policies of the world, they merely administer them. > This type of > anti-competitive scheme is antipodic to the direction of > US Telecom laws, from my limited knowledge of these laws. My knowledge of those laws is limited too but I find more antipodic behavior in the conspiracy of the RBOC's to oppose the implementation of those laws. > Finally, in my opinion, it does not really matter what practices > are accepted in foreign countries. Firms operating in the > US are subject, I believe, to US Laws, so it is really > off topic to discuss what is happening abroad. Businesses > practices abroad do not supersede US Federal Law. ARIN is not a US firm. In fact, ARIN is only a proposal for a non-profit non-governmental organization to administer an international resource. If the USA is not an appropriate country for such an international body to operate in then it can easily be incorporated in another country in North America. It would be convenient to operate ARIN in the USA because of its central location, however if the potential members of ARIN feel that it would be better to operate it out of Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, I'm sure that the proposed Board of Trustees would consider that. > I have faxed the Antitrust division of DoJ a copy of my paper > on the subject of problem with exterior routing protocols > and provider based addressing (as currently implemented). I'm sure the DoJ regularly recieves reports about black helicopters and illegal mind control broadcasts. And I'm sure they know exactly where to file such reports. In case the DoJ people reading this would like some background material in addition to the Reading List at http://www.arin.net there is some information on Internet Standards at http://info.isoc.org:80/standards/index.html especially the link to the Internet Engineering Task Force. Also, two papers on Internet standards at http://info.isoc.org:80/papers/standards/crocker-on-standards.html and http://info.isoc.org:80/papers/standards/amr-on-standards.html > I hope they will take interest, seek comment, create an > open forum for discussion, and issue a formal advisory. I wouldn't mind hearing a formal comment from the DoJ on the ARIN issue ifthat is something they are able to do. > Again, it is only my opinion, and it has been for quite > a few years, the Internet is moving toward anti-competitive > practices and this is primarily due to the provider based > paradigm as implemented today. How can anyone who lived through the deployment of the WWW in 1994 and the Internet boom of 1995 say something like this? *sigh* Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From woody at ZOCALO.NET Fri Jan 31 18:04:09 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:04:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199701312304.PAA05028@zocalo.net> > What is becoming clear is that ARIN addresses are not guaranteed > to be coordinated with routing in any way. No more so than the numbers registered with any other registry. They never have been, and never will be, since registries do paperwork, not routing. This should come as no surprise. > Which only raises the question -- if what ARIN gives isn't > routable, then what good is ARIN at all? I'm an ISP. I route packets. I'd rather not do paperwork. They do paperwork. They don't route packets. They're a registry. > In other words, why should one pay ARIN money to obtain a block > of numbers which might turn out to be useless? No one is suggesting that you pay ARIN anything. If you want them to do paperwork for you, you can pay them. If you don't want anything from them, or feel that their registry service isn't of value, then by all means, spend your money elsewhere. > after I get my numbers from ARIN, I'm going to probably have to > pay yet another fee to yet another organization to get those > numbers "activated". I don't think I've ever seen an "active" number. Do you mean "routed?" If so, yes, I think you'll probably need to pay money to an ISP to route your traffic. Since, as stated above, at least once, ISPs route traffic. ARIN does not route traffic. ARIN does paperwork. ARIN is a registry. If you want your traffic routed, yes, you need to pay an ISP to do that. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 31 18:37:24 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:37:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Well, you are simply wrong about this. ARIN is not the sole source. If any > > organization is the sole source of IPv4 addresses that can be used on the > > global public Internet, it is IANA. IANA normally delegates the job of > > allocating IP addresses to other registries although it does sometimes > > allocate addresses directly. There are currently three such registries. > > Ok, so there is an agreement among the registries to divide the "market" > into geographic areas. And in each geographic area there is but one place > where one can go to get an address block. It's not a market. In any geographic area there are hundreds of places that you can go to get an IP address block. In North America there are approximately 3,500 commercial ISP's and most of them will be able to give you an IP address block with the addresses you need to connect your network to the Internet. Or a company can choose to use private network addresses from RFC1918 and connect to the Internet through a firewall proxy as I have done with my home network. This only requires a single routable IP address for the proxy rather than an entire block of them and allows the company to implement security measures at the firewall proxy to protect against hackers. > That only reinforces the notion that there