From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Sat Feb 1 01:23:14 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:23:14 +0000 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <19970201062304.AAB14728@LOCALNAME> Jawaid -- You said: >"the majority" is now a justification for any evil act. I don't buy it, and >neither should you. And this has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. and: >if a person decides that a product is no longer of enough >value to justify the amount of money asked for that product, they take >their money elsewhere. >You violate anti-trust if >you charge too little, you violate it if you charge the same as everyone >else, and you violate it if you charge far more than everyone else. You're >held as a criminal if you do so good a job that nobody wants to buy from >anyone else, being the best is held as a great evil. And: >Protected - for what purpose? From whom? For whose use? Against whose >rights? 1/3 of Colorado is "national forest" (so-called "national >resource"). Instead of being used to make people's lives better, there it >sits, as a monument to the election campaign of some politician. > >I don't want the Internet to become a political tool for some grubby >bureaucrat. But running to the government crying "anti-trust, anti-trust!" >will do just that. > And: >I don't believe in "opinions". You either state what you know to be right, >or don't say anything if you don't know. "Opinion" used to mean "this is >what I know is true"; now it's used to mean "The following words have no >meaning, please don't hold me to it, it's only an opinion". > And: >Do what needs to be done - and if it conflicts with the closed fantasy >world that bureaucrats have constructed for themselves - be happy to tear >down their shabby little walls for them. > >Going to them and asking their "permission" only legitimizes them. Should a >slave ask his master's permission before trying to escape? That says "You >have a right to be doing what you're doing." And I was actually caught up in a long carefully thought-out reply when it dawned on me...why? You apparently believe everything you believe is true so there is no point in arguing any point, and this is no longer germain to the purpose of this list. After reading your reply, I am extremely pleased to agree to disagree with you and move on. --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 02:28:40 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:28:40 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... Message-ID: At 4:47 PM 1/31/97, Randy Bush wrote: >karl at cavebear.com: >> If ARIN does not promise coordination with routing, then I would submit >> that ARIN can not complain should some collection of ISPs decide to start >> selling net numbers, uncordinated with ARIN, for which they will advertise >> and exchange routing information. >> >snip> >If ARIN promised routability, people like you would be threatening all hell >right now because we all know that it can not be delivered. Routability on >the internet is based solely on ISP cooperation. Let's turn down the heat level just a bit and look at something. One of the rationales that has been put forward by proponents is that ARIN would allocate net addresses based on procedures that the backbone people have agreed to. This is the reason for the "bloat" in the budget: you need people who understand network architecture to select the "right" block of numbers to give to a particular applicant to minimize any bad effect on global routers. What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter timeframe. Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 02:28:37 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:28:37 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 7:07 PM 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >If an ISP needs to get more address to satisify a customer request and >if its higher ISP (if any) is unwilling or unable to satisfy that >request, then that ISP has exactly one place to go: ARIN. > >And if a business wants its own block, then there is one place to go: >ARIN. > >So I count one place: ARIN. > >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. > >Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the >three registries allocate anywhere in the world. If there weren't significant technical problems with your suggestion, I might actually go for it -- having multiple registries so fits the "flavor" of the Internet. Unfortunately, I still have many of the articles on routing from my 1972 ARPAnet days, and from what I've been able to glean from more recent publications there is damn little science and all too much art to designing routing schemes that work. When you consider that SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review has article after article after article about the current "hot flash" in routing that doesn't pan out, I think that your cry of "conspiricy" is very hollow indeed. Aggregation is a fact of life. Just as many people work very hard to keep Malthus from having the last laugh, there are a large number of very brainy people that are trying to stave off Metcalf's Prediction -- that the Internet will collapse by its sheer weight in the next year or so. Until we have routers which can handle 16,777,214 endpoint addresses in parallel without introducing unacceptable processing delays -- or unacceptable equipment prices -- we are stuck with trying to use what we've got. IPng isn't going to help this. If anything, a 128-bit address space is going to make it *worse*, not better. Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want to talk about how to reduce the cost of running such a registry, and therefore reduce the fees required to make such a registry work, that's great. But to talk about a free-for-all is just inviting a chaotic collapse of the 'Net. Is that what you want>? --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sat Feb 1 05:18:39 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 02:18:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least > topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want > to talk about how to reduce the cost of running such a registry, and > therefore reduce the fees required to make such a registry work, that's > great. But to talk about a free-for-all is just inviting a chaotic > collapse of the 'Net. > > Is that what you want>? I think I figured out why there is so much steam being generated. My notion of "routability" doesn't mean that at the instant ARIN says "here's a number" that one can go out, apply power, and magically expect packets from the outside to find their way to the new block. That's not possible until the block has topological context. I suspect that folks were thinking that I was proposing some magical, impossible thing or that the ARIN folks were going to have to configure the assignee's bgp or something like that. My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements because your block is too small.") In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an address by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated block might need to carry with it an obligation on the part of that ISP to honor all other ARIN derived allocations. By-the-way, I wasn't proposing a "free for all", only suggesting that the possibility exists for the net to devolve into clouds of competing network numbers. And I did say that I considered that to be a dangerous future. --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Sat Feb 1 07:31:55 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:31:55 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karl, This is a very useful clarification. It brings up several ideas/questions, not necessarily ones that CAN be answered within the scope of this list, but nonetheless valid areas to consider. At 2:18 AM -0800 2/1/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I think I figured out why there is so much steam being generated. > >My notion of "routability" doesn't mean that at the instant ARIN says >"here's a number" that one can go out, apply power, and magically expect >packets from the outside to find their way to the new block. That's not >possible until the block has topological context. I suspect that folks >were thinking that I was proposing some magical, impossible thing or that >the ARIN folks were going to have to configure the assignee's bgp or >something like that. It was coming across that way. > >My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that >once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's >exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there >would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By >artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements >because your block is too small.") Let me make a distinction intially between ISPs and users, and, for discussion only, make the assumption that an "ISP" provides transit service. It does appeal to me, as a first thought, that if an ISP meets the RFC2050 or successor qualifications for allocation, that there is a presupposition of routability. Things that complicate this, however, fall into the transit vs. peering problem. Let's say a new ISP in a major metropolitan area applies to ARIN for a good-sized block -- let's say a /17 -- that it has real business to justify. I think we would all agree this is a large enough block of customers such that it serves the global Internet well to have them globally reachable, and vice versa. But remember that I said this is a metropolitan area provider. If they connect only to their metropolitan exchange, do national providers have an obligation to announce the /17 globally? If so, how does one deal with the potential economic impact that this provider is getting national/international transit services for which it does not pay? > >In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an address >by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated block might need >to carry with it an obligation on the part of that ISP to honor all other >ARIN derived allocations. Subject to the economics of transit, my first reaction is that this is a not completely unreasonable assumption. But the economics of transit may make it infeasible. Now, let's turn to a different case. An end user organization -- let's make it a medical lab providing life-and-death information -- has less than 200 hosts, so it can only justify a /24. Due to its mission, it is extremely concerned with being reachable, and wants to multihome to three or more providers. Let's assume this company has fully clueful routing people. In other words, I have set up what I would consider the ideal justification for a small organization to get provider independent space that needs global advertising. Yet, if I give this organization a PI /24, I set a precedent for assigning such blocks. There is much more demand for /24, and quickly all the routing table growth (including flapping) issues arise again. Many small organizations don't have the knowledge that does the ideal firm, and want PI space or multihoming simply because they heard it was a good idea. Should ARIN grant PI space selectively, perhaps subject to criteria such as: 1) There are specific business needs for multihoming 2) The organization commits to implement multihoming within xxx days of being assigned PI space 3) The organization has staff, or contracted consultants, who have demonstrated BGP expertise 4) The organization commits to renumbering-friendly network design, so if in the future the PI requirement disappears, there is no renumbering pain disincentive to releasing PI space Again, I don't have answers, and suspect that many of these questions are outside scope -- they are more appropriate for PAGAN or other lists dealing with fundamental allocation policy. Your clarification helped. Thanks. > >By-the-way, I wasn't proposing a "free for all", only suggesting that the >possibility exists for the net to devolve into clouds of competing network >numbers. And I did say that I considered that to be a dangerous future. > I think this would be dampened very quickly by any providers wanting to survive. Howard From awolter at seidata.com Sat Feb 1 11:31:32 1997 From: awolter at seidata.com (Adam Wolter) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 11:31:32 -0500 Subject: leave Message-ID: <32F36FE3.5D4F@seidata.com> From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 1 11:39:34 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:39:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Let's turn down the heat level just a bit and look at something. One of > the rationales that has been put forward by proponents is that ARIN would > allocate net addresses based on procedures that the backbone people have > agreed to. This is the reason for the "bloat" in the budget: you need > people who understand network architecture to select the "right" block of > numbers to give to a particular applicant to minimize any bad effect on > global routers. Nice theory but it won't work. First of all, there are no procedures that the core network operators have agreed to. They are independent businesses and although they must cooperate in the routing of packets, they have differing network architectures, different kinds of equipment and different policies and procedures. They don't necessarily all agree how IP allocation should be done. The policies that ARIN applies are set within the IETF and more people than just the operators of the defaultless core are involved in setting those standard policies. Nevertheless there is a complex interplay between the registries, the standards working groups, the core operators and other stakeholders. This is why the Board of Trustees needs to be composed of people who understand how things work. Partly to ensure that they can do a proper job within ARIN and partly to ensure that they can communicate and work together with their peers in other registries, with IANA, with the IETF and with the operators in the defaultless core, whether those are transit providers like Sprint or whether they are regional providers like MCS. > What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better > chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any > analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a > much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter > timeframe. No. If you get an IP address block from your upstream provider you are guaranteed 100% to get a routable address block. If you get one from ARIN, it may or may not be routable. This is not likely to change because not all organizations who as for unique IP address blocks intend to use them on the global Internet. And when the core network operators change their policies, they don't wait for anybody's permission; they just do it. So the registries will always lag behind the operators. If there is any single thing that can be done to guarantee the routability of IP address blocks it is to get them from your upstream provider. And if you require a Provider Independent (PI) address block then the single most useful thing you can do to guarantee this is to read and understand the policies and procedures laid out on the ARIN website at http://www.arin.net in the Reading List. Routable PI blocks go to those organizations that can make a credible case to justify their need for them. