From michael at priori.net Tue Jul 1 13:51:24 1997 From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:51:24 -0700 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote: > is there a view from the arin board that with stringent >dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that >it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route >20/s? First, let's not forget that ARIN is a membership organization and the the "arin board" is the Board of Trustees, not "Directors". One would hope that the board members will not "direct" but will act on behalf of the members. Therefore, the view from the ARIN board is less important than the collective views of the ARIN members. I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely all be members of ARIN. But I don't think we can clearly see how routing table sizes, dampening algorithms and filtering will work into the equation until we have some substantive discussions among ISPs. Right now a lot of them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping quiet for some reason. I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR reports. >Again, how would you implement such dampening criteria? call a meeting of >the Internet Cabal? Ask the IETF to pass a resolution in Munich? The Internet Cabal is the product of a fevered imagination and has more to do with USENET than the real Internet so they are irrelevant to this question. And I don't think that an IETF resolution is as important as getting some agreement from the network operators themselves. Remember, the IETF deals more with standards and protocols while the issue of IP allocations is currently difficult mostly because of operational issues. ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From spsprunk at paranet.com Tue Jul 1 17:22:40 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 16:22:40 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970701162240.0069c9b8@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 10:51 01-07-97 -0700, you wrote: >I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in >order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a >PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities >considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely >all be members of ARIN. I'm sure network operators around the world will be watching intently at the first ARIN meeting; this issue is sure to come up. What are the expectations on proposal/voting procedure for ARIN? Can we expect a policy decision during/after the first meeting? >But I don't think we can clearly see how routing table sizes, dampening >algorithms and filtering will work into the equation until we have some >substantive discussions among ISPs. I doubt the large ISPs will take a position for or against this proposal prior to the first ARIN meeting. >Right now a lot of them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping >quiet for some reason. Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything. >I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes >than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate >in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate >it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree >to adjust their filters. Out of curiosity, what would be the rationalization for using more of the (almost depleted) class C networks instead of a class A? There's close to a hundred A's available, and RIPE-155 has shown that a class A is perfect for this kind of plan. Is anyone interested in debating the conditions, size, or class for such allocations? >But before we can decide just how this should be done we need some hard >numbers, especially on how many additional routes the new PI space would >add. In the case of 4096x /20 PI allocations, it would be reasonable that within the first 2 months the number of routes will increase by 4096 (and hit the 50k mark again). The trick, however, is to allocate them and place restrictions on them such that after 60 days an equivalent or larger number of routes would be dropped, as small ISPs were able to transition out of the PA blocks they currently advertise as more-specifics. I'm sure the large ISPs would be happy to increase filtering on the PA blocks to "encourage" the return of said more-specifics. >And we also need some more thorough analysis of the prefixes that appear >to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR reports. It'd be nice if there were some way to penalize ISPs on the "most wanted" list. Perhaps denial of new allocations based on measurable routing inefficiency? Stephen From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 1 12:10:16 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:10:16 +0100 Subject: when & how could policy be changed References: <3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <33B92BE8.34CD@ix.netcom.com> Michael, Michael Dillon wrote: > > At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > is there a view from the arin board that with stringent > >dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that > >it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route > >20/s? > > First, let's not forget that ARIN is a membership organization and the the > "arin board" is the Board of Trustees, not "Directors". One would hope that > the board members will not "direct" but will act on behalf of the members. > Therefore, the view from the ARIN board is less important than the > collective views of the ARIN members. Lets hope that this is the prevaling attitude or the Board of Trustees. > > I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in > order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a > PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities > considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely > all be members of ARIN. But I don't think we can clearly see how routing > table sizes, dampening algorithms and filtering will work into the equation > until we have some substantive discussions among ISPs. Right now a lot of > them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping quiet for some > reason. > > I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes > than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate > in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate > it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree > to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be > done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes > the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of > the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR > reports. Good suggeation in principal. I would like to see some hard policy suggesting that an under some more open capability to be allocated /19's or /18's in the case of smaller or new ISP's. > > >Again, how would you implement such dampening criteria? call a meeting of > >the Internet Cabal? Ask the IETF to pass a resolution in Munich? > > The Internet Cabal is the product of a fevered imagination and has more to > do with USENET than the real Internet so they are irrelevant to this > question. And I don't think that an IETF resolution is as important as > getting some agreement from the network operators themselves. Remember, the > IETF deals more with standards and protocols while the issue of IP > allocations is currently difficult mostly because of operational issues. Agreed in here. It does seem that if RFC2050 and RFC1918 are to be used as guidelines, than some clarification need to be done within these RFC's by the IETF, or some broadening of the interpratation of those RFC's by the ARIN. > > ******************************************************** > Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ******************************************************** Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jerry at fc.net Tue Jul 1 18:38:28 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:38:28 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:51:24 PDT." Message-ID: <199707012238.RAA04327@freeside.fc.net> In message , Michael Dillon writes: >At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote: > >> is there a view from the arin board that with stringent >>dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that >>it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route >>20/s? ... >I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes >than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate >in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate >it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree >to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be >done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes >the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of >the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR >reports. The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case. There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M, where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions or views. Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation, but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near term. Now if we had some real data on the per flap costs, pathology of route flap, effectiveness of flap dampening, etc. Right now we are seriously lacking data on flap. We need to ask where does flap orginate? Can we dampen it at the source? (Vadim's suggestion of link bounce dampening might be useful.) Also there is some hint of evidence to suggest that some part of route flap is caused by policy changes. Changes to allow for soft reconfigurate can help, but there is the router upgrade problem again. Backbone providers do not have a economic motive to dampen flap that is customer originated, compared to dampening flap at the peer level. Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this isn't the case. Smaller providers have a number of cost advantages over the larger players, and I see this as a way to offset the cost of renumbering. Since new allocations involve customer interaction, and the customer interaction is the primary cost of renumbering, and renumbering is fairly painless if the network is design properly. All modern hardware and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire. If you have people in PA /20, /21, etc., already you are going to have to renumber, if you haven't started yet renumbering can be without any distruption in services, and with a small finacial impact. Thus renumbering once does not seem to be a huge issue to me. So far the only response to this I have seen is that well, @Home got a large assignment, which is completely different because @Home went to IANA, not to the registries. With this said, I do support the allocation of a routeable /19 to providers that are a. Multihomed b. Have a history of efficient utilization of addresses c. Are willing to renumber customers into their allocations to maintain efficient utilization of routeable prefixes. I have yet to see an objection to this proposal. Other than unfounded complaints of "Its not fair." If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Tue Jul 1 20:41:35 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:41:35 -0700 Subject: when & how could policy be changed References: <199707012238.RAA04327@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <19970701174135.20217@bywater.songbird.com> On Tue, Jul 01, 1997 at 05:38:28PM -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote: > [...] > > Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to > create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing > field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this > isn't the case. Smaller providers have a number of cost advantages over > the larger players, I would be interested in seeing your justification for this last statement -- it seems false on the face of it, since the costs of large providers are completely covered by the money they make from small providers... -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Tue Jul 1 21:32:08 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 18:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701162240.0069c9b8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: > Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything. Ah, Nixon's old "silent majority" scam. Thank you, but I've already been bitten once by that bit of nonesense. It is very presumptious to treat silence as agreement. --karl-- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 1 15:55:37 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:55:37 +0100 Subject: when & how could policy be changed References: <3.0.1.32.19970630174120.00739dc0@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701162240.0069c9b8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33B960B9.63CC@ix.netcom.com> Stephen, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > At 10:51 01-07-97 -0700, you wrote: > >I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in > >order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a > >PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities > >considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely > >all be members of ARIN. > > I'm sure network operators around the world will be watching intently at > the first ARIN meeting; this issue is sure to come up. What are the > expectations on proposal/voting procedure for ARIN? Can we expect a policy > decision during/after the first meeting? > > >But I don't think we can clearly see how routing table sizes, dampening > >algorithms and filtering will work into the equation until we have some > >substantive discussions among ISPs. > > I doubt the large ISPs will take a position for or against this proposal > prior to the first ARIN meeting. > > >Right now a lot of them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping > >quiet for some reason. > > Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything. > > >I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes > >than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate > >in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate > >it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree > >to adjust their filters. > > Out of curiosity, what would be the rationalization for using more of the > (almost depleted) class C networks instead of a class A? There's close to > a hundred A's available, and RIPE-155 has shown that a class A is perfect > for this kind of plan. > > Is anyone interested in debating the conditions, size, or class for such > allocations? > > >But before we can decide just how this should be done we need some hard > >numbers, especially on how many additional routes the new PI space would > >add. > > In the case of 4096x /20 PI allocations, it would be reasonable that within > the first 2 months the number of routes will increase by 4096 (and hit the > 50k mark again). > > The trick, however, is to allocate them and place restrictions on them such > that after 60 days an equivalent or larger number of routes would be > dropped, as small ISPs were able to transition out of the PA blocks they > currently advertise as more-specifics. I'm sure the large ISPs would be > happy to increase filtering on the PA blocks to "encourage" the return of > said more-specifics. > > >And we also need some more thorough analysis of the prefixes that appear > >to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR reports. > > It'd be nice if there were some way to penalize ISPs on the "most wanted" > list. Perhaps denial of new allocations based on measurable routing > inefficiency? This might be something looking in to. > > Stephen Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 1 16:10:47 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:10:47 +0100 Subject: when & how could policy be changed References: <199707012238.RAA04327@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <33B96447.1F3C@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy, Jeremy Porter wrote: > > In message , Michael Dillon writes: > >At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > >> is there a view from the arin board that with stringent > >>dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/? or are you saying that > >>it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route > >>20/s? > ... > >I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes > >than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate > >in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate > >it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree > >to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be > >done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes > >the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of > >the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR > >reports. > > The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total > table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case. Exactly what I was intimating earlier on another thread. And, hence, the reason that if a Medium size ISP startup in being considered, which I am sure many "Recional" ones will, this argument supports what I had indicated earlier in some alloance for allocations of /19's right off. > There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve > the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M, > where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions > or views. Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this > case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest > that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation, > but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely > allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near > term. Good point here. ANd again supports my original argument and question. > > Now if we had some real data on the per flap costs, pathology of route > flap, effectiveness of flap dampening, etc. Right now we are seriously > lacking data on flap. We need to ask where does flap orginate? > Can we dampen it at the source? (Vadim's suggestion of link bounce > dampening might be useful.) Also there is some hint of evidence to suggest > that some part of route flap is caused by policy changes. Changes > to allow for soft reconfigurate can help, but there is the router upgrade > problem again. Yep. But if there has been reasonable hardware overdesign in place the stressing of routing hardware should not be that big of a problem. However this is not usually the case, as you indicate here. > Backbone providers do not have a economic motive to dampen flap that > is customer originated, compared to dampening flap at the peer level. > > Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to > create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing > field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this > isn't the case. Smaller providers have a number of cost advantages over > the larger players, and I see this as a way to offset the cost of > renumbering. Since new allocations involve customer interaction, and > the customer interaction is the primary cost of renumbering, and renumbering > is fairly painless if the network is design properly. Very well put. I agree compleately. Hence my earlier argument or suggestion that initialy allocating /20 or /21's is even worse in a initial startup Medium ISP situation. > All modern hardware > and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small > bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR > records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire. This should not be necessary at all. > > If you have people in PA /20, /21, etc., already you are going to have to > renumber, if you haven't started yet renumbering can be without any > distruption in services, and with a small finacial impact. Thus renumbering > once does not seem to be a huge issue to me. So far the only response > to this I have seen is that well, @Home got a large assignment, > which is completely different because @Home went to IANA, not to the > registries. Seems that now you are agreeing with me. Where earlier you were not. I agree that in most cases an allocation of /20 or 21's for small ISP's me be ok in the short term, this is not true for Medium or larger ISP's. IMHO, this is something that should be considered a policy issue for most of the reasons you state here. > > With this said, I do support the allocation of a routeable /19 to > providers that are a. Multihomed b. Have a history of efficient utilization > of addresses c. Are willing to renumber customers into their allocations > to maintain efficient utilization of routeable prefixes. > > I have yet to see an objection to this proposal. Other than unfounded > complaints of "Its not fair." We have seen them right here on this list. > > If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put > before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time. I would be happy to calaborate with you on this. > > --- > Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net > PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 > http://www.fc.net Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From spsprunk at paranet.com Tue Jul 1 22:47:34 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:47:34 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 17:38 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote: >>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes >>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate >>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate >>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree >>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be >>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes >>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of >>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR >>reports. > >The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total >table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case. The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size, only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size. >There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve >the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M, >where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions >or views. N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s) for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net. > Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this >case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest >that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation, >but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely >allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near >term. Again, N is not intended to grow significantly (and may in fact shrink). >Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to >create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing >field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this >isn't the case. I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would: . Reduce routing table entries . Reduce the effects of flap . Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks . Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks . Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition >All modern hardware >and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small >bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR >records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire. You're ignoring the important minority here: servers. >If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put >before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time. As I'm sure hundreds of others will as well. Stephen From jerry at fc.net Tue Jul 1 23:59:32 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:59:32 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:47:34 CDT." <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net> In message <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18 at pop.srv.paranet.com>, Stephen Spru nk writes: >At 17:38 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote: >>>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes >>>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate >>>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate >>>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree >>>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be >>>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes >>>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of >>>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR >>>reports. >> >>The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total >>table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case. > >The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be >specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19 >(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size, >only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long >term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the >large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size. This seems fairly problematic to me. Based on previous rushes on the registries (Can you said Internic, before Sean's /19 filter?), I would expect to see this resource consumed very fast, without substanitally impacting the base perceived need. We would defenitely require some type of assurance of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space, which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently. So I still don't see a net reduction. I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently. >>There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve >>the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M, >>where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions >>or views. > >N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s) >for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since >the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net. M increase with the number of multihomed customers also, since each route appears in two or more views. Essentlially now a /19 is required to multihome via BGP and have global reachablity. This reduces the number of possible multihome sites. >> Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this >>case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest >>that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation, >>but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely >>allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near >>term. > >Again, N is not intended to grow significantly (and may in fact shrink). Again, I disagree. There seems to be little evidence to suggest that de-aggregated /20s are being announced by single homed/dual home systems. >>Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to >>create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing >>field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this >>isn't the case. > >I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that >creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would: > >. Reduce routing table entries >. Reduce the effects of flap >. Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks >. Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks >. Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition > >>All modern hardware >>and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small >>bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR >>records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire. > >You're ignoring the important minority here: servers. I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge. I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs, and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful). >>If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put >>before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time. > >As I'm sure hundreds of others will as well. > > >Stephen > --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From justin at priori.net Wed Jul 2 01:26:50 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:26:50 -0700 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net> >of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small >customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space, >which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently. >So I still don't see a net reduction. Uhm, who contractually disallows that? I.e. if I have provider A space and a provider B connection in addition to my provider A connection, both would have to announce the block which provider A allocated to me, specifically, or it would be /impossible/ to use both lines at the same time. > >I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs >announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently. You're taking full routes aren't you? :) (I'm not at the moment, or I would do it. There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump anyway). If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I would be greatly appreciative. >>You're ignoring the important minority here: servers. > >I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge. >I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs, >and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful). Having been involved in all of the discussions at Erol's as to their renumbering plan (they are renumbering out of their original PA space at the moment), the one thing that is a real nightmare for ISPs to renumber is name servers. I really do not envy their position in telling 200k users to go into their settings and change their DNS server IP's. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 2 08:48:43 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 07:48:43 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net> References: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702074843.0165a178@texoma.net> At 10:26 PM 7/1/97 -0700, Justin W. Newton wrote: > >You're taking full routes aren't you? :) (I'm not at the moment, or I >would do it. There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump >anyway). If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I >would be greatly appreciative. You can have the smallest lab in the world, our 7206 at Las Colinas. Contact via private email for passwords. --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 2 09:25:03 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 08:25:03 -0500 Subject: summing up, a plea for leadership & continued discussion Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702082503.0157c62c@texoma.net> At 05:47 PM 7/1/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >COOK: ... one might >be well advised to sum up at the end of the suggestion period with >something besides a blanket dismissal - if one is interested in any kind >of a continuing dialog. Wayne Shirley , chairman of the New Mexico PUC, writes: > Just a note here. My involvement with the National Association of >Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) has taught me that starting a >"public" and "group" statement of principles can help move the flock >along in the right direction. It isn't very "action" oriented but it >can provide a "soapbox" for pushing the right issues. > >Wayne How about it? --- Larry Vaden From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 2 09:49:16 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 09:49:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net> Message-ID: of the backbones listed in the keynote boardwatch survey, how many and which, if any, are running with provider allocated space as opposed to provider independent space. would the answer be zero? are there any other large national services that may find themselves in the same position as erols on renumbering? ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From astraus at earthlink.net Wed Jul 2 14:39:30 1997 From: astraus at earthlink.net (Andrew Strau) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 14:39:30 -0400 Subject: IP assignment Message-ID: <33BAA062.7C73@earthlink.net> Hello: We are an ISP in Miami, FL and Colombia and we are looking for class C or B IP's. Is this the rigth place to request this ? If not can you gide us to the right place. Thank You Andrew From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 2 06:54:51 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:54:51 +0100 Subject: when & how could policy be changed References: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <33BA337B.5EA1@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy and all, Jeremy Porter wrote: > > In message <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18 at pop.srv.paranet.com>, Stephen Spru > nk writes: > >At 17:38 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote: > >>>I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes > >>>than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate > >>>in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate > >>>it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree > >>>to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be > >>>done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes > >>>the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of > >>>the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR > >>>reports. > >> > >>The only problem is that going from /19 to /20 doubles the total > >>table size, assuming lack of greater aggregation, worst case. > > > >The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be > >specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19 > >(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size, > >only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long > >term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the > >large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size. > > This seems fairly problematic to me. Based on previous rushes on > the registries (Can you said Internic, before Sean's /19 filter?), I would > expect to see this resource consumed very fast, without substanitally impacting > the base perceived need. We would defenitely require some type of assurance > of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small > customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space, > which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently. > So I still don't see a net reduction. Yep! I really don't either. > > I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs > announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently. > > >>There are issues with flap, and dampening helps but does not solve > >>the problem. The problem seens to growth with order N^M, > >>where N is the number of prefixes and M is the number of peering sessions > >>or views. > > > >N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s) > >for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since > >the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net. > > M increase with the number of multihomed customers also, since each route > appears in two or more views. Essentlially now a /19 is required to > multihome via BGP and have global reachablity. This reduces the > number of possible multihome sites. Exactly! And again, curently is one of the reasons why I possed my original question as suggested that if there is to be a new multihomed ISP starting up that there should be some consideration for /19 allocations initialy. Benifits everybody as I see it. >;) > > >> Also for fun the cost of upgrading networks grows at N^R, in this > >>case R is the number of routers. We have some data to suggest > >>that todays hardware could handle the load generated by /19 aggregation, > >>but also seems to indicate that we cannot as a general rule freely > >>allocate /20s, without severly imparing network perfomance in the near > >>term. > > > >Again, N is not intended to grow significantly (and may in fact shrink). > > Again, I disagree. There seems to be little evidence to suggest > that de-aggregated /20s are being announced by single homed/dual home > systems. > > >>Having renumbered several /20s and a /19, I don't see they need to > >>create PI /20 space. There is this ideal out there that the playing > >>field should be completely flat, however, in the real world, this > >>isn't the case. > > > >I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that > >creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would: > > > >. Reduce routing table entries > >. Reduce the effects of flap > >. Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks > >. Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks > >. Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition > > > >>All modern hardware > >>and software can support dynamic assignment for networks. With a small > >>bit of planning and intergration, one change can renumber DNS A and PTR > >>records, and change the assigneds when the DHCP leases expire. > > > >You're ignoring the important minority here: servers. > > I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge. > I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs, > and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful). I agree that this is not very hard, as you put it here, but is not necessary and somewhat time consuming, with potential user impact. I think the big picture is more important in this regard. > > >>If there is enough intereste I will work up this proposal to put > >>before the ARIN membership at the first suitable time. > > > >As I'm sure hundreds of others will as well. > > > > > >Stephen > > > > --- > Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net > PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 > http://www.fc.net Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jerry at fc.net Wed Jul 2 14:42:12 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 13:42:12 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:26:50 PDT." <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8@priori.net> Message-ID: <199707021842.NAA22639@freeside.fc.net> In message <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8 at priori.net>, "Justin W. Newton" wr ites: > >>of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small >>customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space, >>which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently. >>So I still don't see a net reduction. > >Uhm, who contractually disallows that? I.e. if I have provider A space and >a provider B connection in addition to my provider A connection, both would >have to announce the block which provider A allocated to me, specifically, >or it would be /impossible/ to use both lines at the same time. Standard MCI and Sprint contract disallow use of no PA assigned space. I'm not saying this can't be negoitated, but the standard contracts do state this. >> >>I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs >>announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently. > >You're taking full routes aren't you? :) (I'm not at the moment, or I >would do it. There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump >anyway). If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I >would be greatly appreciative. We've got full routes from several sources, I'll setup a dump later today and make that available. >>>You're ignoring the important minority here: servers. >> >>I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge. >>I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs, >>and it just isn't that hard. (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful). > >Having been involved in all of the discussions at Erol's as to their >renumbering plan (they are renumbering out of their original PA space at >the moment), the one thing that is a real nightmare for ISPs to renumber is >name servers. I really do not envy their position in telling 200k users to >go into their settings and change their DNS server IP's. But, PPP/DHCP should be able to assign the DNS for the Win95/Mac customers automatically, plus the use of NATs means that the transition can happen seamlessly. We don't even tell users what the name servers are any more, unless they really need it. We've moved our name servers 3 times now from a UUnet block, to a Net99 block, to our PI space. We will probably return the PA space well before all customers are renumbered, but at least we won't have to punch holes in someone elses blocks. The name server issue is in two parts: customer name resolution: these addresses don't even have to be announced outside dns resolution: These need to be assigned, but by changing the host record and IP aliasing the addressing, and being very dilligent about excess glue records this can be done seamlessly. >********************************************************* >Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 >Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 >PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net >Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org >"The People You Know. The People You Trust." >********************************************************* > --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From jdfalk at priori.net Wed Jul 2 15:06:47 1997 From: jdfalk at priori.net (J.D. Falk) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:06:47 -0700 Subject: /20's for the needy In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> [9707.01] References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net> On Jul 1, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that > creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would: > > ... Reduce routing table entries > ... Reduce the effects of flap > ... Reduce the "holes" in the large ISPs' PA blocks > ... Reduce the number of unqualified AS's requesting RFC 2050 /19 blocks > ... Make it easier for small ISPs to grow, fostering competition The important thing up there, though, is "if done correctly." How are we, the networking community, going to ensure that this /is/ done correctly? There are really only two possibilities that I can think of (though, of course, they aren't mutually exclusive): education and punishment. By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.) And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm policies for revoking allocations or something like that. BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm really just brainstorming here. ********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 2 16:28:37 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:28:37 -0400 Subject: IP assignment In-Reply-To: <33BAA062.7C73@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970702162837.006c0904@lint.cisco.com> Go to your upstream ISP. - paul At 02:39 PM 07/02/97 -0400, Andrew Strau wrote: >Hello: > >We are an ISP in Miami, FL and Colombia and we are looking for class C >or B IP's. Is this the rigth place to request this ? If not can you gide >us to the right place. > >Thank You >Andrew > > From spsprunk at paranet.com Wed Jul 2 18:20:14 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 17:20:14 -0500 Subject: /20's for the needy In-Reply-To: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net> References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 12:06 02-07-97 -0700, you wrote: >On Jul 1, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> I'm not after a separate-but-equal net; there are technical problems that >> creating said PI space would solve. If done correctly, it would: > The important thing up there, though, is "if done correctly." > How are we, the networking community, going to ensure that this > /is/ done correctly? There are really only two possibilities > that I can think of (though, of course, they aren't mutually > exclusive): education and punishment. My expectation was that there would be guidelines about who qualifies for an allocation out of the block, and rules about future allocations if you get one; here's what has been bouncing around in my head: To qualify: . Must have an ASN . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050 . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days Future: . Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically . Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return > By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to > NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer > to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are > having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.) I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want any assistance. > And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm > policies for revoking allocations or something like that. I would think that revoking past allocations would be too expensive to defend in court; denying new allocations should be enough to bully most ISPs into compliance. > BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or > even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm > really just brainstorming here. Stephen From justin at priori.net Wed Jul 2 19:45:25 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:45:25 -0700 Subject: /20's for the needy In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> References: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970702164525.00cf274c@priori.net> At 05:20 PM 7/2/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >Future: >. Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically >. Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return > >> By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to >> NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer >> to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are >> having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.) > >I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in >the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting >aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their >advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any >problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest >claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want >any assistance. Wait until I finish going through the list, finding out what really /is/ going on with the announcements (there are some cases when advertising a more specific is a perfectly reasonable thing to do), and begin the process of getting press coverage as to how these people are "poisoning" the internet. I am as willing to play nice as the next guy, but I won't see the net damaged by a handful of people too lazy to do the right thing. Expect the report to be ready within the next few days, offers of help to go out next week, and the real pressure to follow. People need to stop peeing in the water the rest of us are swimming in. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 2 15:23:30 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 20:23:30 +0100 Subject: /20's for the needy References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com> Stephen and all, Here is my take on this situation. (See below Stephens comments) Stephen Sprunk wrote: > -snip- > > My expectation was that there would be guidelines about who qualifies for > an allocation out of the block, and rules about future allocations if you > get one; here's what has been bouncing around in my head: > > To qualify: > . Must have an ASN > . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already > . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050 > . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days My idea's to Qualify. 1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of qualification. 2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs. 3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050. 4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days > > Future: > . Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically > . Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return > > > By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to > > NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer > > to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are > > having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.) > > I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in > the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting > aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their > advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any > problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest > claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want > any assistance. > > > And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm > > policies for revoking allocations or something like that. > > I would think that revoking past allocations would be too expensive to > defend in court; denying new allocations should be enough to bully most > ISPs into compliance. I think that this may be difficult to defend in court as well, unless spicific guidelines or specs are added to RFC2050 or, made part of the future ARIN published policies/requirnments. ISP's or new start-up ISP's must show in a formatted planning document stating that they will comply with these spicific steps (As I indicated above), within a givin time period to be spicificaly stated. > > > BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or > > even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm > > really just brainstorming here. > > Stephen Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 2 15:27:38 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 20:27:38 +0100 Subject: /20's for the needy References: <19970702120647.10476@priori.net> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702164525.00cf274c@priori.net> Message-ID: <33BAABAA.7129@ix.netcom.com> Justin, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > At 05:20 PM 7/2/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >Future: > >. Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically > >. Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return > > > >> By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to > >> NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer > >> to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are > >> having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.) > > > >I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in > >the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting > >aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their > >advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any > >problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest > >claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want > >any assistance. > > Wait until I finish going through the list, finding out what really /is/ > going on with the announcements (there are some cases when advertising a > more specific is a perfectly reasonable thing to do), and begin the process > of getting press coverage as to how these people are "poisoning" the > internet. I am as willing to play nice as the next guy, but I won't see > the net damaged by a handful of people too lazy to do the right thing. > Expect the report to be ready within the next few days, offers of help to > go out next week, and the real pressure to follow. Always willing to help in any way I can. >;) Just to let me know... I am sure many others are as well. Remember you are always going to have your 10%'ers out there. It is inevitable. > > People need to stop peeing in the water the rest of us are swimming in. > > ********************************************************* > Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ********************************************************* Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 11:07:38 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 10:07:38 -0500 Subject: /20's for the needy In-Reply-To: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703100738.006b8264@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 20:23 02-07-97 +0100, you wrote: >Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> . Must have an ASN >1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of >qualification. I wanted to separate the ASN and PI block application processes, since it's a totally separate function and has its own list of requirements. I'd hate to slip up and give a PI block to someone who never got an ASN. >> . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs. I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup, it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block. >> . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050 >3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient > use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on > projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050. Again, what does is mean, and what is the intended effect? >> . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days >4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising" changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the lead time for installing circuits from most LECs. Stephen From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 11:50:35 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 10:50:35 -0500 Subject: when & how could policy be changed In-Reply-To: <199707020359.WAA16893@freeside.fc.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703105035.006ac58c@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 22:59 01-07-97 -0500, you wrote: >In message <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18 at pop.srv.paranet.com>, Stephen Sprunk writes: >>The proposal was to allocate a fixed number of PI /20 blocks which would be >>specifically for use by multihomed providers that didn't qualify for a /19 >>(or shorter) under RFC 2050. This will not double the total table size, >>only increase it by 4k routes in the short term; hopefully, in the long >>term it would reduce the number of more-specifics advertised out of the >>large ISPs' PA blocks, having a net REDUCTION in the routing table size. > >This seems fairly problematic to me. Based on previous rushes on >the registries (Can you said Internic, before Sean's /19 filter?), I would >expect to see this resource consumed very fast, without substanitally >impacting the base perceived need. My history maybe be a bit lacking, but wasn't Sean's /19 filter to cut out the more-specifics being advertised out of the large ISPs' PA blocks? I don't believe this had anything to do with a rush on the InterNIC. The rush on the InterNIC for Class B networks was the cause of CIDR deployment, and is relevant in that we have learned the need for restricting who gets allocations of what size. >We would defenitely require some type of assurance of a net reduction >in table size, Take a look at my suggested requirements in another thread. >but this assumes that these small customers would be >allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space, which in a large number >of cases is contractlly disallowed currently. So I still don't see a >net reduction. It's not contractually disallowed in any case I've seen. You can advertise a Sprint PA block more-specific to MCI easily (and Sprint will cooperate by passing on your more-specific to other AS's); this is the exact problem we intend to tackle. >I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs >announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently. A number of people are working on producing numbers. >>N will remain roughly constant, since we are merely switching PA route(s) >>for an equal or slightly shorter PI route. M will remain constant, since >>the AS's in question are already advertising routes on the net. > >M increase with the number of multihomed customers also, since each route >appears in two or more views. Essentlially now a /19 is required to >multihome via BGP and have global reachablity. This reduces the >number of possible multihome sites. No, anyone can multihome now who wants to, it's just very painful if you're using PA addresses. Stephen From rgeist at wahl.com Thu Jul 3 12:56:52 1997 From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:56:52 -0400 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act Message-ID: <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com> [Federal Register: July 2, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 127)] [Notices] [Page 35895-35897] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02jy97-166] [[Page 35895]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part II Department of Commerce _______________________________________________________________________ Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names; Notice [[Page 35896]] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 970613137-7137-01] Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on the current and future system(s) for the registration of Internet domain names. The Department invites the public to submit written comments in paper or electronic form.1 \1\ This request for public comment is not intended to supplant or otherwise affect the work of other public advisory groups, established under law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 1997. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for electronic access and filing addresses and further information on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Bruening, NTIA, (202) 482-1816. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing Addresses The address for comments submitted in electronic form is dns at ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic form should be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed information about electronic filing is available on the NTIA website, http:// www.ntia.doc.gov. Further Information on Submitting Comments Submit written comments in paper or electronic form at the above addresses. Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a version on diskette in the formats specified above. To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and organized in response to questions in accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles, General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should address each section on a separate page and should indicate at the beginning of their submission to which questions they are responding. Background The rapid growth in the use of the Internet has led to increasing public concern about the current Internet domain name registration systems. According to Internet Monthly Report, registration of domain names within a few top-level domains (.com, .net, .org) has increased from approximately 400 per month in 1993 to as many as 70,000 per month in 1996, the overwhelming majority in the .com category. The enormous growth and commercialization of the Internet has raised numerous questions about current domain name registration systems. In addition, the present system will likely undergo modification when the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement (NSF agreement) with Network Solutions Inc. to register and administer second-level domains for three top-level domains expires in 1998. Resolution of these issues will also affect the future operation of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and the Global Information Infrastructure (GII). The United States Government played a central role in the initial development, deployment, and operation of domain name registration systems, and through the NSF agreement as well as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) agreement(s) continues to play a role. In recent years, however, Internet expansion has been driven primarily by the private sector. The Internet has operated by consensus rather than by government regulation. Many believe that the Internet's decentralized structure accounts at least in part for its rapid growth. The Government has supported the privatization and commercialization of the Internet through actions such as the transition from the NSFNET backbone to commercial backbones. The Government supports continued private sector leadership for the Internet and believes that the transition to private sector control should continue. The stability of the Internet depends on a fully interconnected and interoperable domain name system that must be preserved during any transition. Various private sector groups have proposed systems for allocating and managing generic top level domains (gTLDs). The Government is studying the proposals and the underlying issues to determine what role, if any, it should play. The Government has not endorsed any plan at this time but believes that it is very important to reach consensus on these policy issues as soon as possible. The United States Government seeks the views of the public regarding these proposals and broader policy issues as well. Specifically, the Government seeks information on the following issues: A. Appropriate Principles The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should evaluate proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names. Are the following principles appropriate? Are they complete? If not, how should they be revised? How might such principles best be fostered? a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site. b. The private sector, with input from governments, should develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for domain name registration and management that adequately defines responsibilities and maintains accountability. c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time. d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust, efficient, and fair. e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over proprietary rights. f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits. B. General/Organizational Framework Issues 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems? 2. How might current domain name systems be improved? 3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain name systems be administered? What should the makeup of such an entity be? 4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered models or regimes that can be used for domain name registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting processes, or [[Page 35897]] spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of national or international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in national and international domain name registration systems? 5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO) country code domains? 6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers? 7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system name and address spaces as well as ensure that root servers continue to interoperate and coordinate? 8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished? 9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? C. Creation of New gTLDs 10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created? 11. Should additional gTLDs be created? 12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs? 13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code domains? 14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? D. Policies for Registries 15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist? 16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how? 17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars? 18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars? 19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD? 20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? E. Trademark Issues 21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? 22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application for registration of a domain name be required, before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a trademark, a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so, what standards should be used? Who should conduct the preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute settlement? 23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes? Specifically, is there a role for national/international governmental/nongovernmental organizations? 24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How should such a database(s) be used? 25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have a basis for requesting a particular domain name? If so, what information should be supplied? Who should evaluate the information? On the basis of what criteria? 26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes? 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name, are there any technological solutions? 28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? William M. Daley, Secretary. [FR Doc. 97-17215 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-U From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Jul 3 13:46:08 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:46:08 -0400 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act In-Reply-To: <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com> At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: > >Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet >Domain Names; Notice > Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names; it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP address allocation polices in [greater] North America. - paul From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 13:47:43 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 12:47:43 -0500 Subject: Class A ARIN Clones Message-ID: <01BC87AF.4DB70D80@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ @ >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new @ >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs. @ @ I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup, @ it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people @ who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen @ B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block. @ Maybe companies with /8s ("Class A's") should be encouraged to become registries and lease out some of their space, just like ARIN. As long as new private companies like ARIN are going to be getting into this business, there is no reason that existing companies can not participate. John Curran of BBN is on the proposed Board of ARIN. Maybe he can comment on whether BBN would be willing to allow allocations to be made from their stock-pile of addresses. Yes, routing may have to be adjusted but there could be other benefits. Holding 3 /8s is over 1% of the total IPv4 address space and a higher percentage of the usable space. The U.S. Government via the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission will eventually have to determine whether these sorts of allocations give companies an unfair advantage in the market place. That can only happen AFTER companies determine their costs of renumbering and the costs of obtaining allocations. Rather than have regulation BEFORE the fact people have campaigned for review after the fact. Companies have to add their costs of participating in these forums into those costs. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:58:16 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:58:16 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #1 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125816.00d1c154@texoma.net> IP addresses are essential for the conduct of an Internet Service Provider's business, are a limited and public resource, and there is a need for a fair, equal, expedient and rational system of allocating such resource which will maximize competition and avoid the unnecessary denial of any person or entity from equal access to the resource or otherwise unreasonably limiting anyone's ability to compete on equal footing. submitted by pagans at texoma.net --- Larry Vaden From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:58:39 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:58:39 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #2 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125839.00d1c154@texoma.net> It is recognized that multi-homing is an important objective of ISPs wanting to provide the highest quality service and that multi-homing can not be effectively accomplished without a routable IP block. submitted by pagans at texoma.net --- Larry Vaden From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:59:35 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:59:35 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #4 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125935.0070509c@texoma.net> The need to correct the system exists now, and is pressing for the individual businesses which are or want to be multi-homed in order to compete equally and effectively and said businesses will suffer disadvantage and harm during any delay in implementing a new system or criteria and that justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied. submitted by pagans at texoma.net --- Larry Vaden From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 14:00:07 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:07 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #5 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703130007.0070509c@texoma.net> The current criteria were implemented by NSI without any clear legal authority. submitted by pagans at texoma.net --- Larry Vaden From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 13:59:02 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:59:02 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703125902.01844fc4@texoma.net> It is generally recognized that the current criteria employed by InterNIC (but not APNIC or RIPE) to allocate IP blocks discriminates unfairly against small and moderate sized ISPs. submitted by pagans at texoma.net --- Larry Vaden From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 14:00:33 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:33 -0500 Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> pagans at texoma.net, the group which has proposed pagans at texoma.net principle #1 thru #5, consists of: Linda Avila Gary Corley I. L. Freed Scott Goode W. Scott McCollough Wayne Shirley Andrew Joseph Vaden Larry Vaden Peter R Veeck David Stagner Eric Weisberg Gloria Weisberg It is our goal, by offering these principles, to begin a discussion regarding allocation of routable CIDR IP blocks for use by small and moderate sized ISPs. Your participation is important and is requested. --- Larry Vaden From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:17:44 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:17:44 -0500 Subject: ARIN Board of Trustees Message-ID: <01BC87B3.7EEEB480@webster.unety.net> Why isn't this discussion on the ARIN list ? Also, which people from Network Solutions, Inc. will be participating in ARIN ? What will their roles be ? You mention that..."ARIN was just approved last week"... Who "approved" it ? What is their authority to approve it ? Rather than describe ARIN as "approved", would it not be more accurate to say that U.S. Government officials agreed not to regulate BEFORE the fact, but instead to review AFTER the fact...? ======= On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:06 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ @ There has been some question regarding whether the ARIN Board of Trustees cares about policy issues since @ they are not responding enough to your liking to the policy discussions now taking place on the pagan list. @ Please allow me to clarify a few things. @ @ First of all, the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees is composed of *voluntary* members, each of whom have full @ time and very responsible positions that keep them extremely busy. They have spent an inordinate amount @ of time and energy working to get ARIN approved and will need to continue doing so just to get it operational. @ Needless to say, they do not have a lot of time to respond to the messages on the pagan mailing list. I'm sure @ they are reading each one and I know they do understand the problems and want to work on solving them. @ @ Having said that, it is NOT the responsibility of the ARIN BoT to change the allocation policies. The BoT have @ clearly stated that this is the responsibility of the Advisory Council and the ARIN membership. The BoT duties @ are the management of the business affairs of ARIN. @ @ Since ARIN was just approved last week, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the schedule, but my understanding @ is that we will open up ARIN membership within the next 2 - 3 weeks. The applications will ask whether you @ would like to be nominated for a seat on the Advisory Council. From those nominations, the BoT will select @ the initial AC. I would expect to have have an AC meeting as soon as possible after that, at the same time @ establish an ARIN membership mailing list. This will happen even before ARIN is operational. @ @ One of the issues I fully expect to be discussed at the first AC meeting is the issue currently under discussion. @ Some of the proposals seem to be valid and should definitely be considered by the AC. I expect the AC will @ consider these proposals and others and be ready to present them to the ARIN membership either at the @ first ARIN membership meeting or via the mailing list beforehand. @ @ Bottom line, I understand this issue is very important to you, it's important to everyone. Lord knows, my life @ would be a lot easier if I could allocate /19s to every ISP that asked for it. But it is not the role of the BoT, on @ its own, to determine this. Would you want them deciding this issue or any other, without the membership @ involvement, if you didn't agree with it? @ @ Please try to be a little more patient. @ @ Thanks, @ - Kim @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From justin at priori.net Thu Jul 3 14:28:21 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:28:21 -0700 Subject: /20's for the needy In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970703100738.006b8264@pop.srv.paranet.com> References: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703112821.00c322d0@priori.net> At 10:07 AM 7/3/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising" >changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a >future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the >lead time for installing circuits from most LECs. 60-90 days is more in line with long haul providers though. (Yes, you can get it done in 30, maybe, but it usually takes longer). ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From kimh at internic.net Thu Jul 3 14:29:15 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:29:15 -0400 Subject: ARIN Board of Trustees Message-ID: <01BC87BD.7C470890@jazz.internic.net> -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 2:18 PM To: 'Kim Hubbard'; 'pagan at apnic.net' Cc: 'Multiple recipients of list NAIPR' Subject: RE: ARIN Board of Trustees Why isn't this discussion on the ARIN list ? Because the discussion was about policy. I probably should've copied it to the naipr list, though. Also, which people from Network Solutions, Inc. will be participating in ARIN ? What will their roles be ? TBD You mention that..."ARIN was just approved last week"... Who "approved" it ? What is their authority to approve it ? Hmm, approved may have been the wrong word. You can fill in whatever word you like. Rather than describe ARIN as "approved", would it not be more accurate to say that U.S. Government officials agreed not to regulate BEFORE the fact, but instead to review AFTER the fact...? No. Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry ======= On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:06 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ @ There has been some question regarding whether the ARIN Board of Trustees cares about policy issues since @ they are not responding enough to your liking to the policy discussions now taking place on the pagan list. @ Please allow me to clarify a few things. @ @ First of all, the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees is composed of *voluntary* members, each of whom have full @ time and very responsible positions that keep them extremely busy. They have spent an inordinate amount @ of time and energy working to get ARIN approved and will need to continue doing so just to get it operational. @ Needless to say, they do not have a lot of time to respond to the messages on the pagan mailing list. I'm sure @ they are reading each one and I know they do understand the problems and want to work on solving them. @ @ Having said that, it is NOT the responsibility of the ARIN BoT to change the allocation policies. The BoT have @ clearly stated that this is the responsibility of the Advisory Council and the ARIN membership. The BoT duties @ are the management of the business affairs of ARIN. @ @ Since ARIN was just approved last week, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the schedule, but my understanding @ is that we will open up ARIN membership within the next 2 - 3 weeks. The applications will ask whether you @ would like to be nominated for a seat on the Advisory Council. From those nominations, the BoT will select @ the initial AC. I would expect to have have an AC meeting as soon as possible after that, at the same time @ establish an ARIN membership mailing list. This will happen even before ARIN is operational. @ @ One of the issues I fully expect to be discussed at the first AC meeting is the issue currently under discussion. @ Some of the proposals seem to be valid and should definitely be considered by the AC. I expect the AC will @ consider these proposals and others and be ready to present them to the ARIN membership either at the @ first ARIN membership meeting or via the mailing list beforehand. @ @ Bottom line, I understand this issue is very important to you, it's important to everyone. Lord knows, my life @ would be a lot easier if I could allocate /19s to every ISP that asked for it. But it is not the role of the BoT, on @ its own, to determine this. Would you want them deciding this issue or any other, without the membership @ involvement, if you didn't agree with it? @ @ Please try to be a little more patient. @ @ Thanks, @ - Kim @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From justin at priori.net Thu Jul 3 14:33:10 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:33:10 -0700 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com> References: <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703113310.00c4c808@priori.net> At 01:46 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: > >> >>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet >>Domain Names; Notice >> > >Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names; >it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP >address allocation polices in [greater] North America. Leave poor Rudy alone, he's not very bright, he has only been out of law school a short time, and has no comprehension of netiquette. Not bad for the legal counsel of an "ISP Trade Association" eh? For more shining examples http://www.usipa.org Justin "I am glad that I can no longer in any way be associated with this guy" Newton ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:45:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:45:47 -0500 Subject: ARIN Board of Trustees Message-ID: <01BC87B7.8285C120@webster.unety.net> OK...let's summarize... 1. The ARIN discussion list exists and does relate to ARIN. 2. Network Solutions, Inc. (i.e. SAIC) has not yet staffed ARIN even though ARIN was announced in January, 1997. 3. ARIN was not recently approved, that NSF "spin" must have been a smoke-screen. 4. The ARIN Board members are busy and do not have time for ARIN. 5. More beauracracies need to be put in place (BoT, AC, iPOC, PAB, etc.) before one can justify why no decisions can be made. 6. The U.S. Government may have to regulate IP allocations BEFORE the fact, rather than review AFTER the fact. On Thursday, July 03, 1997 1:29 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ @ @ -----Original Message----- @ From: Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] @ Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 2:18 PM @ To: 'Kim Hubbard'; 'pagan at apnic.net' @ Cc: 'Multiple recipients of list NAIPR' @ Subject: RE: ARIN Board of Trustees @ @ @ Why isn't this discussion on the ARIN list ? @ @ Because the discussion was about policy. I probably should've copied it to the naipr list, though. @ @ Also, which people from Network Solutions, Inc. will be @ participating in ARIN ? What will their roles be ? @ @ TBD @ @ You mention that..."ARIN was just approved last week"... @ Who "approved" it ? @ What is their authority to approve it ? @ @ Hmm, approved may have been the wrong word. You can fill in whatever word you like. @ @ Rather than describe ARIN as "approved", would it not @ be more accurate to say that U.S. Government officials @ agreed not to regulate BEFORE the fact, but instead to @ review AFTER the fact...? @ @ No. @ @ Kim Hubbard @ InterNIC Registry @ ======= @ @ On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:06 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ @ @ @ There has been some question regarding whether the ARIN Board of Trustees cares about policy issues since @ @ they are not responding enough to your liking to the policy discussions now taking place on the pagan list. @ @ Please allow me to clarify a few things. @ @ @ @ First of all, the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees is composed of *voluntary* members, each of whom have full @ @ time and very responsible positions that keep them extremely busy. They have spent an inordinate amount @ @ of time and energy working to get ARIN approved and will need to continue doing so just to get it operational. @ @ Needless to say, they do not have a lot of time to respond to the messages on the pagan mailing list. I'm sure @ @ they are reading each one and I know they do understand the problems and want to work on solving them. @ @ @ @ Having said that, it is NOT the responsibility of the ARIN BoT to change the allocation policies. The BoT have @ @ clearly stated that this is the responsibility of the Advisory Council and the ARIN membership. The BoT duties @ @ are the management of the business affairs of ARIN. @ @ @ @ Since ARIN was just approved last week, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the schedule, but my understanding @ @ is that we will open up ARIN membership within the next 2 - 3 weeks. The applications will ask whether you @ @ would like to be nominated for a seat on the Advisory Council. From those nominations, the BoT will select @ @ the initial AC. I would expect to have have an AC meeting as soon as possible after that, at the same time @ @ establish an ARIN membership mailing list. This will happen even before ARIN is operational. @ @ @ @ One of the issues I fully expect to be discussed at the first AC meeting is the issue currently under discussion. @ @ Some of the proposals seem to be valid and should definitely be considered by the AC. I expect the AC will @ @ consider these proposals and others and be ready to present them to the ARIN membership either at the @ @ first ARIN membership meeting or via the mailing list beforehand. @ @ @ @ Bottom line, I understand this issue is very important to you, it's important to everyone. Lord knows, my life @ @ would be a lot easier if I could allocate /19s to every ISP that asked for it. But it is not the role of the BoT, on @ @ its own, to determine this. Would you want them deciding this issue or any other, without the membership @ @ involvement, if you didn't agree with it? @ @ @ @ Please try to be a little more patient. @ @ @ @ Thanks, @ @ - Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- @ Jim Fleming @ Unir Corporation @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Jul 3 14:52:12 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:52:12 -0400 Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:33 CDT." <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> Message-ID: <199707031852.OAA16496@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:00:33 CDT, Larry Vaden said: > It is our goal, by offering these principles, to begin a discussion > regarding allocation of routable CIDR IP blocks for use by small and > moderate sized ISPs. > > Your participation is important and is requested. Aren't there already mailing lists for this? I'll overlook the fact that you have a number of "it is generally recognized" statements that are, in fact, *not* generally recognized, and subject to dispute. In particular, I found principle number 3 a bit hard to swallow, given that InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE were all (the last I heard) using essentially the same criteria. In fact, said "same criteria" caused a large flamefest on the NAIPR list around Feb 6, where the whole hangup was that I (and a number of other people) mistakenly thought RFC2050 was the entire list of criteria. RIPE also uses RIPE-140 and a few other documents, and Scott Bradner (I think it was Scott, anyhow) informed me that InterNIC and APNIC used pretty much the same additional criteria. Having said that, I don't think I'll be joining the mailing list if you can't quantify the difference in criteria, and how it "unfairly discriminates". -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior 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 JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:48:44 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:48:44 -0500 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act Message-ID: <01BC87B7.D34969E0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 12:46 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] wrote: @ At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: @ @ > @ >Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet @ >Domain Names; Notice @ > @ @ Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names; @ it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP @ address allocation polices in [greater] North America. @ Who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ? What about the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 14:51:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:51:30 -0500 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act Message-ID: <01BC87B8.36CF0380@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 8:37 AM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote: @ Hello rudolph, @ @ some process advice for those of us who have already seen this @ announcement many times on many other lists. Naipr is devoted to a @ discussion of the formation of ARIN. ARIN implements IP numbers. IP @ numbers are an absolutely separate topic of discussion from gTLDs. There @ are plenty of lists for discussion of gTLDs. NAIPR is*NOT* among them. @ @ NOR is pagan. Pagan is for discussion of IP registry policy. IP is NOT DNS. @ Therefore PAGAN is NOT an appropriate list for publication of this @ material either. @ Translation: The U.S. Government is going to be busy trying to figure out the problems with the "sizzle" of domain names while the real meat of the matter, the steak is discussed in other forums. To bring all of these issues into one forum would expose the fact that a very small circle of friends control both the IP allocations and the domain name delegations and that might draw attention from the U.S. Government. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 15:05:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:05:19 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #5 Message-ID: <01BC87BA.24882420@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 1:00 PM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote: @ The current criteria were implemented by NSI without any clear @ legal authority. @ @ submitted by pagans at texoma.net @ I do not think this is the case. I can not imagine that NSI would want to be responsible for the IP address allocation activities. >From what I understand, that is one of the reasons that NSI is willing to pay to "launch" ARIN. NSI and for that matter SAIC, do not need the "bad PR" that constantly flows from the IP address allocation side of the InterNIC. NSI is probably able to spin the domain name registry business back into the "good PR" light, especially with all of the money they will have once the NSF is out of the picture. (Instant 30% increase in profits.) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 15:17:22 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:17:22 -0500 Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net In-Reply-To: <199707031852.OAA16496@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703141722.01275dec@texoma.net> At 02:52 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >I'll overlook the fact that you have a number of "it is generally recognized" >statements that are, in fact, *not* generally recognized, and subject to >dispute. In particular, I found principle number 3 a bit hard to swallow, >given that InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE were all (the last I heard) using >essentially the same criteria. May I offer in rebuttal the following excerpt from the full email from RIPE, which is included below the excerpt for integrity purposes: "Together with this first assignment we will allocate an amount of address space to your registry. To be fair to all registries this amount is the same for each new registry. We will allocate a /19 range of IP numbers to you. You can announce this prefix to your transit provider. But please note that you can not make any assignments from this range without approval from the RIPE NCC, as long as your Assignment window is 0." -----full text of email from RIPE----- Posted-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 04:13:54 -0500 (CDT) From: NCC Role Account To: Larry Vaden Subject: Registry us.texoma Procedures X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:13:37 +0200 Sender: ncc at ripe.net Dear Larry Vaden, We have added us.texoma to the list of Local Internet Registries with the following particulars: regid: us.texoma org: Internet Texoma Inc. type: PROVIDER community: The registry will serve customers of Internet Texoma Inc, community: an internet service provider in the United States which community: serves public and private customers.Internet Texoma Inc. community: is prepared to serve those not buying any other service community: from Internet Texoma Inc. address: Internet Texoma Inc. address: 120 W Mulberry address: US-75090 Sherman, TX country: US CA MX admin-c: Larry Vaden (LV21) tech-c: Linda Avila (LA141-RIPE) phone: +001 903 813 4500 fax-no: +001 903 868 8551 e-mail: registry at texoma.net remark: multi-homed ISP lst-localir: registry at texoma.net lst-provs: info at texoma.net lst-contrib: vaden at texoma.net bill-addr: Internet Texoma Inc. bill-addr: attn: Linda Avila, Exec VP bill-addr: 120 W Mulberry bill-addr: US-75090 Sherman, TX bill-mail: avila at texoma.net bill-ref: PO#970616A bill-vatno: N/A US Corporation bill-proto: E-MAIL ASCII bill-categ: SMALL bill-scheme: HALF-YEARLY bill-remark: RIPE Invoice reg-ack: LONG The public part of this has been published in ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/registries/us.texoma It is also accessible by by gopher, www and telnet. Regarding the delegation of address space and related matters, please contact . Please be sure to include your registry ID us.texoma in all messages you send to us, in the following format: X-NCC-RegID: us.texoma This line can be placed in the message header, but also in the message body. If you have sent requests in the past, which received no service, please re-send these requests. To make you familiar with the registry procedures and to provide additional support in your start up phase, we currently follow a "handholding" procedure for all new registries. Each new registry gets a so called assignment window (AW). This AW is initially 0. This means that you can not make any assignment without prior approval from the RIPE NCC. Please send all requests for address space to the RIPE NCC for prior approval. We would like to see ripe-141 (European IP Network Number Request Form) completed for every single request for address space that you receive. This applies to requests from your customers as well as for address space you may need for your internal network. We always expect you to include your own comments and evaluation results in every request you send to us. We will then approve the request or recommend the assignment of a different amount of address space. This procedure will only last for a short period of time until we are both confident that you are familiar with the registration procedures. We will then increase your assignment window so that you can make assignments up to certain size yourself. For the first request we receive from your registry we will assign the address space. This means we will update the database and inform you about the address space we have assigned. Together with this first assignment we will allocate an amount of address space to your registry. To be fair to all registries this amount is the same for each new registry. We will allocate a /19 range of IP numbers to you. You can announce this prefix to your transit provider. But please note that you can not make any assignments from this range without approval from the RIPE NCC, as long as your Assignment window is 0. Once you run out of the address space we delegated to you, we will quickly delegate additional address space after a review of the assignment information in the RIPE database. The size of the next delegation will depend on your rate of assignments and estimates of future needs. In order to further aid you in getting familiar to registry procedures, the RIPE NCC offers Local IR Training Courses (roughly 2 per month, all over Europe). It is recommended for new Local IR staff to follow one. Attendance of the training courses (lunch included) is free, not including travel etc. More information on training courses can be found on our Website at http://www.ripe.net/lir/courses/; dates of new courses are also announced on the 'local-ir' mailinglist. If you have any further questions about the formal arrangements and billing, please do not hesitate to contact . Please contact whenever something needs to be changed to your registry data. All technical and registry questions are handled by . Kind regards, Mandy Jonkers RIPE NCC --- Larry Vaden From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 15:13:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:13:35 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #5 Message-ID: <01BC87BB.4C071D20@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 9:17 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: @ > The current criteria were implemented by NSI without any clear @ > legal authority. @ @ I thought that we were looking for what should be, if so this is not @ relevant - if what we want to do is complain about the past it may be time @ to create a list that is interested in the actual issue at hand @ Those that do not study the past are doomed to relive it. Also, as the U.S. Government reviews the past activities it is important to understand what really was happening. In the case of IP addresses, the U.S. Government has been fooled into thinking that they do not need to regulate the allocations, but instead can review the allocations after the fact and see that everything is wonderful. Unfortunately, they were not told that the Internet leaders have this way of sweeping the past under the rug and declaring everything to be wonderful. This does not wash when businesses have lost money and have been damaged. As businesses bring that to the attention of the U.S. Government, the elected officials will want to know who was involved in these activities and what went on. Via that information, they will be able to determine whether any laws have been violated or whether people's rights have been compromised. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Jul 3 15:42:53 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:42:53 -0400 Subject: Who is pagans@texoma.net In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:17:22 CDT." <3.0.2.32.19970703141722.01275dec@texoma.net> References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> <3.0.2.32.19970703141722.01275dec@texoma.net> Message-ID: <199707031942.PAA20364@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:17:22 CDT, Larry Vaden said: > May I offer in rebuttal the following excerpt from the full email from > RIPE, which is included below the excerpt for integrity purposes: > > "Together with this first assignment we will allocate an amount of > address space to your registry. To be fair to all registries this > amount is the same for each new registry. We will allocate a /19 range > of IP numbers to you. You can announce this prefix to your transit > provider. But please note that you can not make any assignments from > this range without approval from the RIPE NCC, as long as your > Assignment window is 0." All fine and dandy. I must be dense, I didn't see where that big long quote had anything to do with your claim that InterNIC's policies were discriminatory. All it proved was that RIPE gave you a /19. In fact, they gave you a /19 under the condition that you can't *USE* it without their prior permission. Anyhow, you're citing RIPE's policy regarding *registries* in support of your claim regarding InterNIC's policy regarding address allocation to startup ISPs. I remember learning back in grade school that citing Teacher Jones' grading of Billy's math homework didn't do much good when you are complaining about Teacher Smith's grading of your English paper.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior 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 spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 16:23:26 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:23:26 -0500 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act In-Reply-To: <01BC87B7.D34969E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703152326.00739e7c@pop.srv.paranet.com> I don't know where your confusion is Jim, maybe it has to do with those "root servers" you run, or maybe your net.conspiracy paranoia... ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI. IN-ADDR.ARPA. delegations will be handled in the same manner as always; once the IANA delegates IPs to an organization, the IN-ADDR delegation(s) for those IPs will follow. Stephen At 13:48 03-07-97 -0500, you wrote: >Who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ? > >What about the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ? From justin at priori.net Thu Jul 3 16:32:51 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:32:51 -0700 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970703113310.00c4c808@priori.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com> <33BBD9D4.B69@wahl.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703133251.00d426f0@priori.net> At 11:33 AM 7/3/97 -0700, Justin W. Newton wrote: >At 01:46 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: >> >>> >>>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet >>>Domain Names; Notice >>> >> >>Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names; >>it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP >>address allocation polices in [greater] North America. > >Leave poor Rudy alone, he's not very bright, he has only been out of law >school a short time, and has no comprehension of netiquette. Not bad for >the legal counsel of an "ISP Trade Association" eh? > >For more shining examples http://www.usipa.org I would like o state for the record that I have no knowledge of Mr. Geist's intelligence except as based upon his public postings to mailing lists, as well as the USIPA web page. Any inference I have made has been based on that, and anyone who would like to make their own decision, with the same information as I had, should read what he has written. I believe that these postings show a lack of understanding of the Internet community as well as Internet law, but please draw your own conclusions. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 16:42:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:42:26 -0500 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act Message-ID: <01BC87C7.B5EBC360@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 3:23 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ @ ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the @ IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI. @ So, the IANA makes all the decisions... @ IN-ADDR.ARPA. delegations will be handled in the same manner as always; @ once the IANA delegates IPs to an organization, the IN-ADDR delegation(s) @ for those IPs will follow. @ Again, the IANA makes all of the decisions... I suggest people wait until the IANA (Jon Postel) makes these decisions. This will save people time, energy and money. There is no need to repeat the domain name fiasco in the IP address arena. Let's not give people the impression that they have any decision making power, when they do not. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 17:02:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 16:02:13 -0500 Subject: v? addresses Message-ID: <01BC87CA.79753800@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:08 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: @ > The ARIN people claimed that they will not have @ > anything to do with IPv6 addresses. @ @ this arin person has not made that claim @ I fully expect that when the rules for allocating v6 addresses have @ been defined and adopted (by the ipng working group) that the ip @ registeries will allocate ipv6 addresses when they are requested to @ do so. @ Maybe the ISPs that are knocking on ARIN's door for IPv4 addresses should be sold IPv6 addresses. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From spsprunk at paranet.com Thu Jul 3 17:29:22 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 16:29:22 -0500 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act In-Reply-To: <01BC87C7.B5EBC360@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703162922.0070231c@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 15:42 03-07-97 -0500, you wrote: >@ ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the >@ IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI. >So, the IANA makes all the decisions... No, the IANA makes the root delegations. "All" is a bit naive, even for you. >@ IN-ADDR.ARPA. delegations will be handled in the same manner as always; >@ once the IANA delegates IPs to an organization, the IN-ADDR delegation(s) >@ for those IPs will follow. >@ >Again, the IANA makes all of the decisions... Again, no. The IANA determines who gets root delegations. Those organizations (RIPE, APNIC, InterNIC/NSI, ARIN, etc) then allocate to other organizations per current policy (as determined by RFC and/or membership vote). >I suggest people wait until the IANA (Jon Postel) makes these >decisions. This will save people time, energy and money. >There is no need to repeat the domain name fiasco in the >IP address arena. Let's not give people the impression that >they have any decision making power, when they do not. Jim, please go back to your eDNS/IPv8 fantasy land and leave those of us trying to do productive work alone. Stephen From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 3 17:41:24 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 16:41:24 -0500 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act Message-ID: <01BC87CF.F2740100@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 03, 1997 4:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ At 15:42 03-07-97 -0500, you wrote: @ >@ ARPA. (like .) will continue to be maintained by the organization that the @ >@ IANA designates; presumably that will be either ARIN or NSI. @ Many organizations have to use .ARPA. ARIN is a private company being formed around some Network Solutions, Inc. people. Why would ARIN be handling the .ARPA Top Level Domain ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 3 20:36:31 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 19:36:31 -0500 Subject: Average utilization of Class B's 1.5% in Japan per IETF Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970703193631.00dc656c@texoma.net> Per , Dead space in the /8 space Fifty-six /8 prefixes are currently allocated and approximately 18% of the v4 space has been recovered. There are more addresses in the free pool than 18 months ago. In the /8 starting with 192, the recovery process found that most contact information had email addresses that bounced when an attempt to contact was made. In this space there exist truly legacy numbers used for local addressable spaces long before the idea of private address space came into prominence. JP-NIC has done a study of class B utilization with 464 class B networks in Japan. Of the 770 technical administrators listed as contacts the survey had answers from 246. The distribution of the number of hosts indicated about 1,000 hosts per class B license. The survey found an amazing case where the designated contact was deceased and the company holding the Class B license was out of business. Still, the addresses were being routed. When the investigators went to the registry to get the information updated they were reminded that they weren't the owners of the record and that only the last contact of record could change the entry. submitted by pagans at texoma.net --- Larry Vaden From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 3 21:07:52 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 02:07:52 +0100 Subject: Class A ARIN Clones References: <01BC87AF.4DB70D80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33BC4CE8.4595@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Thursday, July 03, 1997 10:07 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: > > @ > @ >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new > @ >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs. > @ > @ I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup, > @ it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people > @ who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen > @ B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block. > @ > > Maybe companies with /8s ("Class A's") should be > encouraged to become registries and lease out > some of their space, just like ARIN. As long as new > private companies like ARIN are going to be getting > into this business, there is no reason that existing > companies can not participate. I agree. There is no LOGICAL reason why not! > > John Curran of BBN is on the proposed Board of > ARIN. Maybe he can comment > on whether BBN would be willing to allow allocations > to be made from their stock-pile of addresses. Yes, > routing may have to be adjusted but there could be > other benefits. Yes, "Other bennifits indeed". Maybe a little snoop and poop is in order here for BBN, hummmm? >;) > > Holding 3 /8s is over 1% of the total IPv4 address space > and a higher percentage of the usable space. The > U.S. Government via the Department of Commerce > and the Federal Trade Commission will eventually > have to determine whether these sorts of allocations > give companies an unfair advantage in the market > place. I will be sure that this info gets to the "Right people" at Commerce and Trade. Not to worry... >;) > > That can only happen AFTER companies determine > their costs of renumbering and the costs of obtaining > allocations. Rather than have regulation BEFORE the > fact people have campaigned for review after the fact. > Companies have to add their costs of participating in > these forums into those costs. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 3 21:03:24 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 02:03:24 +0100 Subject: Request for Comment on gTLDs Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act References: <3.0.1.32.19970703134608.006da17c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <33BC4BDC.36@ix.netcom.com> Paul, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 12:56 PM 07/03/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: > > > > >Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet > >Domain Names; Notice > > > > Please do *not* forward messages to this list regarding domain names; > it has no relevence here. The NAIPR list is for discussion of IP > address allocation polices in [greater] North America. Hummmm? Here we go again! IP's have no relevance to Domain names eah? Please Paul, seems that you are mistaken hereI believe..... >;) > > - paul Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 3 20:52:47 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 01:52:47 +0100 Subject: /20's for the needy References: <33BAAAB2.DE0@ix.netcom.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970703112821.00c322d0@priori.net> Message-ID: <33BC495F.6E2E@ix.netcom.com> Justin, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > At 10:07 AM 7/3/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > >If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising" > >changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a > >future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the > >lead time for installing circuits from most LECs. > > 60-90 days is more in line with long haul providers though. > > (Yes, you can get it done in 30, maybe, but it usually takes longer). I agree with you on this one. That is why I suggested 60 days. > > ********************************************************* > Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ********************************************************* Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From pferguso at CISCO.COM Fri Jul 4 11:11:10 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 11:11:10 -0400 Subject: Continental Aggregation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970704111110.00705968@lint.cisco.com> [naipr added, pagan elided] [re: geographic address allocation v. topological allocation] At 10:12 AM 07/04/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >Your statement applies mostly to transborder long lines and is >less applivable the further away from the border you go. > I'd tend to disagree. There are plenty of cases of organizations which are geographically located in one place while their connectivity to the net is located somewhere else altogether. In any event, geographic-based IP address allocation doesn't work within the scope of CIDR aggregation. - paul From randy at PSG.COM Fri Jul 4 11:35:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 97 08:35 PDT Subject: Continental Aggregation References: <3.0.1.32.19970704111110.00705968@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > There are plenty of cases of organizations which are geographically > located in one place while their connectivity to the net is located > somewhere else altogether. This year it is getting even more serious. We are seeing the countries who had long-hauled to the States establishing more local backbones. > In any event, geographic-based IP address allocation doesn't work > within the scope of CIDR aggregation. Anyone who talks geographic knows little about the net. Even the level we have now is painful. E.g. I am helping Togo set up, and they will likely connect to the US with a RIPE (or provider) allocation. This may make sense in the long run, when there is an African backbone. Right now, it's a bit painful. And, yes, they expect to renumber the whole country. randy From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 4 13:34:38 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:34:38 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 Message-ID: <01BC8876.A419BD40@webster.unety.net> On Friday, July 04, 1997 7:38 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: @ John sez: @ @ InterNIC's IP allocation policies deny routable blocks to @ diversely homed ISPs unless they show prior "efficient" @ usage of 32 Class Cs. @ -- @ @ and how does this type of help figure out what @ to do? how about positive statement of what should be? @ @ Scott @ @ Again... 