Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
Robert and all,
Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Peter Veeck wrote:
> [snipped beginning of discussion to save space]
> > Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs. Single --
> > versus many. I happen to believe in the philosophy of many. I don't
> > feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in
> > any mission critical situation. This means that I prefer:
> > multiple smaller computers over one big computer.
> > multiple administrators rather than a single administrator.
> > multiple registries rather than a single registry.
> > multiple suppliers rather than a single source.
> As a general rule I agree with you. Redundancy is important in operational
> > I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization
> > providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce
> > the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the
> > failures that occur. The same is true of root-servers, exchange points,
> > backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk.
> > If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or
> > organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or
> > organization. If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON
> > IT. In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the
> > Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from
> > Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider
> > and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that
> > organization.
> > I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the
> > selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to
> > operation. Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be
> > multiple registries. I see a hand picked registry as only an extension
> > of the existing registry. NAIR is an opportunity for a competing
> > registry.
> Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
> well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.
I hope you are correct here Robert.
> I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
> addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
> confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
> the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
> (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
> with their space as they please.
Here is where I find a VERY BIG problem. There should be set
by which IP allocations can be assinged. RFC2050 and RFC1917, do not
have this spelled out very well. As such and form what I can
form posts by ARIN board members, these RFC's SEEM to be the guidline,
hence there is a problem.
> Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
> original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
> original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
> limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
> functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
> role of downstream registry.
NAIR could also fulfil the same role that ARIN does. ANd I hope we
> In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
> down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
> would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
> completely open field operating the root zone.
I disagree greatly here. I believe that with some good procedures
and requirnments any number of orgs could become registries and play
a part in operating a segment of the root zone.
> In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
> so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
> relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.
Very true. Those that put together the gTLD-MoU seem to be prime
> I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
> group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
> to development of DNS. POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
> ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
> can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
> however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
> the process.
I agree that derailing the process or at present, lack there of, is
wise. ANd as in all things there is always room for improvment.
> If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
> If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.
Yes, do form a registry and join NAIR, do not sign the gTLD-MoU. That
contract is flawed at best.
> > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> > government. How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
> Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
> That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
> up. We better get planning.
Agreed! And the battle is joined NOW, I believe.
> Rob Nelson
> rnelson at internoc.com
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