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From scharf at VIX.COM Sat Feb 1 12:04:23 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 09:04:23 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 1997 02:18:39 PST." Message-ID: <199702011704.JAA23168@bb.home.vix.com> karl at CAVEBEAR.COM said: > My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- > that once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. > that it's exchange points with the rest of the world were determined > -- then there would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that > new block. (By artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept > your advertisements because your block is too small.") > In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an > address by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated > block might need to carry with it an obligation on the part of that > ISP to honor all other ARIN derived allocations. Taking your lead with removing the steam (thanks). The response to this is that all ARIN can do is a best effort tracking of the ISP's current policies in future allocations. These may need to be offset against other goals in 2050. There is no way ARIN can make any guarantees about future routability, since that is clearly beyond their control. The idea that ISPs must honor as routable forever any blocks ARIN allocates would be a serious issue and be grounds for many people to withdraw support from the proposal. The ISPs view this as their business/technical domain. They believe that if the time comes and they think it is a better answer to filter the TWD (192/8), that it is their business decision to make. No personal opinion expressed, just the statement that many ISPs won't accept these terms. (envision threats of lawyers...) Also, is there any reason to continue to bother the DoJ people with this discussion? If not, people should stop copying them on these mail messages. (Imagine the poor person getting all this technical banter ...) A comment about duplicate IP addresses: It is specious to talk about people who ignore the registry when talking about unique allocation from registries (again this issue of no control.) The question about duplicate IP addresses can only be discussed on "Has there ever been a case where two registry allocations for the same IP address were issued?" We all know people can ignore the registry and pick addresses, we each have our own fantasy on how this would turn out, almost always ugly. Jerry From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Feb 1 13:08:20 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:08:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 31, 97 11:28:37 pm Message-ID: <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> A few comments: > Aggregation is a fact of life. Of course aggregation for large networks is necessary. Klinerock and Kamoun showed this in 1977... not much new information is this opinion, considering this has been well documented in packet switched networks for over 20 years. This is not about aggregation, my friend. Phone calls are aggregated, but no one charges for area codes and prefixes; and it is illegal under current US Laws to create a process where users cannot switch providers without technical difficulties. > > Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least > topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want Yes, geographic addressing can be made into a much more pro-competitive paradigm than provider based address aggregation. However, the IAB and the IETF have been vituperously behind provider based addressing (understandable considering most members are either vendors or providers). In my opinion, global internetworking cannot be managed in a pro-competitive process by the NSF transition style of encouraging private industry to take over every single aspect of the registration process. We in the US are taxpayers and have some rights, do we not? Running a registry for something as important as allocating IP address space should be, in my opinion, paid for by US taxpayer funds, Congress. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and I do not believe for one minute the FTC nor Justice will support a process in the Internet paradigm that favors large businesses over smaller ones or one that puts smaller providers at a disadvantage vs. larger ones. There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing IP has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. The InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC if requested. Best Regards, Tim Bass IEEE Member --- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 15:37:26 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:26 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 1:08 PM 2/01/97, Tim Bass wrote: >I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a >pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, >please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, >however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC >if requested. Why not publish a peer-reviewed article in _Computer Communition Review_ (ACM SIGCOMM) so that your pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be discussed in academic circles? In this manner, either or both DoJ and FTC can find expert witnesses who have read your article and can validate or deprecate your proposal based on the submission. It can also start research independent of the Internet Society on your plan, and might form the basis of "the new Internet" if it is accepted. I can understand your attitude about IETF, although you will need to remember that IETF is recognized as a "standards provider" as far as the US Government is concerned (via ANSI). --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From hcb at CLARK.NET Sat Feb 1 15:49:10 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:49:10 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> References: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 31, 97 11:28:37 pm Message-ID: Congratulations, Tim! I will try to deal with some sense here, but you are rapidly working up to membership in an elite...the few, the very few, and proud, who have earned themselves one of my mail filters. Your very last comment is what triggered this reaction, after I have tried to look rationally at everything you have said. I hope you reconsider that last comment. At 1:08 PM -0500 2/1/97, Tim Bass wrote: >A few comments: > >> Aggregation is a fact of life. > >Of course aggregation for large networks is necessary. Klinerock and Kamoun >showed this in 1977... not much new information is this opinion, considering >this has been well documented in packet switched networks for over >20 years. This is not about aggregation, my friend. Phone calls >are aggregated, but no one charges for area codes and prefixes; >and it is illegal under current US Laws to create a process where >users cannot switch providers without technical difficulties. Equal Access, etc., do not require that users face no difficulties in switching providers in a given geographical area. The telephone network is generally geographically aggregated. Rightly or wrongly, the Internet is not geographically aggregated. Yes, it may affect a user if they change providers. However, remember that it is a computer, or a set of computers, that connect to ISPs, not a set of "dumb" telephones. Let's take another analogy from the telephone model. For many years, the demarcation point, if it existed at all, was a screw terminal block. As a result of Carterphone and other court-tested decisions, the FCC issued rules that future network interfaces use the Registered Jack (RJ) series of physical interfaces. So we saw RJ11, RJ12, etc., connectors placed into all new installations. Now, Joe User, who has an existing service, wants to connect customer provided equipment. Fine. He is free to do so. But were the telcos required to install an RJ connector at no cost? I think not. I can set up an enterprise today that is "renumbering friendly," and can change providers fairly easily using DNS/DHCP, scripted router config files, etc. Many enterprises firewall their internal address space in any case, and renumbering only affects a small number of externally visible addresses. Are you saying it is an obligation of providers to continue to support users who insist on using aging practices (e.g., static dialup IP address assignments), when alternatives exist? How far back does one reach? I have a 300 BPS modem somewhere, should I demand that content providers compress their web pages such that 300 BPS is enough? > >> >> Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least >> topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want > >Yes, geographic addressing can be made into a much more pro-competitive >paradigm than provider based address aggregation. However, the IAB >and the IETF have been vituperously behind provider based addressing >(understandable considering most members are either vendors or > providers). Just how is the IETF excluding non vendor- or provider input? The IETF process, with its extensive use of mailing lists, is FAR more accessible than CCITT/ITU, ANSI, or the other organizations that have produced the telephone environment you cite as a model. > >In my opinion, global internetworking cannot be managed in a pro-competitive >process by the NSF transition style of encouraging private industry >to take over every single aspect of the registration process. We >in the US are taxpayers and have some rights, do we not? Could you explain that last? What are the rights of Michael Dillon, to pick an active non-US participant? My employer, whom I am not representing here, is a Canadian firm. Does it have no rights then because a significant amount of its income is not earned in the US and is not taxable there? Look at your two previous sentences. The first speaks of global internetworking, while the second speaks of US taxpayer rights. What do the two have in common? >Running a registry for something as important as allocating >IP address space should be, in my opinion, paid for by US taxpayer funds, >Congress. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and >I do not believe for one minute the FTC nor Justice will support >a process in the Internet paradigm that favors large businesses >over smaller ones or one that puts smaller providers at a disadvantage >vs. larger ones. Right. Looked at the health care industry recently? The FTC and Justice seem to be quire tolerant of an environment that is forcing small businesses -- i.e., privately practicing physicians, small hospitals, etc. -- out of business, or into managed care organizations as employees. Of course, that industry just deals with human lives, and is not something as critical as IP connectivity that the government MUST control. > > >There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing >IP has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. >The InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this >anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. > >I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a >pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, >please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, >however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC >if requested. You can prove, I am sure, that a pro-competitive IP routing paradigm _can_ be created. I can prove I can create a paradigm by which I play starting offensive left tackle in the NFL. Creating a paradigm, however, is meaningless unless it is tested. I suggest you look again at health care, and see how the courts increasingly are throwing out "junk science" expert witnesses. Courts are requiring that expert testimony, to be fully credible, must be consistent with consensus in the learned profession involved, that peer review is relevant, etc. So if you don't want to publish the paradigm for peer review, fine. Have fun. Share it as much as you want with DOJ and the FTC. Why, while you are at it, share it with the Trilateral Commission, Rush Limbaugh, the Illuminati, Howard Stern, the National Inquirer, and David Letterman. But until you are willing to discuss things in an open matter, I suspect a fair number of people who actually feel good about making global internetworking happen, in a real world, would appreciate it if you would take your paradigms and peddle them elsewhere. We have work to do. If the IETF, IAB, and the rest of the Zionist Occupation Government are so evil, they won't listen to you, why waste your valuable time with them? Excuse me now. I must get into my black helicopter and go off to a golf date with Jimmy Hoffa. Howard Berkowitz, who feels better now. > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Sat Feb 1 16:56:00 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:56:00 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702012146.QAA29211@lists.internic.net> > > Me too. And I'm keeping the DoJ audience in mind as I write my replies > > because they can't be expected to be familiar with the background of this > > whole issue. Quite frankly, if the AOP hadn't flown off the handle and > > started issuing misleading press releases and press interviews, this whole > > thing would not be an issue. It was the AOP that got everyone believing > > that there was to be some sort of new outrageously high fee for all IP > > addresses when this is simply not true at all. And even the proposals on > > the ARIN website are only proposals. They could be changed beyond > > recognition by the time that the prospective members of ARIN actually > > start signing up. > > No doubt that there has been a lot of hyperbole. I'm in agreement > with you that ARIN will almost certainly be a valuable, well run, > organization that serves us all. Some of the original concerns about > costs were probably caused by unfortunate and inadvertant failure to > put into the initial drafts a few words that would have allayed the > fears of those who have seen NSI in action in the domain name area. > > One of the most compelling of the demonstrations about fee projections > was when someone posted an analysis saying "had we been charging, > here's what the revenue would have been last year". It was a very > reasonable amount and it certainly put my fears to rest. > > (By-the-way, there were serious questions that arose well before AOP > started its efforts.) TKS for pointing out that there were concerns before AOP started its efforts. What AOP did was read the initial proposal which was available and state its opinions to our membership. We also stated recommended actions as per what was read. I will not apologize if that made a few folks irritated...But I will state that it is a good thing that some of these questions were raised karl.