1. Allocate /18s to make sure that you get large blocks back if an organization fails. 2. Make the application TOTALLY OBJECTIVE and have clerks handle the processing (not geeks). 3. Charge some fee to pay people for their time and energy and to discourage 14 year olds from forging applications. 4. Make both the delegate and the two (minimum) upstream providers certify that more specific routes will not be advertised from the block. 5. Require that upstream providers and the delegates register annual renewal applications to avoid having these blocks falling in the cracks and changing hands, etc. ============ Here is a short form 1040/18 EZ that the U.S. Government could be using to allocate /18 CIDR Blocks. @@@@@@@@@ EXAMPLE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 1. Name, address, and State of Incorporation. (Include copy of the Certificate of Incorporation) _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 2. Previously allocated blocks that will be returned 60 days after the new allocation is activated. (if any) __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ 3. Contact information on the TWO service providers that have agreed to advertise your allocation. Please attach standard routing affidavits from each provider. 1. ________________________________ 2. ________________________________ NOTE: Each provider must verify that at least 1.544 Mbps of bandwidth is allocated 24 hours per day on each link. 4. Business References: 1._____________________________ 2._____________________________ 3._____________________________ 3. Date Submitted and signed by an officer of the company ______________________________________ Please submit the above information along with a $500 application fee drawn on a U.S. bank. Please allow at least 5 days for processing from the date received. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 08:33:11 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 13:33:11 +0100 Subject: Some other principals References: <3.0.2.32.19970703130033.01845e18@texoma.net> <3.0.2.32.19970704030350.00d57c24@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33BCED87.4CEB@ix.netcom.com> Lary and all, Here are some other principals for consideration... Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may be so bold? 1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by them, to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the Membership and the Internet user community. 2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet user community so choses at any time upon request of any member or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure that those board members have the support of the majority of all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed. 3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet exists as a community, for which those Board members and at large members are deemed responsible too. And that that responsibility be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible, that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users. 4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged to monitor or participate. 5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses. Larry Vaden wrote: > > At 02:12 AM 7/4/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Larry, > > > > Hay guy! Where is my name on that list? > > Right here: > > andrew at texoma.net > avila at texoma.net > veeck at texoma.net > editor at txlaw.com > glo at texoma.net > wshirley at ix.netcom.com > wsmc at smccollough.com > vaden at texoma.net > scott_g at proteuscorp.com > stagnerd at texoma.net > corley at texoma.net > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > Regarding your other note, please post any principles you wish to the list. > > We appreciate your support. > > Have a happy 4th of July, > > Larry Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Fri Jul 4 14:49:26 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Some other principals Message-ID: <199707041849.OAA13391@newdev.harvard.edu> well, there is a diversion from what we were talking about, I'd suggest that one thing be resolved at a time - we don't seem to be doing well enough with the current topics to warrent adding new ones. ---- Lary and all, Here are some other principals for consideration... Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may be so bold? 1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by them, to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the Membership and the Internet user community. 2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet user community so choses at any time upon request of any member or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure that those board members have the support of the majority of all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed. 3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet exists as a community, for which those Board members and at large members are deemed responsible too. And that that responsibility be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible, that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users. 4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged to monitor or participate. 5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses. From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 08:53:12 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 13:53:12 +0100 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 References: <199707041635.MAA12871@newdev.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.19970704130017.00b04e68@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33BCF238.579@ix.netcom.com> Larry, Larry Vaden wrote: > > At 10:05 AM 7/4/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: > >> 1/ how can you tell a pipedream from a real ISP? > > > >Real startup ISPs are too damn busy working their butts off at sales, > >installation, and infrastructure to spend half their lives on mailing > >lists. > > > >randy > > Purchasing department staff of ISPs covered by the regional monopolies of > APNIC and RIPE submit a purchase order to APNIC or RIPE for membership and > obtain a /19. > > With InterNIC, it is quite a different matter and that's why this > discussion is going on. How true. > > Please list the reason(s) why InterNIC shouldn't adopt the RIPE policy when > the doors open Monday and let ARIN work on the longer term solution. Good idea larry! Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 09:01:57 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 14:01:57 +0100 Subject: Some other principals References: <199707041849.OAA13391@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <33BCF444.69BA@ix.netcom.com> Scott, This was posted on pegan and napir originaly. I just changed the thread is all. Sorry if it confused you, Scott. I don't see any deversion here at all. Please review back on the original thread. >;) Scott Bradner wrote: > > well, there is a diversion from what we were talking about, I'd > suggest that one thing be resolved at a time - we don't seem to > be doing well enough with the current topics to warrent adding new ones. > > ---- > > Lary and all, > > Here are some other principals for consideration... > > Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up > in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may > be so bold? > > 1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership > and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by > them, > to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the > Membership and the Internet user community. > > 2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one > vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet > user community so choses at any time upon request of any member > or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure > that those board members have the support of the majority of > all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed. > > 3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are > also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet > exists as a community, for which those Board members and at > large members are deemed responsible too. And that that > responsibility > be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible, > that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and > published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users. > > 4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other > sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged > to monitor or participate. > > 5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct > desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced > in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed > on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses. -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From justin at priori.net Fri Jul 4 12:48:40 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 09:48:40 -0700 Subject: Mr. Geist Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970704094840.0070d1fc@kurgan.hilander.com> Hi all, I would like to apologize to the list, as well as to Mr. Geist for the disparaging comments I made about him. This list is here to solve a problem, and ad hominem attacks are not the solution to anything. I hope that the list will forgive my transgression. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:25:29 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:25:29 +0100 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 References: <199707041905.PAA29399@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: <33BD07D9.11AA@ix.netcom.com> Ken and all Ken Leland wrote: > > Randy wrote: > > > Ken Leland wrote: > > > Geez Randy, you have not been, exactly, shy with your responses on > > > numerous mailing lists over the years. > > > > {part about continual condescention getting old elided. } > > > > > AFTER I made a very successful ISP and cashed in on it. > > > > Been there. Done that. Have the track record. > > > > I'll buy that but why all the condescention? A track record is > clearly a key thing, indeed the main thing, but there is > more to leadership than track record alone and you well know it. Of course there is, and Randy does know this, or should. If he doesn't I would be greatly suprised. But maybe this is an overiding factor in his mine? I don't know. Maybe her could enlighten us all? > > Back on the technical issue, my understanding is that I need <=205 > space if I want to route (for the purpose of reliable multi-homing), > say, blocks of /22 (ie <=19 and >=24). Of course I'm assuming > straight forward routing not special, unavailable, tunnel arrangements > with my upstreams or vixie-style application layer rewrites. > > Is this an accurate assessment on my part, given whats been publically > announced by Sprint and others? I think so! It has been published many times. SO I do not know how anyone could think otherwise, unless there is an alterior motive in play here. Which it is beginning to sound like... > This given the difficulty getting > old space from my upstreams is what's got me scrambling lately. > I can sell dedicated T1 service (finally! after multihoming, getting a T3 > *and* establishing a local track record) and am doing so with passion. > I just feel a bit like a klinker putting them in 208 with potential > unnecessary unreachabilities when 1 upstream dies *and* expecting > them to renumber in probably less than 4-5 months. > > I don't really think this is too good for anyone, especially given > my announcements are up to 5 and climbing. With the proposal to > allow a /19 for 25 percent or more utilized, multi-homed, established, > ISP's when it results in significant route anouncement reduction - I > think we would all win, including the net, am I wrong? Nope you are not wrong. > > If my postings are indicative, to you, of an idle time waster, then > indeed I will work harder, read more and post less as I, also, tire of a > not particularly high s/n and not the highest level of technical > discussion of the points as well. Seems like a control political game is afoot here. Why? I do not know. > > Ken Leland > Monmouth Internet regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:32:33 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:32:33 +0100 Subject: NSI submits IPO Message-ID: <33BD0981.1CF4@ix.netcom.com> All, Here is a post I got just today. Intresting! Subject: NSI files for IPO Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:17:03 -0800 From: Ellen Rony To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Yesterday, NSI filed plans with the Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering. Details are not yet posted on The Associated Press announcement did not say how many shares will be sold or the initial share price but suggested that the public offering could be worth as much as $35 million. Ellen Rony Director, Alexander Works 21 Juno Road * Tiburon, CA * 94920 Phone: 415/435-5010 Fax: 415/435-5010 Email: erony at marin.k12.ca.us Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:41:02 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:41:02 +0100 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 References: <199707041905.PAA29399@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: <33BD0B7E.7275@ix.netcom.com> Randy and all, Randy Bush wrote: > > > my understanding is that I need <=205 space if I want to route (for the > > purpose of reliable multi-homing), say, blocks of /22 (ie <=19 and >=24). > > Truth is, I am not sure. Sprint is not alone in filtering, and filtering > policies are not public. My memory is a safe border is nearer 204. But > don't trust me on that one. Yes, it is a real shame that filtering policies are not standerdized as part of the governace situation. They should be IMHO. But that is another story all together, or should I say THREAD? >;) Well, anyway, wherever the border is with spicific carriers, there needs to be some guidlines on setting of these policies. > > > I just feel a bit like a klinker putting them in 208 with potential > > unnecessary unreachabilities when 1 upstream dies *and* expecting > > them to renumber in probably less than 4-5 months. > > Well, a set of customers is renumbering out of an old upstream's 205/20 > now. One helps them, phases it, ... It's just life. It is also not necessary if planning and good policies are in place, and inforced. I know, I have been there and done that. > > My experience, for what it's worth, is that this is a minor part of what > it takes in the ISP business. And it is soooo much easier and much more > deadly to blow the big ones (cash, management, sales, tech clue, ...), > especially these days. Good point. I would make a proviso here however. That being that if there are to be good policies that could severly limit renumbering in MOST cases, than it benifits everyone. > > randy Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 10:46:08 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:46:08 +0100 Subject: Some other principals References: <199707041849.OAA13391@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <33BD0CB0.5289@ix.netcom.com> Scott, New THREAD name,but not a new topic as I said befor in my previous response to your comments. >;) Please read the archives for your edification. >;) Scott Bradner wrote: > > well, there is a diversion from what we were talking about, I'd > suggest that one thing be resolved at a time - we don't seem to > be doing well enough with the current topics to warrent adding new ones. > > ---- > > Lary and all, > > Here are some other principals for consideration... > > Here are a couple of other "Principals" I have picked up > in my life that may be of some assistance to all... If I may > be so bold? > > 1.) Board members should serve at, and in the intrest of the membership > and the user Internet user community, and therby be selected by > them, > to serve as long and only as long as they continue to SERVE the > Membership and the Internet user community. > > 2.) That these board members, be selected, by vote, one man/woman one > vote. That they can be removed if that membership and Internet > user community so choses at any time upon request of any member > or user by proposition or request therunto. This is to insure > that those board members have the support of the majority of > all that are influenced, affected, or otherwise disposed. > > 3.) Be it resolved that all Board members, at large members are > also at the service of the Internet users, fo which the Internet > exists as a community, for which those Board members and at > large members are deemed responsible too. And that that > responsibility > be monitored, all policies be published as widely as is possible, > that those meetings and other and all discussions be recorded, and > published on a mailing list avalible to all Internet users. > > 4.) That the mailing list(S) be publicated on free public and other > sources and a regular basis, so that Internet users are incouraged > to monitor or participate. > > 5.) That that mailing list or mailing lists, have a code of conduct > desinged for reasonable discourse, and those conduct be enforced > in such a manner that it is fair and reasonable to all and reviewed > on a bi-anual basis for improvment perposses. -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 11:04:00 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 16:04:00 +0100 Subject: /20's for the needy References: <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970701214734.00714c18@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970702172014.0109cd0c@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970703100738.006b8264@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33BD10E0.6BC9@ix.netcom.com> Stephen, Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > At 20:23 02-07-97 +0100, you wrote: > >Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > >> . Must have an ASN > > >1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of > >qualification. > > I wanted to separate the ASN and PI block application processes, since it's > a totally separate function and has its own list of requirements. I'd hate > to slip up and give a PI block to someone who never got an ASN. I understand. But my suggestion doesn't preclude this at all. In fact it is a hand and glove arrangment. > > >> . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already > > >2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new > >startup than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs. > > I don't quite understand your added wording here... If it's a new startup, > it won't have ANY PI IPs. My intent was to automatically disqualify people > who already have large PI blocks (like, say, BBN who has 3 A's and a dozen > B's) from getting anything from the "New ISP" block. Yes, but your suggestion did not "CLEARLY" state this which leaves it to interpretation. I was trying to clarify it a bit. In addition there is not spicific provision within RFC2050 for "New ISP's", hence my wording. > > >> . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050 > > >3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient > > use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on > > projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050. > > Again, what does is mean, and what is the intended effect? This means that, as I have said several times now, the RFC2050 makes NO spicific provision for "NEW ISP's" hence my wording to be more spicific as to your refrence "under RFC2050". Otherwise much is left to interpratation. This makes it unclear and subject to a whim interpratation. RFC1918 also needs to be amended to this effect, or ARIN's policies in respect to RFC2050 and RFC1918 should be more spicific along these lines. > > >> . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days > > >4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days > > If we're going to go with 60 days, I'd like to see "capable of advertising" > changed to "advertising". However, I don't see how you can enforce a > future requirement before allocation. I chose 30 days since that's the > lead time for installing circuits from most LECs. BUt it usually takes longer than 30 days. > > Stephen Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 11:06:52 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 16:06:52 +0100 Subject: Mr. Geist References: <3.0.2.32.19970704094840.0070d1fc@kurgan.hilander.com> Message-ID: <33BD118C.51DD@ix.netcom.com> Justin and all, No problem what so ever. You were just defending your creditability form a viserol attack. Anyone can understand that. I submit that MR Geist discontinue perposing legal attacks on this list for the benifit of all, if I may be so bold to suggest....? Justin W. Newton wrote: > > Hi all, > I would like to apologize to the list, as well as to Mr. Geist for the > disparaging comments I made about him. This list is here to solve a > problem, and ad hominem attacks are not the solution to anything. I hope > that the list will forgive my transgression. > > ********************************************************* > Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ********************************************************* Regards -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 4 13:49:31 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 18:49:31 +0100 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 References: <3.0.32.19970704152348.00bda318@liveoak.priori.net> <3.0.3.32.19970704184611.0113263c@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33BD37AB.5AC7@ix.netcom.com> Larry, Larry Vaden wrote: > > Eric, where did you read "talk soft, carry a big stick?" > > That MIGHT cause them to move the IP registry function out to ARIN post > haste in order to put a stop loss on NSI's liabilities. > > But unless small IPSs join in droves, the 300 +/- forecasted membership of > ARIN will be highly skewed towards the "haves" vs. the "have nots". You may be right here. I do believe that many smaller ISP's will joine however. > > By the way, NSI has an IPO in process. Yes I posted the announcment on ARIN's list originaly earlier today. > > ldv `[8-)) > > At 06:32 PM 7/4/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote: > >Robert L. Shearing wrote: > >> > >> >> ISPs who wish to multi-home should be allowed to decide for themselves > >> >> what technique they wish to use, absent some compelling reason to the > >> >> contrary. > >> > > >> >I missed that part of the US Constitution. And compelling seems to be in > >> >the eye of the beholder. > >> > > >> It has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. It's just a general > >> deregulatory/free enterprise philosophy that in this context says: "Don't > >> restrict a company's ability to make its own decisions unless there's a > >> compelling reason to do so." I think this philosophy is consistent with > >> the best traditions of the Internet. > >> > >> The only compelling reason I can think of to block the allocation of the > >> /19s in question would be if failing to do so would make a tangible > >> difference in the useful lifetime of the remaining IPv4 address space. And > >> I don't believe that to be the case. > >> ********************************************************* > >> Robert L. Shearing voice: +1-415-482-2840 > >> President/CEO fax: +1-415-482-2844 > >> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > >> > >> "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > >> ********************************************************* > >Randy raises an interesting point. He correctly points out that the > >Constitution generally does not protect individuals from private > >action. That is why several folk have suggested that government > >regulation is preferable to private--you get the guarantees of due > >process, free speech, open records and democratic processes. > > > >However, the "compelling reason" test DOES come into play in several > >contexts relating to private entities, most notably in the field of > >federal anti-trust law. Anti-competitive arrangements are usually > >illegal unless there is a compelling justification for them to exist. > >It should be noted that many states, on the other hand, do not permit > >anti-competitive arrangements even if there are "compelling reasons" for > >them. Some have suggested that the anti-trust laws apply to NSI's PI > >allocation criteria (note that I continue to call them NSI's since NSI > >is the entity using those standards no matter who actually authored or > >approved them). > > > >Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel > >Internet Texoma, Inc. > >The ISP which DIDN'T > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 4 20:52:40 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 19:52:40 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970704195240.011349dc@texoma.net> At 06:44 PM 7/4/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > And hence, in that they are under federal jurisdiction, your above >argument is rendered moot. First, let me say that Eric is off to receive a Lady Liberty Award for providing on the job training to Texas Attorney General Morales regarding the Electronic Privacy Communications Act. TX AG Morales issued an improper subpoena which violated ECPA when he sought to obtain email transactions for a ROT (Republic of Texas) member who had an account at Internet Texoma. I don't speak for him and I'm not a lawyer, just a businessman who founded an ISP. To your point, maybe right, maybe wrong - let's postulate what "compelling reasons" a federal judge might find to allow NSI to continue the anti-competitive, anti-trust, monopolistic actions. 1. Randy says the routers will fall over and destroy the Internet. ----- Rebuttal: Tony Bates' CIDR report indicates there is plenty of wasted space in the router tables to accommodate those seeking globally routable /19 CIDR blocks. 2. We're out of IPv4 space. ----- Rebuttal: See IETF (Bill Manning's ?) remarks which put Class B utilization at 1.5% in Japan; ad nauseam. Jump in here and add the third thru nth "compelling reason(s)" acceptable to a federal judge. From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 4 22:13:02 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 21:13:02 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #3 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19970704195240.011349dc@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970704211302.01251c94@texoma.net> At 09:10 PM 7/4/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >Lordy larry.....give us a break....please..... you are over simplifying on >all of your assertions..... Randy was the one who said routers would fall over, yet routers haven't fallen over because of the abuse evident in Tony Bates' CIDR report. Traded one for one, I don't see a problem. Mr. Bates states "This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible." Today's data indicates 2,791 router slots could be made available to Harvard, priori.net, Internet Texoma, et al. Here's today's data as published at : --- 04Jul97 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS174 1148 819 329 28.7% Performance Systems International AS2493 766 460 306 39.9% i*internet AS3602 556 309 247 44.4% Sprint Canada Inc. AS2048 251 120 131 52.2% LANET-1 AS1691 301 172 129 42.9% BCTEL AS6541 186 59 127 68.3% GTE Intelligent Network Services AS3804 248 135 113 45.6% Bell Solutions AS1 1032 922 110 10.7% BBNPLANET AS1967 186 82 104 55.9% Middle East Technical University AS839 125 26 99 79.2% North West Territories Regional N AS701 972 875 97 10.0% Alternet AS7195 121 43 78 64.5% INTERRED AS816 318 248 70 22.0% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4) AS2704 256 186 70 27.3% HOOKUP-NET-A AS4293 108 44 64 59.3% IMCI AS549 250 189 61 24.4% ONet Backbone AS5668 72 13 59 81.9% Century Telephone Inc. AS4648 190 134 56 29.5% NZIX 2 AS3561 942 890 52 5.5% MCI AS6181 53 4 49 92.5% FUSE-NET AS3799 74 26 48 64.9% IDS AS97 175 128 47 26.9% JvNCnet AS813 208 161 47 22.6% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS1) AS719 565 518 47 8.3% LANLINK autonomous system AS4454 74 27 47 63.5% TNET-AS AS4763 100 56 44 44.0% Telstra New Zealand AS2711 98 57 41 41.8% SUNBELT-AS AS271 98 57 41 41.8% BCnet Backbone AS3749 75 35 40 53.3% TECNET AS225 63 25 38 60.3% VIRGINIA-AS ---- 2791 >lets revisit these issues next month ....OK? Firms are being damaged this month by the status quo. >> Jump in here and add the third thru nth "compelling reason(s)" acceptable >> to a federal judge. Go ahead, Gordon. I'm waiting on your "compelling reason(s)". From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Jul 5 08:48:58 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 08:48:58 -0400 Subject: Continental Aggregation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970705084858.006c5364@lint.cisco.com> At 12:40 PM 07/04/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >Which begs the question, will IPV4's inherent allocaiton and >resource shortage problems be fixed before it's replaced. > Some would argue that it is not broken, and simply replacing v4 with v6 will simply introduce a probelm in this regard (or amplify the problem, if you believe one exists). - paul From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 5 04:48:43 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 09:48:43 +0100 Subject: Continental Aggregation References: <3.0.1.32.19970705084858.006c5364@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <33BE0A6B.29DE@ix.netcom.com> Paul and all, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 12:40 PM 07/04/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > > >Which begs the question, will IPV4's inherent allocaiton and > >resource shortage problems be fixed before it's replaced. > > > > Some would argue that it is not broken, and simply replacing > v4 with v6 will simply introduce a probelm in this regard > (or amplify the problem, if you believe one exists). Well I guess I look at the IPV6 situation as a augment to Ipv4 not a replacment initialy. Than later a phase over to all ipv6. With this approach, you DO improve the situation quickly for the short haul, and also provide a path for a more long term fix. Putting the way you did, I have to agree, you really just add to the possibility of agravating the problem at least. But as I invision Ipv6 form an implimentation standpoint, you reduce or eliminate a IP problem and a political one in one step. And any time I can kill two birds with one stone, it becomes a much better senerio in my mind. > > - paul Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jul 5 16:05:44 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:05:44 -0500 Subject: Reviewing After...as Opposed to Regulating Before Message-ID: <01BC8954.EA1C1B60@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, July 05, 1997 2:32 PM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at psg.com] wrote: @ > There are too many government agencies looking to get their hands on this @ > sort of thing for ARIN to do anything but its very best. @ @ Onbe hopes ARIN will do its best because the folk involved have a sense of @ stewardship and a real concern for the industry. Because it seems that the @ government has wisely opted out. @ The government has wisely (?) decided to "review" AFTER the fact as opposed to regulate BEFORE the fact. They could not regulate that which they did not understand. Also, it does not appear that they actually "decided". They just failed to make decisions and clearly NSI is moving forward [1]. They will be able to review standard business practices and the various laws that have helped to guide society for years. There is already plenty to review and each day brings more legacy, history, etc. The government agencies that are mandated by the people to review government contracts, anti-trust, and other issues are still in place and did not disappear with the so-called approval of ARIN. [1] ============ Recent Events in Internet History... June 24, 1997 NSF Approves ARIN http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/pr9746.htm http://www.netsol.com/announcements/62798_arin.html June 26, 1997 Domain Registrations and IP Address Allocations Separate New Building Dedicated in Virginia for 150 NSI Employees http://www.netsol.com/announcements/62798_move.html June 30, 1997 The U.S. Goverment asks the public to comment on two year old issues involving the registration of Internet Domain Names rather than the current issues of why some companies are not allowed into the industry and allowed to compete with NSI and ARIN and why the U.S. Government blocks that entry. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5press.htm July 3, 1997 Network Solutions, Inc. Files for IPO with the SEC July 4, 1997 Landing on Mars Mars allocated S4.G7 in the IPv8 Address Space and assigned the Top Level Domain .MARS A "dig" of .MARS should yield an A RR of 0.255.4.7 to allow IPv8 systems to discover which Galaxy and Stargate MARS uses. :-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 5 13:24:18 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 18:24:18 +0100 Subject: BTW References: <3.0.3.32.19970705181505.00ca380c@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33BE8342.1122@ix.netcom.com> Jim, Jim Fleming (by way of Larry Vaden ) wrote: > > By the way... > > I wonder if any IP addresses will be needed for this project...? > > http://www.saic.com/publications/news/jun97/news06-02b-97.html Yea, you know, I wonder if they are going to have any trouble getting them? Hummmm? :)~ (Tounge in cheek)... > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 5 16:44:04 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 21:44:04 +0100 Subject: Intresting news posts on NSI/ARNI Message-ID: <33BEB214.2A15@ix.netcom.com> All, Intresting news post. The Internet Files: news on the latest Internet standards and struggles Fallout from the Supreme Court's CDA ruling. NSF sets up non-profit organization to manage IP numbers. (4 stories posted) http://www.sun.com/sunworldonline/swol-07-1997/swol-07-if.html Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Jul 6 17:36:56 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 16:36:56 -0500 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #0 Message-ID: <01BC8A2A.D27D0740@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, July 06, 1997 9:51 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: @ @ > Honestly, it depends on how much "old blood" there is on the board before I @ would assume what you assume. @ @ Larry - on the face of it such a principle is absurd, the arin board is @ bound by the laws just like anyone else - the arin lawyers are paid @ to be sure that the laws are followed, no "principle" is needed to @ make this true. @ Scott, You speak of ARIN as if it exists. Can you give people an update on the status ? Who is paying the "ARIN lawyers" ? Have people joined ARIN already ? How are the IP address "intellectual assets" being handled ? Can you speak to how they are currently valued on the books of NSI and how they will be transferred to ARIN ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jul 6 12:52:29 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 17:52:29 +0100 Subject: pagans@texoma.net principle #0 References: <01BC8A2A.D27D0740@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33BFCD4D.2BD5@ix.netcom.com> Jim, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Sunday, July 06, 1997 9:51 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: > @ > @ > Honestly, it depends on how much "old blood" there is on the board before I > @ would assume what you assume. > @ > @ Larry - on the face of it such a principle is absurd, the arin board is > @ bound by the laws just like anyone else - the arin lawyers are paid > @ to be sure that the laws are followed, no "principle" is needed to > @ make this true. > @ > > Scott, > > You speak of ARIN as if it exists. Can you give > people an update on the status ? > > Who is paying the "ARIN lawyers" ? > > Have people joined ARIN already ? > > How are the IP address "intellectual assets" being handled ? > Can you speak to how they are currently valued > on the books of NSI and how they will be transferred > to ARIN ? All good questions. NSI's IPO filing sure doesn't show any of this in any detail. Inquiring minds want to know! Well ARIN Board members? What is the poop on these questions? I know I am not going to hold my breath waiting on an answer though. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From dhudes at graphnet.com Mon Jul 7 15:47:21 1997 From: dhudes at graphnet.com (Dana Hudes) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:47:21 -0400 Subject: Value of telephone numbers References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com> Karl Denninger wrote: > > The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers > being > coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce > equipment > that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a > 100 MIPS > system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the > secondary > market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way) > while > that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major > router > doing BGP computations? > > Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a > *dedicated* > CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count > prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in > that > phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very > expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of > these discussions. > First of all, this not a new trick. The IBM NSS's aka 6611-prime aka Milford router did this -- the route engine was also for dealing with SNMP and other system overhead so perhaps its not as pure as you like, but it didn't forward packets (the cards did). This architecture is present to some extent in the commercial IBM 6611 . It uses GateD to do its routing, the cards are "deep" cards with onboard route tables. Now, perhaps a Pentium Pro350 is more powerful than an old POWER2 RS/6000 but nonetheless its available. The architecture that I understood of the Ipsilon ISR was that a Pentium-133 runs GateD and the forwarding engine is this ATM switch. Its been a year since I looked at it so my recall is fuzzy. wwww.ipsilon.com I don't recall whether the Netstar Gigarouter cum Ascend GRF has smart cards. I know it runs GateD. Even if we have routers capable of running 150K routes, that costs money and it doesn't matter that its cheaper now to have a Big Fat Router than it was 8 years ago when the only thing around was the NSS at around $150K to run the NSFNET full T3 backbone. Its a competitive business enviornment out there and money spent on router memory is money that could be spent paying engineers. Or stockholders. From dhudes at graphnet.com Mon Jul 7 15:59:31 1997 From: dhudes at graphnet.com (Dana Hudes) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:59:31 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? Message-ID: <33C14AA3.A7C3FA7D@graphnet.com> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old which is not advertised in the global routing tables and that this process be repeated quarterly. For example, I personally know of a class B sitting unused for five years. The registrant has machines numbered in this space behind a SOCKS firewall which uses a /26 in PA space from their upstream. Of course the contact has long since left the organization and the e-mail address doesn't work. It is in the public good to reclaim such space posthaste. Voluntary efforts are well and good, but has anyone tried wholesale to match advertisements to registration and find the surplus registrations? Even on a voluntary basis, an enquiry in e-mail to the last known contact of such organizations might turn up a few willing to relinquish. Writing an RFC that such organizations never see won't help. My .02 not an official position of anyone Dana Hudes From bmanning at ISI.EDU Mon Jul 7 16:01:07 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <33C14AA3.A7C3FA7D@graphnet.com> from "Dana Hudes" at Jul 7, 97 03:59:31 pm Message-ID: <199707072001.AA12141@zed.isi.edu> > > I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old > which is not advertised in the global routing tables and that this > process be repeated quarterly. > > It is in the public good to reclaim such space posthaste. Voluntary > efforts are well and good, but has anyone tried wholesale to match > advertisements to registration and find the surplus registrations? Yup. this is being done. Over the last 28 months we have recovered nearly 20% of the total IP space this way. Check the IEPG and nanog archives for more details. --bill From karl at MCS.NET Mon Jul 7 16:13:43 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 15:13:43 -0500 Subject: Value of telephone numbers In-Reply-To: <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com>; from Dana Hudes on Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 03:47:21PM -0400 References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com> Message-ID: <19970707151343.29902@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 03:47:21PM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote: > Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers > > being > > coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce > > equipment > > that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a > > 100 MIPS > > system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the > > secondary > > market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way) > > while > > that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major > > router > > doing BGP computations? > > > > Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a > > *dedicated* > > CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count > > prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in > > that > > phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very > > expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of > > these discussions. > > > > I don't recall whether the Netstar Gigarouter cum Ascend GRF has smart > cards. I know it runs GateD. > > Even if we have routers capable of running 150K routes, that costs money > and it doesn't matter that its cheaper now to have a Big Fat Router > than it was 8 years ago when the only thing around was the NSS at > around $150K to run the NSFNET full T3 backbone. Its a competitive > business enviornment out there and money spent on router memory is money > that could be spent paying engineers. Or stockholders. That's funny - - the ASCEND GRF is about half the cost of a comparably-equipped CISCO 7513. And yes, it does have smart cards and a Pentium main processor, runs a BSDI Unix derivitive on the host processor with GATED for routing, and can handle 150,000 routes (3x+ today's real load). It works too (we've tested it under VERY heavy loads; I didn't care for their ATM cards and have heard of problems with them, but the HSSI boards work great, and the 100BaseTX interfaces -- great for local interconnect between backbone routers in a data center -- are fantastic). One has to wonder why it is that CISCO can get 2X the price for less than 1/2 of the performance..... and why the industry has coddled a company which has produced products of this type. My beef with CISCO on this matter goes back many years. The blunt truth - their architecture has consistently failed to take advantage of the commodity relationships within the high-tech sector, and the Internet industry has not only condoned that failure, but allowed their engineers and employees to write many of the specifications which we now accept as "gospel" in the community. If this were any other industry, the fur would be flying. Its only a matter of time before it flies here, and the faster we wake up to this fact and fix it, the better off we will be. Ps: Anyone else hear a rumor about WCOM/UUNET doing a big deal with ASCEND? Is this related to the GRF? I'd be surprised if it wasn't. -- -- 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, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From vaden at texoma.net Mon Jul 7 17:21:47 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 16:21:47 -0500 Subject: Value of telephone numbers In-Reply-To: <19970707151343.29902@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> References: <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com> <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970707162147.00cb0390@texoma.net> At 03:13 PM 7/7/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: >Ps: Anyone else hear a rumor about WCOM/UUNET doing a big deal with ASCEND? >Is this related to the GRF? I'd be surprised if it wasn't. Haven't heard the rumor, but my uunet noc folder keeps filling with announcements that have touched just about every major city in the last 10 days. From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 7 11:34:25 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 16:34:25 +0100 Subject: Value of telephone numbers References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <33C147C9.5AFB2A7C@graphnet.com> <19970707151343.29902@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <33C10C81.3E97@ix.netcom.com> Karl and all, Karl Denninger wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 03:47:21PM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote: > > Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > > > The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers > > > being > > > coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce > > > equipment > > > that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a > > > 100 MIPS > > > system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the > > > secondary > > > market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way) > > > while > > > that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major > > > router > > > doing BGP computations? > > > > > > Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a > > > *dedicated* > > > CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count > > > prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in > > > that > > > phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very > > > expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of > > > these discussions. > > > > > > > I don't recall whether the Netstar Gigarouter cum Ascend GRF has smart > > cards. I know it runs GateD. > > > > Even if we have routers capable of running 150K routes, that costs money > > and it doesn't matter that its cheaper now to have a Big Fat Router > > than it was 8 years ago when the only thing around was the NSS at > > around $150K to run the NSFNET full T3 backbone. Its a competitive > > business enviornment out there and money spent on router memory is money > > that could be spent paying engineers. Or stockholders. > > That's funny - - the ASCEND GRF is about half the cost of a comparably-equipped > CISCO 7513. > > And yes, it does have smart cards and a Pentium main processor, runs a > BSDI Unix derivitive on the host processor with GATED for routing, and can > handle 150,000 routes (3x+ today's real load). > > It works too (we've tested it under VERY heavy loads; I didn't care for their > ATM cards and have heard of problems with them, but the HSSI boards work > great, and the 100BaseTX interfaces -- great for local interconnect between > backbone routers in a data center -- are fantastic). I agree with Karl here. I have had the same experiance with Ascend equipment. > > One has to wonder why it is that CISCO can get 2X the price for less than > 1/2 of the performance..... and why the industry has coddled a company which > has produced products of this type. > > My beef with CISCO on this matter goes back many years. The blunt truth - > their architecture has consistently failed to take advantage of the commodity > relationships within the high-tech sector, and the Internet industry has not > only condoned that failure, but allowed their engineers and employees to > write many of the specifications which we now accept as "gospel" in the > community. > > If this were any other industry, the fur would be flying. Its only a matter > of time before it flies here, and the faster we wake up to this fact and fix > it, the better off we will be. > > Ps: Anyone else hear a rumor about WCOM/UUNET doing a big deal with ASCEND? > Is this related to the GRF? I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I had heard rumors only. > > -- > -- > 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, http://www.mcs.net/ > Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! > Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Tue Jul 8 01:23:41 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 22:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <33C14AA3.A7C3FA7D@graphnet.com> Message-ID: > I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old > which is not advertised in the global routing tables If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table space. And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. --karl-- From kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM Tue Jul 8 02:06:53 1997 From: kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM (Ken Leland) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 02:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Jul 7, 97 10:23:41 pm Message-ID: <199707080606.CAA23178@shell.monmouth.com> karl wrote: > > > > I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old > > which is not advertised in the global routing tables > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table > space. > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. > Well, assorted net gurus are maintaining that the problem is both router table space and allocated space. This seems reasonable to me since there is actually a tradeoff between the two that is being managed. Ken Leland kwl at monmouth.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Tue Jul 8 02:29:50 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 02:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table > space. > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be given a /19 :) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From davidc at APNIC.NET Tue Jul 8 03:11:46 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 16:11:46 +0900 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jul 1997 22:23:41 MST." Message-ID: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Karl, There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the head to fix: 1) limitiation on address space 2) limitations of router forwarding table space 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates. While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it would continue to be third in the prioritization. Regards, -drc -------- > >> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old >> which is not advertised in the global routing tables > >If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table >space. > >And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number >prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. > > --karl-- > > > From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 09:48:38 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:48:38 -0500 Subject: ARIN Already Incorporated ? Message-ID: <01BC8B7B.BB2A96A0@webster.unety.net> On Monday, July 07, 1997 8:40 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] wrote: @ At 08:10 PM 07/07/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote: @ @ >> @ >> ARIN's charter is not to "run the net," as you seem to imply, @ >> but rather, its charter is to provide IP address allocation and @ >> registration services for greater North America. Also, if you'd @ >> bother to do your homework, you would also realize that ARIN is @ >> following a model which has been in place in Europe (RIPE) and @ >> the Asian Pacific region (APNIC) for several years now, and all @ >> indications are that this model functions remarkably well. @ >> @ > @ >Paul, I need some help here. Where can I find ARIN's charter? @ > @ @ Ah, you are looking for a literal charter document, which doesn't @ exist. I meant 'charter' in the figurative sense, in that the @ purpose of ARIN is spelled out in documents found on their @ web site, namely: @ @ http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html @ @ - paul @ @ @ According to the following, Network Solutions, Inc. (a subsidiary of SAIC) has already incorporated ARIN. There is no mention of who the shareholders are or the members of the Board of Directors. Also, there is no mention of how the assets being transferred from NSI/SAIC to ARIN are being handled. @@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt "The Company has recently received authorization from the NSF to shift the allocation and administration of IP addresses to a not-for-profit organization. In support of this initiative, the Company has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the American Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer IP addresses for North and South America and parts of Africa. The Company anticipates that the responsibility for the allocation and administration of IP addresses will be transferred to ARIN by the fourth quarter of 1997. The Company has agreed with the NSF to provide financial support to ARIN through the end of the first quarter of 1998. The Company believes that the amount of such support will not be material to the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The IP address allocations (assets) being transferred to ARIN are worth millions of dollars. It is still unclear which /8 blocks are being transferred to ARIN. It is also still unclear who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain. Some people claim that ARIN will be handling that, others claim NSI. The National Science Foundation should work that out BEFORE we have another situation where one company is allowed to charge whatever it pleases for Internet resource usage without any recourse from the people and companies that depend on those resources. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 10:02:58 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:02:58 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? Message-ID: <01BC8B7D.BB5AE380@webster.unety.net> On Monday, July 07, 1997 9:29 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote: @ On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: @ @ > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table @ > space. @ > @ > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number @ > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. @ @ If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be @ given a /19 :) @ @ ------------------------------------------------------------------ @ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will @ Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. @ Florida Digital Turnpike | @ ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ @ @ @ Rather than deprive everyone, it might be better to allocate some set number of new allocations each year or quarter. I suggest 3,000 /18s should be made available, with the prior agreement that the delegate (ISP?) not advertise more specific routes from those blocks and that proof be supplied of at least 2 connections to the IPv4 Core Transport Network with at a minimum of 1.544 bps on each connection. It would be interesting to compile a list of which ISPs would sign up for such an allocation. Are there 3,000 ? If 3,000 ISPs sign a petition in the U.S., then the FTC, IRS, SEC, DOJ and Department of Commerce can work that into their current activities. Without such proof, the people working to prevent further allocations can claim there is no demand. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 10:11:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:11:30 -0500 Subject: offered for discussion -- principle #0 Message-ID: <01BC8B7E.ECE67E40@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 12:31 AM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote: @ At 02:10 PM 7/8/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: @ >Larry, @ > @ > @ >First: pagan is about global policies, it is not a forum for defining @ >the principle on which ARIN alone will operate. @ @ Hi, David! @ @ Sorry if we are intruding. We're here because of a message from Kim; I'll @ let those folks decide if we should take it back to naipr at arin.net. @ @ Posted-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:38:10 -0500 (CDT) @ X-Authentication-Warning: info.netsol.com: majordom set sender to @ owner-naipr at arin.net using -f @ From: Kim Hubbard @ Subject: Re: past vs future use @ To: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) @ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:02:53 -0400 (EDT) @ Cc: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net, naipr at arin.net @ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2] @ Sender: owner-naipr at netsol.com @ @ ... @ @ One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update @ the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any @ suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. @ @ Kim @ @ @ @ Larry, The decisions are made by people that do not participate on either list. The decisions are made in Washington, D.C. by people that do not use the Internet. By the time the decision makers have everything worked out, and display their decisions on the Internet, everything is a "done deal". -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 04:09:11 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:09:11 +0100 Subject: Forcible reclamation? References: Message-ID: <33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com> Jon and all, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table > > space. > > > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number > > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. > > If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be > given a /19 :) Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members of ARIN. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 04:13:38 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:13:38 +0100 Subject: Forcible reclamation? References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <33C1F6B2.3BEE@ix.netcom.com> David and all, David R. Conrad wrote: > > Karl, > > There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the > head to fix: > > 1) limitiation on address space > > 2) limitations of router forwarding table space > > 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates. > > While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of > these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on > address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it > would continue to be third in the prioritization. I agree with your evaluation of the major problems that the registries are getting hit over the head with and your evaluation with their priorities. What I DO NOT agree with is your evaluation from an InterNic/ARIN evaluation of revocation of address space. From the tennor of the comments made by some Board members on this list, Revocation and sevear limiting of allocations seems to be their priority. > > Regards, > -drc > -------- > > > >> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old > >> which is not advertised in the global routing tables > > > >If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table > >space. > > > >And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number > >prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 10:53:09 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:53:09 -0500 Subject: offered for discussion -- principle #0 Message-ID: <01BC8B84.BE51B120@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 2:05 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ Larry, @ @ >We're here because of a message from Kim; I'll @ >let those folks decide if we should take it back to naipr at arin.net. @ @ I believe Kim was saying that ARIN will be using the same global @ policies that the other registries are using and that if you want to @ modify those policies, the appropriate place to discuss those @ modifications would be pagan. If you want to talk about specific @ implementation of those policies at one particular registry, you @ should use the appropriate registry's mailing list (e.g., @ apnic-talk at apnic.net, naipr at arin.net, etc). @ @ Regards, @ -drc @ @ Who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ? Is that an ARIN issue ? A domain name issue ? ...or a policy issue ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 11:10:00 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 11:10:00 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members >of ARIN. Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in someone stating that more address space is needed. I disagree that increasing the address space is the most important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates in the top five, at least not in the near term. I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally, introduces a whole new set of problems. Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have created a more critical problem. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the intricacies in the global routing system. - paul From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 05:16:24 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 10:16:24 +0100 Subject: Forcible reclamation? References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <33C20568.313B@ix.netcom.com> Paul, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space > >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a > >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, > >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST > >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. > >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of > >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members > >of ARIN. > > Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in > someone stating that more address space is needed. Yes. And it is obviously. > > I disagree that increasing the address space is the most > important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates > in the top five, at least not in the near term. Your opinion. Not the majorities. > > I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address > space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of > address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally, > introduces a whole new set of problems. I agree that the "ONLY" current migration plan is to Ipv6 for additional space. I don't agree that it is the best solution or "ONLY POSSIBLE" solution. Let me be clear on that point! And yes, there will be problems. As in any migration process. So what else is new? >;) > > Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing > the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation > policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation > policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure > that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have > created a more critical problem. You misunderstood my comments again, Paul, as usual. I am not saying that allocating more address space is "THE SOLUTION" but certianly a part of a "COMPLETE" solution. I agree that assemblance of aggregation is "VERY" necessary, but part of a whole solution, not a solution in and of itself. A parallel approace seems necessary here. That is what I am saying! GOT IT NOW PAUL! OR do I need to outline a complete plan for you? > > If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the > intricacies in the global routing system. Well I do understand it quite well thanks. I submit you need to read my comments more carefully befor making difinitive statments that are both out of context and misleading. > > - paul Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From wimsey at rtci.com Tue Jul 8 11:30:40 1997 From: wimsey at rtci.com (System Administrator) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:30:40 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? Message-ID: <01BC8B92.5E1BD660@wimsey@rtci.com> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:03 AM, Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] wrote: I myself work for a ISP in NC, we have in use over 90% of a /18, we are multihomed a t3 connect direct to sprints backbone, and a t1 to another ISP which is in turn connected to sprint for address space, the problem however is the fact that we are stuck using nonportable address for sprint, should we change providers, we get stuck with a large amount of renumbering. I don't mind the renumbering so much, its more along the fact it takes forever for sprint to assign us new blocks, and the fact that our blocks are spread all over the place. I have seen plenty of complaints about the growth of routing tables, you things like this contribute to routing table growth. I guess the main purpose of my reply is the fact that I WOULD definatly sign anything you would put in front of me to get a continuous block of portable addresses. David Wimsey > > Rather than deprive everyone, it might be better to allocate > some set number of new allocations each year or quarter. > > I suggest 3,000 /18s should be made available, with the > prior agreement that the delegate (ISP?) not advertise > more specific routes from those blocks and that proof > be supplied of at least 2 connections to the IPv4 Core > Transport Network with at a minimum of 1.544 bps on > each connection. > > It would be interesting to compile a list of which ISPs > would sign up for such an allocation. Are there 3,000 ? > > If 3,000 ISPs sign a petition in the U.S., then the FTC, > IRS, SEC, DOJ and Department of Commerce can work > that into their current activities. Without such proof, the > people working to prevent further allocations can claim > there is no demand. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 11:37:27 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:37:27 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? Message-ID: <01BC8B8A.EEA6FC80@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 3:09 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ Jon and all, @ @ Jon Lewis wrote: @ > @ > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: @ > @ > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table @ > > space. @ > > @ > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number @ > > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. @ > @ > If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be @ > given a /19 :) @ @ Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space @ as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a @ priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, @ than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST @ providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. @ This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of @ the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members @ of ARIN. ARIN is one company of several companies. It appears that it has been formed by Network Solutions, Inc. and SAIC as part of the grand evolution plan they have developed in conjunction with the National Science Foundation to dismantle the InterNIC by March of 1998. To place all of the responsibility for the IPv4 Core Transport Network address space management on ARIN would not be wise. ARIN is supposed to have a small portion of the address space. Unfortunately, no one has ever described precisely what part of the address space will be delegated to ARIN. There are other organizations, with more experience, more stability, and better customer service than ARIN who could be delegated parts of the IPv4 address space for management. In my opinion people and companies should be working to cultivate those companies. We should have a dozen ARINs in the U.S. alone. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 11:59:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:59:23 -0500 Subject: All Eggs in One Basket ? Message-ID: <01BC8B8D.FF0E2D20@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:01 AM, Alec H. Peterson[SMTP:ahp at hilander.com] wrote: @ On Mon, Jul 07, 1997 at 08:17:00AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: @ > @ > Can you say 'lawyer fodder'? @ @ Sure can, but the other options aren't great either. If ARIN is able @ to pull off being an impartial body, then this thing might actually @ work. If not, then it doesn't matter what the policy is, the whole @ thing will be lawyer fodder. @ If there are a dozen ARINs then you do not have to place all of your eggs in one basket and watch that basket... This is one of the reasons why there are now multiple Root Name Server Confederations. The .ARPA Top Level Domain is currently delegated by all of those Confederations to Network Solutions, Inc. The Root Name Server Confederations have to make sure that this is the consensus of the Internet Community who the various Confederations represent. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jul 8 12:03:34 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:03:34 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com>; from Paul Ferguson on Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 11:10:00AM -0400 References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <19970708110334.11022@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 11:10:00AM -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: > At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space > >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a > >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, > >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST > >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. > >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of > >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members > >of ARIN. > > Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in > someone stating that more address space is needed. > > I disagree that increasing the address space is the most > important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates > in the top five, at least not in the near term. The existing space is adequate for a *long* time, provided that we do reasonable things with it. If we start to run out, we can go take back all the people's space who haven't met even 20% of the current requirements (ie: actual utilization below 10% of allocated) -- that should reclaim all of the existing Class "A" addresses, which is 1/4 of the total allocated, and 1/2 of the total possible IPV4 space. Now, on to issues that are real..... Route table slots: A real issue, but one which is solveable with the application of *small* amounts of money. All existing current CISCO products, for example, either can handle at least 128M of RAM or can easily be upgraded to do so with one board swap. Route CACHE entropy: This is a real problem. The solution is to reduce ENTROPY in the route table. Several fixes come to mind for this, all of them politically unpalatable for the *MAJOR* ISPs (ie: Sprint flaps enough that these fixes would render their backbone far less useful, as it would be dampened out of existance frequently). However, the purpose of this kind of discussion is to come up with fixes, right? The problem areas aren't in forwarding performance nearly so much as they are in entropy management. Entropy management is doable in the EXISTING BGP4 code releases in most major vendor's hardware *RIGHT NOW*. So why is it that we focus on things like denying /19s to multi-homed ISPs, when that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the performance and operation of the network as a whole? Things that make you go "hmmmmm...." -- -- 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, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jul 8 12:06:05 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:06:05 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: ; from Jon Lewis on Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 02:29:50AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <19970708110605.01445@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 02:29:50AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table > > space. > > > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number > > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. > > If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be > given a /19 :) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ There is no shortage of address space. In fact, approximately half of all possible address space is currently "reserved" by the IANA. If we reclaimed JUST the old Class "A" space which was being utilized at 10% or less of allocated space (a full 80% reduction from existing guidelines) we'd recover, I'd guess, 90% of the addresses in the range of 1. to 63 which are currently assigned to someone. Of course, MIT might not like it, nor PSI. Tough noogies. The rest of us have to deal with renumbering, right? Why is it that all of a sudden certain institutions and ISPs have precedence and don't have to renumber, while everyone else does? If you want a place that the DOJ *should* be looking at for evidence of anticompetitive behavior (ala their recent look at NSI) this is precisely where to focus the beams. -- -- 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, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 12:16:22 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:16:22 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? Message-ID: <01BC8B90.5EA42B20@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:10 AM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] wrote: @ At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: @ @ > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space @ >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a @ >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, @ >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST @ >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. @ >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of @ >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members @ >of ARIN. @ @ Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in @ someone stating that more address space is needed. @ @ I disagree that increasing the address space is the most @ important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates @ in the top five, at least not in the near term. @ I agree... The routing problem is much more serious... @ I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address @ space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of @ address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally, @ introduces a whole new set of problems. @ I agree... IPv6 solved the wrong problem and introduces more problems than it solves... @ Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing @ the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation @ policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation @ policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure @ that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have @ created a more critical problem. @ I agree... @ If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the @ intricacies in the global routing system. @ @ - paul @ Given all that...we still have to move forward. There are current generations and future generations of people that are depending on engineers to design a network that can help them communicate with each other...I am confident that will happen... These generations are also dependent on lawyers and politicians to establish governance to allow the networks to remain open, free and available to the average person for a reasonable charge....I am not confident that this will happen...partly because the people making these decisions do not understand the technology and are being mislead by those people (and companies) that do understand the technology but who want to shape things to their financial advantage... ...follow the money...it leads the wrong way... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 12:22:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:22:35 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? Message-ID: <01BC8B91.3C92BE60@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:30 AM, System Administrator[SMTP:wimsey at rtci.com] wrote: @ @ @ On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:03 AM, Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] @ wrote: @ I myself work for a ISP in NC, we have in use over 90% of a /18, we are @ multihomed a t3 connect direct to sprints backbone, and a t1 to another ISP @ which is in turn connected to sprint for address space, the problem however @ is the fact that we are stuck using nonportable address for sprint, should @ we change providers, we get stuck with a large amount of renumbering. I @ don't mind the renumbering so much, its more along the fact it takes @ forever for sprint to assign us new blocks, and the fact that our blocks @ are spread all over the place. I have seen plenty of complaints about the @ growth of routing tables, you things like this contribute to routing table @ growth. I guess the main purpose of my reply is the fact that I WOULD @ definatly sign anything you would put in front of me to get a continuous @ block of portable addresses. @ @ David Wimsey @ Thanks for the comments.... Firstly, let me say that I think that it would be good if the world could hear, first-hand, more of the stories and descriptions of people's plight as above. Maybe one of the things that ARIN and other such organizations will help to do is make it OK for ISPs to describe their situations without the fear of reprisal they have had that they will be black-balled from allocations. Secondly, I think that change will only occur if people become organized. Yes, I know that ARIN is proposed to be such an organization, but it is clearly an organization of the same people that have controlled the resources in the past and nothing is likely to change to help ISPs. Instead, ISPs need to organize to form their own versions of ARIN or to get their own organizations to handle the same tasks as ARIN. Thirdly, IP address allocations are not rocket science. They are not that much different from domain registrations from a DNS point of view.....IF, there is a simple policy that allows a clerk to make the assignments WITHOUT subjective evaluations. The people in charge of allocations want to keep the subjective part because they earn their living making those subjective judgement calls. This should not be surprising. Fourthly, ISPs (and large carriers) that already have IP allocations are not going to help other ISPs to obtain the resources they need to compete with the existing base. Again, this is natural and should not be surprising. Given all of these factors, ISPs face an up-hill battle. The U.S. Government may be able to provide some relief, but in my opinion, the best way to obtain relief is to work together, organize yourselves and make your demands known. Network Solutions, Inc. is clearly organizing ARIN (or has organized it). You might want to launch your own equivalent of ARIN. @@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt "the Company has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the American Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer IP addresses for North and South America and parts of Africa." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.saic.com/publications/news/jun97/news06-02b-97.html "WASHINGTON - The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM) has selected a Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) team to provide Global Information Infrastructure (GII) Gateways to 20 African countries under the Leland Initiative." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 12:52:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:52:34 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970708114343.00a2ecfc@pop.srv.paranet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708125234.006cefd0@lint.cisco.com> What has this got to do with the issue of increasing the address space, which was the topic at hand? There's no disagreement that the two options below are tenable. - paul At 11:43 AM 07/08/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >Please explain how you can effectively aggregate at a level above the AS >(assuming all ASes are multihomed). > >If an AS (either ISP or business) wishes to have BGP4 sessions with two >distinct providers, they have two options: > >1. Get PI space and advertise it. No special changes need to be made to > either provider. > > Upside: Easy, Stable, Keeps aggregates whole > Downside: Burns PI space quickly, Requires intelligent registry policy > >2. Get PA space(s) from one provider and advertise it. That provider must > also make special changes to not filter the more-specifics. > > Upside: Lets registries coast with bad policies > Downside: Painful, Unstable, Punches holes in aggregates, Burns PA space > >Both options use the same number of routing table entries per allocation, >and both will have the same number of IPs per allocation, so the issue is >neither routers falling over nor running out of addresses. > From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Tue Jul 8 12:55:56 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the > head to fix: > > 1) limitiation on address space > > 2) limitations of router forwarding table space > > 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates. > > While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of > these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on > address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it > would continue to be third in the prioritization. That's a very good characterization of the issue. (I wish I could be that accurate and concise.) In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year 2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-) Are other people coming up with more conservative (i.e. exhaustion occurs sooner) estimates? If so, and if exhaustion is projected by the millenium or thereabouts, then my premise would be incorrect. --karl-- From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 13:02:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:02:34 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com> At 09:55 AM 07/08/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software >has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address >space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year >2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His >last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope >that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-) > Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into the projection. - paul From randy at PSG.COM Tue Jul 8 13:11:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 97 10:11 PDT Subject: Forcible reclamation? References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software > has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address > space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year > 2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. For the folk here who have not been around, it might be noted that Frank's projections, before CIDR and tighter allocation guidelines were widely deployed, showed us already having run out now. randy From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 8 13:29:19 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:29:19 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <19970708110334.11022@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970708122919.02a55f84@texoma.net> At 11:03 AM 7/8/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: > >The existing space is adequate for a *long* time, provided that we do >reasonable things with it. > >If we start to run out, we can go take back all the people's space who >haven't met even 20% of the current requirements (ie: actual utilization >below 10% of allocated) -- that should reclaim all of the existing Class "A" >addresses, which is 1/4 of the total allocated, and 1/2 of the total >possible IPV4 space. If I understand you correctly, you would move to reclaim, say, a /8 with 0% utilization before a /16 with 0% utilization before a /19 with 33% utilization, correct? --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571 From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 8 13:54:25 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:54:25 -0500 Subject: Aggressive route flap dampening Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970708125425.012ee634@texoma.net> >Posted-Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:51:06 -0500 (CDT) >Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT) >From: Tony Li >To: vaden at texoma.net >CC: pagans at texoma.net >Subject: Re: Aggressive route flap dampening > > > > .. > >Note that both of these are 'fixed' without a length restriction: the per > >prefix charge incents folks to aggregate. The per flap charge incents them > >to stability. Direct cause and effect, without harmful side effects. ;-) > > > >Tony > > Thank you for this very sane and important input. > > I wish you would post in to pagan at apnic.net and naipr at arin.net. > >Please feel free to forward it. I have no wish to enter yet another fire >fight for no cause. > >Tony --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571 From bmanning at ISI.EDU Tue Jul 8 13:12:30 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jul 8, 97 01:02:34 pm Message-ID: <199707081712.AA29071@zed.isi.edu> > >In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software > >has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address > >space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year > >2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His > >last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope > >that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-) > > > > Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not > believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into > the projection. Franks projections were done w/o any consideration of reclaimation. -- --bill From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 8 14:07:12 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:07:12 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com> References: <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970708130712.01cec96c@texoma.net> At 01:02 PM 7/8/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 09:55 AM 07/08/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> >>In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software >>has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address >>space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year >>2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His >>last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope >>that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-) >> > >Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not >believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into >the projection. > >- paul Which would extend the projected date at which we will run out of IPv4 space, correct? --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571 From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Tue Jul 8 14:24:22 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 14:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Jul 8, 97 09:55:56 am Message-ID: <199707081824.AA029716264@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Karl Auerbach supposedly said: > > > > There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the > > head to fix: > > > > 1) limitiation on address space > > > > 2) limitations of router forwarding table space > > > > 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates. > > > > While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of > > these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on > > address space is not a concern. Revocation would simply mean that it > > would continue to be third in the prioritization. > > That's a very good characterization of the issue. (I wish I could be > that accurate and concise.) > > In terms of when one hits the wall on #1, Frank Solensky of FTP Software > has been doing projections for a couple of years regarding when address > space prefixes run out. And he's projecting a very long time (the year > 2015 sticks in my mind) for exhausion of classic class b and c chunks. His > last projection is perhaps a close to a year out of date. (One would hope > that ipv6 or nat would be more widely deployed by then ;-) > As I recall Franks last predictions came in at 2008 +/- 5 years. One thing to note about those predictions is that Frank worked off of Internic allocations and didn't have APNIC or RIPE data (if I am wrong please correct me Frank, but this point does stick in my mind), so from the data he used he didn't know that RIPE and APNIC were close to filling their previously assigned blocks and would need large delegations of /8's. These large type of allocations put large spikes in the curves and certainly hasten the exhaustion problem. ---> Phil From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 08:57:37 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:57:37 +0100 Subject: Forcible reclamation? References: <01BC8B8A.EEA6FC80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33C23941.E7F@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 3:09 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: > @ Jon and all, > @ > @ Jon Lewis wrote: > @ > > @ > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > @ > > @ > > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table > @ > > space. > @ > > > @ > > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number > @ > > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem. > @ > > @ > If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be > @ > given a /19 :) > @ > @ Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space > @ as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a > @ priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used, > @ than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST > @ providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority. > @ This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of > @ the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members > @ of ARIN. > > ARIN is one company of several companies. It appears > that it has been formed by Network Solutions, Inc. and SAIC > as part of the grand evolution plan they have developed in > conjunction with the National Science Foundation to dismantle > the InterNIC by March of 1998. > > To place all of the responsibility for the IPv4 Core Transport > Network address space management on ARIN would not be wise. I agree it wouldn't be. But it appears that that is what is in the offing. > ARIN is supposed to have a small portion of the address space. > Unfortunately, no one has ever described precisely what part > of the address space will be delegated to ARIN. Yes, and this is troublesome to myself and I am sure others. Maybe it is to early in the transition to determine what the actual outcome of what part or all of the Ipv4 address space will be managed and by whom. But from the tennor of the comments from Board members here on this list, it seems that ARIN is prepairing to manage all of the Ipv4 space. > > There are other organizations, with more experience, more > stability, and better customer service than ARIN who could > be delegated parts of the IPv4 address space for management. Though this may be true, I have seen no perposal to do this yet. I do hope that it does come to pass however. In this event, there still needs to be sound policies to do so that all organizations that MAY be managing ipv4 or Ipv6 address space must or should follow. > In my opinion people and companies should be working to > cultivate those companies. We should have a dozen ARINs > in the U.S. alone. I don't know what the number SHOULD be, but certianly more than one. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 15:15:10 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 15:15:10 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970708130712.01cec96c@texoma.net> References: <3.0.3.32.19970708130234.006b6c14@lint.cisco.com> <199707080711.QAA05833@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708151510.006c49a0@lint.cisco.com> At 01:07 PM 07/08/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: >>Franks' projections were based on total allocations, and I do not >>believe any of the ISI reclamation efforts were factored into >>the projection. >> > >Which would extend the projected date at which we will run out of IPv4 >space, correct? > Correct, assuming that the reclaimed address space was delegated back into the registries for reallocation. It would also pay to review RFC1879, which discusses a method to get more bang for the proverbial buck. - paul From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Jul 8 09:02:03 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 14:02:03 +0100 Subject: ARIN Already Incorporated ? References: <01BC8B7B.BB2A96A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33C23A4B.1F5C@ix.netcom.com> Jim, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Monday, July 07, 1997 8:40 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] wrote: > @ At 08:10 PM 07/07/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote: > @ > @ >> > @ >> ARIN's charter is not to "run the net," as you seem to imply, > @ >> but rather, its charter is to provide IP address allocation and > @ >> registration services for greater North America. Also, if you'd > @ >> bother to do your homework, you would also realize that ARIN is > @ >> following a model which has been in place in Europe (RIPE) and > @ >> the Asian Pacific region (APNIC) for several years now, and all > @ >> indications are that this model functions remarkably well. > @ >> > @ > > @ >Paul, I need some help here. Where can I find ARIN's charter? > @ > > @ > @ Ah, you are looking for a literal charter document, which doesn't > @ exist. I meant 'charter' in the figurative sense, in that the > @ purpose of ARIN is spelled out in documents found on their > @ web site, namely: > @ > @ http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html > @ > @ - paul > @ > @ > @ > > According to the following, Network Solutions, Inc. (a subsidiary of SAIC) > has already incorporated ARIN. There is no mention of who the shareholders > are or the members of the Board of Directors. Also, there is no mention > of how the assets being transferred from NSI/SAIC to ARIN are being > handled. > > @@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt > > "The Company has recently received authorization from the > NSF to shift the allocation and administration of IP addresses to > a not-for-profit organization. In support of this initiative, the Company > has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the American > Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer IP addresses > for North and South America and parts of Africa. The Company anticipates > that the responsibility for the allocation and administration of IP addresses > will be transferred to ARIN by the fourth quarter of 1997. The Company > has agreed with the NSF to provide financial support to ARIN through the > end of the first quarter of 1998. The Company believes that the amount of > such support will not be material to the Company's business, financial > condition or results of operations." > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > The IP address allocations (assets) being transferred to ARIN are worth millions > of dollars. It is still unclear which /8 blocks are being transferred to ARIN. It > is also still unclear who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain. > Some people claim that ARIN will be handling that, others claim NSI. The > National Science Foundation should work that out BEFORE we have another > situation where one company is allowed to charge whatever it pleases for > Internet resource usage without any recourse from the people and companies > that depend on those resources. From what I can tell, all of the allocations (Assets) are being transfered to ARIN. As far as .ARPA TLD, my understanding is that POC or iPOC will be handeling that. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 16:23:31 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:23:31 -0500 Subject: ARIN Already Incorporated ? Message-ID: <01BC8BB2.E583F040@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 8:02 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ > The IP address allocations (assets) being transferred to ARIN are worth millions @ > of dollars. It is still unclear which /8 blocks are being transferred to ARIN. It @ > is also still unclear who will be managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain. @ > Some people claim that ARIN will be handling that, others claim NSI. The @ > National Science Foundation should work that out BEFORE we have another @ > situation where one company is allowed to charge whatever it pleases for @ > Internet resource usage without any recourse from the people and companies @ > that depend on those resources. @ @ From what I can tell, all of the allocations (Assets) are being @ transfered @ to ARIN. As far as .ARPA TLD, my understanding is that POC or iPOC will @ be handeling that. @ > I guess the NSF was not informed that IP addresses and domain name issues are related. What happens if the private group that takes over .ARPA or some portion of IN-ADDR.ARPA decides to change all the rules on delegations (domain names) that are registered in that zone ? Has the NSF and the U.S. Government worked all of these details out ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From karl at MCS.NET Tue Jul 8 16:34:20 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:34:20 -0500 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970708122919.02a55f84@texoma.net>; from Larry Vaden on Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 12:29:19PM -0500 References: <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.1.32.19970708122919.02a55f84@texoma.net> Message-ID: <19970708153420.46971@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 12:29:19PM -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: > At 11:03 AM 7/8/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > >The existing space is adequate for a *long* time, provided that we do > >reasonable things with it. > > > >If we start to run out, we can go take back all the people's space who > >haven't met even 20% of the current requirements (ie: actual utilization > >below 10% of allocated) -- that should reclaim all of the existing Class "A" > >addresses, which is 1/4 of the total allocated, and 1/2 of the total > >possible IPV4 space. > > If I understand you correctly, you would move to reclaim, say, a /8 with 0% > utilization before a /16 with 0% utilization before a /19 with 33% > utilization, correct? > > > --- > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct line 903-870-0365 > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 > Member of ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571 Of course. The greatest good and the most results should come first. This is assuming the goal is to obtain address space (ie: we're "out" and need to do so). Again, the goal drives the process, not the other way around. -- -- 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, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Jul 8 19:09:59 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 19:09:59 -0400 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970708174924.00a2e90c@pop.srv.paranet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19970708125234.006cefd0@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.2.32.19970708114343.00a2ecfc@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.3.32.19970708111000.006c155c@lint.cisco.com> <33C1F5A7.18C1@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970708190959.006dcee8@lint.cisco.com> At 05:49 PM 07/08/97 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >The point was that allocating PA IPs to a multihomed AS is pointless; it'd >be simpler and easier for everyone involved to just give them PI space. >Aggregating between the AS level and the continental level is basically >impossible; aggregating continent(s) might be possible, but isn't currently >effective. > Gee. Thanks for the incomprehensible, and incorrect, overview. Aggregation at the AS boundary is exactly what we do now, kimosabe. Aggregation on geographical boundaries is not possible. We've discussed on multiple occasions, and on multiple mailing lists, over the course of the past few years. I would contend that technically, it works just fine. What you are clamoring over is a human-induced situation -- a few large providers filtering smaller announcements. Changing this policy is where you should be focusing your efforts, not changing the allocation policies. >There is no "issue of increasing the address space"; the same number of IPs >will be used, it's just a question of whether the multihomed AS gets them >as PI from the NIC or PA from their provider(s). It's obvious which would >be more stable for the user (PI), and which would have a higher likelihood >of mismanagement (PA). > You've obviously not comprehended my earlier missives. The argument thus far from participants of this list for IPv6 has been in response to statements that since IPv4 address space is a finite, limited resource, and cannot be arbitrarily allocated, a migration to a larger address space [IPv6] is a desired goal. I have contended that proposing a migration to v6 based solely on this reasoning this is flawed logic -- allocation policy would still be needed with IPv6. And chances are, you guys would still feel discriminated against when you encountered situations where a larger provider filtered smaller, more specific prefixes, which violated aggregation of larger aggregated announcements. The current proposals on IPv6 address structure also have provisions for aggregation -- at least one proposal has two levels (a top level aggregator and a 'mid'-level aggregator). The same issues will exit within IPv6 which exist within IPv4, and that is entrenched efforts to keep the global routing system stable and functioning. Comprende? - paul From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 19:39:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:39:59 -0500 Subject: Current Need for PI/19 for newer multihomers Message-ID: <01BC8BCE.5772DAC0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:14 AM, Charles T. Smith, Jr.[SMTP:cts at vec.net] wrote: @ @ I agree, and I'd rather see it happen through ARIN than anything else @ anyone's suggested so far. @ @ Sure, those being pinched by the current rules and process would like @ to see things happen quickly; however, things are moving. ARIN seems @ to be on track; Kim tells us that the BoT is busy setting things up, @ and having been through a similar process with the ISP/C, I can understand @ that Kim and the other BoT members are focused elsewhere. @ They have been working on this since January and before that according to some of the meeting minutes. What could take so long ? NSI claims that ARIN has been incorporated. Why hasn't the Board of Directors reported on that ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From cts at VEC.NET Wed Jul 9 04:51:35 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 19:51:35 -1300 Subject: Current Need for PI/19 for newer multihomers Message-ID: <009B6F60.CE2A1FB8.16@vec.net> > They have been working on this since January and before > that according to some of the meeting minutes. What could > take so long ? Perhaps getting the folks at the NSF and other agencies to understand what was being proposed. I was sorry to see it slowed down; however, by getting the I's dotted and the T's crossed will lessen chances of future direction, so it's not all bad. > NSI claims that ARIN has been incorporated. Why hasn't > the Board of Directors reported on that ? Giv'em time; at least enough to let the ink dry on the paper. Given the experience Kim and her folks have had on the net, I can easily understand why they don't want to release things before everything's finished; it will just bog them down more with 1000 questions. Let'em finish, get the membership stuff ready, and once all the organization stuff's done, I'm sure there'll be plenty of reading material, and more time for questions. Of course, corporation papers are generally a matter of public record. You could check with the VA Secretary of State. From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 19:52:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:52:02 -0500 Subject: Class B Recovery Message-ID: <01BC8BD0.068B9280@webster.unety.net> What does ARIN plan to do when a company goes out of business (in less than 5 hours) and leaves behind a /16 ? Does ARIN have the delegation for 168.IN-ADDR.ARPA ? For example... Synet Inc. (NET-SYNET-B) 1401 W. Branding Lane Suite 230 Downers Grove IL 60515 Netname: SYNET-B Netnumber: 168.113.0.0 Coordinator: Mauch, Jared (JM568) jared at PUCK.NETHER.NET 313 998 8227 (FAX) 313 998 6105 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: SPRUCE.CIC.NET 198.87.18.10 INFOSERV.ILLINOIS.NET 192.217.65.102 Record last updated on 23-Jun-97. Database last updated on 8-Jul-97 04:25:14 EDT. From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 19:54:21 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:54:21 -0500 Subject: Current Need for PI/19 for newer multihomers Message-ID: <01BC8BD0.5935FCA0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:50 AM, Charles T. Smith, Jr.[SMTP:cts at vec.net] wrote: @ > They have been working on this since January and before @ > that according to some of the meeting minutes. What could @ > take so long ? @ @ Perhaps getting the folks at the NSF and other agencies to understand @ what was being proposed. I was sorry to see it slowed down; however, @ by getting the I's dotted and the T's crossed will lessen chances of @ future direction, so it's not all bad. @ Does the NSF only deal with NSI ? @ > NSI claims that ARIN has been incorporated. Why hasn't @ > the Board of Directors reported on that ? @ @ Giv'em time; at least enough to let the ink dry on the paper. Given the When will the next ARIN be started ? Why do these people have a monopoly ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 20:43:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 19:43:17 -0500 Subject: RIPE and ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC8BD7.2F741EE0@webster.unety.net> Does RIPE compete with ARIN...? @@@ http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/PAGES/US.html "Local Internet Registries offering service in UNITED STATES" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From editor at txlaw.com Tue Jul 8 21:37:03 1997 From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 20:37:03 -0500 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... References: <01BC8BCB.8AFA1B40@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33C2EB3E.6CA0@txlaw.com> I am not commenting on the quality of the ARIN board of trustees but on the organic process involved. I strongly object to the way ARIN's board is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT members will come in the future. This is not my idea of democracy. Immediate change in this structure should be non-negotiable, in my opinion. If immediate change to some representational form of governance does not occur, there are all kinds of avenues to pursue. We need to start discussing them. Thus, I believe that Jim's point should not be dismissed out of hand. Are there any other thoughts down this line? Frankly, I think we should be exploring several alternatives simultaneously in case ARIN can not be reformed. Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel Internet Texoma, Inc. The ISP which DIDN'T Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:18 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at priori.net] wrote: > @ > @ The ISP/C currently has no interest of becoming a registry. We do intend > @ to be involved in helping the registries form their policies, as well as > @ representing the ISP community to the registries, but have no interest in > @ performing the role ourselves. > @ > @ Justin "Speaking for the ISP/C" Newton > @ > > That is too bad....maybe some other ISP-oriented organization > will realize the importance of this role... > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation From cook at NETAXS.COM Tue Jul 8 23:02:40 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 23:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: <33C2EB3E.6CA0@txlaw.com> Message-ID: Eric sez: I strongly object to the way ARIN's board is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT members will come in the future. >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage the NSI president is on it? Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs image in my opinion. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jul 8 23:29:36 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 22:29:36 -0500 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... Message-ID: <01BC8BEE.6B38E7A0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:02 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote: @ Eric sez: @ I strongly object to the way ARIN's board @ is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That @ annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT @ members will come in the future. @ @ >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most @ definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage @ the NSI president is on it? @ Don Telage is no longer the President of NSI. Gabe Batistta runs the show...since November 1996. Don Telage is V.P. of Special Projects (or something similar) @ Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not @ "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better @ composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. @ nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose @ so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. @ Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs @ image in my opinion. @ Don Telage wrote the NSI plan in response to the IAHC. It is hard to imagine that he does not "grok" the Internet. It is my impression that after Don cashes out on the NSI IPO (along with other NSI people) then he and some others will run ARIN. Don was the President of NSI when the NSF was convinced to allow NSI to start charging for domain registrations. What better person to lead the charge in charging for IP addresses ? (no punn intended) NSI has already started to divide the people and space. It will be interesting to see where the Root Name Servers end up in the shuffle. They are really part of the InterNIC which is more Don Telage's domain. The Domain Registration part of NSI (i.e. .COM, .NET and .ORG) can now go off at arm's length with their own TLD Name Servers separate from the Root Name Servers and not look back. As long as delegations are added to a new set of .COM servers, NSI will be clear of the InterNIC. That appears to be the image that has been projected for a long time at . Don Telage and the IP address people can ride out what remains of the InterNIC and evolve it to ARIN. As noted in the following, other parts of the InterNIC are being dismantled and funded by the NSF. ====== The "original" InterNIC was supposed to have three functions, IS, DS, and RS. Part of the IS function was PR and education. Part of that function was Net Scout and other activities. When the NSF mismanaged the IS function and did not replace the contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. (the RS contractor moved in an picked up some of the IS tasks) Now it appears that the NSF is slowly dismantling the InterNIC but continuing to fund the activities. This allows NSI to exit from the contract without supporting these activities. People claim the NSF is no longer funding the InterNIC. Here is another $3 million that is essentially funding what used to be part of the InterNIC. P.S. Don Mitchell the Program Manager below was the InterNIC Program Manager. Larry Landweber helped found the ISOC. ====== @@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163 NSF Award Abstract - #9712163 Net Scout Internet Resource Discovery and Search Technologies NSF Org NCR Latest Amendment Date May 15, 1997 Award Number 9712163 Award Instr.Continuing Grant Prgm Manager Donald Mitchell NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR Start Date May 1, 1997 Expires April 30, 2000 (Estimated) Expected Total Amt. $3,074,016 (Estimated) Investigator Lawrence H Landweber ihl at cs.wisc.edu Susan Calcari Sponsor U of Wisconsin Madison 750 University Ave Madison, WI 537061490 608/262-1234 NSF Program 4090 NSFNETFld Applictn0206000 Telecommunications Abstract The Net Scout project is an Internet resource location and technology service oriented primarily to the higher education community. It currently provides four services that are used by thousands of faculty, staff, and students in higher education: the Scout Report, Net Happenings, the Scout Toolkit, and the KIDS Report. The Scout Report is a weekly electronic newsletter summarizing the best new Internet resources of use to higher education. Net Happenings is an electronic service that provides immediate notification of 50-70 Internet announcements each day via a mailing list, a newsgroup, and a Web site. The Scout Toolkit summarizes the best Internet search services and other tools needed by researchers and educators to use the Internet effectively. The KIDS Report is a biweekly newsletter written by students in elementary, middle, and high school classrooms who select and describe the Web sites they find the most interesting and useful. The Net Scout project will continue and expand these services in two ways: First, to provide additional services, including publication of three biweekly Scout Reports produced by specialists in the specific areas of Science and Engineering, Social Sciences, and Business and Economics, and, second, to implement new tools which aid in the location of Internet resources in a specific subject area. A prototype service will be built using as its initial base the three year archive of the highly selective resources that have been included in the Scout Report. Specialized authenticated collections of quality resources at higher education institutions will also be identified and included in the prototype. http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM Tue Jul 8 23:38:05 1997 From: kwl at SHELL.MONMOUTH.COM (Ken Leland) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 23:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Cook" at Jul 8, 97 11:02:40 pm Message-ID: <199707090338.XAA00707@shell.monmouth.com> Gordon wrote. > Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not > "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better > composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. ^^^^^^^^^^ Thank you very much Gordon, but I haven't made the many years of personal blood sweat and tears contribution/innovation in the basic net makeup -RFC's etc- that our community looks for and *needs* in an ARIN trustee. This is the prime reason why most of us don't think our current Trustees Scott, Randy et al, will screw it up - They just have too much invested in their labor of love - The Internet. Its the same reason we want Vixie making sure that DNS doesn't break, he would rather loose an arm than see that happen. > nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose > so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. > Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs > image in my opinion. > On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition standpoint. ken From cook at NETAXS.COM Tue Jul 8 23:55:22 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 23:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: <01BC8BEE.6B38E7A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: To those old hands here who manage to filter out flemings slanderous stench! Congratulations. To anyone new who may be wondering about flemings malodourous SLIME. He is an inveterate liar who reeks with the stench of a 3 day old dead fish. best ignored....which means i am not following my own advice.....sigh. Fleming you asshole.... you have one lie after another in your little history..... get lost beyond your stargate. but if i had the means and the time to invest..... i'd hire a lawyer and serve you with papers. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:02 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote: > @ Eric sez: > @ I strongly object to the way ARIN's board > @ is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That > @ annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT > @ members will come in the future. > @ > @ >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most > @ definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage > @ the NSI president is on it? > @ > > Don Telage is no longer the President of NSI. > Gabe Batistta runs the show...since November 1996. > Don Telage is V.P. of Special Projects (or something similar) > > @ Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not > @ "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better > @ composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. > @ nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose > @ so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. > @ Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs > @ image in my opinion. > @ > > Don Telage wrote the NSI plan in response to the IAHC. > It is hard to imagine that he does not "grok" the Internet. > > It is my impression that after Don cashes out on the NSI > IPO (along with other NSI people) then he and some others > will run ARIN. Don was the President of NSI when the NSF > was convinced to allow NSI to start charging for domain > registrations. What better person to lead the charge in > charging for IP addresses ? (no punn intended) > > NSI has already started to divide the people and space. > It will be interesting to see where the Root Name Servers > end up in the shuffle. They are really part of the InterNIC > which is more Don Telage's domain. > > The Domain Registration part of NSI (i.e. .COM, .NET and > .ORG) can now go off at arm's length with their own TLD > Name Servers separate from the Root Name Servers and > not look back. As long as delegations are added to a new > set of .COM servers, NSI will be clear of the InterNIC. > That appears to be the image that has been projected for > a long time at . > > Don Telage and the IP address people can ride out what > remains of the InterNIC and evolve it to ARIN. As noted in > the following, other parts of the InterNIC are being dismantled > and funded by the NSF. > > > ====== > > The "original" InterNIC was supposed to have three > functions, IS, DS, and RS. Part of the IS function was > PR and education. Part of that function was Net Scout > and other activities. > > When the NSF mismanaged the IS function and did not > replace the contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. (the RS > contractor moved in an picked up some of the IS tasks) > > Now it appears that the NSF is slowly dismantling the > InterNIC but continuing to fund the activities. This allows > NSI to exit from the contract without supporting these > activities. > > People claim the NSF is no longer funding the InterNIC. > Here is another $3 million that is essentially funding what > used to be part of the InterNIC. > > P.S. Don Mitchell the Program Manager below was the > InterNIC Program Manager. Larry Landweber helped found the > ISOC. > > > ====== > > > @@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163 > > NSF Award Abstract - #9712163 > > Net Scout Internet Resource Discovery and Search Technologies > > NSF Org NCR > Latest Amendment Date May 15, 1997 > Award Number 9712163 > Award Instr.Continuing Grant > Prgm Manager Donald Mitchell > NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR > CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR > Start Date May 1, 1997 > Expires April 30, 2000 (Estimated) > Expected Total Amt. $3,074,016 (Estimated) > Investigator Lawrence H Landweber ihl at cs.wisc.edu > Susan Calcari > Sponsor U of Wisconsin Madison > 750 University Ave > Madison, WI 537061490 608/262-1234 > NSF Program 4090 NSFNETFld Applictn0206000 Telecommunications > > Abstract > > The Net Scout project is an Internet resource location and technology > service oriented primarily to the higher education community. It currently > provides four services that are used by thousands of faculty, staff, and > students in higher education: the Scout Report, Net Happenings, the > Scout Toolkit, and the KIDS Report. The Scout Report is a weekly > electronic newsletter summarizing the best new Internet resources of > use to higher education. Net Happenings is an electronic service that > provides immediate notification of 50-70 Internet announcements each > day via a mailing list, a newsgroup, and a Web site. The Scout Toolkit > summarizes the best Internet search services and other tools needed > by researchers and educators to use the Internet effectively. The KIDS > Report is a biweekly newsletter written by students in elementary, middle, > and high school classrooms who select and describe the Web sites > they find the most interesting and useful. The Net Scout project will > continue and expand these services in two ways: First, to provide > additional services, including publication of three biweekly Scout Reports > produced by specialists in the specific areas of Science and Engineering, > Social Sciences, and Business and Economics, and, second, to implement > new tools which aid in the location of Internet resources in a specific > subject area. A prototype service will be built using as its initial base > the three year archive of the highly selective resources that have been > included in the Scout Report. Specialized authenticated collections > of quality resources at higher education institutions will also be > identified and included in the prototype. http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/ > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 00:00:22 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 00:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: <199707090338.XAA00707@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: Ken i agree with everything you say. And I take my hat off to one of the minority voices of reason on this list. In naming you and jsutin i was trying to capture the idea of clueful representative of the smaller ISPs. I thing the arin board is pretty darned represenative of the net considering it is only five people. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Ken Leland wrote: > > Gordon wrote. > > > Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not > > "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better > > composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Thank you very much Gordon, but I haven't made the many years of personal > blood sweat and tears contribution/innovation in the basic net makeup > -RFC's etc- that our community looks for and *needs* in an ARIN trustee. > This is the prime reason why most of us don't think our current Trustees > Scott, Randy et al, will screw it up - They just have too much invested in > their labor of love - The Internet. Its the same reason we want Vixie > making sure that DNS doesn't break, he would rather loose an arm than > see that happen. > > > nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose > > so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. > > Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs > > image in my opinion. > > > > On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition > standpoint. > > ken > From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Wed Jul 9 00:23:39 1997 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:23:39 +0200 Subject: RIPE and ARIN ? In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 08 Jul 1997 19:43:17 CDT. <01BC8BD7.2F741EE0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC8BD7.2F741EE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <9707090423.AA13498@ncc.ripe.net> > Jim Fleming writes: > > Does RIPE compete with ARIN...? > > @@@ http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/PAGES/US.html > > "Local Internet Registries offering service in UNITED STATES" > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim, no the RIPE NCC does not compete with ARIN. The mandate from our constituency is concisely defined in document ripe-144 'RIPE NCC Activities & Expenditure 1997' (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-144.html). I have referred both yourself and this list to this document before. The specific activity is 'R.1 Regional Internet Registry' (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-144.html#toc19): The RIPE NCC provides Internet registration services for Europe and surrounding areas; it acts as a Regional Internet Registry. The overall goal of this activity is to provide fair, impartial and stable distribution of Internet numbers, especially address space in Europe and the surrounding areas. The specific goals for address space are uniqueness of addresses, conservation of the remaining IPv4 address space, aggregation of routing information and registration of network management information. Our registry list contains "Local Internet Registries offering service in UNITED STATES" because these LIRs also provide services in our area and for that purpose act as local IRs in our area. The list is automagically generated from our LIR database which in turn is based on the information provided by the LIRs themselves. Of 733 LIRs active in our region only 4 are listed as providing service in the US and only one of those is based in the US. This shows that in this respect the regions as currently defined make a lot of sense. Daniel Karrenberg General Manager RIPE NCC From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Jul 9 00:47:45 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 13:47:45 +0900 Subject: Forcible reclamation? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:55:56 MST." Message-ID: <199707090447.NAA01891@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> [This is probably better off in PAGAN, as it isn't really specific to ARIN] Karl, >Are other people coming up with more conservative (i.e. exhaustion occurs >sooner) estimates? If so, and if exhaustion is projected by the millenium >or thereabouts, then my premise would be incorrect. First define "exhaustion". There are people who claim that we have already exhausted the IPv4 Internet address space as there are viable Internet technology using applications which cannot be implemented on today's Internet due to address space limitiations (or so I'm told). I tend to argue that Internet address space will NEVER be exhausted for the simple reason that people depend on the Internet and as such, they'll do whatever it takes to get the resources they _need_. The persistent (as yet unsubstantiated) rumors of a black market in /16s is merely one facet of people doing whatever it takes to meet their requirements. More specifically, as address space becomes more and more scarce (or rather, perceived to be more and more scarce), the "value" of that address space will increase. As value increases, organizations currently holding vast tracts of unused Internet address space will have increased incentive to convert that address space into used, most likely by someone else who would be willing to pay real money to obtain the space. Of course, such "non-traditional" approaches toward obtaining address space are not recoginized under current registry policies. Regards, -drc From kimh at internic.net Wed Jul 9 08:37:21 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: <01BC8BEE.6B38E7A0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jul 8, 97 10:29:36 pm Message-ID: <199707091237.IAA21126@vampyre.internic.net> > You know that Don Telage is not going to be running ARIN. I don't know why you persist in posting these fantasies of yours. People may believe them in the short term, but everyone eventually catches on and it really doesn't help your credibility, Jim. Kim Hubbard > It is my impression that after Don cashes out on the NSI > IPO (along with other NSI people) then he and some others > will run ARIN. Don was the President of NSI when the NSF > was convinced to allow NSI to start charging for domain > registrations. What better person to lead the charge in > charging for IP addresses ? (no punn intended) > > NSI has already started to divide the people and space. > It will be interesting to see where the Root Name Servers > end up in the shuffle. They are really part of the InterNIC > which is more Don Telage's domain. > > The Domain Registration part of NSI (i.e. .COM, .NET and > .ORG) can now go off at arm's length with their own TLD > Name Servers separate from the Root Name Servers and > not look back. As long as delegations are added to a new > set of .COM servers, NSI will be clear of the InterNIC. > That appears to be the image that has been projected for > a long time at . > > Don Telage and the IP address people can ride out what > remains of the InterNIC and evolve it to ARIN. As noted in > the following, other parts of the InterNIC are being dismantled > and funded by the NSF. > > > ====== > > The "original" InterNIC was supposed to have three > functions, IS, DS, and RS. Part of the IS function was > PR and education. Part of that function was Net Scout > and other activities. > > When the NSF mismanaged the IS function and did not > replace the contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. (the RS > contractor moved in an picked up some of the IS tasks) > > Now it appears that the NSF is slowly dismantling the > InterNIC but continuing to fund the activities. This allows > NSI to exit from the contract without supporting these > activities. > > People claim the NSF is no longer funding the InterNIC. > Here is another $3 million that is essentially funding what > used to be part of the InterNIC. > > P.S. Don Mitchell the Program Manager below was the > InterNIC Program Manager. Larry Landweber helped found the > ISOC. > > > ====== > > > @@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163 > > NSF Award Abstract - #9712163 > > Net Scout Internet Resource Discovery and Search Technologies > > NSF Org NCR > Latest Amendment Date May 15, 1997 > Award Number 9712163 > Award Instr.Continuing Grant > Prgm Manager Donald Mitchell > NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR > CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR > Start Date May 1, 1997 > Expires April 30, 2000 (Estimated) > Expected Total Amt. $3,074,016 (Estimated) > Investigator Lawrence H Landweber ihl at cs.wisc.edu > Susan Calcari > Sponsor U of Wisconsin Madison > 750 University Ave > Madison, WI 537061490 608/262-1234 > NSF Program 4090 NSFNETFld Applictn0206000 Telecommunications > > Abstract > > The Net Scout project is an Internet resource location and technology > service oriented primarily to the higher education community. It currently > provides four services that are used by thousands of faculty, staff, and > students in higher education: the Scout Report, Net Happenings, the > Scout Toolkit, and the KIDS Report. The Scout Report is a weekly > electronic newsletter summarizing the best new Internet resources of > use to higher education. Net Happenings is an electronic service that > provides immediate notification of 50-70 Internet announcements each > day via a mailing list, a newsgroup, and a Web site. The Scout Toolkit > summarizes the best Internet search services and other tools needed > by researchers and educators to use the Internet effectively. The KIDS > Report is a biweekly newsletter written by students in elementary, middle, > and high school classrooms who select and describe the Web sites > they find the most interesting and useful. The Net Scout project will > continue and expand these services in two ways: First, to provide > additional services, including publication of three biweekly Scout Reports > produced by specialists in the specific areas of Science and Engineering, > Social Sciences, and Business and Economics, and, second, to implement > new tools which aid in the location of Internet resources in a specific > subject area. A prototype service will be built using as its initial base > the three year archive of the highly selective resources that have been > included in the Scout Report. Specialized authenticated collections > of quality resources at higher education institutions will also be > identified and included in the prototype. http://wwwscout.cs.wisc.edu/ > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > From kimh at internic.net Wed Jul 9 08:38:09 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: <199707090338.XAA00707@shell.monmouth.com> from "Ken Leland" at Jul 8, 97 11:38:05 pm Message-ID: <199707091238.IAA21133@vampyre.internic.net> > > On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition > standpoint. Exactly. Kim > > ken > From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 09:46:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:46:04 -0500 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... Message-ID: <01BC8C44.89C84700@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:37 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ You know that Don Telage is not going to be running ARIN. I don't @ know why you persist in posting these fantasies of yours. People @ may believe them in the short term, but everyone eventually catches @ on and it really doesn't help your credibility, Jim. @ @ Kim Hubbard @ You said it was "TBD" who at NSI would move to ARIN. Can you explain who will be "running" ARIN ? I have heard several different versions from ARIN insiders. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 10:27:51 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:27:51 -0500 Subject: IP allocation policies Message-ID: <01BC8C4A.60152BC0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ @ While everyone is discussing the issue of relaxing the allocation policies for ARIN, I would like to make a suggestion. @ I thought the policies for ARIN, RIPE and APNIC were going to be the same....is that not the case ? Is the pricing the same between ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ? Again, what is the status of ARIN ? Has it been staffed ? Are there ARIN employees ? Who will be running ARIN ? Do the delays have anything to do with the NSI IPO ? Have people left NSI and joined ARIN ? Have assets been transferred between NSI and ARIN ? What about the /8s ? Which /8s will ARIN be managing ? Lastly, who is managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 9 04:06:31 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:06:31 +0100 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... References: <01BC8BCB.8AFA1B40@webster.unety.net> <33C2EB3E.6CA0@txlaw.com> Message-ID: <33C34687.7E93@ix.netcom.com> Eric, Eric Weisberg wrote: > > I am not commenting on the quality of the ARIN board of trustees but on > the organic process involved. I strongly object to the way ARIN's board > is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That > annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT > members will come in the future. This is not my idea of democracy. > Immediate change in this structure should be non-negotiable, in my > opinion. If immediate change to some representational form of governance > does not occur, there are all kinds of avenues to pursue. We need to > start discussing them. I agree completly. > > Thus, I believe that Jim's point should not be dismissed out of hand. > Are there any other thoughts down this line? Frankly, I think we should > be exploring several alternatives simultaneously in case ARIN can not be > reformed. Yes, I believe I posted those earlier. But one of them ws that all board members should be elected by the members/stockholders. That those Members serve both the members and the user community. These are just general principals however. If you like, I will look back up my post reguarding "Principals" thread, and repost? Comments? > > Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel > Internet Texoma, Inc. > The ISP which DIDN'T > > Jim Fleming wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:18 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at priori.net] wrote: > > @ > > @ The ISP/C currently has no interest of becoming a registry. We do intend > > @ to be involved in helping the registries form their policies, as well as > > @ representing the ISP community to the registries, but have no interest in > > @ performing the role ourselves. > > @ > > @ Justin "Speaking for the ISP/C" Newton > > @ > > > > That is too bad....maybe some other ISP-oriented organization > > will realize the importance of this role... > > > > -- > > Jim Fleming > > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 9 04:09:16 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:09:16 +0100 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... References: Message-ID: <33C3472B.5B23@ix.netcom.com> Gordon, Gordon Cook wrote: > > Eric sez: > I strongly object to the way ARIN's board > is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That > annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT > members will come in the future. We certianly are in agreement here for a change. > > >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most > definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage > the NSI president is on it? > > Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not > "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better > composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. > nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose > so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. > Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs > image in my opinion. I think it would have had a positive effect as well. > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml > ************************************************************************ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 10:33:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:33:47 -0500 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? Message-ID: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently @ utilize address space. How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 9 04:28:36 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:28:36 +0100 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... References: <199707091238.IAA21133@vampyre.internic.net> Message-ID: <33C34BB4.3D11@ix.netcom.com> Kim and all, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > > > On the other hand, his staying does make some sense from a transition > > standpoint. > > Exactly. Than keep him on in a special advisory capacity. Not as a board member. Bad policy! > > Kim > > > > > ken > > -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 10:43:20 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:43:20 -0500 Subject: ISP/C Example Message-ID: <01BC8C4C.89C01000@webster.unety.net> For people "organizing" ARIN..... I suggest that you follow some of the open and democratic processes used by the ISP/C. They should be applauded for their efforts and be used as a model for organizations that serve their members and the public. Here is a sample of one of their recent postings. Their web site has more information. Jim Fleming ======= ---------- From: Deb Howard[SMTP:deb.howard at 2COWHERD.NET] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 2:28 AM To: ISPC-LIST at ispc.org Subject: Announcement of 1997-98 Officers and Directorates Dear ISP/C Members and Interested Others: On behalf of the ISP/C Board of Directors, I am pleased to make the following announcement as to the results of Board elections and appointments to various Board positions: 1. Election of Board Officers: President, Vice President, Treasurer. For President, Newton/Howard nominated and Brown seconded the nomination of Charles T. Smith. For Vice President, Smith moved and Brown seconded the nomination of Roxanna Loveday. For Treasurer, Smallacombe/Freedman moved and Crocker seconded the nomination of Doug R. Locke. Nominations from the floor were closed, and the slate as submitted was passed by unanimous roll call vote. Congratulations to our new Officers! 2. Appointment of Directorships: Appointment of Secretary William Sommers Appointment of Education and Training Director Kevin Crocker Appointment of Membership Services Director Kevin Wenzel Appointment of Membership Recruiting Director Jon Mann Appointment of System Management Director (Server Manager: Ray Davis) Jeff Lawhorn, James Smallacombe (back-up) Appointment of Communications Director Deb Howard Appointment of Policy & Lobbying Director Justin Newton Appointment of Special Projects Director(s) Matt Simerson Avi Freedman James Smallacombe The above slate was passed by unanimous voice vote. 3. Board terms of office: 1, 2 or 3 year terms available. Tim Brown 3 years Kevin Crocker 1 year Avi Freedman 3 years Deborah Howard 1 year Jeffrey Lawhorn 2 years Douglas Locke 2 years Roxanna Loveday 3 years Jonathan Mann 1 year Justin Newton 2 years Matt Simerson 1 year James Smallacombe 1 year William Sommers 3 years Charles Smith 2 years Kevin Wenzel 2 years The above slate was passed by unanimous voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Howard, MPH 1996-97 President 1997-98 Chair of the Board ----------------------------------------------------------- Deborah A. Howard, MPH, Partner 2 COW HERD, Venice Beach, CA's Original Full Spectrum ISP (310) 448-1680 (phone) (310) 827-5355 (FAX) http://www.2cowherd.net deb.howard at 2cowherd.net Chair of the Board, Internet Service Provider's Consortium http://www.ispc.org http://www.euro.ispc.org ----------------------------------------------------------- From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 11:06:28 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 10:06:28 -0500 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... Message-ID: <01BC8C4F.C7CAE840@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 7:00 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ @ I thing the arin board is pretty darned represenative of the net @ considering it is only five people. @ "representative" ?.....please read ========================= Raymundo Vega Aguilar - Mexico Randy Bush - U.S. - ISOC/IETF John Curran - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6 Scott Bradner - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6 Donald N. Telage, Ph.D - U.S. - NSI Jon Postel - U.S - ISOC/IANA Kim Hubbard - U.S. - NSI ========================= Where is Canada's representation ? Where is Africa's representation ? Where is South America's representation ? @@@@@@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt "the Company has incorporated a not-for-profit organization named the American Registry for Internet Numbers (the "ARIN") to administer IP addresses for North and South America and parts of Africa." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Jul 9 11:21:51 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 11:21:51 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:33:47 CDT." <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:33:47 CDT, Jim Fleming said: > On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: > @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently > @ utilize address space. > How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ? Well, way back in the 1940s, this guy Turing propsed what is now well known as the Turing Test. Just apply that. You talk to them on the phone for 15 or 20 minutes, and it will become readily apparent who actually knows what they're doing and which ones are the newbies. I've seen more than one start-up ISP who (believe it or not) had a *head* technical person who didn't understand subnetting. I'm relatively sure that this is the sort of organization that Kim is referring to, and I have relatively high trust in Kim (and company) hiring techies who will be able to spot this sort of startup fairly easily. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior 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 vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 11:38:23 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 10:38:23 -0500 Subject: IP allocation policies In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4A.60152BC0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709103823.0113cdcc@texoma.net> Jim, There's a member of the discussion who is a journalist, Gordon Cook. Perhaps Gordon would agree to ask the "who, what, where, why and when?" questions a good journalist so often poses and reports on. ----- At 09:27 AM 7/9/97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: >@ >@ While everyone is discussing the issue of relaxing the allocation policies for ARIN, I would like to make a suggestion. >@ > >I thought the policies for ARIN, RIPE and APNIC were going >to be the same....is that not the case ? > >Is the pricing the same between ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ? > >Again, what is the status of ARIN ? >Has it been staffed ? >Are there ARIN employees ? >Who will be running ARIN ? > >Do the delays have anything to do with the NSI IPO ? > >Have people left NSI and joined ARIN ? > >Have assets been transferred between NSI and ARIN ? > >What about the /8s ? >Which /8s will ARIN be managing ? > >Lastly, who is managing the .ARPA Top Level Domain ? > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation > > > From michael at STB.INFO.COM Wed Jul 9 12:23:00 1997 From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 97 09:23 PDT Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? Message-ID: I'm sorry, but I can't let that go. If you talk to them for 15 or 20 minutes, you do not know, and it does not become apparent, who knows what they are doing and who doesn't. It becomes apparent who the interviewer believes knows what they are talking about. The turing test was not about proving a computer as intelligent as a person. It was about, can a computer deceive a person. People are able to deceive other people into thinking that they are an AI program. See metamagical themas for a classic on this. This was from a supposed military inlelligence AI project: Q: "What is a foot?" A: "12.0 inches" Q: "What is an arm?" A: "That information is classified." Now, if you have a competent interviewer, the beliefs of the interviewer will be close to reality. But in all fairness, you need three interviewers to do a fair job (one might just hit it off poorly, or otherwise be biased), and in any event, not all true statements can be proved. Not all who are competent at running a network are competent at explaining themselves to others. Those are two different areas of expertise. >On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:33:47 CDT, Jim Fleming said: >> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: >> @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently >> @ utilize address space. >> How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ? > >Well, way back in the 1940s, this guy Turing propsed what is now well known >as the Turing Test. Just apply that. You talk to them on the phone for >15 or 20 minutes, and it will become readily apparent who actually knows >what they're doing and which ones are the newbies. > >I've seen more than one start-up ISP who (believe it or not) had a *head* >technical person who didn't understand subnetting. I'm relatively sure that >this is the sort of organization that Kim is referring to, and I have relatively >high trust in Kim (and company) hiring techies who will be able to spot this >sort of startup fairly easily. >-- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Senior Engineer > Virginia Tech From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 12:27:08 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: IP allocation policies In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709103823.0113cdcc@texoma.net> Message-ID: Larry wrote: Jim, There's a member of the discussion who is a journalist, Gordon Cook. Perhaps Gordon would agree to ask the "who, what, where, why and when?" questions a good journalist so often poses and reports on. COOK: let's get a couple of things clear. One of the most harmful things that you can ever do for the long term image of internet texoma is portray yourself as a fleming support which is what you are doing here. Second - the day I ever take the FILTH that spews from flemings keyboard as a guide of what to ask in my own reporting will be the day that I hang up my hat and close down my newsletter. Chill larry chill....... ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 12:37:24 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 11:37:24 -0500 Subject: IP allocation policies In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19970709103823.0113cdcc@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709113724.0152de84@texoma.net> At 12:27 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >COOK: let's get a couple of things clear. One of the most harmful things >that you can ever do for the long term image of internet texoma is portray >yourself as a fleming support which is what you are doing here. > >Second - the day I ever take the FILTH that spews from flemings keyboard >as a guide of what to ask in my own reporting will be the day that I hang >up my hat and close down my newsletter. > >Chill larry chill....... Actually, Gordon, rather than supporting Fleming, I was suggesting that you ask the "who, what, where, why and when?" and report on them, as is being done by journalist Randy Barrett Senior Writer Inter at ctive Week http://www.intweek.com Voice: 703-938-2087 Fax: 2088 From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 12:38:06 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:38:06 -0500 Subject: IP allocation policies Message-ID: <01BC8C5C.924B0080@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 10:38 AM, Larry Vaden[SMTP:vaden at texoma.net] wrote: @ Jim, @ @ There's a member of the discussion who is a journalist, Gordon Cook. @ Perhaps Gordon would agree to ask the "who, what, where, why and when?" @ questions a good journalist so often poses and reports on. @ Gordon Cook appears to be one of the people helping to organize ARIN....I do not think that falls under "journalism"... @@@@@ http://www.cookreport.com/06.04.shtml "In April ARIN was back on track and headed for a September 1 opening, when, suddenly at the beginning of May, we received word that ARIN was once again on hold. Why? Because OMB had decided to fix the problems of IP. The only problem was that the underlying problems, which are technical, are not administratively "fixable", and the people sitting around the Inter Agency DNS Task Force table either didn't know it or would not admit it. After sending scathing private mail to an administration official, we received a reply on May 11 that told us worlds about the problem. "As far as I know -- the only outstanding objection to ARIN is whether they are dealing with number portability.? Certainly -- number portability is critical in the telephony context to promoting competition - so people are asking -- why not portability for Internet? If you have any recommendations for people on the technical side - I'd appreciate it." We passed this data along to the appropriate technical leadership of the net, went to Russia and waited for more news. When it came it was that a succession of technical folk had done the educating called for but that amazingly ARIN had been thrown a new curve. The feds were now insisting it be announced in the Federal Registry before it was formed. We were told that this new delay would kill ARIN, and that worse, it was doing nothing to solve the authority problems of the IANA." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Jul 9 13:03:47 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 13:03:47 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:23:00 PDT." References: Message-ID: <199707091703.NAA18616@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:23:00 PDT, Michael Gersten said: > Now, if you have a competent interviewer, the beliefs of the interviewer > will be close to reality. But in all fairness, you need three interviewers > to do a fair job (one might just hit it off poorly, or otherwise be > biased), and in any event, not all true statements can be proved. > Not all who are competent at running a network are competent at > explaining themselves to others. Hmm.. are you implying that it's possible that Scott Bradner and Tony Li have us fooled regarding their networking expertise? Or that the ISP's that I ran into that didn't understand subnetting *ARE* in fact possesed of mega-kloo? The system I proposed seems to work fairly well in real life. Otherwise, job interviews would have been given up a *LONG* time ago, if talking to the person was not an accurate predictor of actual knowledge posessed. Also, your last point "not all people competent at running a net are good at explaining themselves" is a bit suspect as well. If they are unable to explain themselves, are they *REALLY* competent at running a network? Or are you looking at a case where *one* guy can run everything, but if he ever has to talk to others, you're waiting for a disaster? (Cut to post-mortem of a network outage: "It's not *MY* fault our upstream provider didn't at all understand my bungled explanation of what we wanted, and that all of our routing information got shipped to Albequerque.....") There's a reason why "good communication skills required" often appears in job descriptions.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior 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 yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 9 13:16:50 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 97 10:16:50 PDT Subject: Continental Aggregation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 97 12:53:40 EDT." <9707091653.AA18510@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <199707091716.KAA06170@puli.cisco.com> Thomas, > > Some would argue that it is not broken, and simply replacing > > v4 with v6 will simply introduce a probelm in this regard > > (or amplify the problem, if you believe one exists). > > And others would argue differently. For instance: Of course... > 1) IPv4's current state of poor aggregability has a lot to do with > legacy addresses that were handed out long ago before the need for > CIDR-like aggregability was well understood. IPv6 starts with a clean > slate, so addresses can be allocated more sanely from the start. > > How many prefixes would be in the DFZ today if we could renumber every > site? I see - your solution to site renumbering is to transition to IPv6. Certainly one possible option. But certainly not the only one possible. And unlikely to be most cost effective either. However, one could certainly use a nuke to kill a fly... :-) > 3) Some members of this list argue that *is* possible to renumber > sites. This is not the matter of arguments - it is a matter of fact. > In fact, the continued success of IPv4 appears to depend on > this. IPv6 is likely to make it even easier (though still not > trivial) for end sites to renumber than in IPv4. This means v6 may be > better able to maintain aggregability into the future. Explain to me how IPv6 would make it *noticeably* easier, as compared to a host running Win95 (or for that matter OS/2 that as far as I know implements DHCP and Dynamic DNS Updates). Yakov. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 9 14:34:59 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:34:59 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com> References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> At 02:15 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: > >I have heard that Cisco has a certification program but understand that >to receive that particular certification is quite difficult. Perhaps >the router manufacturers could step in and provide a certification test >of sorts. Pray tell, why would cisco wish to get involved in certification of ISP's? Don't count on this happening. > After all, it is to their advantage, it's their routers that >cannot handle the routes. > This is analagous to stating that it is GMC's fault that a bus they manufactured won't hold a thousand people. Be for real. - paul From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Jul 9 14:58:54 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:58:54 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:15:55 EDT." <33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com> References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com> Message-ID: <199707091858.OAA12550@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:15:55 EDT, Vince Wolodkin said: > Problem with the "Turing" test is that it is to subjective. I would > agree that Kim could likely tell who knew but in the long run, this > method CANNOT work because it has the "appearance" of impropriety. If > you want to certify people you are going to have to come up with a test. You know, that same thought occurred to me while I was at lunch. Although it would be easy to get it to 95% accuracy, there's just too many people who *sound* reasonable, but turn out to be raving psychotics with delusions about black helicopters, spaceships hiding in comets, or what have you. Hell, we've got our fair share on the NAIPR list. ;) /Valdis (who is intentionally not naming names. You know who you are, and the secret message for today is "The cow has infested the church steeple" ;) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 15:09:44 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:09:44 -0500 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <33C3D55B.1F02E618@digitalink.com> References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709140944.00eb1a30@texoma.net> At 02:15 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: >Problem with the "Turing" test is that it is to subjective. I would >agree that Kim could likely tell who knew but in the long run, this >method CANNOT work because it has the "appearance" of impropriety. If >you want to certify people you are going to have to come up with a test. > >I have heard that Cisco has a certification program but understand that >to receive that particular certification is quite difficult. Perhaps >the router manufacturers could step in and provide a certification test >of sorts. After all, it is to their advantage, it's their routers that >cannot handle the routes. > >Vince Wolodkin I think I'll keep visiting Vince's and digitalink.com's site performance of a few more years. Very well put, Vince. From gherbert at CRL.COM Wed Jul 9 15:08:55 1997 From: gherbert at CRL.COM (George Herbert) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 12:08:55 -0700 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:23:00 PDT." Message-ID: <199707091908.AA12666@mail.crl.com> Michael, you can't just fake sufficient knowledge of IP networking to appear competent without understanding enough to be capable of doing it right. There are a few key questions to establish if the person knows more than the buzzwords. If they pass those, they know enough to be able to get the right answer, though they might not all the time. "So, what size netblock are you allocating per POP, and how does that break down by classes of service you're offering?" "Do you forsee any problems explaining CIDR allocations and netblock subnet calculations to your customers? How will you approach it?" ...and then talk them through what they're going to tell their customers. "Does any of your hardware have any problems with variable sized subnets? What vendors are you buying routers from? Have you done variable subnet configuration on all those brands before?" -george william herbert gherbert at crl.com From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 9 15:42:09 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:42:09 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <33C3DFD2.63C04A04@digitalink.com> References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> At 03:00 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: > >If enough people had a reason to get a thousand people on a bus, you can >bet your ass GMC would be building one. I represent a business that >wants to have 24 hour uninterrupted connectivity to the net, because >that is our business. The only way I can come close to that is >multi-homing with multiple providers. Unless I get at least a /19, I >cannot do this casue I will be filtered because Cisco's router's can't >handle enough routes to give everyone PI space. It's not Cisco's fault >that they can't keep up with the growth of the Internet, at least I >wasn't saying that. > >But when it comes down to it, the reason I cannot be multi-homed is >because the big backbone routers are running out of table space. If >this is untrue, why can't I get a routeable /24? > Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of people afford it? - paul From michael at priori.net Wed Jul 9 16:04:43 1997 From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:04:43 -0700 Subject: ISP/C Example In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4C.89C01000@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: >For people "organizing" ARIN..... > >I suggest that you follow some of the open and democratic >processes used by the ISP/C. They should be applauded for >their efforts and be used as a model for organizations that >serve their members and the public. You seem to have missed a few facts. A. The board of directors of the ISP/C during it's first year of existence was self-selected and *NOT* chosen by the members. B. The minutes that you posted was of a board of directors meeting during which the board of directors decided which positions each director would hold and how many years each director's term of office would be. C. The decisions at this meeting were unanimous. So far it would appear that ARIN is every bit as democratic as the ISP/C is. ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From michael at priori.net Wed Jul 9 16:08:10 1997 From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:08:10 -0700 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4F.C7CAE840@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: >"representative" ?.....please read > >========================= >Raymundo Vega Aguilar - Mexico >Randy Bush - U.S. - ISOC/IETF >John Curran - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6 >Scott Bradner - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6 >Donald N. Telage, Ph.D - U.S. - NSI >Jon Postel - U.S - ISOC/IANA >Kim Hubbard - U.S. - NSI >========================= > >Where is Canada's representation ? Some Canadians feel that Scott Bradner understands the Canadian Internet quite well. Rather than using crass political apportionment to choose the BoT it makes more sense to let the BoT evolve over time. Canadians will have ample opportunity to join ARIN as members and to elect members of the Advisory Board and if those people show that they deserve the public trust of *ALL* North Americans then they may well end up on the BoT as well. ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From chris at NAP.NET Wed Jul 9 16:21:49 1997 From: chris at NAP.NET (Chris A. Icide) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:21:49 -0500 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? Message-ID: <01BC8C7B.D31A1820@Mallard.nap.net> Paul, Perhaps he was referring to the CCIE certification. If this is the case, I'd have to say I've met a few CCIE's who seem to have had better success hunting snipes than clues. Chris A. Icide Sr. Engineer Nap.Net, L.L.C. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Ferguson [SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 1:35 PM To: Vince Wolodkin Cc: pagan at APNIC.NET; NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Re: Which ISPs are Qualified ? At 02:15 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: > >I have heard that Cisco has a certification program but understand that >to receive that particular certification is quite difficult. Perhaps >the router manufacturers could step in and provide a certification test >of sorts. Pray tell, why would cisco wish to get involved in certification of ISP's? Don't count on this happening. > After all, it is to their advantage, it's their routers that >cannot handle the routes. > This is analagous to stating that it is GMC's fault that a bus they manufactured won't hold a thousand people. Be for real. - paul From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 9 17:12:46 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 16:12:46 -0500 Subject: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... Message-ID: <01BC8C82.F0F29C80@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:08 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] wrote: @ @ >"representative" ?.....please read @ > @ >========================= @ >Raymundo Vega Aguilar - Mexico @ >Randy Bush - U.S. - ISOC/IETF @ >John Curran - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6 @ >Scott Bradner - U.S. - ISOC/IETF/IPv6 @ >Donald N. Telage, Ph.D - U.S. - NSI @ >Jon Postel - U.S - ISOC/IANA @ >Kim Hubbard - U.S. - NSI @ >========================= @ > @ >Where is Canada's representation ? @ @ Some Canadians feel that Scott Bradner understands the Canadian Internet @ quite well. Rather than using crass political apportionment to choose the @ BoT it makes more sense to let the BoT evolve over time. Canadians will @ have ample opportunity to join ARIN as members and to elect members of the @ Advisory Board and if those people show that they deserve the public trust @ of *ALL* North Americans then they may well end up on the BoT as well. @ @ Great, as other similar organizations to ARIN are set up people will likely want to take that into account. There is a group in Canada that is working hard on a new Root Name Server Confederation with serious servers and connectivity. They might be candidates to follow in ARIN's footsteps. There is another group in Australia that is bringing a new Root Name Server Confederation online. They understand the Registry Industry and will also likely be a candidate to develop an ARIN-like company. Network Solutions, Inc. certainly does not have a monopoly on setting up non-profit companies to serve the Internet community. People in the U.S. are recognizing this and realize that they can now move forward with their plans. P.S. The ARIN web site indicates that ARIN is "not limited to" the areas shown below. What is the region ARIN covers and have the people in those regions been informed that ARIN claims to handle their area ? @@@@ http://www.arin.net "Those areas include, but are not limited to, North America, South America, South Africa and the Caribbean." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 17:38:55 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:38:55 -0500 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? Message-ID: <199707092139.QAA04048@mail.texoma.net> At 03:42 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 03:00 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: > >> >>But when it comes down to it, the reason I cannot be multi-homed is >>because the big backbone routers are running out of table space. If >>this is untrue, why can't I get a routeable /24? >> > >Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of >people afford it? I understand from an informed source that the market is taking care of that issue: "There are three companies out there building routers which ought to be able to forward at OC192 speeds and handle a million routes. If small providers get /19's and core routers start to fall over, these companies will probably come to market faster. Two of the three are staffed by people I'm in awe of and I therefore expect the products to actually work." From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 18:09:07 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 17:09:07 -0500 Subject: Experts question funding, structure of IP allocation entity In-Reply-To: References: <01BC8C4F.C7CAE840@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709170907.01800e3c@texoma.net> >From However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization. From ahp at hilander.com Wed Jul 9 18:31:45 1997 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 18:31:45 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com>; from Paul Ferguson on Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 03:42:09PM -0400 References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <19970709183145.12744@kurgan.hilander.com> On Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 03:42:09PM -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of > people afford it? You mean the people who will _need_ it, like the backbone providers? I certainly so. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ From cts at VEC.NET Thu Jul 10 03:41:50 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 18:41:50 -1300 Subject: ISP/C Example Message-ID: <009B7020.39DA9944.46@vec.net> >You seem to have missed a few facts. > >A. The board of directors of the ISP/C during it's first year of existence was > self-selected and *NOT* chosen by the members. > >B. The minutes that you posted was of a board of directors meeting during > which the board of directors decided which positions each director would > hold and how many years each director's term of office would be. > >C. The decisions at this meeting were unanimous. > >So far it would appear that ARIN is every bit as democratic as the ISP/C is. I'll also add that during the early days - particularly the time between the incorporation and starting operations, those involved in the startup were focused on getting the organization up and going; feeding the necessary paper monsters, getting documents filed and so forth. I doubt anyone at the time would have described it as open. ARIN, however, is blessed :) with a lot more folks watching than we had... Give'em a bit of breathing room. Let Kim and her folks get the paper work done, the membership forms ready, the online info set up, and I expect that after they have been running a year, they will have a lot more time to deal openness issues - as a membership driven organization, by definition, it will happen. For now, I believe the most important thing to do is not rock the boat and slow things down even more. Let's focus on discussing policy changes that can be submitted to the advisory council when it opens up shop on pagan, and let the folks doing the organizing do their thing -- Charles T. Smith, Jr. President - ISP/C cts at vec.net From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 19:24:44 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 19:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding, structure of IP allocation entity In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709170907.01800e3c@texoma.net> Message-ID: Nice try Larry but you strike out and so does Ben Elgin. David McClure of the association of on line professionals has been ranting against arin for months. What's more I submit that mcClure's organization is irrelevant to the ISP industry. Next point. Elgin ought to learn who to spell John Currans name correctly! It is not spelled Currin. Next point. "levy fees on ISPs and others who register addresses"??? Whose he kidding? this is not dns. you do not register addresses....and he ignores the fact that the ticket to enter arin if you don't get an IP block is only a 1000 bucks. Next point: InterNic is NOT the current registrar of domain names - thus Elgin's statement that "industry sources do not believe its domain registration fees would go down enough to substantially offset the new ARIN costs" is rather ludicrous. next point: mcclure thinks he knows better than than NSI lawyers what the IRS will approve by way of a non profit....be interesting to know what his qualifications are for that. next point: Elgin must have been talking to jim fleming because he talks about off setting arins costs with DNS registration fees. This is a false assertion. When arin's transition is finished at the beginning of next year it will be financially on its own. Elgin hasn't figured out that we are talking about an entity not owned operated and controled by NSI. next point: the only outsider besides mcClure with any cAution about arin quoted by name is PSI's tony kelly - director of corporate marketing. beg pardon but i question kelly's standing to be an authoratative arin critic. bill schrader the PSI founder and CEO....yes. kelly no. Larry we understand you want you PI 19/ but please choose you articles that claim to show that things are rotten within ARIN more carefully. Elgin is about as clueful as hizenrath. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote: > >From > > However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as > outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new > blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization. > From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 19:57:19 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 18:57:19 -0500 Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding, structure of IP allocation entity In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19970709170907.01800e3c@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709185719.00bbd094@texoma.net> At 07:24 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >Nice try Larry but you strike out and so does Ben Elgin. ... >Elgin is about as clueful as hizenrath. ... sig >On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote: > >> >From >> >> However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as >> outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new >> blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization. Gordon, says, in part: "It is important that the general membership be involved in the selection of the Board of Trustees, however it is equally imperative that the selection of trustees be a well-thought out process that would not jeopardize the viability of the management of ARIN and would be fair to all members." Sounds like the French aristocracy doesn't think the French peasants are qualified enough to be on the initial board. Further, if the phrase in the above sentence were correct, it would be a(n) (equally) balanced board, correct? From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 20:32:19 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:32:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding etc In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709185719.00bbd094@texoma.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote: > At 07:24 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >Nice try Larry but you strike out and so does Ben Elgin. > ... > >Elgin is about as clueful as hizenrath. > ... sig > >On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote: > > > >> >From > >> > >> However, the continued reliance on appointing board and council members as > >> outlined in the ARIN document, has many industry insiders wondering if new > >> blood and fresh ideas will be able to gain power within the organization. Thanks for giving an opportunity to quote on the above this is also ignorant pontification if it comes from elgin's keyboard. "new blood and fresh ideas" this is absolutely irrelavnt to the process of scaling the internet and making it continue to run. It does take some technical expertise to solve these problems and although i sure as hell do not have the technical expertise in my own head to contribute anything original to that side of the probvlem, i do have enough expertise to distinguish substance from smoke. we have gotten plenty of substance from justin, ken and jeremy porter and others. so in that respect i am not worried. But the smoke at the moment if stiffling. > > Gordon, says, in part: > > "It is important that the general membership be involved in the selection > of the Board of Trustees, however it is equally imperative that the > selection of trustees be a well-thought out process that would not > jeopardize the viability of the management of ARIN and would be fair to all > members." > > Sounds like the French aristocracy doesn't think the French peasants are > qualified enough to be on the initial board. well you have finally done it. i who all my life have been left of center.... a student of the russian revolution.....hereby declare myself an aristocrat. good show mate. you are damned right that the peasants aren't qualified to be on the board.....becasue guess what the peasants don't have the expertise!! Further, if the phrase in the > above sentence were correct, it would be a(n) (equally) balanced board, > correct? > > I tried to find the language about equally balanced and couldn't.....perhaps its there and one had then better define it you can have balance from CLUEFUL people.....they MUST be clueful and if they are not then balance becomes irrelevant.... cluefulness in this industry counts every bit as much as money and lawyers..... I HOPE you will soon understand this...... meanwhile I have work to do. From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 9 21:07:28 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 20:07:28 -0500 Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding etc In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19970709185719.00bbd094@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970709200728.00b3869c@texoma.net> At 08:32 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >"new blood and fresh ideas" this is absolutely irrelavnt to the process >of scaling the internet and making it continue to run. interesting view ... >> "It is important that the general membership be involved in the selection >> of the Board of Trustees >well you have finally done it. i who all my life have been left of >center.... a student of the russian revolution.....hereby declare myself >an aristocrat. good show mate. you are damned right that the peasants >aren't qualified to be on the board.....becasue guess what the peasants >don't have the expertise!! > >Further, if the phrase in the >> above sentence were correct, it would be a(n) (equally) balanced board, >> correct? >> >I tried to find the language about equally balanced and >couldn't.....perhaps its there and one had then better define it Then maybe the board makeup should be changed to be equally reflective of the desires of the membership, maybe some industry leaders who represents new blood (taken from this pool of peasants [your words, not mine], listed in alphabetical order) like Karl Denninger, Avi Freedman, Justin Newton, Robert Shearing, Ronald Yokubaitis, plus an unnamed economist and an open market specialist, ... Would the addition of a few of these [peasants] or equally qualified other [peasants] make the board more balanced? From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 9 21:26:37 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 21:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ben elgin is just about as clueful as the posts hilzenrath was Re: Experts question funding etc In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709200728.00b3869c@texoma.net> Message-ID: some of the people you mentioned would i believe make good advisory council/board members......you will not drag me into saying which ones. an open market expert and economist if i recall your labels correctly have no damned place being involved with policy making for the organization. I am outta here...having real work to do......thgis conversation is beginning to remind me of one with Fleming.....simply doesn't pay to attempt one.... ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From scharf at bb.rc.vix.com Wed Jul 9 21:53:08 1997 From: scharf at bb.rc.vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 18:53:08 -0700 Subject: post to one list please Message-ID: <199707100153.SAA22740@bb.rc.vix.com> OK kids, this is not hard. If it is a global alloctaion issue, like who should get PI space, it belongs on pagan. If you want to talk about the constitution of ARIN BOT, post it to naipr. If you want to talk about introducing financial measures to allocation, post it to piara. If something changes, move it, don't expand it. While you're at it, you can strip off all the other adressees that you already know are on the list. Jim is hopeless and we all know it. If you can't manage to take the time to edit headers, you are not doing your position well by being a pain in my mailbox. Getting two copies of each message for the last several days is like feeding people (at least me) grouchy pills. jerry From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Thu Jul 10 00:42:30 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: > > @ There are too many startup ISPs that really do not understand how to efficiently > @ utilize address space. > > How does the InterNIC or ARIN determine what an ISP understands ? Probably by examining their .procmailrc. I guess I don't qualify yet. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From ahp at hilander.com Thu Jul 10 10:09:11 1997 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:09:11 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <19970709183145.12744@kurgan.hilander.com>; from Alec H. Peterson on Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 06:31:45PM -0400 References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> <19970709183145.12744@kurgan.hilander.com> Message-ID: <19970710100911.30181@kurgan.hilander.com> On Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 06:31:45PM -0400, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 1997 at 03:42:09PM -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > > > Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of > > people afford it? > > You mean the people who will _need_ it, like the backbone providers? > > I certainly so. ^hope Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 12:17:18 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:17:18 -0500 Subject: What to do with the money... Message-ID: <01BC8DEB.FF46EB00@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 10, 1997 1:05 PM, Geoff Huston[SMTP:gih at telstra.net] wrote: @ @ So far so good. @ @ But what the hell do you do with the money that's collected? @ @ (and "Add to the NSF/NSI Internet Infrastructure Fund" is not considered @ a valid answer!) @ This is the Internet. To apply "old school" approaches to this medium can be deadly and does not serve the community here. As an example, many people are used to placing checks into little white envelopes and sending them to a central "taxing" body, where the checks are deposited and people are paid to keep track of the money. In some cases, such as the ISOC, people are also paid to fly around to exotic vacation spots (with their spouses) and they use the money to raise more money. This is all very "old school" and the traditional way. (Of course, for people who want to take an early retirement from the real world and travel, it is a great deal.) With the Internet it might be better to develop systems where money does not need to be "collected" but only VERIFIED. What better tool to use to verify the collection then cross-referenced web sites complete with scanned documents showing that one party paid another money and the other accepted it. In a situation like the IPv4 address space, there is a pressing need to pass the "ownership" or stewardship of large pieces of the space to private parties who can then help to manage the space. In my opinion, there is a very simple way of doing this AND many needy people, charities and universities will benefit.... ==== Proposal ==== I propose that the IPv4 address space be broken into clean /16 blocks, not for routing, not for owership, but for trusteeship. I also propose that each /16 block require a "minimum" annual DONATION of the equivalent of one U.S. cent for each IP address. This is $655.36 per year. I further propose that the delegate (trustee) of each block be required to provide VERIFICATION that at least the minimum donation was made to some charity, school, non-profit organization, etc. and that this verification be proven via publicly available cross-references on the WWW which clearly show hard copy (scanned) proof that the donation was made. (Photos of presentations of the checks would also be an added benefit) The delegation of the /16 in the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone would be made by one of 256 (or less) verification organizations that would volunteer to track the 256 possible delegations in each of the /8 zones. TXT records would be added to the zone files to refer to the web sites where the donation verfication can be found. ==================== As an example, there would be a verifcation organization that would be delegated 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. That organization would delegate to the various trusteeships in that zone. When a donation is verified for a /16 delegation (let's say 192.160.0.0) then the proper name server entries would be made for 160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. With this approach, no money needs to be sent to a central organization that uses the money to send people on vacations around the world. Instead, the money can be directed by each trusteeship in a distributed manner and directly to the people that will benefit. Yes, there is potential for corruption. Yes, people can write checks and never send them. Yes, I am sure we can all figure out one thousand ways that people will cheat the system. Instead, it might be more productive to work on ways to educate both the donors and recipients so that an open system is developed with peer review and general good will guiding the process. Thanks for your time... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 16:17:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:17:04 -0500 Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment Message-ID: <01BC8E0D.7E2675A0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, July 11, 1997 2:28 PM, J.D. Falk[SMTP:jdfalk at priori.net] wrote: @ On Jul 11, "Alec H. Peterson" wrote: @ @ > Again, as David pointed out there are other countries besides the US @ > as far as the 'net is concerned, and this means that it is quite @ > possible to have very long haul T1s, which have considerable latency @ > across them. @ @ Just to bring this back around, I'd like to point out that @ Robert's Working Draft (which started this thread) is intended @ for ARIN, and it's doubtful that ARIN will be assigning much @ address space to countries beyond North America. @ ARIN's web site claims otherwise... it includes AFRICA and SOUTH AMERICA Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN). @ So, while all these points would certainly be valid if anyone @ were to suggest requiring two T1's to qualify for a /19 anywhere @ in the entire world, they're less important when we're talking @ about policies specific to the North American continent. @ When you are talking about "policies", especially in the U.S., you have to cover a wide range of topics that go well beyond the technical matters. For example, the NSF, NSI and ARIN have to be very concerned about EEO and Affirmative Action issues. You may have to work those into your policies. @@@ ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt "The Company's business included commercial and government contracts awarded to the Company on a competitive basis, including government contracts that were awarded to the Company based partially upon the Company's then minority-owned status." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 19:42:11 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:42:11 -0500 Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment Message-ID: <01BC8E2A.25B7BBA0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, July 11, 1997 5:38 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] wrote: @ @ >Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide @ >Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play @ >since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN). @ @ The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN @ with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That @ does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN. @ That is interesting, because according to Gordon Cook[1] NSI is "spending a million dollars to cut arin loose". Also... According to documents that NSI filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, NSI has already incorporated ARIN.... ftp://www.sec.gov/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-97-002418.txt ...ARIN is beyond the proposal state... although the details of the investors, management and employees have not been disclosed. The NSI people handling domain name registrations have evidently moved to a new facility, leaving the IP address allocation people behind. Someone must be paying the rent in that location.... [1] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 1997 6:02 PM To: Eric Weisberg Cc: Jim Fleming; pagan at apnic.net; 'Multiple recipients of list NAIPR' Subject: Re: PI/19 allocations to multihomed ISPs was Re: pagans... Eric sez: I strongly object to the way ARIN's board is annointed. It is not chosen by the members but by NSI. That annointed board then appoints the advisory council from which new BoT members will come in the future. >From what i know....or at least think I know....the ARIN board was most definitely NOT chosen by NSI. Why do you think it was? because telage the NSI president is on it? Telage is an honorable man but unfortunately in my opinion, he does not "grok" the internet. I do think the arin board would have a better composition with justin newton or ken leland there in place of telage. nevertheless Telage is spending a million dollars to cut arin loose so I guess they figured it would be impolite to keep him off. Still if he had stayed off it would have had a positive impact on NSIs image in my opinion. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 21:03:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:03:00 -0500 Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment Message-ID: <01BC8E35.6FF884A0@webster.unety.net> Is the ARIN web site incorrect ? @@@@ "The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a proposed non-profit organization which would be established for the purpose of administration and registration of Internet Protocol (IP) numbers to the geographical areas currently managed by Network Solutions (InterNIC). Those areas include, but are not limited to, North America, South America, South Africa and the Caribbean." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ On Friday, July 11, 1997 3:24 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ Hopefully there will be an AfriNIC and a Latin NIC but i can't say when @ these will be operational. Until then ARIN and RIPE will allocate space @ to those regions, so we need to keep them in mind when discussing ARIN @ issues. @ @ Kim @ @ > well kim hubbard can speak to the details better than I but plans for a @ > latin american and african registry have been announced. @ > @ > ************************************************************************ @ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than @ > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material @ > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ @ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under @ > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml @ > ************************************************************************ @ > @ > @ > On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Alec H. Peterson wrote: @ > @ > > On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 05:33:12PM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: @ > > > but we will soon have a latin american registry presumably with its own @ > > > policies. @ > > @ > > I don't understand what gives you that idea... @ > > @ > > Alec @ > > @ > > -- @ > > +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ @ > > |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | @ > > |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | @ > > +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ @ > > @ > @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From cook at NETAXS.COM Fri Jul 11 22:28:22 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN was RE: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: When Michael Dillon said: The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN. I was taken aback because this conflicted with what I had earlier been told. I checked with several sources who have first hand knowledge and have assured me that the following statement is accurate NSI, at the December (1996) IETF, offered to provide TRANSITION funding of the startup and staffing of ARIN. They legally committed themselves to do this as a part of their year 5 program plan with NSF. They are now carrying out that commitment. The costs involved will be significantly greater that the $300K total figure in Michael dillon's post here this evening. These costs include ZERO US government funds. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > >Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide > >Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play > >since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN). > > The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN > with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That > does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN. > > ******************************************************** > Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ******************************************************** > > From michael at priori.net Fri Jul 11 23:33:31 1997 From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:33:31 -0700 Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN was RE: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >I was taken aback because this conflicted with what I had earlier been >told. I checked with several sources who have first hand knowledge and >have assured me that the following statement is accurate > >NSI, at the December (1996) IETF, offered to provide TRANSITION funding of >the startup and staffing of ARIN. They legally committed themselves to do >this as a part of their year 5 program plan with NSF. They are now >carrying out that commitment. The costs involved will be significantly >greater that the $300K total figure in Michael dillon's post here this >evening. These costs include ZERO US government funds. I've got to learn to stop trusting the press :-) Now that I read over http://www.emap.com/cwi/187/187news6.html again I see that they have ARIN and IANA all garbled up together. *sigh* ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jul 12 14:10:52 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:10:52 -0500 Subject: Thom Stark on ARIN Message-ID: <01BC8EC5.0715C520@webster.unety.net> Thom Stark has some interesting comments on ARIN... @@@ http://www.starkrealities.com/@inet039.html ... "ARIN, basically, is a mechanism designed to permit NSI to jettison its responsibility for assigning IP network numbers, (an activity which makes no money for its owner, Science Applications International Corporation, and which requires a highly-skilled staff) allowing it to concentrate, on registering domain names (an activity which is largely automated and which makes SAIC lots and lots of money). It is also a harbinger of a sweeping change in how Internet administration and governance are financed and from whence they draw their legitimacy." ... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From justin at priori.net Tue Jul 15 02:54:59 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:54:59 -0700 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> References: <33C3DFD2.63C04A04@digitalink.com> <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970714235459.030760c4@priori.net> At 03:42 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 03:00 PM 07/09/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: > >> >>If enough people had a reason to get a thousand people on a bus, you can >>bet your ass GMC would be building one. I represent a business that >>wants to have 24 hour uninterrupted connectivity to the net, because >>that is our business. The only way I can come close to that is >>multi-homing with multiple providers. Unless I get at least a /19, I >>cannot do this casue I will be filtered because Cisco's router's can't >>handle enough routes to give everyone PI space. It's not Cisco's fault >>that they can't keep up with the growth of the Internet, at least I >>wasn't saying that. >> >>But when it comes down to it, the reason I cannot be multi-homed is >>because the big backbone routers are running out of table space. If >>this is untrue, why can't I get a routeable /24? >> > >Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of >people afford it? When I need them I will be able to. If not, well, I need a new industry to be in, or a new pricing model, or a new vendor. Your herring, its red again ;) ************************************************************** Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Legislative and Policy Director, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ************************************************************** From wolodkin at digitalink.com Fri Jul 11 07:04:01 1997 From: wolodkin at digitalink.com (Vince Wolodkin) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:04:01 -0400 Subject: Which ISPs are Qualified ? References: <01BC8C4B.346373A0@webster.unety.net> <199707091521.LAA12606@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <3.0.3.32.19970709143459.006d0224@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970709154209.006dad44@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.2.32.19970710180508.006b2154@nico.telstra.net> Message-ID: <33C61321.C1599C9@digitalink.com> I actually asked the same question in my *first* post regarding charging for IP. I don't trust anyone enough to be collecting the money. The only semi-reasonable thing I could think of would be to regularly appoint an international charitable organization to collect/receive/disburse the monies as they saw fit. This of course has its own problems. Any ideas what to do with collected monies and who would do the collecting? Vince Wolodkin Geoff Huston wrote: > > >> Oh, we'll build it, but the question is, can the vast number of > >> people afford it? > >> > >> - paul > > > >There's the rub:-) And this is the crux of the matter. I hate to start > >recommending charging per IP address, or charging for table entries but > >that may well become necessary. I mean, it is important enough to us to > >be willing to PAY for it. I don't need or even want a /19, I just want > >to be routeable so I can go through 2 or three different provider's. > > > >Paying seems to be the easiest way to sort the mess out, though it > >wouldn't conserve address space well unless you charge everyone who ever > >got an IP assignment and encourage them to renumber or pay the price. A > >lot of class B's behind firewalls would be turned in right away. > > Gee this sounds familiar. Yes you can use a charging mechanism to > undertake distribution function. Indeed you can get most of the > bits and pieces working in tune with engineering requirements. > > And, as you say, it will sort out a lot of this mess as you are using a payment > function to do the task that is currently being undertaken > using purely administrative functions which themselves tend to raise the ire > of many in terms of consistency and appropriateness of the > adminstrative function. > > So far so good. > > But what the hell do you do with the money that's collected? > > (and "Add to the NSF/NSI Internet Infrastructure Fund" is not considered > a valid answer!) > > Geoff From michael at priori.net Fri Jul 11 18:38:54 1997 From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:38:54 -0700 Subject: Working Draft with Kim Hubbard Amendment In-Reply-To: <01BC8E0D.7E2675A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: >Also, SAIC recently landed some contract to provide >Internet gateways to AFRICA. That may come into play >since SAIC owns NSI (who is funding and staffing ARIN). The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN. ******************************************************** Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ******************************************************** From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jul 11 19:12:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:12:32 -0500 Subject: Like Mother Nature in Simplicity Message-ID: <01BC8E26.01448360@webster.unety.net> On Friday, July 11, 1997 1:45 PM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at vrx.net] wrote: @ At 07:31 PM 7/8/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: @ >Why not give RIPE a /8 for distribution to US customers who feel they want @ >to do business with RIPE and just end the geographical monoply? @ > @ >Likewise for APNIC. @ > @ >Submit a PO to RIPE for 2000 ECU and get the /19. @ > @ >What could be simpler? @ > @ >Everything but zip code of RIPE customer has already been approved. @ @ Wasnt this the logic that prompted IAHC's DNS plan ? I find it curious @ that the poeple here who argued FOR this method with the DNS will @ now poo poo this idea to death. @ That is because they do not want any alternatives to ARIN. They want a monopoly on the North American IP address allocation market. Of course, it will not be called a monopoly, it will just be the only organization that has any inventory of IP address resources. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jul 12 16:33:22 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 15:33:22 -0500 Subject: information Message-ID: <01BC8ED8.EF7F2AA0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, July 12, 1997 3:27 PM, Ricardo Cast[SMTP:RCast at consein.com] wrote: @ 1060, Estado Miranda, Caracas, Venezuela @ e-mail: rcast at consein.com @ @ If you need more information just let me know. @ @ Thanks .... @ @ ARIN claims to be handling South America Can you give people an update on how you see NICs evolving for South America ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From 100736.3602 at COMPUSERVE.COM Sun Jul 13 17:02:48 1997 From: 100736.3602 at COMPUSERVE.COM (K. N. Cukier) Date: 13 Jul 97 17:02:48 EDT Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN [clarification from CWI] Message-ID: <970713210248_100736.3602_EHV64-2@CompuServe.COM> As the author of the article, I'll clarify: Michael Dillon wrote: >The news article that I read said that the US government was funding ARIN >with an injection of $250,000 and that NSI was only giving $50,000. That >does not sound at all like NSI is funding and staffing ARIN. And later wrote: >I've got to learn to stop trusting the press :-) >Now that I read over http://www.emap.com/cwi/187/187news6.html again I see >that they have ARIN and IANA all garbled up together. >*sigh* The article (posted at the bottom of this msg) doesn't confuse ARIN and IANA. However, due to an unfortunate editing error, Jon Postel is incorrectly referred to in one place as the head of ARIN. Other than that, the story is pretty clear. En bref: In an interview in late June, Ira Magaziner said NASA and Dept. of Energy will provide IANA with temporary, partial funding of $250,000 for 12 months. Postel in late June said he was aware of the decision, but had not yet received the funds. Separately, Kim Hubbard said that ARIN had already budgeted $50,000 to partially fund IANA (a move that was expected due to the current funds RIPE NCC and APNIC are giving). Any reader ever wishing clarification on an article is always free to contact me directly, at kenc at cwi.emap.com. (I follow naipr regularly, so there is no need for msgs here to be duplicated, and cc-ed to me.) Kenneth Neil Cukier Senior Editor Communications Week International Paris, France -------------------- Below is the article, which appeared in the 30 June 1997 issue of Communications Week International: US backs plan for Net to go it alone By Kenneth Neil Cukier KUALA LUMPUR -- After months of uncertainty over its policy direction, the United States government has moved to promote Internet self-governance on a international scale. Last week the U.S. National Science Foundation approved the creation of the long-delayed American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), which will oversee the allocation of Internet Protocol addresses to Internet service providers and large corporations. "I'm happy that this long and careful process is finally over," said Scott Bradner of Harvard University, and a trustee of ARIN. The body's creation was stalled due to a White House taskforce's concerns over how ARIN would function. The U.S. government is also set to reverse an earlier decision and provide interim funding for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the body which oversees global IP number allocations. Ira Magaziner, special advisor to President Clinton, said the Department of Energy and NASA will jointly provide $250,000 to partially fund 12 months of operation until a formal Internet-based funding model can be established. "If the Internet is to flourish, it must be international," Magaziner said. Jon Postel the head of ARIN [sic, head of IANA -- KNC], said he was pleased with the funding, but emphasized it was for a "transition period" until the bottom-up structure of IANA was established, based on the regional IP registries in Europe, Asia, the United States, and possibly elsewhere. Since IANA deals with other network matters, such as domain name data and standards, Postel said other groups that use IANA services, such as domain name registries, might also be appropriate sources of funding. Kim Hubbard, the current head of the InterNIC, the body which now allocates U.S. IP addresses [sic, also IP addresses in the Americas, and elsewhere... -- KNC], and who is expected to head ARIN, said the organization has already budged $50,000 to support IANA. Meanwhile, The U.S. Department of Commerce will this week issue a 45-day "request for comments" on Internet domain names, and the International Ad Hoc Committee's proposal to create a shared-registry model. Magaziner said the administration "will try to form a position that will encourage the movement to a more private, competitive system for domain name allocation." He also said that the IAHC's aims "are goals that we [the U.S. administration] share." The U.S. move to reopen the issue will not jeoprodize the IAHC plan, said David Maher, the interim chairman of the Policy Oversight Committee [sic, Maher is the chairman of the interim POC, or iPOC -- KNC] charged with implementing the changes. end [Nota Bene: It is extremely rare that errors such as these appear in CWI. In this case, I wrote it at 2am the night of layout, and a copy editor in London typed in a few mistakes as the piece was cut to 400 words from the 800 filed. Apologies to sources and readers.... -- KNC] From cook at NETAXS.COM Sun Jul 13 17:24:10 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: No us gov't funding for ARIN [clarification from CWI] In-Reply-To: <970713210248_100736.3602_EHV64-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: has jon postel finally received the magaziner promised gov't funds mentioned in ken's article? ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 15 22:56:04 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 21:56:04 -0500 Subject: "Competing" registries (was Re: A new American registry? - Welcome to discussions) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970715215604.016e2d58@texoma.net> At 08:00 PM 7/15/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >My take is that he could do what ever he wanted. >But that 1. IANA would not give him any new numbers. > > 2. he could go to court and try to get a judge of order him to be >given a class A. > > 3.how's he going to warranty the nmbers he assigns? Do you think >any of the major isps would be willing to route them? I don't. > > 4. In such a case he could go back to court and try to get the DOJ >to order them to be routed. > > 5. a yes answer would be an agreement on the part of DOJ to >regulate the internet. > > 6. the idea that any single country could successfully regulate >the global internet is unlikely. This thought process leaves out several possible "regular" solutions, including the possibility that the IANA is willing or could be convinced to conduct an experiment (check out the RIPE 62/8 experiment, e.g.) based on the premise there is a market solution to the "routers will fall over" problem. >From an email posted to NANOG by Sean Doran: >From: "Sean M. Doran" >To: michael at priori.net, nanog at merit.edu >Subject: Re: Aggressive route flap dampening >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:44:28 -0700 >Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu ... >I have explained a couple ideas for adjusting the "N" above >based on a cost + profit charging scheme. Fundamentally, if you >want to have less stringent antidampening applied to your prefix(es), >you pay money. If you don't want to pay money then you do the >normal things: keep very stable or aggregate into a stable block. > >The "N" should be reduced (or the time period lengthened) and the >cost of increasing that ratio should increase with the length of >the prefix, in order to encourage topologically sound aggregation >either through traditional means or through NAT and NAT-like boxes >such as the one described and implemented by Paul Vixie. > >The point at which the price of increasing "N" becomes infinite >would be up to the marketplace based on available and deployed >technology. Whether or not /24s or /25s or /26s could be seen >in the important parts of the Internet was the topic of a series >of long arguments during walks along some beaches in Southern >California somoe time ago. Some say categorically no, that is, >you could never guarantee universal reachability for very long >prefixes indefinitely. On the other hand, a model which allows >for flexible adjustment of dampening policy applied against specific >chunks of address space is very attractive, and seems tractable. > >Micropayments accompanying NLRI, with payees being attached to >prefix announcements much in the same way BGP community attributes >are, is an attractive scheme for me. It would then be up to various >providers to adjust dampening policy based on these payment attributes >much as routing announcement policies are adjusted. (cf RFC 1997-1998) > >There are bookkeeping difficulties involved that should be familiar >to most telephone companies who do international settlements, but >which may be perceived as challenging to small fry used to >an environment with no settlements, and annoying to people who are >unusued to debugging flappy networks. > >(One could also think of this as a small fee for the equivalent >of typing "clear ip bgp damp prefix mask" at routers, which think >should already be charged for.) > >There are other (mostly bilateral) flap-settlement/dampening-modification >schemes which have been talked about here and there (piara comes to mind), >but the micropayments scheme has the advantages that the footwork needs >to be done by the announcers longer prefixes to determine whether they >want or need to pay particular providers for having their routes remain >visible (or be visible at all). > >In other words, this is an easy way of making it *possible* to announce >even /32s nearly globally, although doing so obviously could be very expensive >and certainly would involve determining which of the potentially >large numbers of networks would need to be paid to make the /32s >in question reachable in their routing domains. > >[long prefix] >| >announcements were responsible for the majority of the routing >| >instability, and that simply blocking these announcements at >| >an arbitrary prefix length would be the simplest way to 'fix' >| >the problem. > >It fixed two problems simultaneously: firstly, there is lots of flap >and flap is most irritating when relatively unimportant (and statistically >small is likely to be less important than large) NLRI is responsible for >a disproportionally large amount of it. Secondly, there are lots of >networks which really ought to be aggregated. When a single up/down or >up/down/up flap makes the network unusable for an hour or two, people >generally become motivated either to be very very stable or to aggregate >even adjacent aggregatable /24s in order to suffer fewer disconnectivities. > >| >This may be true, but an alternate method of >| >approach for this problem could solve all of this squabbling >| >once and for all, at least in regard to this issue. > >Sure. It's a race between the potential buckets of revenues >in getting a flap/route settlement scheme in place in the face >of people screaming who have long prefixes and unstable networks -- >in a sense _charging for the consumption of a currently scarce resource_ -- >and eliminating the scarcity by doing aggressive large scale >involuntary NAT on one's peers (or customers or both), aggressive >proxy aggregation, and the like. > > Sean. From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 15 23:05:03 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:05:03 -0500 Subject: "Competing" registries (was Re: A new American registry? - Welcome to discussions) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970715215541.016e2d58@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970715220503.016e2d58@texoma.net> At 09:55 PM 7/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: >At 08:00 PM 7/15/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >> 4. In such a case he could go back to court and try to get the DOJ >>to order them to be routed. >> >> 5. a yes answer would be an agreement on the part of DOJ to >>regulate the internet. >> >> 6. the idea that any single country could successfully regulate >>the global internet is unlikely. To points 5 and 6, likewise NSI/InterNIC is CURRENTLY regulating the Internet. Consider the following email fragment from Daniel Karrenberg, General Manager of Ripe: Posted-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 02:30:57 -0500 (CDT) To: Larry Vaden Subject: Re: Bitte, eine frage fur zie aus Texas ... From: Daniel Karrenberg X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:29:54 +0200 Sender: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net > Larry Vaden writes: ... > Would a small ISP (currently holding a /23 and a /21, with orders on hand > to reach > 50% utilization of a /19, Cisco 7206 with 128MB, etc.) be forced > to go upstream for provider dependent IP space?=20 No. We do not do Internet regulation here. > Vielen Danke und Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen, Keine Ursache, but please send further questions to . Daniel Karrenberg From vaden at texoma.net Tue Jul 15 23:56:58 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:56:58 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970715225658.0103173c@texoma.net> A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly from the IANA. In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)" space, but rather PI space. This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a "group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and likely. From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 09:16:11 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:16:11 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970716080440.006c4f44@lint.cisco.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19970715225716.0103173c@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net> Tony, Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area. Yakov Rekhter has supplied the pointer to ftpeng.cisco.com under /ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt (PowerPoint). Thanks, Larry ---30--- At 08:04 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >This concept is not new -- Tony Li presented the concept >of ISP confederations last year. > >- paul > >At 10:57 PM 07/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: > >>A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common >>interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly >>from the IANA. >> >>In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)" >>space, but rather PI space. >> >>This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a >>"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the >>normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI >>space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and >likely. >> >> >> >> > > From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 16 09:22:55 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 06:22:55 PDT Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 97 08:16:11 CDT." <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net> Message-ID: <199707161322.GAA23861@puli.cisco.com> > Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area. See Internet Draft draft-li-ispac-00.txt. Yakov. From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 16 10:43:49 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:43:49 -0500 Subject: "Competing" registries (was Re: A new American registry? - Welcome to discussions) Message-ID: <01BC91CC.C4615400@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, July 15, 1997 4:21 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote: @ here is one other argument: @ @ - do you want two or more registeries who live @ off of their fees compeeting with each other? the tempation @ would sure be there to reduce the requirements and make addresses @ easer to get - and starting down the road of running out of addresses @ again @ Are you implying that ARIN, APNIC and RIPE will be fixing prices to make sure that they will not have to compete and will continue to eat ? Also..do you have any financial interests in these matters ? @ -- as to your questions about restraint of trade, I thought I handled them @ in my scenario. it is a possibility and one that can in my opinion be @ settled only in court. If larry is unwlling to sit back and give arin a @ chance, he should take matters to court. his present scenario looks to me @ like an effort to build an IP number version of ALTERNIC. @ @ in my opinion unjustified and a waste of time. @ The AlterNIC is just one of several Root Name Server Confederations. Why not build ARIN and several other alternatives ? Maybe Canada would like to get into the Registry Industry ? Is Viriginia the only State allowed to "tax" the Internet ? Why don't you report on where you stand with ARIN...? Are you in the U.S. or Ruissia ? Where is the planning being done ? What is your role in the planning. When you refer to "we" in your reports, does that include the ARIN Board members ? In one of your reports[1] you claim that making ARIN part of a public review process via the "Federal Registry" would "kill ARIN". Why would having something reviewed by the public kill it ? Is there something that is being hidden ? [1] @@@ http://www.cookreport.com/06.04.shtml "We passed this data along to the appropriate technical leadership of the net, went to Russia and waited for more news. When it came it was that a succession of technical folk had done the educating called for but that amazingly ARIN had been thrown a new curve. The feds were now insisting it be announced in the Federal Registry before it was formed. We were told that this new delay would kill ARIN, and that worse, it was doing nothing to solve the authority problems of the IANA." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 09:50:51 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:50:51 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: <199707161322.GAA23861@puli.cisco.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716085051.00d931bc@texoma.net> At 06:22 AM 7/16/97 PDT, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >> Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area. > >See Internet Draft draft-li-ispac-00.txt. The original copy at ds0.internic.net has been deleted due to expiration, but the original text apparently still lives at . From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 10:09:13 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:09:13 -0500 Subject: ISP Address Coalition (ISPAC) (was a 2nd potential solution) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716090913.00d934f0@texoma.net> This idea (ISPAC, pronounced "ice pack"), was originally proposed by Tony Li as an Internet Draft (draft-li-ispac-00.txt), which has been deleted due to expiration. It can be found, however, at http://www.globecom.net/(nobg,sv)/ietf/draft/draft-li-ispac-00.shtml. In addition, Yakov Rekhter writes of a PowerPoint presentation: "There is also a presentation on this topic from Tony and myself that was made at the last year IEPG meeting. The presentation is available via anonymous ftp from ftpeng.cisco.com under /ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt (PowerPoint)." ---30--- At 11:13 PM 7/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: >A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common >interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly >from the IANA. > >In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)" >space, but rather PI space. > >This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a >"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the >normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI >space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and likely. > >If you are interested in contributing to the discussion, please send e-mail >to nair-founders-request at texoma.net with a message body of "subscribe". > > From michael at STB.INFO.COM Wed Jul 16 13:01:00 1997 From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 10:01 PDT Subject: How many routes do ISP's and backbones announce to other backbones? Message-ID: I have an idea that might solve the routing, prefix size, and router entry size problem for good, and would allow even /31's to be published with today's routers. But it's based on an assumption that I need to get answered: How many CIDR route entries do the backbones announce to other backbones? I.e, how many routes does sprint maintain in its routers for uunet/alternet? How many does mci maintain for (oh, foo, I know that there's 7 big ones). How many routes does sprint maintain in its routers for the ISP's that connect to sprint? For the ISP's that are connected to another backbone (or would that be included in the previous paragraph, which I suspect to be the case)? Finally, how does a multi-homed site, meaning two connections to two different ISPs, using two different backbone providers, actually work in practice in today's internet? Michael From gherbert at CRL.COM Wed Jul 16 16:32:02 1997 From: gherbert at CRL.COM (George Herbert) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 13:32:02 -0700 Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:16:11 CDT." <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net> Message-ID: <199707162032.NAA17248@mail.crl.com> Also vaguely similar to the idea I suggested some time ago of allocating some large blocks for geographical area based small provider blocks. Things like this are not really new, it's just that nobody's liked them enough to push one forwards all the way to operational status as an experimental demonstration. -george william herbert gherbert at crl.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 16 18:19:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 17:19:15 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution Message-ID: <01BC920C.63CEEEA0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 16, 1997 12:28 PM, Andrew Partan[SMTP:asp at partan.com] wrote: @ > Here's a copy. Please note that the existence of this work does NOT @ > constitute unequivocal endorsement of the concept. There are significant @ > business issues which are intrinsic to the model which would have to be @ > resolved on a case by case basis. The technical footing is sound. @ @ Please note that in order for Coalition or Geographic based address @ allocation to work really well, you have to have restrictions on @ your topology. @ For many small ISPs, "geo-netric" issues are resolved very close to home. Their main problem is that they get tied to an upstream provider and therefore their customers get tied. Significant changes in the relationship with that upstream provider now impact their customers. In the Coalition approach, ISPs have to understand they will be tied to the coalition. This seems like less of a problem for ISPs than being tied to an upstream provider. Of course, depending on the stability and greed factor of coalitions, the ISPs may wish they were tied to an upstream provider. This is one of the major concerns about organizations such as ARIN. Supposedly, ARIN is being "given" some unknown /8 delegations to manage. The companies that have allocations in those blocks have not been given any say about this. What happens if ARIN decides to enact policies and change companies allocations or charge high fees ? Small ISPs will probably have as much say as they did with the $50 domain taxes and the future of .COM, .NET and .ORG. @ Addressing works really well when you do it on a topological basis. @ @ Anyone who does not follow this needs to educate themselves in the @ basic physics of routing and how it applies to CIDR based allocations @ and keeping routing tables small. Many people feel that the routing tables can be reduced in size with better (and more fair) policies. Without experiments to prove and document this, people will never know. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jul 16 18:44:16 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 17:44:16 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution Message-ID: <01BC920F.E1F31420@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 16, 1997 10:28 AM, Tony Li[SMTP:tli at juniper.net] wrote: @ @ In the Coalition approach, ISPs have to understand they will be @ tied to the coalition. This seems like less of a problem for ISPs than @ being tied to an upstream provider. @ @ This is part of what's not clear. If you dislike being tied to an upstream @ provider, it's because there's insufficient freedom of movement. Being @ tied to the coalition, in which (presumably) majority rules can be equally @ oppressive. @ Yes they can...that is why I point out that ISPs might wish that they are tied to an upstream or a coalition of upstream providers.... ...or something like IOPS...http://www.iops.org @ Of course, depending on the stability and greed factor of coalitions, @ the ISPs may wish they were tied to an upstream provider. This is @ one of the major concerns about organizations such as ARIN. @ Supposedly, ARIN is being "given" some unknown /8 delegations @ to manage. The companies that have allocations in those blocks @ have not been given any say about this. What happens if ARIN @ decides to enact policies and change companies allocations or @ charge high fees ? Small ISPs will probably have as much say as @ they did with the $50 domain taxes and the future of .COM, .NET @ and .ORG. @ @ One should then complain about the behavior of ARIN, in much the same way @ that one would complain about the behavior of a governmental department. @ Yes, just like people complained about the InterNIC and NSI..... you saw how far that got... By the way, recently I heard that ARIN may not qualify as an IRS non-profit company and someone mentioned that ARIN could then pursue the IPO route...I guess this depends on how the NSI IPO does...although the @Home IPO seems to have been a success... @ Many people feel that the routing tables can be reduced @ in size with better (and more fair) policies. Without experiments @ to prove and document this, people will never know. @ @ It's quite easy to see the number of routes generated from a clear @ technical proposal. Experiments to determine basic scalability are not @ necessary until a scalable proposal is in hand. Especially experiments @ which in actuality are irrevocable deployment, thinly veiled. @ Maybe this should be the focus of NAIR ? Open mailing lists and discussions such as these are great for preventing "thinly veiled" proposals. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Jul 16 21:43:22 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:43:22 -0400 Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970716081611.00d5bb40@texoma.net> References: <3.0.3.32.19970716080440.006c4f44@lint.cisco.com> <3.0.3.32.19970715225716.0103173c@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716214322.006ba33c@lint.cisco.com> I believe this is the same presentation that I referred to which Tony provided. - paul At 08:16 AM 07/16/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: >Tony, > >Please provide us with a URL to your original work in this area. > >Yakov Rekhter has supplied the pointer to ftpeng.cisco.com under >/ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt (PowerPoint). > >Thanks, > >Larry > >---30--- > >At 08:04 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>This concept is not new -- Tony Li presented the concept >>of ISP confederations last year. >> >>- paul >> >>At 10:57 PM 07/15/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: >> >>>A second potential market solution would be for a group of ISPs with common >>>interests to join forces and apply for a suitably sized CIDR block directly >>>from the IANA. >>> >>>In this scenario, the ISPs would not be using "provider dependent (AKA PA)" >>>space, but rather PI space. >>> >>>This same group of ISPs with common interests then would issue an RFP for a >>>"group buy" and then select 2 or 3 NSPs to carry their traffic through the >>>normal commercial negotiations process. Because the ISPs were allocated PI >>>space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and >>likely. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 22:01:09 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:01:09 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: <199707162335.QAA09846@chimp.juniper.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net> At 04:35 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > >One should then complain about the behavior of ARIN, in much the same way > >that one would complain about the behavior of a governmental department. > > That didn't work with NSI. An unaccountable monopoly is a bad thing. > >First of all, NSI is hardly an unaccountable monopoly. It has some >supervision and it certainly has customers. Those who object to the way >that NSI was and is run have not yet made a reasonable and effective case >against the status quo. Note that 'yelling louder' or' repeating yourself yet >again' or 'not listening to others' or 'arguing with me' are neither >reasonable nor effective. One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us `[:((. It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm with such a record. Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a firm like EDS to do the back office functions. From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jul 16 16:00:34 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:00:34 +0100 Subject: a 2nd potential solution References: <3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33CD2861.2F5C@ix.netcom.com> Larry, Larry Vaden wrote: > > At 04:35 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > > > >One should then complain about the behavior of ARIN, in much the same way > > >that one would complain about the behavior of a governmental department. > > > > That didn't work with NSI. An unaccountable monopoly is a bad thing. > > > >First of all, NSI is hardly an unaccountable monopoly. It has some > >supervision and it certainly has customers. Those who object to the way > >that NSI was and is run have not yet made a reasonable and effective case > >against the status quo. Note that 'yelling louder' or' repeating yourself > yet > >again' or 'not listening to others' or 'arguing with me' are neither > >reasonable nor effective. > > One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued > reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves > correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut > off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us > `[:((. > > It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm > with such a record. Couldn't agree more. > > Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a > firm like EDS to do the back office functions. Possibly a big 6 firm. But I would stay away form EDS if it were me in their possition, knowing what I do about EDS. At any rate, there seems to be several problems that are I am sure obvious to all. One is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The other obvious one is that the legal talent is deffinatly lacking. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Wed Jul 16 23:17:13 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:17:13 -0500 Subject: a 2nd potential solution In-Reply-To: <33CD2861.2F5C@ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970716221713.01380b94@texoma.net> At 09:00 PM 7/16/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >> One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued >> reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves >> correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut >> off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us >> `[:((. >> >> It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm >> with such a record. > > Couldn't agree more. >> >> Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a >> firm like EDS to do the back office functions. > > Possibly a big 6 firm. But I would stay away form EDS if it were >me in their possition, knowing what I do about EDS. At any rate, there >seems to be several problems that are I am sure obvious to all. One >is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The >other obvious one is that the legal talent is deffinatly lacking. Actually, the suggestion is a rhetorical one, used to separate the current results from the expected results. I'd rather use firms like Stan Barber's academ.com for the back office function. But I speak personally, not for NAIR. From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jul 16 23:32:00 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN Message-ID: The bottom line of this message is that, in a phone conversation with me earlier this evening, NSI Senior Vice President Don Telage said he would be happy to permit Kim Hubbard to make her own *independent* and *unreviewed* progress reports regarding the progress of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) weekly or as often as she felt it to be necessary. These progress reports could be placed on the ARIN web site and sent by Kim to appropriate mail lists. Here is what happened to lead up to this unexpected phone conversation. Dave Farber is a senior member of the Internet community who has run, at least since 1990, a mail list that he calls Interesting People. I have been on this list since 1991. Sometime in 1992 Dave goofed and a message went out that contained the identities of the list members. Less than 200 at the time, but a very impressive collection of high ranking folk from the media, government, education and the corporate world. My understanding is that since then the list, which is private, has grown in size to several thousand - that it has a very international flavor, and agAin very influential subscribers. Now one problem with the list is that it is moderated by Dave such that communication is one way. People send him stuff and ask him to redistribute. This means that the signal to noise ratio is generally quite high. But it also means that from time to time some real zingers slip out. Rebutting them is difficult and usually requires some extended negotiation with Dave who - with this list - effectively acts as "gate keeper" to the internet for many many influential people. Such negotiation is something that, not wanting to take the time, I usually don't do. It is much easier to publish my rebuttal elsewhere. Last night Dave published a real zinger. He did this when he took what I regard as a scurrilous attack on the American Registry for Internet Numbers by Dave McClure and published it to his list with the heading "Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The Netly News." [What he piece had to do with the netly news escapes me.] As far as I can figure out, McClure is the executive director of something called the Association of on Line Professionals. (AOP). He has had, what looks like, a vendetta going against ARIN for most of 1997. McClure's AOP has no standing what so ever in the internet industry that I am aware of. (Something confirmed by more than a dozen responses that I have received to a public query I made earlier today.) And yet Dave apparently took text from Sky Dayton, the Earthlink CEO, that Sky had received from McClure and posted it without comment to his Interesting Persons list. In my opinion from 6 years of reading Dave's list that action means Dave endorses the comment. When he posts something he doesn't agree with he says so. I have watched a wide variety of people try to crucify ARIN since February of this year. Seeing McClure's unsubstantiated accusations go out to a one way list of influential people largely without independent means of verifying the data, was a hit below the belt that I felt that ARIN ill deserved. I let Dave know my displeasure and he said he'd publish a reasoned rebuttal to his IP list. I hope he finds that this meets those criteria. I then made phone calls and sent a bunch of private mail and found out some very interesting and *totally unexpected* information. There had been relatively little response from John Curran, Scott Bradner or Randy Bush on any of the relevant mail lists in answer to many many attacks on ARIN. Today there was also no great rush to write a rebuttal of the McClure piece that Dave Farber had posted. Suddenly I got a phone call explaining why. I took the information that I was given and called Don Telage at NSI. In a half hour phone conversation Don told me the following. (1.) The three CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI. (2.) This is the "incorporation board". As soon as legal insurance for the Board is put into place the incorporation board would meet and select the seven person *proposed* board listed on the Arin web pages. (3.) This had not yet happened because they had not yet managed to nail down the necessary legal insurance. As soon as the policy was in place the new board would be chosen. He thought thi would happen in less than two weeks but he could not name an exact date. I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly. But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that there might be subsequent revisions. But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered. Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable, I can agree to that, said Don. I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the time to hear my message. PS -- let me re-emphasize one more thing. ARIN's goal is to achieve complete financial independence from NSI as soon as possible and in any case before next April. That its goal is not to take in more money than is necessary to cover its expenses. That its members will see the balance sheets and that it fully expects its members to tell it to lower its rates, if it appears that income is exceeding expenses by too unhealthy an amount. ARIN will be an entity that will become independent from NSI as soon as its fees can cover the costs of its operation. It will be an entity controlled by and run for the benefit of its members. I personally hope that one of Kim's earliest progress reports will be the announcement that ARIN is accepting members. I am convinced that she is totally committed to the integrity of the IP number process, and that if any group of "nasty big boys" every tried to pervert things so that they held a knife to the throats of smaller ISPs, that she'd blow the whistle damned quick and resign if need be to see that it didn't happen. As Avi Freedman said today on inet-access: "Rule number 1. NEVER EVER LIE TO KIM." ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jul 17 00:41:07 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: a quick ps to long post Message-ID: Kim Hubbard is on a well deserved vacation this week....so please don't expect a "status" report from her *THIS* week. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 05:11:50 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:11:50 +0100 Subject: a 2nd potential solution References: <3.0.3.32.19970716210109.013b05c4@texoma.net> <3.0.3.32.19970716221713.01380b94@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33CDE1D6.7558@ix.netcom.com> Larry and all, Larry Vaden wrote: > > At 09:00 PM 7/16/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >> One thing that bothers me about the current environment is the continued > >> reference to various people as "clueless". Yet, I read (if memory serves > >> correctly) that NSI/InterNIC has billed only 50% of the domains and has cut > >> off fully paid domains (no need to read about this part, it happened to us > >> `[:((. > >> > >> It is hard for me to imagine even a die hard old timer supporting a firm > >> with such a record. > > > > Couldn't agree more. > >> > >> Thus my suggestion that NAIR might want to use a Big 6 Accounting Firm or a > >> firm like EDS to do the back office functions. > > > > Possibly a big 6 firm. But I would stay away form EDS if it were > >me in their possition, knowing what I do about EDS. At any rate, there > >seems to be several problems that are I am sure obvious to all. One > >is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The > >other obvious one is that the legal talent is deffinatly lacking. > > Actually, the suggestion is a rhetorical one, used to separate the current > results from the expected results. I'd rather use firms like Stan Barber's > academ.com for the back office function. But I speak personally, not for > NAIR. Understood and agreed. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From editor at txlaw.com Thu Jul 17 14:10:07 1997 From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:10:07 -0500 Subject: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN Message-ID: <33CE5FFF.4792@txlaw.com> Gordon, Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have the opposite effect on your readers than you intended. Let me highlight some examples: Gordon Cook wrote: > (1.) The three > CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil > Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI. Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board for now. > I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said > that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was > obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the > advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out > of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly. This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now? What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members electing the board? > But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? > Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the > situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure > as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that > there might be subsequent revisions. For many readers, this statement probably confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community resources. You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake to report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why you related this if he did not agree to do it. This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about that?" Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this. Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel Internet Texoma, Inc. The ISP which DIDN'T From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 15:04:06 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:04:06 -0500 Subject: ISPAC-1 - A Scalable Proposal? Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717140406.01267914@texoma.net> First, a distinction: This proposal uses the terms "ISP" and "NSP", the rough distinction being that NSPs have national backbones and ISPs do not. ISPAC-1 would be an ISP Address Coalition. George Herbert has done some work in this area, as have Tony Li and Yakov Rekhter. For George's contribution, see the NANOG and COM-PRIV archives; for the work of Tony and Yakov, see: http://www.globecom.net/(nobg,sv)/ietf/draft/draft-li-ispac00.shtml and ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ftp/yakov/spa-vs-pac.ppt. It would differ somewhat from the ISPAC model in the two above URLs; the primary difference is influenced by the "bottom up" approach, which is to say it is more oriented towards ISPs (which need /20s thru /16s, e.g.) and firms like digitalink.com, which publishes the Washington Post online (which might need a /24 or /25) which need multihomed CIDR blocks. The objectives are to provide ISPAC-1 members with provider independent multihomed CIDR blocks, as opposed to provider dependent (AKA PA) space. Further, the objective attempts to pay particular attention to requirements of good stewardship of net resources. ISPAC-1 would apply for a suitably sized CIDR block from NSI/InterNIC or directly from the IANA. ISPAC-1 would issue a RFP for a "group buy" and then, using the normal commercial negotiations process, select 3-5 NSPs to carry their traffic. Because ISPAC-1 members would be allocated PI space out of the same address block, aggregation would be possible and likely. Selected NSPs would advertise a single prefix (if initial sizing were correct) for ISPAC-1 members. Due mainly to the concern of Tony Li with whether this is scalable and any NSP would want the business because the NSP's routers would have to contain explicit routes to each ISPAC member, a very tentative and preliminary proposal for prefixes would be: xxxxxxxx.yyy.zzzzzzzz, with the length (in bits) of xxxxxxxx, yyy and zzzzzzzz to be determined. xxxxxxxx would be the most significant part of the prefix. yyy would be geographical (following George's thoughts) in nature, but might be of length 0 if Tony's concerns are not of concern to the selected NSPs. If non-zero in length, yyy would serve to decrease the number of specific routes in any "regional" router in the contracting NSP, IMHO. zzzzzzzz would be ISPAC member specific. If yyy is of any use in reducing Tony's concerns, the credit goes to George Herbert, gherbert at crl.com, for his discussions in NANOG and elsewhere regarding address allocation policy in the greater San Franciso area. Sincerely, Larry Vaden original distribution to: Kearney Connolly , Shane_Hampton at corp.acsi.net, Chad Hutchings , "Robert L. Shearing" , with cc:'s to George Herbert , Tony Li , Yakov Rekhter , nair-founders at texoma.net, Stan Barber From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jul 17 17:13:35 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <33CE5FFF.4792@txlaw.com> Message-ID: I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his modus operandi. Cook: But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that there might be subsequent revisions. Eric W: For many readers, this statement probably confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic decisions Cook: your suggestion counsellor....not mine, and not what readers would conclude if the read the WHOLE post with a mind set that has not found telage, NSI, kim hubbard and ARIN guilty in advance Eric W: rather than seeking rough consensus on how the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community resources. Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group. Eric W: You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after they are made and post them on the website. Cook: beware when lawyers shift from quotes to their own words. Danger signal.... Their agenda at work - generally one of obfuscation! The closest thing I can find in my text is "If Don Telage couldn't get the word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. " I go on to show how we arrived at the conclusion that Kim should be the one to get the word out. But you don't seem to see it. Let me draw you a bloody picture. ARIN is not Telage's organization. His future is not tied up in it. Kim's future *IS*. Now unfortunately because ARIN has just been born - is a wobbly calf trying to stand on its own feet, while the coyotes circle smacking their lips and smelling blood - there is a small problem for the calf. It needs mother's milk (money) to nourish it and mothers hooves to kick any coyote who tries to clamp down on the newborn's throat. In other words ARIN needs members that will pay money before it can stand on its own, and break the apron strings from the mother. This will happen in 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile NSI, responding to the wishes of a number of community workshops and fora has agreed to pay ARIN's bills during it's start up. During the period while NSI has accepted financial responsibility to pay ARIN's bills, they will be involved. No other arrangement is fair or rational. Eric W: It may have been a mistake to report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. Cook: Where in the bloody hell do I "report that telage did not reply to my suggestion!!?" I report no such thing and I resent your implying that I did. He said that he did not have time to get out progress reports or engage in these debates. To my suggestion that he give Kim Hubbard carte blanche to get the word out, he agreed. I stated that extremely clearly! Eric W: I am not sure why you related this if he did not agree to do it. ^^^^ ^^ Cook: Related **what**, counsellor? If he did not agree to do **what**, mr. Weisberg? Eric W: This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about that?" Cook: Here, counsellor, in my humble opinion you stoop to Jim Fleming tactics of surmise and innuendo. You, in my opinion, take the same tack as McClure does in his determination to destroy ARIN. It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe differently. That is your prerogative. Oh, let me answer your do-you-still-beat-your-wife insinuation Eric. I DID NOT ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final. I did not need to ask him this because to the best of MY knowledge he has not been the major force in drafting the by laws. The major force has been Kim and the proposed members of the ARIN board. As soon as they become the legal members of the board it is my belief that you will have PLENTY of feedback from them with regard to the bylaws. From what *I* can see you won't give them a bloody chance.... For here we are for the last lord knows how many days with either you or larry vaden picking ARIN apart, at all hours of the day and night seven days a week. There are a lot of businesses out there not too dissimilar to your own whose future stability will depend on an ARIN that works. The proposed members of the ARIN board *ARE* highly respected members of the Internet community who have played a significant role in creating the global enterprise on which you now seek to provide a service. If you rip them to shreds before they can put anything in place you will be judged accordingly. I am finished with taking my time to reply to your unwarranted comments. I wish no further communication. I hope this is clear. Mail from you is hereby routed to dev/null. ========= here is my relevant text - some of which eric chose to quote, some of which he chose not to quote. I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly. But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that there might be subsequent revisions. But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered. Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable, I can agree to that, said Don. I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the time to hear my message. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote: > Gordon, > > Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have > the opposite effect on your readers than you intended. > Let me highlight some examples: > > Gordon Cook wrote: > > > (1.) The three > > CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil > > Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI. > > Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board > for now. > > > I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said > > that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was > > obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the > > advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air > out > > of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating > monopoly. > > This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now? > What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the > members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise > the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members > electing the board? > > > But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? > > Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the > > situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure > > as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that > > there might be subsequent revisions. > > For many readers, this statement probably > confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic > decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how > the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community > resources. > > You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after > they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake > to > report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why > you related this if he did not agree to do it. > > This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your > rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss > the by-laws and the > proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about > that?" > > Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this. > > > Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel > Internet Texoma, Inc. > The ISP which DIDN'T > From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 17 17:31:21 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:31:21 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN Message-ID: <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net> Gordon, You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN has no money and needs "members". Which is it ? You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet. If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ? Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months. Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI IPO impact this delay ? Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any, in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure. I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN. Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ? Jim Fleming On Thursday, July 17, 1997 12:13 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote: @ I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this @ post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his @ modus operandi. @ @ Cook: But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why @ not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the @ situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure @ as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that @ there might be subsequent revisions. @ @ Eric W: For many readers, this statement probably confirms the allegation @ that Telage, alone, is making the basic decisions @ @ Cook: your suggestion counsellor....not mine, and not what readers would @ conclude if the read the WHOLE post with a mind set that has not found @ telage, NSI, kim hubbard and ARIN guilty in advance @ @ Eric W: rather than seeking rough consensus on how @ the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community @ resources. @ @ Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough @ consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group. @ @ Eric W: You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon @ after they are made and post them on the website. @ @ Cook: beware when lawyers shift from quotes to their own words. Danger @ signal.... Their agenda at work - generally one of obfuscation! @ The closest thing I can find in my text is "If Don Telage couldn't get the @ word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. " I go on to @ show how we arrived at the conclusion that Kim should be the one to get @ the word out. @ @ But you don't seem to see it. Let me draw you a bloody picture. ARIN is @ not Telage's organization. His future is not tied up in it. Kim's future @ *IS*. Now unfortunately because ARIN has just been born - is a wobbly calf @ trying to stand on its own feet, while the coyotes circle smacking their @ lips and smelling blood - there is a small problem for the calf. It needs @ mother's milk (money) to nourish it and mothers hooves to kick any coyote @ who tries to clamp down on the newborn's throat. @ @ In other words ARIN needs members that will pay money before it can stand @ on its own, and break the apron strings from the mother. This will happen @ in 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile NSI, responding to the wishes of a number of @ community workshops and fora has agreed to pay ARIN's bills during it's @ start up. During the period while NSI has accepted financial @ responsibility to pay ARIN's bills, they will be involved. No other @ arrangement is fair or rational. @ @ Eric W: It may have been a mistake to report that Telage did not reply to @ your suggestion. @ @ Cook: Where in the bloody hell do I "report that telage did not reply to @ my suggestion!!?" I report no such thing and I resent your implying that I @ did. He said that he did not have time to get out progress reports or @ engage in these debates. To my suggestion that he give Kim Hubbard carte @ blanche to get the word out, he agreed. I stated that extremely clearly! @ @ Eric W: I am not sure why you related this if he did not agree to do it. @ ^^^^ ^^ @ @ Cook: Related **what**, counsellor? If he did not agree to do **what**, @ mr. Weisberg? @ @ Eric W: This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your @ rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss @ the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final? What did @ Telage say about that?" @ @ Cook: Here, counsellor, in my humble opinion you stoop to Jim Fleming @ tactics of surmise and innuendo. You, in my opinion, take the same tack as @ McClure does in his determination to destroy ARIN. @ @ It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of @ address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the @ internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those @ involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate @ the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this @ point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe @ differently. That is your prerogative. @ @ Oh, let me answer your do-you-still-beat-your-wife insinuation Eric. I DID @ NOT ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed @ revisions before they become final. I did not need to ask him this because @ to the best of MY knowledge he has not been the major force in drafting @ the by laws. The major force has been Kim and the proposed members of the @ ARIN board. As soon as they become the legal members of the board it is my @ belief that you will have PLENTY of feedback from them with regard to the @ bylaws. From what *I* can see you won't give them a bloody chance.... For @ here we are for the last lord knows how many days with either you or larry @ vaden picking ARIN apart, at all hours of the day and night seven days a @ week. There are a lot of businesses out there not too dissimilar to your @ own whose future stability will depend on an ARIN that works. The proposed @ members of the ARIN board *ARE* highly respected members of the Internet @ community who have played a significant role in creating the global @ enterprise on which you now seek to provide a service. If you rip them to @ shreds before they can put anything in place you will be judged @ accordingly. @ @ I am finished with taking my time to reply to your unwarranted comments. I @ wish no further communication. I hope this is clear. Mail from you is @ hereby routed to dev/null. @ @ ========= @ here is my relevant text - some of which eric chose to quote, some of @ which he chose not to quote. @ @ I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net @ and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN @ Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said @ that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was @ obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the @ advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out @ of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly. @ But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? @ Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the @ situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure @ as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that @ there might be subsequent revisions. @ @ But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I @ responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net @ believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent @ unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that @ NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two @ because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their @ credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of @ McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the @ word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. @ @ For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and @ becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a @ weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what @ had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within @ NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be @ as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered. @ Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to @ write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before @ she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be @ bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked @ like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible @ because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable, @ I can agree to that, said Don. @ @ I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to @ them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening @ on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the @ time to hear my message. @ @ ************************************************************************ @ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than @ 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material @ (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ @ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under @ attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml @ ************************************************************************ @ @ @ On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote: @ @ > Gordon, @ > @ > Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have @ > the opposite effect on your readers than you intended. @ > Let me highlight some examples: @ > @ > Gordon Cook wrote: @ > @ > > (1.) The three @ > > CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil @ > > Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI. @ > @ > Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board @ > for now. @ > @ > > I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said @ > > that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was @ > > obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the @ > > advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air @ > out @ > > of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating @ > monopoly. @ > @ > This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now? @ > What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the @ > members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise @ > the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members @ > electing the board? @ > @ > > But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not? @ > > Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the @ > > situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure @ > > as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that @ > > there might be subsequent revisions. @ > @ > For many readers, this statement probably @ > confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic @ > decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how @ > the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community @ > resources. @ > @ > You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after @ > they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake @ > to @ > report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why @ > you related this if he did not agree to do it. @ > @ > This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your @ > rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss @ > the by-laws and the @ > proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about @ > that?" @ > @ > Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this. @ > @ > @ > Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel @ > Internet Texoma, Inc. @ > The ISP which DIDN'T @ > @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Jul 17 18:11:57 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jul 17, 97 04:31:21 pm Message-ID: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > Gordon, > > You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million > dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the > large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN > has no money and needs "members". Which is it ? As usual, you attempt to twist the simplest phrases into having some hidden meaning. Applying the slightest amount of mental energy would produce the following (obvious) conclusion: NSI is providing intial funding for ARIN, but ARIN needs members if they want to be self funding. (In case you didn't want to spend that mental energy, that point has been stated countless times in the last 8 months.) > > You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet. > If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your > ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and > presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ? > Don Telage is a businessman and hence understand the concepts of legal and business issues required in setting up something like ARIN and hence it makes sense that he be involved in it. > Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months. > Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI > IPO impact this delay ? The claim was that ARIN will not be self supporting for 6 to 9 months. Amazingly enough the reasons that ARIN has been delayed are largely due to ravings posted to everybody under the sun that there was some conspiracy afoot. After looking into those ravings, (and finding them baseless) ARIN is finally being allowed to go forward. > > Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any, > in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you > have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure. > I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN. > Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ? Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility. The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN because we believe in its goals and its necessity. > > Jim Fleming > ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 17 18:14:16 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:14:16 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN Message-ID: <01BC92D4.DBA24C60@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, July 17, 1997 1:11 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: @ @ Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of @ being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility. @ The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There @ are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN @ because we believe in its goals and its necessity. @ When will ARIN be operational ? When will ISPs be assigned IP addresses ? How has NSI and the IRS handled the valuation of the IP addresses that ARIN is being "given" ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jul 17 18:49:08 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:49:08 -0500 Subject: Peasants ? Message-ID: <01BC92D9.BAA0F340@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 3:32 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ @ On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote: @ @ @ > Sounds like the French aristocracy doesn't think the French peasants are @ > qualified enough to be on the initial board. @ @ well you have finally done it. i who all my life have been left of @ center.... a student of the russian revolution.....hereby declare myself @ an aristocrat. good show mate. you are damned right that the peasants @ aren't qualified to be on the board.....becasue guess what the peasants @ don't have the expertise!! @ Gordon, Can you describe who the "peasants" are ? Also, can you expand on the qualifications of the ARIN Board Members ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From rnelson at internoc.com Thu Jul 17 18:12:45 1997 From: rnelson at internoc.com (Robert T. Nelson) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:12:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this > post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his > modus operandi. > [SNIP] > > It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of > address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the > internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those > involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate > the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this > point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe > differently. That is your prerogative. In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic process". What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit such an assignment (though I do not know for sure) Several prolific writers on mail-lists and USENet have tossed their hats into the ring with the Texoma folks, including Jim Fleming, and Jeff Walker. This group seems to feel that Jon Postel is the dictator of the Internet, and everything that goes across his desk becomes part of a general conspiracy by IANA/NSI/IAHC//ARIN to make the Internet their personal fiefdom. This is also virtually the same group detracting from the discussion over DNS issues. I would like to suggest to the folks at Internet Texoma and NAIR that they become fully aware of the bodies and policies that affect their business, and attempt to use them to their advantage before they decide that "It's bullshit, and a conspircay to take money out of my pocket". Because most of the founding members of NAIR are given to responding to messages on the Net BEFORE they have read and digested them, NAIR is doomed to be regarded as irrelevant by the rest of the Internet. Because they only seem to try to derail progress of Internet Development, instead of working *with* the Internet Community, they will go down not as Leader of the Internet Community (ala Vint Cerf/Vixie/Postel/) but as detractors from the common good (ala AlterNIC) I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen to their ideas. Robert Nelson, President INTERNOC (tm) the internetwork operating company, inc. +1.210.299.4662 rnelson at internoc.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 13:50:29 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:50:29 +0100 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN References: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <33CE5B65.402E@ix.netcom.com> Lhillip, Jim and all, I must agree with Phillip here. Gordon made most of these questions fairly clear in his previous post I thought. Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > > Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > > > Gordon, > > > > You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million > > dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the > > large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN > > has no money and needs "members". Which is it ? > > As usual, you attempt to twist the simplest phrases into having some hidden > meaning. Applying the slightest amount of mental energy would produce the > following (obvious) conclusion: > > NSI is providing intial funding for ARIN, but ARIN needs members if they > want to be self funding. > > (In case you didn't want to spend that mental energy, that point has been > stated countless times in the last 8 months.) > > > > > You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet. > > If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your > > ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and > > presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ? > > > > Don Telage is a businessman and hence understand the concepts of legal and > business issues required in setting up something like ARIN and hence it > makes sense that he be involved in it. > > > Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months. > > Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI > > IPO impact this delay ? > > The claim was that ARIN will not be self supporting for 6 to 9 months. > Amazingly enough the reasons that ARIN has been delayed are largely due to > ravings posted to everybody under the sun that there was some conspiracy > afoot. After looking into those ravings, (and finding them baseless) ARIN > is finally being allowed to go forward. > > > > > Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any, > > in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you > > have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure. > > I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN. > > Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ? > > Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of > being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility. > The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There > are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN > because we believe in its goals and its necessity. > > > > > Jim Fleming > > > > ---> Phil -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Jul 17 20:33:31 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC92D4.DBA24C60@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jul 17, 97 05:14:16 pm Message-ID: <199707180033.AA021416013@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > On Thursday, July 17, 1997 1:11 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: > > @ > @ Members will shape the way ARIN operates, but it has to get to the point of > @ being able to accept members before they can take that responsibility. > @ The proposed BOT has long been known, and Gordon is not one of them. There > @ are however many, including Gordon (and I) who are supporters of ARIN > @ because we believe in its goals and its necessity. > @ > > When will ARIN be operational ? After Gordon's phone call it seems that Kim will be able to make regular status reports and we will know. > > When will ISPs be assigned IP addresses ? > My guess is once ARIN is operational they will start assigning IP addresses. Sort of like when the McDonalds opened down the street I was then able to get a burger from it. > How has NSI and the IRS handled the valuation of > the IP addresses that ARIN is being "given" ? > Why don't you ask NSI and the IRS. I don't presume to speak for them, but I suspect they are handled the same way they have always been, and the same way RIPE and APNIC handle them, and the way Sprint handles them, and the way Joe's ISP handles them, and the way every other company handles them. I suspect that each company handles them slightly differently, but most don't because they aren't typically considered assets. If and when a new standard accounting practice is published by XXX( the group that publishes accounting practices who currently escapes me) then it will change. > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > ---> Phil From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 20:40:21 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:40:21 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu> References: <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717194021.019bfbe4@texoma.net> At 06:11 PM 7/17/97 -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >(In case you didn't want to spend that mental energy, that point has been >stated countless times in the last 8 months.) > >> >> You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet. >> If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your >> ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and >> presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ? >> > >Don Telage is a businessman and hence understand the concepts of legal and >business issues required in setting up something like ARIN and hence it >makes sense that he be involved in it. Why is not a procedure comparable to that outlined by ISOC (including RFC2027) not being used for ARIN's BofT and Advisory Council, i.e., a "fast start" to full representation of the membership? , "Internet Society calls for nominations to the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee", which says in part: >Procedure: > >1.This message is the call for nominations, which should be sent to isoc-pocnom at isoc.org by the closing date of 17 September 1997. > >2.Each nomination must give the name, affiliation, email address and phone number of the nominee, plus a brief statement (maximum 10 lines) about the nominee's Internet and global credentials. > >3.Self-nominations are allowed. > >4.ISOC will verify each nominee's willingness to serve for one or three years. > >5.The list of willing nominees will be published by ISOC shortly after the closing date. Confidential comments from the community will be solicited. The Board of Trustees of the Internet Society will then make its two appointments and announce them within one month. > >6.Apart from the above, the Internet Society will be guided in its deliberations by the procedures defined in RFC 2027. > >7.Nominees must accept that a recall procedure, analagous to that defined in RFC 2027, may be invoked at any time during their terms. From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 14:41:16 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:41:16 +0100 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN References: Message-ID: <33CE674C.467A@ix.netcom.com> MR Nelson and all, Robert T. Nelson wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this > > post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his > > modus operandi. > > > [SNIP] > > > > > It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of > > address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the > > internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those > > involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate > > the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this > > point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe > > differently. That is your prerogative. > > In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the > nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other > people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet > Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our > consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what > their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic > process". > > What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been > wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin > possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address > space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit > such an assignment (though I do not know for sure) I don't believe that this is the perpose of NAIR, first of all. And I do find it highly questionable to anyone who has followed the dialog to be able to make any such claim. But I will let other members of NAIR answer your comment here. Members, you are being challanged! What SAY YOU? > > Several prolific writers on mail-lists and USENet have tossed their hats > into the ring with the Texoma folks, including Jim Fleming, and Jeff > Walker. > > This group seems to feel that Jon Postel is the dictator of the Internet, > and everything that goes across his desk becomes part of a general > conspiracy by IANA/NSI/IAHC//ARIN to make the Internet their personal > fiefdom. This is also virtually the same group detracting from the > discussion over DNS issues. Yes, many oar the same folks that felt and do feel that there is some rather inconsistantcies in the current policies reguarding the gTLD-MoU. This is not suprising in that there is some realationship. > > I would like to suggest to the folks at Internet Texoma and NAIR that they > become fully aware of the bodies and policies that affect their business, > and attempt to use them to their advantage before they decide that "It's > bullshit, and a conspircay to take money out of my pocket". Well the contract that is posted SURE is circumspect at the very least. > > Because most of the founding members of NAIR are given to responding to > messages on the Net BEFORE they have read and digested them, NAIR is > doomed to be regarded as irrelevant by the rest of the Internet. Because > they only seem to try to derail progress of Internet Development, instead > of working *with* the Internet Community, they will go down not as Leader > of the Internet Community (ala Vint Cerf/Vixie/Postel/) but as detractors > from the common good (ala AlterNIC) As I remember Vixie, was not a fan of the current DNS policies set forth in the gTLD-MoU. But I will no belabour that point. I and many others in NAIR have read an gongested this information VERY thourly, and find several points of concern which have been posted quite clearly and consisely on this and other mailing lists. > > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about > these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen > to their ideas. I agree. And I believe that some of the ideas put forth by Larry, Jim, Eric, and others have great value. As such it would seem likely that others will also. > > Robert Nelson, President > INTERNOC (tm) > the internetwork operating company, inc. > +1.210.299.4662 > rnelson at internoc.com Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 22:52:13 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:52:13 -0500 Subject: MIT Workshop on Internet Economics In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970717194021.019bfbe4@texoma.net> References: <199707172211.AA280687519@martigny.ai.mit.edu> <01BC92CE.DCCD6DA0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717215213.011d912c@texoma.net> A Model for Efficient Aggregation of Resources for Economic Public Goods on the Internet Martyne M. Hallgren and Alan K. McAdams Presented at MIT Workshop on Internet Economics March 1995 for the complete paper, see . Clarification of Model/ Summary We started this discussion by stating that in a complex economy, public goods exist side by side with private goods, and that externalities are pervasive. No "one-size-fits-all" approach to allocation of goods of such complexity makes sense. Efficient allocation of a good must be driven by the characteristics of the good. When the characteristics of two goods are different, then to be efficient, the approaches to their allocation must be different. We have presented extensive discussion of two Internet "goods," GateDaemon and service on uncongested networks, each of which is non-excludable and non-depletable. By definition, they are "public goods;" and the marginal cost of supplying these goods is zero. Appropriate allocation for public goods, following the basic economic principle of price equal to marginal cost, is a price to the consumer of "zero." In turn, this implies the need for asymmetric pricing: a way must be found to provide resources to the producer of the good sufficient to keep him or her producing the good. Economic taxes (whether from public or private sources) are used to achieve the latter. If a public good experiences sufficient performance degradation, its characteristics are transformed into those of an economic private goods externality. It has become depletable, but remains non-excludable. There are three possible approaches to resolving the private goods externality. One option is do nothing; the good can continue to degrade until it is no longer usable and is finally shut down. The second option is to reinvest in the good, using the resources (taxes) acquired through asymmetric pricing to fund the reinvestment. The third option is to impose some form of institutional constraint and transform the good into an impeded public good that is now excludable, but no longer depletable. Under the conditions of option three, the user pays a price for access to the good that is equal to the cost to society of removing the depletability (the congestion). That price is arrived at through a market mechanism with a market-clearing price that is symmetrical: what the user pays is what the institutional authority receives. This feature explains why the private sector so readily adopts this economic form (for movie theaters, CATV, commercially provided software, and myriad other activities). Asymmetric pricing for unimpeded public goods is most effective when the agent that must deal with the asymmetry has the power to impose taxes (as "Ma Bell" did in its monopoly days). If the agent does not have this power, then in part, it must "beg" or it must create an incentive program--consortium benefits--and invest considerable effort to generate the funds, even to the point of creating a good with mixed characteristics of both private and public goods. The GateD Consortium is a successful implementation of asymmetric pricing through a strategic alliance of organizations that value GateD. More important than proving that (somewhat modified) asymmetric pricing can work, GateD, as it has been implemented, has proven to be invaluable to the growth of the Internet and the Internet economy through its spillover benefits, especially those of enhanced interoperability of the Internet. Since the decisions on the appropriate allocation mechanism for public goods, or for private goods externalities are at the heart of the debate over the commercialization of the Internet, it is extremely important to note why there is a "best" option in each case: that of asymmetric pricing for the public good; and for the latter, that of returning the characteristics of the good to those of a public good. In each case we have advanced the multiple reasons above. If the growth of the economy--and the growth of the "Internet" business--is a desirable goal, then it is to everyone's advantage to recognize that the appropriate allocation decisions will avoid the negatives and achieve the positives we have identified. Conclusions The competitive market is not the only approach to resource allocation currently being employed, even in the U.S. economy. It should not be considered a panacea--especially in the presence of instances in which there is an approach that is obviously superior for all. The Internet economy has blossomed because a market pricing strategy was not imposed on its development. There are clear guidelines for appropriate resource allocation approaches in the presence of public goods and in the presence of private goods externalities. There are powerful reasons for following them. The GateD Consortium and Project is a foundation and a model. It is a prime example of where a little cooperation can result in great benefits for all. It is consistent with a current incentive structure--the "University Model"--that has proven its worth, literally over centuries, in relation to economic public goods. It demonstrates that through the consortium mechanism, the university and not-for-profit sectors of our society can implement today rational, efficient, resource allocation approaches on their own for the Internet. We do not need to wait for, or rely on, government to do this for us. But we do need to exercise some internal leadership. What institution(s) will step up? From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 23:00:38 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:00:38 -0500 Subject: MIT Workshop on IE -- bottleneck facilities Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717220038.00bc37b8@texoma.net> An Assessment of Pricing Mechanisms for the Internet--A Regulatory Imperative Mitrabarun Sarkar Presented at MIT Workshop on Internet Economics March 1995 says, in part: "We note that (a) the perceived homogeneity of the Internet's load, and (b) the threat of market-power abuse through artificial creation of a high network load by those who control the bottleneck facilities, remain the fundamental weaknesses of usage-based pricing. However, given that usage- based pricing is inevitable, and that the Smart Market mechanism does present an innovative and a potential solution, it is important to consider the appropriate safeguards that need to be put in place. In this context, the paper argues that a usage based, free market pricing system needs to be combined with some form of regulatory oversight to protect against anti-competitive actions by the firms controlling the bottleneck facilities and to ensure non- discriminatory access to emerging networks." From editor at txlaw.com Thu Jul 17 23:16:57 1997 From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:16:57 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN References: Message-ID: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Robert T. Nelson wrote: > > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about > these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen > to their ideas. > > Robert Nelson, President > INTERNOC (tm) > the internetwork operating company, inc. > +1.210.299.4662 > rnelson at internoc.com Robert, I respect your thoughts on this. I am certain that you are speaking from your heart and experience. I fully accept that you understand an immense amount that I can not appreciate. Thus, I have to be and am concerned that I may be wrong in my criticism. Furthermore, I have nothing to gain from this heated and personal discussion. I fully understand that my company may suffer harm from my being so foolish. And, I do not enjoy the enmity I am earning from people whom I would like to have as friends. However, I am continuing this side of the discussion because I think these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If we organize correctly in the beginning, we will live in a more just and healthy environment. If we do not, we will pay the price with discriminatory rules and arbitrary enforcement. I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points, people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net. That, I do not accept. I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of some broadly representative group. I question whether that has occurred. I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance. I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN should be organized. You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or integrity. I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded to me on these points. Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know? Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process should go on behind closed doors? My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work. Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do you propose we raise and deal with those issues? Respectfully, Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel Internet Texoma, Inc. The ISP which DIDN'T From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jul 17 23:08:25 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:08:25 -0500 Subject: Breaking the Bottleneck and Sharing the Wealth Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717220825.00bc37b8@texoma.net> Robert K. Lock, Jr. Executive Assistant Illinois Commerce Commission Prepared for: "Universal Service in Context: A Multidisciplinary Perspective." New York Law School December 6, 1995 From randy at PSG.COM Thu Jul 17 23:14:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 20:14 PDT Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN References: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Message-ID: > these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order > to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If > we organize correctly in the beginning This may come as a bit of a surprise. The beginning was some decades ago. Hence, many folk see what you are seemingly trying to do is radically change the status quo and momentum therefrom with little understanding of it or sympathy for it. This may explain some of the opprobrium you receive. randy From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Jul 17 23:36:11 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:36:11 +0900 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:16:57 EST." <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Message-ID: <199707180336.MAA02757@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Eric, >I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it >should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of >some broadly representative group. Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific. >I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance. >I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN >should be organized. ARIN was discussed, at some length, quite publicly on this list and at various venues such as the IETF, NANOG, etc. >I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly >sensitive ear) of paternalism. Previously, you have admitted that you do not have the technical background to discuss specifics about how address allocations are done, yet you now describe the ARIN proposal as paternalistic. I might suggest that you might try to understand how and why the registries operate as they do before applying negative attributes to them. >But, no one has responded to me on these points. Perhaps because you have not spelled out what you mean? Regards, -drc From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 00:26:37 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:26:37 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: References: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717232637.0076bf2c@texoma.net> At 08:14 PM 7/17/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: >> these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order >> to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If >> we organize correctly in the beginning > >This may come as a bit of a surprise. The beginning was some decades ago. There's no doubt Mr. Weisberg was referring to the beginning of ARIN, which was hardly "some decades ago". Please don't be silly here, either. >From NANOG earlier today: >Posted-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:23:04 -0500 (CDT) >Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 17:02 PDT >From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) >To: Steve Goldstein >Cc: nanog at merit.edu >Subject: Re: NSI bulletin 097-004 | Root Server Problems >Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu > >> 2. Please don't grow up; you're more fun this way... > >Nah. I owe Perry an apology for getting silly in public. We both know that >is a non-trivial problem. From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 00:35:55 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:35:55 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <199707180336.MAA02757@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970717233555.00709254@texoma.net> At 12:36 PM 7/18/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >Eric, > >>I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it >>should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of >>some broadly representative group. > >Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what >exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific. Main Entry: dem?o?crat?ic Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik Function: adjective Date: 1602 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism 3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people 4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 18:59:21 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:59:21 +0100 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations References: <33CE674C.467A@ix.netcom.com> <33CEE090.1A64@regionalweb.texoma.net> Message-ID: <33CEA3C9.66B1@ix.netcom.com> Peter and all, Peter Veeck wrote: > > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > MR Nelson and all, > > > > Robert T. Nelson wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > > > > > I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this > > > > post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his > > > > modus operandi. > > > > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of > > > > address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the > > > > internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those > > > > involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate > > > > the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this > > > > point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe > > > > differently. That is your prerogative. > > > > > > In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the > > > nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other > > > people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet > > > Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our > > > consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what > > > their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic > > > process". > > > > > > What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been > > > wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin > > > possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address > > > space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit > > > such an assignment (though I do not know for sure) > > > > I don't believe that this is the perpose of NAIR, first of all. And I > > do > > find it highly questionable to anyone who has followed the dialog to > > be able to make any such claim. But I will let other members of NAIR > > answer your comment here. Members, you are being challanged! What > > SAY YOU? > > > > > Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs. Single -- > versus many. I happen to believe in the philosophy of many. I don't > feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in > any mission critical situation. This means that I prefer: > multiple smaller computers over one big computer. > multiple administrators rather than a single administrator. > multiple registries rather than a single registry. > multiple suppliers rather than a single source. > > My background includes flying, where I found that your life expectancy > was much greater in a multi-engine aircraft than in a single engine > aircraft. In a multi-engine airplane it is healthier to have two pilots > rather than one. I, in fact, disagree with the manufacturers, the > airlines, and the FAA in that I prefer three pilots rather than two. > That is another debate which I will not engage in here. Ahhhhh! Well we do share some similar background, I am also a pilot myself. Ex-Marine Fighter Pilot actually. And as a Marine/Navy flyer, we perfered the twin engine approach verses the Airforces single engine prefrence. This has proven over time to be a superior approach. > > I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization > providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce > the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the > failures that occur. The same is true of root-servers, exchange points, > backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk. This is known as redundancy in design. I agree. > > If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or > organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or > organization. If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON > IT. In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the > Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from > Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider > and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that > organization. Well put. And exactly what NAIR I believe is about in esance. > > I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the > selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to > operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be > multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension > of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing > registry. Yes exactly. > > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of > government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent? You can't. You can only hope. Few dictatorships in history have ever een benevolent. > > Peter Veeck > RegionalWeb.Texoma.net Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Fri Jul 18 01:25:43 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:25:43 +0900 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:35:55 EST." <3.0.3.32.19970717233555.00709254@texoma.net> Message-ID: <199707180525.OAA23475@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Larry, Not sure how being obnoxious helps you argue your case, but I'm sure it makes sense to you. However, if you look at my question, you'll see that the definition of democracy doesn't quite apply. I will ask yet again: _Within the context of IP address allocation_, what exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific. Thanks, -drc -------- >At 12:36 PM 7/18/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >>Eric, >> >>>I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it >>>should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of >>>some broadly representative group. =20 >> >>Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what >>exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific. > >Main Entry: dem=B7o=B7crat=B7ic >Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik >Function: adjective >Date: 1602 >1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy >2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political >parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the >anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in >modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism >3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the >people >4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish > > > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 17 19:17:17 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:17:17 +0100 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN References: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Message-ID: <33CEA7F0.193E@ix.netcom.com> Eric and all, I thought this post very well stated. I would add, that, as Thomas Jefferson once siad, "The tree of lierty is watered by the blood of its patriots". The battel here seems to be very much joined. Personal attacks and all. The battle is over what Eric said so well, REPRESENTIVE system. What seems to be the direction form ARIN, is not. This is starkly evident ins some of the comments and creditbility attacks being made against Eric, myself and others whom do not take on face value what is being said from within ARIN and what is not being answered when querried. This leads to suspicion. Once going down that path very far, it is a long and never ending road. Let us all attempt to find inclusion for all in this process instead of attacking any person(S) integraty here. Eric Weisberg wrote: > > Robert T. Nelson wrote: > > > > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about > > these points, and perhaps they might find people more williing to listen > > to their ideas. > > > > Robert Nelson, President > > INTERNOC (tm) > > the internetwork operating company, inc. > > +1.210.299.4662 > > rnelson at internoc.com > > Robert, > > I respect your thoughts on this. I am certain that you are speaking > from your heart and experience. I fully accept that you understand an > immense amount that I can not appreciate. Thus, I have to be and am > concerned that I may be wrong in my criticism. Furthermore, I have > nothing to gain from this heated and personal discussion. I fully > understand that my company may suffer harm from my being so foolish. > And, I do not enjoy the enmity I am earning from people whom I would > like to have as friends. > > However, I am continuing this side of the discussion because I think > these are fundamental issues which must be correctly resolved in order > to guarantee the good health and proper functioning of the system. If > we organize correctly in the beginning, we will live in a more just and > healthy environment. If we do not, we will pay the price with > discriminatory rules and arbitrary enforcement. > > I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I > think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge > the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points, > people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net. > That, I do not accept. > > I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it > should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of > some broadly representative group. I question whether that has > occurred. > > I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance. > I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN > should be organized. > > You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and > decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was > a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people > an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such > a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to > respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or > integrity. > > I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly > sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people > involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an > IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be > entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use > an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from > his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board > appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with > my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes > that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be > dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded > to me on these points. > > Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory > board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know? > Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process > should go on behind closed doors? > > My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work. > Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do > you propose we raise and deal with those issues? > > Respectfully, > > Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel > Internet Texoma, Inc. > The ISP which DIDN'T Thank you and Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From rnelson at internoc.com Fri Jul 18 00:38:59 1997 From: rnelson at internoc.com (Robert T. Nelson) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:38:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote: > Robert T. Nelson wrote: > > > > I hope that Vaden, Weisberg, Fleming, Walker, etc think carefully about ^^^^^^ Williams [sorry, Jeff] > Robert, > I suggest that there has been little response to the issues I raise. I > think Gordon, has been the exception and has genuinely tried to nudge > the process in the right direction. Instead of dealing with my points, > people questioned my motivation and accused me of attacking the Net. > That, I do not accept. I do not question your motivation. I presume that you do what you feel is best (difficult as that may be to discern, given issues like this one) for you and your business. I believe that you raise important points, however I also think that theyu are somewhat misdirected. I think you would be better off (on the IP Space issue) pushing for ARIN to be formed, and and working to see to it that all of us Netizens out here are protected from entities who try to hijack the process. > > I want to be subject to a REPRESENTATIVE system. And, I suggest that it > should be created in a democratic process--a vote of the governed or of > some broadly representative group. I question whether that has > occurred. You are currently not subject to a representative system at all. ARIN will bring more representation to the process, not less. I suggest to you, and to Peter, that you join ARIN as members, and make your voice heard, and subject to the consensus there. > > I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance. > I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN > should be organized. Unfortunately, this is a computer. Unless you have a better programming model, I think you need to stick with it for a while. ARIN seems to me to be a step in the right direction. I think that in no more than 10 years we will have to go at this again, to wean the Internet further off of its' "parents". > > You may have discussed ARIN's structure to death before I came along and > decided that a self-appointing board is what you want. Maybe there was > a public vote to do it this way. If so, I owe and give a lot of people > an appology and will understand their reluctance to accept it. If such > a process has not occurred, I suggest that it should. I ask you to > respond to this suggestion rather than attacking my motives or > integrity. I will certainly respond to this. I have not been actively involved in the debate over ARIN. There are parts of the proposal that I am not wild about. I am personally pleased that leaders in the Internet Community have come up with an idea to get NSI out of the IP Space business, even if it takes NSI to start it up. It is a step in the right direction. A public vote should not necessarily occur on the issue of numeric space. Assignment of numbers is somewhat inherently (to me, anyway) non-democratic. If you can show me specifically how you intend to assign numbers from multiple registries, without having a coordinating body, I am very interested. This may sound like the "benevolent dictator" system, and to a degree, it is. It will eventually have to be torn apart, and a new system born. I do not attack your integrity. I believe that you do what you feel is right and just. And i will defend your right to speak your mind, while I disagree with you in the same breath. > > I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly > sensitive ear) of paternalism. I read it as saying that the people > involved in the Internet are not competent to democratically manage an > IP registry in a responsible way and that this function must be > entrusted to a board which is out of the reach of the "peasants" (to use > an indellicate term which I suspect Gordon would love to withdraw from > his prior post). Thus, some may believe and argue that having a board > appointed by NSI (or whomever) was necessary. If anyone disagrees with > my reading of the proposal, they should say so. Or if anyone believes > that a more democratic or representative form of governance would be > dangerous, you should discuss your thoughts. But, no one has responded > to me on these points. You can hardly form an entity without having a group of "founders". As far as peasants go (yes, poor choice of words) do you let your users control your network? If you did, wouldn't it be more of a knotwork? It really isn't much different. Remove yourself from your personal stake in the issue, and look at it objectively. I would hesitate to give numeric assignments the stature of governance. I think that that word has sufficient connotations that if we use it in this sense, we will set ourselves up for Real Governance (tm) by an Internet Government (tm). I do not support that Internet. I think that we don't know how to govern, much less govern cyberspace. > > Sometime in the next year, the BoT is going to appoint an advisory > board. How representative will it be? Does anyone reallly know? > Shouldn't we discuss that process, now? Or, do you feel this process > should go on behind closed doors? By my reading of the proposal, it will be as representative as the membership insist that it be. If the BoT selects Advisory Council members from the membership, then you should be out there selling ARIN as much as the next guy to make sure 1) you have wide representation via members and Advisory Council seats and 2) the power to oust. The membership will consist, by my guess, of the serious stakeholders in IP Space, and those who feel qualified to add to the process. If this is not the representation you want at ARIN, you should be pushing your kind of people to participate. The process, for the initial term, seems fairly straighforward, and certainly not behind closed doors. I think you should make it you goal to make *damn sure* that come next year, as ARIN reviews these processes, that you make your voice heard via your membership and the Advisory Council. > > My comments are directed toward making AN arin (if not THIS arin) work. > Am I off base in my stated concerns or premises? If not, how else do > you propose we raise and deal with those issues? It is my goal to make these Public trusts, remain in the public trust, in a way that the public can trust. Unfortunately, spin gets out of control very quickly on the net, and it is very difficult for the organizers to respond to everyone's complaints personally. They are then accused of being secretive. Mostly they're trying to get something done. For you. And me. And them (don't forget them) ;-> Hopefully I have made myself more clear. Yours, Rob Nelson From rnelson at internoc.com Fri Jul 18 00:42:21 1997 From: rnelson at internoc.com (Robert T. Nelson) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:42:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations In-Reply-To: <33CEE090.1A64@regionalweb.texoma.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Peter Veeck wrote: [snipped beginning of discussion to save space] > > Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs. Single -- > versus many. I happen to believe in the philosophy of many. I don't > feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in > any mission critical situation. This means that I prefer: > multiple smaller computers over one big computer. > multiple administrators rather than a single administrator. > multiple registries rather than a single registry. > multiple suppliers rather than a single source. As a general rule I agree with you. Redundancy is important in operational systems. > I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization > providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce > the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the > failures that occur. The same is true of root-servers, exchange points, > backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk. > > If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or > organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or > organization. If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON > IT. In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the > Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from > Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider > and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that > organization. > > I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the > selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to > operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be > multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension > of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing > registry. > Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you. I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do with their space as they please. Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the role of downstream registry. In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a completely open field operating the root zone. In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks. I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment to development of DNS. POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't, however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail the process. If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry. If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry. > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of > government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent? Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years. That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed up. We better get planning. Yours, Rob Nelson rnelson at internoc.com From dcrocker at BRANDENBURG.COM Fri Jul 18 00:39:43 1997 From: dcrocker at BRANDENBURG.COM (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:39:43 -0700 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: References: <33CE5FFF.4792@txlaw.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970717213943.00be0454@ng.netgate.net> At 05:13 PM 7/17/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough >consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group. No, it is not the IETF, but the IETF style of decision making has proved to be remarkably successful. For Internet-related processes (and no doubt other community-oriented activities not involving the Internet) it is entirely appropriate to incorporate as much of that style as is feasible. The IETF rought consensus model has two major benefits (when it works) which is that it acquires massive review and, therefore, improvement, and it tends to build very strong community support. There is of course no guarantee that an effort to emulate that style will be successful, but NSI's approach to dealing with the Internet community is rather extreme in the other direction and it would be very difficult to call it a successful approach, either in terms of quality of the decisions or in terms of community support. No? d/ -------------------- Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info at imc.org , http://www.imc.org From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 02:23:52 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:23:52 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: References: <33CEE029.1819@txlaw.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718012352.00a10450@texoma.net> At 11:38 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote: > >I do not question your motivation. I presume that you do what you feel is >best (difficult as that may be to discern, given issues like this one) for >you and your business. I believe that you raise important points, however >I also think that theyu are somewhat misdirected. I think you would be >better off (on the IP Space issue) pushing for ARIN to be formed, and and >working to see to it that all of us Netizens out here are protected from >entities who try to hijack the process. Agreed, save ARIN (as currently proposed) "tapers" into representation of the membership over a period of significant time. That's the key issue here. Why not a more immediate "taper" using less time. Why not sunset the original "organizers" quickly and let them stand for a vote of the membership? What is the transition period for, if we accept that the process will eventually be run by the members? >I will certainly respond to this. I have not been actively involved in the >debate over ARIN. There are parts of the proposal that I am not wild >about. I am personally pleased that leaders in the Internet Community have >come up with an idea to get NSI out of the IP Space business, even if it >takes NSI to start it up. It is a step in the right direction. After more than 200 years of democracy in the US, I would think most people in the US are comfortable enough with the democratic process to take more than "a step in the right direction". You hear the ARIN "taper into democracy" thing on TV every once in a while - some country's dictator proposing democratic elections some time in the future. >A public vote should not necessarily occur on the issue of numeric space. >Assignment of numbers is somewhat inherently (to me, anyway) >non-democratic. If you can show me specifically how you intend >to assign numbers from multiple registries, without having a coordinating >body, I am very interested. This may sound like the "benevolent dictator" >system, and to a degree, it is. It will eventually have to be torn apart, >and a new system born. There are multiple registries now - APNIC, NSI/InterNIC, RIPE. The coordinating body is the IANA. APNIC and RIPE have a policy of allocating /19s to small ISPs. InterNIC does not. Why? Is IANA|Internic of the opinion APNIC or RIPE are wrong in their policy to allocate /19s to small ISPs? From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 02:27:38 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:27:38 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations In-Reply-To: References: <33CEE090.1A64@regionalweb.texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718012738.00a10450@texoma.net> At 11:42 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote: > >It >confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in >the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions >(downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do >with their space as they please. There are 3 registries operating now, APNIC, NSI/InterNIC and RIPE. They all allocate space from the same 32 bit range of IP numbers. The coordination is done by IANA. From vaden at texoma.net Fri Jul 18 02:46:54 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:46:54 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN In-Reply-To: <199707180525.OAA23475@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970718014654.00709254@texoma.net> At 02:25 PM 7/18/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >Larry, > >Not sure how being obnoxious helps you argue your case, but I'm sure >it makes sense to you. > >However, if you look at my question, you'll see that the definition of >democracy doesn't quite apply. > >I will ask yet again: > >_Within the context of IP address allocation_, what exactly do you >mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific. > >Thanks, >-drc David, thanks for the opportunity to try again. Of the two processes outlined at and , which appears to be more "democratic" to you? My answer is the one that reads as follows: Procedure: 1.This message is the call for nominations, which should be sent to isoc-pocnom at isoc.org by the closing date of 17 September 1997. 2.Each nomination must give the name, affiliation, email address and phone number of the nominee, plus a brief statement (maximum 10 lines) about the nominee's Internet and global credentials. 3.Self-nominations are allowed. 4.ISOC will verify each nominee's willingness to serve for one or three years. 5.The list of willing nominees will be published by ISOC shortly after the closing date. Confidential comments from the community will be solicited. The Board of Trustees of the Internet Society will then make its two appointments and announce them within one month. 6.Apart from the above, the Internet Society will be guided in its deliberations by the procedures defined in RFC 2027. 7.Nominees must accept that a recall procedure, analagous to that defined in RFC 2027, may be invoked at any time during their terms. From editor at txlaw.com Fri Jul 18 03:47:57 1997 From: editor at txlaw.com (Eric Weisberg) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 02:47:57 -0500 Subject: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN References: <199707180336.MAA02757@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <33CF1FAD.264@txlaw.com> David, I really thought I answered your question on "democracy" in a previous exchange and need some help zeroing in on what more is sought. I will try to respond to all your questions and points below. If I get off point, let me know. David R. Conrad wrote: > > Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what > exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"? Please be specific. I did not say that any single model is the only right way to organize an ARIN. I simply suggested that the mechanism should be representative (as where there are representatives from trade organizations for the various segments of the Internet community, including consumers) or democratic (elected, as in other forms of corporate governance), and that we arrive at a broad concensus through open discussion in a forum such as this. We are all in organizations which conduct elections. I assume that an IP registry could do so, as well. Indeed, that is what Gordon reports will be required for the ARIN advisory board sometime after the first year of ARIN's existence. So, the feasibility of an election is not in dispute, simply when that process will begin. It is 2:40 a.m. here, and I have not had supper. So, I will defer further discusssion until you or someone else asks me to deal with it somemore. I do not want to duck the issue and won't if it is of interest to more than just me. > >I am not criticizing Jon Postel. I am criticizing top-down governance. > >I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN > >should be organized. > > ARIN was discussed, at some length, quite publicly on this list and at > various venues such as the IETF, NANOG, etc. You will have to help me with this. Was the abstract concept of ARIN discussed or was the specific structure which was adopted discussed? In other words, was the method of choosing the BoT and the Advisory Council discussed before a decision was made? > > >I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly > >sensitive ear) of paternalism. > > Previously, you have admitted that you do not have the technical > background to discuss specifics about how address allocations are > done, yet you now describe the ARIN proposal as paternalistic. I > might suggest that you might try to understand how and why the > registries operate as they do before applying negative attributes to > them. David, I want to back off on this. I admitted that my ears are overly sensitive. Perhaps I was hearing something which was not intended. You certainly are in a better position to judge this than I. And, I hear you saying that it is not true. I appologize to all involved. > >But, no one has responded to me on these points. > > Perhaps because you have not spelled out what you mean? I never intended to get this deeply involved, no less to suggest that I have the wisdom to dictate the structure. I merely wanted to make sure that there was a proccess designed to result in a representative system rather than one of stangnant control. As Robert Nelson pointed out, I backed into this discussion through the PI issue, so I have been seeing red flags for a while. I percieved, and still percieve a system which is demonstrably and unneccesarily unfair. I think I have seen disparate treatment for different players. I am told by everyone involved that NSI will not fix the system but will leave it to ARIN and that ARIN will not be able to even address that issue for months. As a result, I have put considerable thought into various legal remedies and see ARIN as part of the problem rather than as a solution. So, I admit that I come to my conclusions with a history. Unfortunately, there has been very little attempt to assuage my fears, merely references to my "clueless" state, which has had the opposite effect. However, we may all be in agreement on these issues and simply not know it. Thus, I would appreciate the ARIN board members discussing THEIR vision of where we are going as far as govenrance is concerned. Indeed, I think this is what Gordon was suggesting. Perhaps we can start discussing how to make things work instead of accusing the each other of unintended agendas or insults. BTW, the other thing which has me concerned with ARIN is the method of appointing the INITIAL Advisory Council. I hope, suggest and request that the BoT will find a mechanism for assuring balance and diversity in the AC. Again, this could be done by asking the various trade groups for representatives or by discussing candidates openly in this forum and arriving on some rough concensus. I would suggest some form of electronic voting with a proportionate representation methodology (such as giving each person 15 votes to use however they see fit, either spread among 15 candidates or all used on one or two, with the top 15 vote getters being selected). > Regards, > -drc David, thanks for the constructive questions and criticism. I honestly appreciate your patience and your willingness to participate as you do. Eric From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Jul 18 06:51:39 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:51:39 +0200 Subject: Democracy and InterNIC/APNIC/RIPE-NCC In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:23:52 CDT." <3.0.3.32.19970718012352.00a10450@texoma.net> Message-ID: <9707181051.AA28716@ncc.ripe.net> Hi Larry, Larry Vaden writes: * At 11:38 PM 7/17/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote: * * After more than 200 years of democracy in the US, I would think most people * in the US are comfortable enough with the democratic process to take more * than "a step in the right directi