are anti-competitive forces > afoot. I agree. However, since your premise is wrong, so is your conclusion. > > ... The contract they have with Network Solutions Inc. will > > expire in 1998 and it will not be renewed. > > I wish I could be so sure... who in NSF or otherwise in a position to make > this happen has said that there will be no renewall? There was a meeting of the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee last October at which this was discussed. Backround material on the FNC and FNC-AC is available at http://www.fnc.gov and the minutes of the meeting are at http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.html While the second recommendation at the meeting specifically addresses the domain name registry functions of the Intrenic and not the IP registry functions, we have been informed on this list that NSF funding for the IP registry has already been terminated. One of the people attending the FNC-AC meeting wrote a more detailled account of the discussion at http://www.ar.com/newdom/2278.html > > Even today before ARIN has been formed there are organizations that have > > bypassed the Internic and received network addresses directly from IANA. > For the most part, however, it is a near impossibility for most businesses > to go directly to IANA and not be referred right back to the internic. That's because even the IANA does not sell IP addresses. They are allocated to people who can demonstrate a need for the addresses either for themselves or for their customers. It is only in rare circumstances that a company can demonstrate a need for IP addresses which cannot be met by their ISP or RIPE or APNIC or the Internic. > > I think I have quite clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on this > > point. The website at http://www.arin.net contains a reading list that you > > should read to familiarize yourself with before making such innaccurate > > and inflammatory comments. > What is becoming clear is that ARIN addresses are not guaranteed to be > coordinated with routing in any way. No IP address registry gives out addresses that are guaranteed to be coordinated with routing. That is not their job. Some organizations which need globally unique IP addresses, do not need them to be routed on the global Internet. And the policies regarding IP allocation are not set by the registries but by the international Internet community under the auspices of the IETF. Those policies have, in the past, been modified based upon the realities of the way in which network backbone operators were allowing those addresses to be used. Some of this would be apparent if you would read through the material referenced on the website. > Which only raises the question -- if what ARIN gives isn't routable, then > what good is ARIN at all? For some organizations, ARIN is a very useful and critically important part of the Internet infrastructure. For others, ARIN is irrelevant since it will not affect them any more that the development of new standards for concrete mixes to be used in highway construction. Some people are greatly concerned about the infrastructure underlying everyday life, others just want it all to work without much thought. Take your pick. > In other words, why should one pay ARIN money to obtain a block of numbers > which might turn out to be useless? ARIN is not exchanging blocks of IP addresses for money. ARIN *IS* carrying out a critical infrastructure role and that role costs money. It seems logical to carry out that role and to fund that role in a manner similar to the way the rest of the world does so. In other words, the organizations that depend upon the resource being managed wisely will pay to join ARIN and see that the resource is managed wisely. ARIN could set its membership fees based upon an organization's gross annual revenue but it is simpler and fairer to set the fee based upon an organization's current usage of IP address space. > As a practical matter, I'm pretty sure that this won't happen. However, > it does mean that after I get my numbers from ARIN, I'm going to probably > have to pay yet another fee to yet another organization to get those > numbers "activated". > > How many gauntlets are ISPs going to have to run? The ISP industry already has one of the lowest barriers to entry of any other industry known to man other than prostitution. Any high school kid can come up with the money and th knowhow to build a successful and profitable ISP business. I've run across several in the USA and one in Australia who have done so. There really are no gauntlets to run other than learning how things work so you don't thrash around in the dark tilting at windmills. And there are abundant resources available on the Internet for ISP's who are ready to learn such as http://www.amazing.com/internet or http://www.ispc.org > > ARIN itself will be the regulatory authority and will be subject to direct > > control by all organizations who receive IP address allocations since they > > will be the members of ARIN. > > Your sense of what consitutes "regulation" is rather odd. In my country, > any organization which has monopoly status over a resource is usually > subject to some degree of public oversight, not just "regulation by its > membership". I would counter with the American Medical Association in which medical doctors basically regulate themselves without much if any government oversight. I believe accountants and lawyers do the same. It seems to be a fair model to make those industries pay the freight for policing themselves. > > I notice that you copied the antitrust people at the US Department of > > Justice > > I didn't start this thread, I'm just keeping