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 20:54:36 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:54:36 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201205432.006a1d00@lint.cisco.com> At 02:21 PM 1/31/97 -0500, David Schwartz wrote: > > So you can be reasonable assured that a block allocated by ARIN, >Internic, APNIC, or RIPE that is routable today will remain routable for >awhile. > This a completely misleading statement. There is simply no way to be assured that a prefix which is routed today will be routable tomorrow. Caveat emptor. This has no bearing in how ARIN allocates addresses, since it can not determine what may, or may not, be routable. - paul From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:14:23 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:14:23 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201221421.006a4db0@lint.cisco.com> This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. - paul At 11:28 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better >chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any >analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a >much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter >timeframe. > >Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the >proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. > From aop at cris.com Sat Feb 1 22:12:00 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:12:00 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Scott, please allow me to respond to your e-mail to Steve May. While Steve serves (and very well) on the AOP Board of Directors, I am responsible for communication to our members, and I authored the alert to our members. We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. And this is okay with you? While I deeply respect the knowledge represented on this listserv, I'd point out that no one here appears to have experience in management, or in the formation or operation of a real non-profit. As someone who does have such experience, I have to say that the current proposal will certainly face class-action lawsuits from those who actually have to foot the bill for this organization. Not to mention the anti-trust implications. This is a deeply flawed proposal that **must** have significant public discussion. And it must have the consensus of the industry, not one relatively hidden listserv run by Network Solutions. It's interesting to note that you, like many other critics of our alert, did not respond to the issues we raised but rather attacked the messenger. Please take a moment to actually read what we wrote, which responded directly to the posted ARIN proposal. If that's a disservice to our members, I truly hope we continue disserving them for many, many years to come. As for it being a "scare tactic", perhaps the fact that this proposal doesn't scare you is because you won't have to foot the bill for it. On another note, please see the section on membership in ARIN. In the future, under this proposal you seem to feel is so peachy-keen, unless you have forked over $1,000 you are welcome to sit down and shut up -- you have no voice in ARIN. We'll keep informing our members when such proposals arise. That's our job. Respectfully, David P. McClure Executive Director Association of Online Professionals ---------- > From: Scott Bradner > To: the_innkeeper at sols.net > Subject: arin > Date: Saturday, February 01, 1997 5:28 PM > > > > I will not apologize if that made a few folks irritated > > by spreading falsehoods & using scare tactics? > > I think you did a diservice to your organization > discussions based on the facts of the proposal would have > been more useful > > Scott From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:19:31 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:19:31 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201221929.006a5950@lint.cisco.com> Giving an end-system an arbitrary length prefix just to ensure 'routability' is a recipe for disaster, if that's what you're recommending. I suggest that ARIN play no role in this regard; there is simply no way that they can effectively ensure routability, and something that might be routable today, may not be routable tomorrow (and vice versa). This is not practical. - paul At 02:18 AM 2/1/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that >once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's >exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there >would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By >artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements >because your block is too small.") > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:48:52 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:48:52 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Mr. McClure, Since I did not see the original message from Scott Bradner to this individual come across the list (of course, I may have missed it, since I've been traveling for the past couple of weeks), it would imply that you forwarded a private note to a public forum, which shows a great deal of unprofessionalism. Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. They certainly have more-than-adequate historical, technical and practical experience to do so, and your snide comments below come off as insulting, to say the least. Nonetheless, without calling one another silly names, I believe that your note is a fine example of how you do not completely grasp the complexities of running a registry, the technical significance of the registries' impact, nor the professional and personal commitments these folks have made to the Internet community. One might suggest that your continued persistence to forward messages without significant contributions, to include viable alternatives, would allow others on this list to dismiss you as a troublemaker, not a problem solver. - paul At 10:12 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. > From davesbox at poboxes.com Sat Feb 1 23:05:28 1997 From: davesbox at poboxes.com (David Tschoepe) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:05:28 -0800 Subject: Removal from list Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201200528.00875840@smtp.miraclestar.com> Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? Thanks, David From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Feb 1 20:40:56 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:40:56 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201204052.006de268@lint.cisco.com> Yes, and the registries have been quite clear that address space allocated by them is in no way to be considered 'routable'. No magic here (tm). - pal At 01:26 PM 1/31/97 -0500, John Curran wrote: >At 11:36 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >>OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting >>someone to give you routing. > >Karl, > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > to the Internet provider community. > >/John > > > > From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 2 00:15:58 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:15:58 -0800 Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Message-ID: At 7:12 PM -0800 2/01/97, Dave McClure wrote: >While I deeply respect the knowledge represented on this listserv, >I'd point out that no one here appears to have experience in >management, or in the formation or operation of a real non-profit. > >As someone who does have such experience, I have to say that >the current proposal will certainly face class-action lawsuits >from those who actually have to foot the bill for this organization. >Not to mention the anti-trust implications. Hey, Dave, I'm offended by your statement. I'm no new-comer to not-for-profits, nor to the standards community either. Name me ONE OTHER PERSON who has proposed any kind of budget numbers to forecast the expense side of ARIN. Where are *your* numbers, sir? When did you post them to public review? As for the anti-trust implications, I suggest you go back and review your law with regard to anti-trust and the establishment of manufacturer's standards. There is case law which is on all fours with ARIN -- I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to find and understand that law. (Hint: look for a case involving interchangable parts -- and don't forget to blow the dust off the book when you take it off the shelf.) --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 2 00:01:27 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:01:27 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201221421.006a4db0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: While the *idea* may be stated in RFC 2050, the concept that the ARIN is a preferred embodiment of the idea is *not*. I checked. This is part of the rationale for ARIN, after all. As such, stating the fact and recapping the concept in a rationale document is not redundant at all. My pair-o-pennies(tm). At 7:14 PM -0800 2/01/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. > >- paul > >At 11:28 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >> >>What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better >>chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any >>analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a >>much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter >>timeframe. >> >>Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the >>proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. >> --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 00:19:25 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:19:25 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202001922.00683e84@lint.cisco.com> Hand-waving. The concept that an allocated prefix may be unroutable has nothing to do with ARIN, APNIC, or the RIPE-NCC. The reality of the concept stands alone. A registry cannot, in no way, embody this particular principle, but it can certainly remind it's customers of the fact. - paul At 09:01 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >While the *idea* may be stated in RFC 2050, the concept that the ARIN is a >preferred embodiment of the idea is *not*. I checked. > >This is part of the rationale for ARIN, after all. As such, stating the >fact and recapping the concept in a rationale document is not redundant at >all. > >My pair-o-pennies(tm). > > >At 7:14 PM -0800 2/01/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. >> >>- paul >> From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 00:34:37 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:34:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would trust their judgement. (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might foreshadow.) --karl-- From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 01:29:02 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:29:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Feb 1, 97 09:34:37 pm Message-ID: <199702020629.BAA08148@moses.internic.net> > Karl, If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Of course, you are free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. However, I will, for the record, one more time, state that ARIN will be an independently run organization with no connection to NSI. Kim > > > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. > > I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. > > It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would > trust their judgement. > > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- > rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and > become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might > foreshadow.) > > --karl-- > > > From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 01:31:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 97 22:31 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a note to Kim. The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no sarcastic remarks:-). randy From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 01:36:15 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:36:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <199702020636.WAA06562@zocalo.net> > I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are > employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally Telage, yes. My understanding was that Ms. Hubbard is leaving the employ of NSI and entering that of ARIN at such time as it's sufficiently established to carry a payroll. I assume that's still the case, Kim? I don't find having one NBI representative on the BoT objectionable. I agree two could be construed as an imbalance. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sun Feb 2 01:37:50 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:37:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 1, 97 12:37:26 pm Message-ID: <199702020637.BAA21143@linux.silkroad.com> Steve sincerely asks: > > Why not publish a peer-reviewed article in _Computer Communition Review_ > (ACM SIGCOMM) so that your pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be > discussed in academic circles? The simple answer: Publishing in ACM or IEEE Journals take a minimum of one year which does not help the matter at hand, in my opinion. > It can also start research independent of the Internet Society ... Based on my observation of the structure of the IETF, I do not think it is prudent to publish ideas that are not subject to an un-democratic process. These is just Tim, plain ole EE' engineer speaking, but I do not trust organizations dominated by commercial interests to be fair with independent ideas. My agenda is to have a globally scalable Internet where every small business can connect to any level network access point they choose, without constraints and anti-competitive processes. I am not convinced this is the goal of all buinesses with dominate roles within IETF. In addition, it is highly likely that I am not the only person in the US to have this opinion;the US Department of Justice and the FTC spend millions of US Taxpayer Dollars to enforce and promote competitive business practices. The orgs would not exist if businesses did not have the 'tendency' to engage in anti-competitive practices. The Internet Services industry is no exception. Back to your question of 'why not publish'.... If and when DoJ becomes involved, I will be more than happy to submit to any investigation a technically feasible, scalable, inter domain routing paradigm for IPv4. However, if DoJ and the Antitrust division does not get involved, I will not reveal any carefully guarded technical solutions under any circumstances. None of my previous working papers are related. This paradigm came to mind and paper only after reviewing over 50 references on the subject and writing a historical, misconceptions paper. To be perfectly clear, i am not 'the only engineer' in the US who can conceive and design a scalable aggregation schema. My goal is to stop a direction which is anti-competitive and to promote the move toward a pro-competitive, scalable inter-domain routing protocol. This may sound kinda overly romantic, but sorry, it is my old-fashioned nature (an i apologize for being so old-fashioned).... I will perform this duty as an engineer and a US citizen without the motive of profit nor designs to be any false Internet hero if called upon. However, I will not do it for IETF nor the IAB as long as the process and is dominated by people with serious conflicts of interests. Best Regards, Tim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 01:43:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- I think that the question of these two BoT members needs to be publicly addressed on this list. Many of us expect that Kim Hubbard will fill the executive director position in ARIN which is a management role, i.e. she would be an employee. If this is so then one would normally expect her to hold an ex-officio position on the BoT, i.e. be a non-voting member. This might ordinarily be a simple matter of clarification, however Scott Bradner, another proposed BoT member did say something about the BoT using consensus to make its decisions and I have yet to see it explained how this can be reconciled with a non-voting member. But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a conflict here. And since Network Solutions Inc. has not announced any intention to cease offering domain name registry services after the NSF agreement ends, I am assuming that they will continue to operate as part of the commercial global domain name registry system. I'm not sure how best to resolve this conflict. Obviously, Mr. Telage could withdraw from accepting the position, but if there is some good reason why the CEO of Network Solutions must be involved in ARIN then perhaps a way could be found to recognize that involvement without placing him in a voting position on the Board of Trustees. I am afraid that if the public, especially the Internet Service Provider community, does not perceive ARIN as being a clean break from Network Solutions Inc., it will lead to unecessary political wrangling and take energy away from the job that ARIN should be focussing on. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 02:01:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:01:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 1, 97 10:43:15 pm Message-ID: <199702020701.CAA08264@moses.internic.net> > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the > cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for > another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a > conflict here. Michael - could you please explain this conflict? NSI will be financing ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they are no longer financially involved. Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a domain registry would cause a conflict. Kim From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 02:44:47 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:44:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702020744.XAA07529@zocalo.net> > My agenda is to have a globally scalable Internet where every > small business can connect to any level network access point > they choose, without constraints and anti-competitive processes. Um, would this be a "flat earth" theory? :-) Down with the hierarchy! Up with MAC addresses! -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Sun Feb 2 06:09:43 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:09:43 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Message-ID: Dave McClure wrote: > Cc: "'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET'" Sigh. More "'weirdly quoted'" junk in the headers. And you still have every paragraph as a single very long line. Please fix your mailer to conform to accepted norms. > Scott, please allow me to respond to your e-mail to Steve May. While > Steve serves (and very well) on the AOP Board of Directors, I am > responsible for communication to our members, and I authored the alert > to our members. I submit that you did your members a disservice by failing to explain that naipr was a mailing list and that they should research the issues and read the mailing list for some time before posting. Many AOP members who sent comments to the list had no idea that it was a mailing list. (I have this first hand, from correspondence with such people.) That they did insufficient research before posting to the list is their own fault, but that they did not know it was a mailing list is tracable directly to the AOP "Alert". > We are faced with a situation in which a small number of > self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major > ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people > involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force > a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North > American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which > will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to > the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. No, we are not faced with a situation like that at all. >From where I sat in the ire/pagan bof at the San Jose IETF, it appeared that there was consensus that starting a non-profit IP address registry was a reasonable idea. I haven't noticed any "major ISPs" that think ARIN is a big conspiracy. Even Karl Denninger appears to support the concept (though perhaps not all the details). As soon as the community thinks that ARIN is not doing the right thing and is beyond hope of being fixed, the community will form the AntiNIC. ARIN knows this, and so presumably will do the right thing. Everybody also knows that the AntiNIC will not be successful unless *it* has the support of community consensus. > This is a deeply flawed proposal that **must** have significant public > discussion. And it must have the consensus of the industry, not one > relatively hidden listserv run by Network Solutions. This is an imperfect proposal that *is* getting public discussion, and that will have the consensus of the industry (or it will not succeed). Helping to clarify the proposal and remove any bugs would be useful. Your conspiracy theories are not useful. > It's interesting to note that you, like many other critics of our > alert, did not respond to the issues we raised but rather attacked the > messenger. Please take a moment to actually read what we wrote, which > responded directly to the posted ARIN proposal. I read it. It had some good points, but was mostly scare mongering, and demonstrated a lack of understanding both of the ARIN proposal and of how IP address allocation works in the Internet. Responding point by point to such a thing would be a waste of time, but most of the points have been addressed in this forum. > We'll keep informing our members when such proposals arise. That's > our job. I agree that informing your members about such proposals is a legitimate and useful function of the AOP. I wish you had done a better job of it. --apb (Alan Barrett) From scharf at VIX.COM Sun Feb 2 06:16:18 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:16:18 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 1997 13:08:20 EST." <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: <199702021116.DAA06744@bb.home.vix.com> themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM said: > There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing IP > has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. The > InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this > anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. > I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a > pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, please > do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, however, > share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC if requested. Tim, I don't my accountant how to cook, why do you want to tell the DoJ how to build a better routing protocol. If you've got anything to share, you should share it with the technical community. If you put together a paper and a verifiable simulation that is accepted by the academic community, you'll be a star. I welcome any significant forward leaps in our technology. Now put up or shut up. Jerry From asp at PARTAN.COM Sun Feb 2 12:14:50 1997 From: asp at PARTAN.COM (Andrew Partan) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:14:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701242018.PAA08484@jazz.internic.net> from "Kim Hubbard" at Jan 24, 97 03:18:37 pm Message-ID: <199702021714.MAA06415@home.partan.com> I just read over the last 12 days of mail to the NAIPR list and the new ARIN proposal. My take on this whole thing is that basic premise (splitting IP registry off ala RIPE & APNIC) is fairly well accepted, with a few folk raising objections over some of the details. I think its a go. Where do I send my check for (individual) membership? --asp at partan.com (Andrew Partan) From tdeem2 at alpha.comsource.net Sun Feb 2 12:46:19 1997 From: tdeem2 at alpha.comsource.net (Timothy Deem) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:46:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Removal from list In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970201200528.00875840@smtp.miraclestar.com> Message-ID: I'd like that as well... Thanks On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, David Tschoepe wrote: > Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:05:28 -0800 > From: David Tschoepe > To: naipr at lists.internic.net > Subject: Removal from list > > Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? > > > Thanks, > > David > From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sun Feb 2 13:14:50 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:14:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 1, 97 03:49:10 pm Message-ID: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> Mr. Berkowitz, You and others seem to confuse the terms hierarchical, aggregation, clustering, and classless interdomain routing. However, I do not mind stating the obvious for you, my friend, if it helps: --------------------------------------------------------------- Classless interdomain routing is a subset of clustering techniques called aggregation. Aggregation techniques are subsets of clustering techniques which are subsets of building a hierarchy. Classless interdomain routing is not the only method to build a hierarchy routing structure. It is one possible technique out of a large set of solutions. However, it does happen to be on of the more anti-competitive paradigms, as currently implemened with provider based aggregation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Back to the 'other issue': If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running a registry only. It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. Questions: Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR members routin non-NAIPR members globally? This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of the old 'pyramid scheme'. Tim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 13:32:29 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:32:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy Deem wrote: > I'd like that as well... > > Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? I remember seeing that the list was moved from listserv to majordomo. If that is the case you should be able to get off by sending unsubscribe naipr to the address majordomo at arin.net If that doesn't work, try unsubscribe naipr your at email.address Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 14:19:17 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:19:17 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> References: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 1, 97 03:49:10 pm Message-ID: At 1:14 PM -0500 2/2/97, Tim Bass wrote: >Mr. Berkowitz, > >You and others seem to confuse the terms hierarchical, aggregation, >clustering, and classless interdomain routing. They are related terms, that I understand quite well, thank you, both operationally and in terms of theoretical routing. But, now that you mention it, you and other seem to confuse the terms operational network, investment protection, numerous court decisions and DoJ opinions on standards-setting by industry groups, etc. You also seem to confuse the function of this list with that of NIMROD, IDR, BIG-INTERNET, and even PAGAN. Oh...I'm so sorry...those lists, that deal with the subjects you raise, are controlled by the Illuminati Engineering Task Force, and must be suspect. > However, I >do not mind stating the obvious for you, my friend, if it >helps: My friend? I think again of the advice of my mother, to pick my friends and enemies carefully. As opposed to some newbies here, you DO have an engineering knowledge of some of the problems involved. You simply prefer to substitute rhetoric for peer review and product demonstrations. Again reaching a different industry where I also have professional knowledge, health care, there is a technical term for people who promulgate "cure all" nostrums without being willing to submit them for independent verification. Such people even appeal to the legal system to allow them unrestrained access. The technical term for such person is a "quack." In the context of routing, Sir, I find you a quack. The duck analogy is especially apt, since a duck, when challenged, typically emits loud noises, ruffles its feathers, presents its rear, may excrete certain bodily products in the direction of the challenger, and runs or flies off. To depend on your "paradigms" as relevant to the immediate situation is as appropriate as attempting to deal with a cholera epidemic by inserting corks in the orifices under stress. I actually believe it would be appropriate to start a very serious planning function to look at allocation and routability issues in perhaps a time frame 24 months off. But we don't have that luxury now. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Classless interdomain routing is a subset of clustering techniques >called aggregation. Aggregation techniques are subsets of >clustering techniques which are subsets of building a hierarchy. > >Classless interdomain routing is not the only method to build >a hierarchy routing structure. It is one possible technique >out of a large set of solutions. However, it does happen >to be on of the more anti-competitive paradigms, as currently >implemened with provider based aggregation. >--------------------------------------------------------------- Dayum! Those big words keep a'comin' back to haunt us, Cletus...currently implemented. Hey, Uncle Bert, you think ol' Tim there wants all current implementations to shut down while he has them lawyers check out his paradigm? Wanna bet a pair of dimes on the industry consensus on an Internet shutdown so we don't let them damn Yankees in ARIN get their ill-gotten gains? Yeah, I know they are in Virginia, but it's Northern Virginia. Mostly Yankee. > >Back to the 'other issue': > >If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) >to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should >say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's >position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running >a registry only. I have made no pretenses that I felt the initial proposal, and the way in which it emphasized fees over structure, was seriously flawed. The entire CIDR issue has been thoroughly available for some time. I'm afraid I have seen no systematic comments from you about short-term CIDR alternatives and the practical need for renumbering. I suppose it's that I am a Tool of Vendors that I never received a substantive comment from you on any Internet-Draft I worked on to give short-term addressing guidance. Your postings to lists tend to be orthogonal to the discussion underway, and make frequent allusions to Secret Suppressed Knowledge. > >It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... >Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... >Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... > >which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? Or maybe IBM should respond...I just discovered that netview uses port 1666...a shameful attempt to conceal the Satanic origins of some protocol mechanisms. Yep...I know I have problems with some routing tables too. Not just those in default free routers, but I have all kinds of trouble putting together the one that is supposed to hold my Craftsman router. Can't find all the pieces, just as some arguments here seem somehow incomplete. > >It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions >of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom >created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the >surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. >Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals >cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and >will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. > >Questions: > >Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space >will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR >will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR >members routin non-NAIPR members globally? Yes. Protection. You see, Don Scott and Donna Kim will, if you don't pay up, send Rudy the Routebanger to all default-free router sites, and, as he holds the staff at bay, Charlie the Configurator will break into the routers and delete all BGP advertisements from the Free People Who Won't Pay The Organization. I always thought Scott Bradner looked like Marlon Brando...a bit, anyway. Don Scott, may I kiss your ring when I next see you, as a token of my regard? Hmmm...I suppose if I have not met your expectations when I do that, Rudy the Routebanger may give me an early token release. Or maybe Kim and Scott are reincarnations of Bonnie and Clyde? Nahh...they have a better organized conspiracy than that. > >This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. >Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current >paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried >position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? > >These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large >salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, >which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of >the old 'pyramid scheme'. All right! Mr. Bass, my friend, don't you want to retire? Don't you want a Rolls Royce? Let me tell you about a business opportunity. No, I can't tell you the details unless you come to the meeting. But I can absolutely, promise you it's not Amway. Has anyone else noticed that NAIPR and Amway both have five letters, one of which is in common...and that letter is doubled in Amway? Coincidence? You decide. Howard, who is beginning to have too much fun with this to filter out Tim. Perhaps we can move this off the list and to the Comedy Channel, where advertising fees will fund everyone dumping their routers and getting new ones. From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 15:30:46 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:30:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> from "Tim Bass" at Feb 2, 97 01:14:50 pm Message-ID: <199702022030.PAA08642@moses.internic.net> > > Back to the 'other issue': > > If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) > to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should > say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's > position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running > a registry only. > > It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... > Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... > Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... > which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? This has been stated enough times that I assumed you would have understood by now that the fees are to fund the registry only. And the name is Postel - not Postal. > > It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions > of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom > created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the > surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. > Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals > cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and > will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. Nowhere is it implied that businesses and individuals cannot use the Internet if they do not join and pay fees. Please reread the proposal, Mr. Bass. > > Questions: > > Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space > will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR > will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR > members routin non-NAIPR members globally? ARIN will, as does the InterNIC, allocate globally unique addresses. ARIN will not route or guarantee routability of addresses. > > This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. > Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current > paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried > position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? Ms. Hubbard didn't propose anything. And I'm already in a salaried position and managing the affairs of IP allocation for this region under the authority of the IANA. > > These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large > salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, > which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of > the old 'pyramid scheme'. Well, if you mean that ARIN will use the same allocation guidelines as InterNIC/RIPE/APNIC are using than yes you could say its the same scheme. Kim Hubbard > > Tim > > > > > > From kmeuleman at innet.be Sun Feb 2 21:58:53 1997 From: kmeuleman at innet.be (Meuleman-Rubbrecht) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:58:53 +-100 Subject: JOIN Message-ID: <01BC1154.48FA0080@marina.metech.be> JOIN From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:50:33 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:50:33 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.5D1B5B20@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Kim: Taking Donald Telage out of this equation as a person, I have two questions about the NSI/ARIN relationship. (I'm focusing on the process used to create ARIN rather than the people involved). 1) Why is NSI funding ARIN? First, let me point out that if ARIN moves immediately to implement its fee structure, cash flow will be of less concern than the structure and integrity of the organization. And it seems to me that it is very awkward for a single private company to hold such primary financial power over ARIN. 2) My understanding is that by its contract NSI has turned over to NSF 30 percent of the funds raised by the domain name registry fees, and that this fund is currently about $12 million (and will be much more than that, once NSI begins to collect the fees that it has not collected to date). This NSF fund is purported to be money to be used for the good of the Internet, and according to the Washington Post there is some confusion as to how best use these funds. Why do we not apply to NSF that some or all of these funds be used to help start ARIN? This would eliminate the NSI/ARIN financial ties, and could likewise be used to reduce or eliminate the steep dues ARIN is proposed to charge. Dave McClure ---------- From: Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at INTERNIC.NET] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 9:01 PM To: Michael Dillon Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Re: AOP Notification > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the > cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for > another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a > conflict here. Michael - could you please explain this conflict? NSI will be financing ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they are no longer financially involved. Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a domain registry would cause a conflict. Kim From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:35:03 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:35:03 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.58D23FC0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Randy, I would also ask some clarification of your remarks. Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position to become the chief executive of ARIN? The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, Inc. (and if so, how is it impacted by NSI's recent discussion of their financial situation? If the money is instead to be drawn from the contractual amount that NSI was required to set aside for use to benefit the Internet (and ARIN would be an excellent use for such funds, IMHO), then it is not NSI's money. Dave McClure ---------- From: Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:31 AM To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Cc: naipr at arin.net Subject: Re: AOP Notification > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a note to Kim. The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no sarcastic remarks:-). randy From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:05:41 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:05:41 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.541B4760@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Kim: Just for the record, I for one am delighted at the prospect that you would bring your experience and expertise to ARIN. And in spite of my feelings about some of the specifics, I do deeply appreciate the work you have done in drafting a proposal for us to hash out. May I make a couple of suggestions? Much of our concern about the ARIN proposal revolves around two factors: The selection of the board of trustees, and the fact that many critical elements of the organization (mission, goals and accountability) have gotten short shrift. Some possible solutions: !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then re-elect a Board to continue the organization. This will get the organization up and running, and clearly show that the Trustees have no hidden agendas and that they are appropriate to their positions. Members of the initial Board could be elected then to longer terms if they have served well and if they wish to continue. 