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@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 : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970703/8dc7076d/attachment.bin 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@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 : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970703/74660c13/attachment.bin 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> <3.0.2.32.19970703