the cc list. Me too. And I'm keeping the DoJ audience in mind as I write my replies because they can't be expected to be familiar with the background of this whole issue. Quite frankly, if the AOP hadn't flown off the handle and started issuing misleading press releases and press interviews, this whole thing would not be an issue. It was the AOP that got everyone believing that there was to be some sort of new outrageously high fee for all IP addresses when this is simply not true at all. And even the proposals on the ARIN website are only proposals. They could be changed beyond recognition by the time that the prospective members of ARIN actually start signing up. > > why they would have jurisdiction over an international organization such > > An "international organization" is not immune from national laws. > > Shell Oil may be an "international organization" but that doesn't block > national jurisdiction. ARIN is more like the ITU-T than like Shell Oil in that ARIN is not a profit-making corporation but is a non-profit industry consortium. I think it's quite positive that the IETF and IANA want to foster a decentralized model of IP registries for each continent rather than focusing the whole task in a single organization in Geneva Switzerland. Eventually, RIPE, APNIC and ARIN will be joined by a South American and an African IP registry. 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 Fri Jan 31 16:13:28 1997 From: lonewolf at driveway1.com (Larry Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:13:28 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? References: Message-ID: <32F26078.6220@driveway1.com> Pertaining to this: a TECHIE might come up with a solution as follows: somewhere in the actual IP address (lets call it IPv4.022??) the SOURCE OF AUTHORITY resides (probably at the MSB end), so then the world is not tied to a single source of routing address space, but rather a pointed-to-list of SOA's which can replicate addresses til the cows come mooing home without stepping on each other (oh - did I forget the part where two SOA's both want the same SOA ID?) Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable addresses being issued? Or addresses being unintentionally replicated? How does the newly assigned address block get validated as kosher right now other than in the "dreaded real world test"? Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > > >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting > > >someone to give you routing. > > > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > > to the Internet provider community. > > That's a really good point. I had been assuming (yes, I know that that is > a bad idea ;-) that an address allocation from "the" source would come > with an implied warranty that it would be routable. > > Although it may not be directly germaine to the establishment of ARIN, > there could be some trouble from the assignees if some of the assignments > turn out to be non-routable. > > --karl-- From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 19:35:17 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:35:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >> >OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting > >> >someone to give you routing. > >> > >> One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > >> that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > >> address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > >> providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > >> but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > >> to the Internet provider community. If ARIN does not promise coordination with routing, then I would submit that ARIN can not complain should some collection of ISPs decide to start selling net numbers, uncordinated with ARIN, for which they will advertise and exchange routing information. Of course chaos will result. But just like the Alternic proposals in the domain name context, this kind of rogue activity is a foreseeable response to the ARIN proposal, especially as ARIN choses not to guarantee that the numbers it issues will be usable. This could, in some perverse sense, ultimately be a good thing, since it would force us to deal with some troublesome issues, but the interim would be very, very bad. --karl-- From randy at PSG.COM Fri Jan 31 19:47:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 16:47 PST Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... References: Message-ID: karl at cavebear.com: > If ARIN does not promise coordination with routing, then I would submit > that ARIN can not complain should some collection of ISPs decide to start > selling net numbers, uncordinated with ARIN, for which they will advertise > and exchange routing information. > > Of course chaos will result. But just like the Alternic proposals in the > domain name context, this kind of rogue activity is a foreseeable response > to the ARIN proposal, especially as ARIN choses not to guarantee that the > numbers it issues will be usable. And it will have the same global effect as the WannaNIC stuff, more vaccuous traffic on mailing lists and no actual change in the internet. If ARIN promised routability, people like you would be threatening all hell right now because we all know that it can not be delivered. Routability on the internet is based solely on ISP cooperation. randy From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jan 31 12:04:09 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:04:09 +0100 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:36:10 PST." References: Message-ID: <9701311704.AA07312@ncc.ripe.net> Karl Auerbach writes: * * > > An