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.) to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a stronger role in supporting ARIN. 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a single listserv are behind ARIN. 4) Immediately begin work on preliminary mission statement, goals, structure, bylaws and budget for ARIN, so that these critical issues may be open to discussion. 5) Reconsider the $1,000 dues for annual membership in ARIN. If the intent is to have broad-based participation by the industry, then this level is far too steep. And if the intent is not to open membership to that broad a base, consider setting up rules to have membership based on representation of constituencies within the Internet community (e.g., representatives from the Internet Society, IETF and organizations involved in the industry). The funding model would work for either scenario with only minor modifications. The less time we spend on he said/you said discussions of personalities, conspiracy theories, niggling details of IP address technicalities (isn't that what IETF is for?), the stronger the ARIN proposal will be. The second draft is considerably better than the first in its explanation of some of the details, but this is still not a document that can be adopted at face value. Dave McClure ---------- From: Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 8:29 PM To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; aop at cris.com; the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Subject: Re: AOP Notification > Karl, If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Of course, you are free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. However, I will, for the record, one more time, state that ARIN will be an independently run organization with no connection to NSI. Kim > > > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. > > I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. > > It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would > trust their judgement. > > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- > rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and > become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might > foreshadow.) > > --karl-- > > > From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:15:42 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:15:42 -0500 Subject: ARIN BoT Message-ID: <01BC1124.56DAB580@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Karl, the integrity and service of the proposed BoT members is not the issue, in my mind. The issue isn't even who chose them and why. The issue is that they have been proposed without input from the people within the Internet community they would seek to serve, and without building support from within that community. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. We must have an initial BoT to get ARIN organized, but we also need to allow the Internet community to have a voice in their selection. Solution: Have the initial BoT serve for only one year to get the organization up and running, and then resign. This initial BoT would not be "grandfathered", but would have the right to run for BoT positions (with the advantage that they will have proven their abilities as trustees). This simple change could eliminate the entire "who are these people and who picked them" discussion. Dave McClure ---------- From: Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl at CAVEBEAR.COM] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 4:34 PM To: 'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Cc: Dave McClure; 'The Innkeeper' Subject: Re: AOP Notification > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would trust their judgement. (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might foreshadow.) --karl-- From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 15:40:04 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:40:04 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Alan, thanks for your comments and input. May a take a moment of your time to clarify an issue or two? The initial ARIN proposal suggested that persons comment to the e-mail address provided, which we reported to our members. When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a clarification to our members. We also believe that the formation of a non-profit to manage IP address registry is an excellent idea that AOP supports. And have said so. The issue is not the concept but its proposed implementation. >>As soon as the community thinks that ARIN is not doing the right thing and is beyond hope of being fixed, the community will form the AntiNIC. ARIN knows this, and so presumably will do the right thing. Everybody also knows that the AntiNIC will not be successful unless *it* has the support of community consensus.<< You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of self-perpetuating Trustees. Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input from the members of ARIN. Suppose this proposal is adopted within the next 10 weeks, as has been suggested, and the Trustees then elect to raise fees or otherwise act imprudently. Not saying they will, but we need to address these issues in order to craft a good proposal. Who would you complain to? No one, since ARIN is accountable to no one but its own Board of Trustees. How would you protest? Refuse to pay the fees? You'd only lose the ability to get IP addresses. You would be faced with trying to build a new organization to fix the problems we've created. And to do so in the face of an entrenched organization that already has been given the authority to do as it pleases -- by us. This is an imperfect proposal that *is* getting public discussion, and that will have the consensus of the industry (or it will not succeed). This is an imperfect proposal that is being discussed on a single listserv of about 300 people. That's better than none, but what is the mechanism to approve this proposal? A vote by this listserv? While there are many knowledgeable people of high integrity here, they hardly constitute a consensus. And I have yet to see any proposal for a vote on this proposal by any of the standards bodies extant to the Internet. Helping to clarify the proposal and remove any bugs would be useful. Your conspiracy theories are not useful. Conspiracy theories? I don't think I've ever tried to place Ms. Hubbard on the grassy knoll in Dallas . Fixing the bugs is exactly what we are trying to do. Let's begin by figuring out how ARIN can be made accountable to the people it would seek to serve. And by getting very specific information about what the actual costs are to maintain the registry today. And to determine how to build consensus beyond this listserv. Dave McClure From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 16:25:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 13:25 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: <01BC1124.58D23FC0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: > Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position = > to become the chief executive of ARIN?=20 > > The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, = > Inc. ... I believe this mailing list has been archived. It might help you to read up a bit before trying to post. from "Dave McClure" at Feb 2, 97 02:35:03 pm Message-ID: <199702022146.QAA09030@moses.internic.net> > > Randy, I would also ask some clarification of your remarks. > > Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position to become the chief executive of ARIN? No. The CEO of NSI is not resigning to become the CEO of ARIN. Randy meant that I will be the CEO of ARIN. > > The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, Inc. (and if so, how is it impacted by NSI's recent discussion of their financial situation? If the money is instead to be drawn from the contractual amount that NSI was required to set aside for use to benefit the Internet (and ARIN would be an excellent use for such funds, IMHO), then it is not NSI's money. > The funding is coming from NSI not the 30%. Kim > Dave McClure > > ---------- > From: Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:31 AM > To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM > Cc: naipr at arin.net > Subject: Re: AOP Notification > > > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > > are employees of NSI > > I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. > > An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of > money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's > cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. > > I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might > get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain > nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead > reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to > take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity > willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a > note to Kim. > > The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but > rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is > common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't > think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows > more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. > > So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no > sarcastic remarks:-). > > randy > > > From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 16:47:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:47:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702020701.CAA08264@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. > Michael - could you please explain this conflict? So many people get domain name registry services confused with IP allocation services that I think making a clean break between the two is a very good idea. However, having the CEO of the world's largest domain name registry provider on the Board of Trustees effectively means that there is no clean break and will be interpreted so by the media and by the public and by the potential members of ARIN. > NSI will be financing > ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly > understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they > are no longer financially involved. This makes perfect sense. If this is the case it would be best if it was clearly explained up front. Would this mean that Donald Telage would hold one of the Board seats that expires after the first year? Similarily with your own position. If you will be an ex-officio Board of Trustees member then it is best to state this up front so that everybody has a clear picture of how things will be structured. > Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a > domain registry would cause a conflict. I've just seen so many commentators confuse the two issues, time and time again.... However, I'm curious as to why it is necessary to get seed funding from Network Solutions in the first place. If ARIN is solidly supported by its potential membership, then it seems to me that there would be adequate funding available from them to get things going. And if it is not solidly supported by its potential membership then there is a major problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Seed funding from some other organization, whether Network Solutions or the NSF's Intellectual Infrastructure Fund, is not going to help much. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:01:00 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:01:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN BoT In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.56DAB580@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > The issue is that they have been proposed without input from the people > within the Internet community they would seek to serve, and without > building support from within that community. This is so ridiculous I can't understand how you could make such a statement. If I ask a bunch of friends "What do you say we go out bowling tonight?" would I expect to be attacked for not consulting them before proposing such a thing? Of course not. The act of making the proposal public is, in itself, an act of consultation. The proposal was placed on a web (a service that all Internet providers have access to) and a mailing list was created for discussion (again, a service that all Internet providers have access to). The website and mailing list were announced on ISP mailing lists on which well over half of North America's ISP's participate. This is consultation. As far as building support goes, this is not a product marketing issue here. We want to see Internet providers participate in the planning and design of ARIN and not merely passively voting aye or nay for some ivory tower proposal. That's what *IS* happening on this mailing list and yes, it does get messy sometimes, but that's the real world. The secret is that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If your ideas are good, say them on the list or mail them privately to one of the board members and there is a good chance they will consider them seriously. At the end of that process, the support will come naturally. > Solution: Have the initial BoT serve for only one year to get the > organization up and running, and then resign. I don't think that the term of office for most BoT members is in question as long as a reasonable mechanism is in place for choosing their successors. This initial BoT would > not be "grandfathered", but would have the right to run for BoT > positions (with the advantage that they will have proven their abilities > as trustees). This simple change could eliminate the entire "who are > these people and who picked them" discussion. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 17:28:44 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:28:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 2, 97 01:47:48 pm Message-ID: <199702022228.RAA09086@moses.internic.net> > > However, I'm curious as to why it is necessary to get seed funding from > Network Solutions in the first place. If ARIN is solidly supported by its > potential membership, then it seems to me that there would be adequate > funding available from them to get things going. And if it is not solidly > supported by its potential membership then there is a major problem that > needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Seed funding from some > other organization, whether Network Solutions or the NSF's Intellectual > Infrastructure Fund, is not going to help much. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > > > Michael, It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone before we can open the doors. If we did, though, how much would you be willing to ante up? Kim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:26:10 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control of > North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be under > the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. Nope. Control of North American IP addresses has always rested with the network operators who run the core mesh of the Internet. If this group gets disgusted with ARIN, they can and will form an AntiNIC and ARIN will become irrelevant dregs of history. At this point in time, the reason that the registries (RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC) appear to have some control is because they are basically fair and basically do a good job of IP allocations so the network operators are quite content to accept them as the final decision point for IP allocations. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will elect > new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory Council. The > Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board of Trustees. > That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input from the members > of ARIN. You simply have not been doing your research. Before writing such an inaccurate statement you could have very easily checked out the proposal at http://www.arin.net where you would have discovered that your statement is just plain wrong: It is expected that the initial Advisory Council will develop procedures to fill vacancies on the Council. These procedures, as envisioned, would allow ARIN's membership to elect future Advisory Council members. > Who would you complain to? No one, since ARIN is accountable to no one > but its own Board of Trustees. How would you protest? Refuse to pay > the fees? You'd only lose the ability to get IP addresses. You are stretching it pretty thin here. You can only pile up so many "if"'s before you have nothing left but air and vapor. ARIN will not exist in a vacuum. The BoT will be subject to the laws governing non-rpofit organizations. They will be subject to the disapproval of their fee-paying members. And they have to operate within the context of the Internet community which contains several other power centers such as the IETF, ISOC, the network operators. There is no point pretending that ARIN could become another OPEC cartel because it just can't happen. > This is an imperfect proposal that is being discussed on a single > listserv of about 300 people. No. It's been discussed on several other mailing lists as well. The people that are on this list are the self-selected group that is interested enough to be involved in the niggly details of getting ARIN off the ground. Let's not criticise those people who have decided that their views are adequately represented by others on this list so that they need not join in themselves. > That's better than none, but what is the > mechanism to approve this proposal? A vote by this listserv? While > there are many knowledgeable people of high integrity here, they hardly > constitute a consensus. And I have yet to see any proposal for a vote > on this proposal by any of the standards bodies extant to the Internet. This does not concern the standards bodies so there is no point in having them here other than as interested individuals. As far as making the final decision, I'm surprised that as a director of the AOP you do not understand how this type of decision is usually made by informed consensus. In addition, the very nature of a non-profit corporation means that a small group of people sign the incorporation documents and form the group of founding members and board of directors. P.S. Since you seem to have little understanding of how the Internet works, may I suggest that you review the material in the reading list at http://www.arin.net as well as the discussion list archives available at the same URL. You will find a lot of tutorial information in these sites that will help you to make more informed comments in the future. Right now I'm not sure why you are even interested in this list since ARIN is likely to have zero effect on the BBS sysops who constitute the AOP's membership. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:42:39 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.541B4760@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then > re-elect a Board to continue the organization. This would cause a lack of continuity which is worse than having a self-selected board. And the ARIN board is not truly self-selected since the potential members could have the composition of the board changed if they felt strongly enough about it. For instance if the core network operators decided that they wanted another operator like Curtis Villamizar instead of a researcher like Scott Bradner, then it is in the realm of possibility. > 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.) > to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any > stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a > stronger role in supporting ARIN. I don't believe any of the BoT candidate have an InterNIC stigma other than the CEO of Network Solutions. And I don't think it is realistic to have a patchwork board composed of nominees. And you forgot the CIX and the ISP/C in your list. Even then, the CIX and ISP/C do not represent all ISP's so it's no more fair than the current proposed board. > 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties > that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build > consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a > single listserv are behind ARIN. No doubt there will be a number of people at the next NANOG meeting discussing the proposals face-to-face. But you should know that doing this sort of thing at a "congress" is also unfair to those who cannot afford the time or the money to attend. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:52:33 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:52:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702022228.RAA09086@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't > think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone > before we can open the doors. It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a loan to be repaid by ARIN. Or is there something else? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 18:06:25 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:06:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You brought up some very, very good points -- about transit and about dual homing -- I guess what I'm getting at is this: I think of ARIN not just as something that passes out address blocks -- I consider that those who get the blocks ought to have some reciprocial obligation to ARIN itself and to the other folks who got blocks. To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing information for ARIN grants. I know that this is a very deep swamp with lots of hungry crocodiles. If Ford, for example, were to obtain an ARIN block, I wouldn't expect it to willingly provide transit to General Motors (again assuming that it gets an ARIN block.) This gets heavily into the dark forest of policy routing. What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider independent class C. Yes, if there are enought of these it has the potential to substantially remove the benefits of aggregation. Yet, as we've seen with the AOL mess, people are starting to depend on this stuff and as a consequence, I can see that the number of folks wanting (and being able to justify) a direct, small block directly from ARIN, could increase. So, what I'm saying is that we could consider that everyone else who got an ARIN block has an obligation to at least be reasonable in dealing with these small ARIN blocks. It's too early to say what "reasonable" is. I do feel that it certainly should not be an automatic barricade on blocks less than some size. (I.e. I think that "reasonable" involves some human though processes.) This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some reciprocial obligations...". --karl-- From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 18:18:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:18:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 2, 97 02:52:33 pm Message-ID: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> > > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't > > think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone > > before we can open the doors. > > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a > loan to be repaid by ARIN. > > Or is there something else? Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), phone system, etc. Kim > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 18:22:24 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:22:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Feb 2, 97 03:06:25 pm Message-ID: <199702022322.SAA09342@moses.internic.net> > > This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in > a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some > reciprocial obligations...". > > --karl-- > > > > > Karl, ARIN is definitely not in a position to dictate routing policy to anyone. Neither is RIPE, APNIC or InterNIC. Kim From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 18:26:17 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 18:26:17 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> At 03:06 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >I know that this is a very deep swamp with lots of hungry crocodiles. If >Ford, for example, were to obtain an ARIN block, I wouldn't expect it to >willingly provide transit to General Motors (again assuming that it gets >an ARIN block.) This gets heavily into the dark forest of policy routing. > No, this gets into basic economics and has little to do with ARIN. If (your example) GM gets has direct connectivity to Ford, and pays Ford to provide transit, then this is a private contractual issue. It does not rely on whether GM has been allocated their address space from ARIN or from Ford or anyone else for that matter. > >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some >reciprocial obligations...". > ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's the issue here? - paul From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 18:30:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 15:30 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: I share your concerns. I also share your questioning if this is the place to solve them. Smells a bit NANOGish to me. > To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and > don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general > mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a > member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing > information for ARIN grants. While suspect it may not be wise to burden ARIN with this mandate, it has enough problems already, could something be done to communicate this need to the culture as a whole? Observe that this is current accepted practice for reasonably aggregated routing. But, as has been so well demonstrated on this list, what is an accepted part of the culture today seems not to be understood by the massive influx of new folk. We should probably be less surprised than I, for one, am. > What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you > brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider > independent class C. What if NSI or ARIN will not allocate less than a /19, and they keep qualifications for space about the same as they are now? I.e. the medical group has no alternative but to take its /24 from one of its providers. The question becomes whether their other providers will accept that /24 from the medial group and propagate it. And will any of their peers listen to a /24? Before folk who do not run default-free routers today go ballistic, note that this issue is current today, sans ARIN and independent of the InterNIC. If someone bludgeons NSI into giving them a /24 out of 208 or wherever Kim's allocating this week, it is becoming less and less routable as more and more of us unstall filters. So if the InterNIC allows the medical group to bludgeon them out of a /24, they are really not doing the medical group a favor, in fact, it is a disfavor. I suggest that ARIN consider not doing so. But, as you suggest, much of this is NANOG and IEPG fodder, as it is an inter-pprovider matter, and neither InterNIC nor ARIN can dictate to the providers. randy From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 18:41:36 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:41:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > > are employees of NSI > > I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. > So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no > sarcastic remarks:-). I'll try, and without sarcasm and with an intention to be constructive. One of my purposes in pointing these things out is that I think that if these issues are answered now, when things are still flexible and when the reasons for a choice are still fresh and not-forgotten, ARIN will be in a better position to answer similar questions later. The AOL situation with the lawsuits has got me really concerned that it's worthwhile to endure a painful debate now in order to get some stability later; the users out there are getting feisty. > An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of > money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's > cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. Yes, that is a valid point. (Assuming, of course, that it is clearly NSI's money and not money from the 30% being witheld from domain name fees.) This does raise the ancillary question -- If the NSI representation is to ensure that the money is spent "properly", then what is the definition of "properly"? There is a lot of room here for suspicious minds (or some of us who