address registered with any other registry is a worthless * > > address. Yes, others can establish address registries. However * > > ARIN is the exclusive source for addresses within the only * > > address space that is recognized by the routing of the internet. * > * > Is that so? I think that Messrs. Karrenberg and Conrad might be * > somewhat taken aback to find that all the integers they'd registered * > had been of no use to the registrants. * * OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting someone to * give you routing. He was talking about RIPE NCC and APNIC. The fact is that ARIN is not the only Regional Internet Registry. If RIPE NCC issues 195.x.x.x than it should be routable. * * > If your contention were true, nobody would be using the other * > registries. As the other registries appear to be doing a lively * > business, I must conclude that you're being wilfully and purposely * > clueless for rhetorical purposes. * * Under this proposal ARIN will be the sole ultimate authority for IP * address allocations within North America. The ultimate authority is IANA not ARIN. * So yes, I am clueless as to what other registries you could possibly be * thinking of. * > What about ISPs, who sub-delegate? What about transfers of * > currently-outstanding ranges to people who wish to start competing * > registries? They would be in no way beholden to the ARIN. I don't * > see any more point to your rant than to Tim's. * * ISPs who "sub-delegate". Take note of the "sub" part. The ultimate * source is ARIN. No, IANA would be the at the top of the pile, as it is with InterNIC. Where the numbers come from is not changing. John Crain From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Fri Jan 31 20:45:59 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:45:59 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? References: Message-ID: <32F2A057.1F9D@driveway1.com> David Schwartz wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > > > Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable > > addresses being issued? > > Of course there are. If you go to Internic now and request a /24 > and are issued one, it will be unroutable. Assignment and routability are > two separate issues. Address being unique on the Internet and address > being routable on the Internet are different issues. > > David Schwartz How about the other case, where there are duplicated addresses? Any history on this? From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 31 20:50:56 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:50:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > If ARIN does not promise coordination with routing, then I would submit > that ARIN can not complain should some collection of ISPs decide to start > selling net numbers, uncordinated with ARIN, for which they will advertise > and exchange routing information. Of course not. Why should they care? ARIN is only a registry. > Of course chaos will result. But just like the Alternic proposals in the > domain name context, this kind of rogue activity is a foreseeable response > to the ARIN proposal, especially as ARIN choses not to guarantee that the > numbers it issues will be usable. Rogue activity may occur, but very little chaos will result just as little chaos has resulted from the Alternic's actions. Most providers will have the foresight to see that if even one provider does not join in the rogue activity, then that provider will have a competitive market advantage. Therefore most providers will not join in. It is not unusual for unregistered IP address blocks to show up on the global Internet. But when this occurs, it is quickly tracked down and filtered out. This is especially so when the address is already in use by someone else who *HAS* registered it. All in a day's work. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Fri Jan 31 21:17:05 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:17:05 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 2:36 PM 1/31/97, Michael Dillon wrote: > >ARIN is not a US firm. In fact, ARIN is only a proposal for a non-profit >non-governmental organization to administer an international resource. If >the USA is not an appropriate country for such an international body to >operate in then it can easily be incorporated in another country in North >America. It would be convenient to operate ARIN in the USA because of its >central location, however if the potential members of ARIN feel that it >would be better to operate it out of Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, I'm >sure that the proposed Board of Trustees would consider that. Actually, I can see some benefits of having the ARIN based in the Cayman Islands that has nothing to do with the legal question currently being argued. Can you imagine how easy (an inexpensively) it would be to fill technical and administrative positions at ARIN if it were based in a tropical paradise? :) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 22:07:10 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:07:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Well, you are simply wrong about this. ARIN is not the sole source. If any > > > organization is the sole source of IPv4 addresses that can be used on the > > > global public Internet, it is IANA. IANA normally delegates the job of > > > allocating IP addresses to other registries although it does sometimes > > > allocate addresses directly. There are currently three such registries. > > > > Ok, so there is an agreement among the registries to divide the "market" > > into geographic areas. And in each geographic area there is but one place > > where one can go to get an address block. > > It's not a market. In any geographic area there are hundreds of places > that you can go to get an IP address block. If an ISP needs to get more address to satisify a customer request and if its higher ISP (if any) is unwilling or unable to satisfy that request, then that ISP has exactly one place to go: ARIN. And if a business wants its own block, then there is one place to go: ARIN. So I count one place: ARIN. There could have been others, but they have all agreed among themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the three registries allocate anywhere in the world. > > > ... The contract they have with Network Solutions Inc. will > > > expire in 1998 and it will not be renewed. > > > > I wish I could be so sure... who in NSF or otherwise in a position to make > > this happen has said that there will be no renewall? > > There was a meeting of the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee > last October at which this was discussed. Here's what they took as an action item: "The FNCAC reiterates and underscores the urgency of transferring responsibility for supporting U.S. commercial interests in ITLD administration from the NSF to an appropriate entity." That's not a clear cut statement that NSI's domain name admin contract won't be renewed. > > In other words, why should one pay ARIN money to obtain a block of numbers > > which might turn out to be useless? > > ARIN is not exchanging blocks of IP addresses for money. ARIN *IS* > carrying out a critical infrastructure role and that role costs money. I'm not questioning that this costs money or that it is an important job. It seems odd that the quality of the service provided by ARIN will be rather lacking in a rather important attribute -- that of a guarantee that the addresses will be usable. It does seem that the ISPs who compose the membership of ARIN ought to be in a good position to let ARIN make such a gurantee. > Me too. And I'm keeping the DoJ audience in mind as I write my replies > because they can't be expected to be familiar with the background of this > whole issue. Quite frankly, if the AOP hadn't flown off the handle and > started issuing misleading press releases and press interviews, this whole > thing would not be an issue. It was the AOP that got everyone believing > that there was to be some sort of new outrageously high fee for all IP > addresses when this is simply not true at all. And even the proposals on > the ARIN website are only proposals. They could be changed beyond > recognition by the time that the prospective members of ARIN actually > start signing up. No doubt that there has been a lot of hyperbole. I'm in agreement with you that ARIN will almost certainly be a valuable, well run, organization that serves us all. Some of the original concerns about costs were probably caused by unfortunate and inadvertant failure to put into the initial drafts a few words that would have allayed the fears of those who have seen NSI in action in the domain name area. One of the most compelling of the demonstrations about fee projections was when someone posted an analysis saying "had we been charging, here's what the revenue would have been last year". It was a very reasonable amount and it certainly put my fears to rest. (By-the-way, there were serious questions that arose well before AOP started its efforts.) > > An "international organization" is not immune from national laws. > > > > Shell Oil may be an "international organization" but that doesn't block > > national jurisdiction. > > ARIN is more like the ITU-T than like Shell Oil in that ARIN is not a > profit-making corporation but is a non-profit industry consortium. There is going to have to be a legally cognizable form for ARIN -- it can't just be a bunch of individuals. If it wants tax protection for the fees, it's going to have to jump through a lot of legal hoops. And if the members want limitations on their individual liability, ARIN is going to have to jump through more hoops. --karl-- From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Jan 31 22:27:50 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:27:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > If ARIN promised routability, people like you would be threatening all hell > right now because we all know that it can not be delivered. Routability on > the internet is based solely on ISP cooperation. And when one unwraps all the hyperbole, ARIN is not much more than a group of cooperating ISPs. As for the ability to deliver -- it's being done today. I guess one might call that an existance proof. Yes, allocation and routing are different functions. But they are related functions. Indeed, the whole issue of address aggregation by levels of sub-delegation, ie. CIDR, was put in place to slow the routing table explosion that ISP's and their routers have to deal with. The membership of ARIN will be composed of those who have the power to make routing happen. I understand that making routing work is hard -- I spend a good deal of my time working with RSVP and QoS/Policy issues related to unicast and multicast routing. I am merely raising the concern that one who obtains an address directly from ARIN or delegated from ARIN via one or more levels of ISPs might consider that the address should be an address that is, for the most part, reachable from other parts of the net. --karl-- From davesbox at poboxes.com Fri Jan 31 23:10:57 1997 From: davesbox at poboxes.com (David Tschoepe) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:10:57 -0800 Subject: leave Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970131201057.0086b710@smtp.miraclestar.com> leave