have had unfortunate experiences in real-life business) to have concern. This is really hard to write about without inadvertent shadows on the individuals involved. I want to assure them that doing so is not my intent or desire. Let's look at the specific case of the CEO of NSI being on the BoT of ARIN. As CEO it's his legal obligation to care for the interests of NSI and it's shareholders. Each BoT member has a legal obligation towards ARIN and its constitutients. At times these will come into conflict, often in subtle ways. It's going to be a tough line to walk, and is only going to be made more difficult when there is a presumption at the outset that the NSI CEO is there to "ensure that NSI's money is properly spent". --karl-- From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 19:05:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 16:05 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: Message-ID: > This does raise the ancillary question -- If the NSI representation is > to ensure that the money is spent "properly", then what is the definition > of "properly"? I suspect to see that ARIN does a good enough job that NSI does not have to worry about address allocation showing up on their doorstep again. And I am not kidding. With some structural changes that are happening, domain names may be an interesting business. But addresses are not. Address allocation is the kind of pain in the butt that belongs in a non=profit stewardship, hence ARIN. So I suspect that NSI just wants to see that the handover is clean and successful. I hope that he may want to help see ARIN off on a sound business footing. He is a successful COO of an orgainzation that has ARIN-like duties. So one hopes he will provide some business guidance. But, in truth, I have no idea what Donald Telage's goals and concerns are, as I have not spoken with him. So we're all guessing here. If you know anybody else with a megabuck or so to spare for a good cause, I suspect that NSI would not be jealous. randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 19:11:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of > > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal > > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating > > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a > > loan to be repaid by ARIN. > > > > Or is there something else? > > Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, > office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), > phone system, etc. Why can't this stuff wait until ARIN is incorporated and the members hand over their checks? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 19:21:34 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:21:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in > >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some > >reciprocial obligations...". > > ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by > stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's > the issue here? The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or larger parts of the net. ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing such a condition.] It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own choices without regard for anyone else." But that game can be played by others as well, including ARIN. An ISP that says "we reserve the ultimate right to determine which traffic we will carry" should not complain if ARIN says to it "if you don't want to play by our rules, you don't get an address block." This is one of those situations which reflect the fact that "regulation of ARIN" by its membership is really not regulation. Since the membership (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be granting the tax exemptions.) This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild west" attitude of every ISP for itself. --karl-- From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 19:47:10 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> At 04:21 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by >> stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's >> the issue here? > >The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN >only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing >information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or >larger parts of the net. > ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. >ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, >impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or >capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating >that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing such a >condition.] > This is, in my humble opinion, common sense, as well as conventional wisdom. >It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be >independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own >choices without regard for anyone else." > ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, they can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, the fact that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal issue. Under the ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is now they will pay for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining address space directly from ARIN. - paul From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 21:15:01 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:15:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I made some statements about the financing of ARIN by using membership fees. However, I misunderstood the intent of the current proposal which is that members will pay $1,000 when they join but will only pay the annual subscription fee ($2,500 - $20,000) the next time they apply to ARIN for more address space. Since this could be a long time after ARIN is formed, it is clearly impractical to consider it for initial funding. Basically, this leaves NSI's offer to pay good money to move the IP allocation function out of their company, employees and all. And while there is a mystery fund sitting in an NSF trust account, I don't think that there is any way that this could become available soon enough to get ARIN off the ground in April. Given that ARIN is jump-started with NSI funding, it makes sense that their CEO sits on the board. If I were the CEO of NSI, then I would do the same to make sure that things are done right and my goals are achieved. And it seems likely that Mr. Telage's goal is to get this unfunded public service activity out of his corporation. Under more normal circumstances a CEO would either sell the division or shut it down. But since the NSF has managed to saddle him with an operation that is not saleable, the formation of ARIN seems to be the only reasonable way out. I'm sure Mr. Telage would not hesitate to resign from ARIN after the startup stage is complete since he has bigger fish to fry in the domain name business and the intranet consulting business. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 21:20:47 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:20:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702030220.SAA28116@zocalo.net> > The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block > from ARIN only to discover that some ISP has decided to not > accept or honor routing information that would allow that block > to be reached from smaller or larger parts of the net. I wouldn't call it an "issue," I'd call it a "fact." It would be an "issue" if there were some problem with this, or contention surrounding it. > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to > do so, impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid > arbitrary or capricious treatment of other grantees. Rhetorically, this is debatable... Yes, in a sense, if ARIN no longer wished to be an authoritative registry, it could impose such a condition, whereupon the authority you stipulate would no longer exist. In the real world, your statement is false. We need a registry, and there's no point in setting one up if it's just going to invalidate itself, so no, it couldn't impose any conditions of routability. > Kim just sent a note indicating that, at least at the outset, > ARIN would not be imposing such a condition. No, she said, and I quote: "ARIN is definitely not in a position to dictate routing policy to anyone. Neither is RIPE, APNIC or InterNIC." "ARIN will, as does the InterNIC, allocate globally unique addresses. ARIN will not route or guarantee routability of addresses." "ARIN will use the same allocation guidelines as InterNIC/RIPE/APNIC are using." I don't see anything either ambiguous or provisional about any of those statements. Your implication that such a condition might be imposed later would not seem to me to be correct. Making Kim repeat the same already-clearly-stated policy statements over and over is absolutely pointless, and a waste of everytone's time. Why is this still being hashed over? It doesn't seem to me to be bringing operational status any closer. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 21:38:46 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:38:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, > > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or > > capricious treatment of other grantees. > > And how would one define arbitrary or capricious? Some would say that not > accepting /20s is neither, but rather is saving one's own routers. That's a very legitimate reason; it is certainly seems neither arbitrary nor capricious, at least not at first glance. However, since the incremental cost of carrying a route is the same whether the prefix is /8 or /24, an ISP may have to have some policy other than mere prefix size for deciding which routes to carry and which to not carry. But that's an issue for the ISPs and whether they want to risk being called to task for being descriminatory. (Discrimination per se isn't illegal, but it does tend to be a source of questions.) What is an issue for ARIN is this: Suppose someone goes through all the necessary hoops and gets an ARIN assigned block. And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend. Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? --karl-- From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 21:46:37 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:46:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN > only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing > information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or > larger parts of the net. This is reality today, although not as much as in the past because the registries (RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC) make it abundantly clear to people that small netblocks are not routable. However, at the time when providers started filtering unaggregated netblocks, there were companies who received allocations which they discovered to be useless. For a while, RIPE was doing slowstart allocations to ISP's of /20's or /21's and they discovered that Sprint's /19 filters were blocking them from all Sprint customers. This is a basic risk of business on the net today. However, there are ways for most organizations to avoid those risks. It starts with due diligence in learning about RFC 1918 addresses, NAT, proxies, DHCP, renumbering, etc. And then implementing those techniques to help your organization meet its goals while protecting it from events beyond its control out there on the net. In a free market system it is not possible to guarantee that all companies will make a profit when their business licence is issued. And on the Internet it is not possible to guarantee that an ARIN-allocated address block will be routable on the public network. > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or > capricious treatment of other grantees. The problem with this is that the core network operators don't need to ask ARIN for addresses for themselves. If they decide that ARIN's conditions of service are too onerous and interfere too much with their ability to do business, they have two choices. They can go directly to IANA for addresses and IANA is highly unlikely to impose any such conditions if they should grant address space. Or they could simply agree amongst themselves to use a currently unused netblock. ARIN is not a kingmaker that can impose conditions on its grantees that the grantees would not willingly accept. And if they would willingly accept such conditions then there would be no need for ARIN to impose those conditions. > It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be > independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own > choices without regard for anyone else." The reality is that everybody in the Internet game is dependent on everybody else. The game requires cooperation in order to gain success. No doubt this is due to its military heritage since the military people who built the Internet technology live in an environment where cooperation and teamwork is the only choice. > Since the membership > (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the > policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, > not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be > granting the tax exemptions.) First of all, there is no reason why large non-ISP users of IP addresses could not be members of ARIN. So ARIN's membership is likely to include other corporations and probably some government agencies as well. Especially since membership is only $1,000 per year. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that even a majority of ISP's will join ARIN. So while it might be nice to have a world in which all network providers guarantee routability of an IP address block that is allocated according to some set of conditions, I don't believe that ARIN is in a position to do this. If there really is a demand for this sort of organization then it would likely grow out of NANOG and thus far, NANOG has not shown any great signs of wanting to become any sort of formal organization. In fact, I would not expect to see this sort of thing appear first in North America, because we are too wild, too entrepreneurial, too pioneer in spirit. This sort of organized behavior is more likely to arise in the more settled parts of the world, namely Europe. Then we can once again follow their example if it proves to be a good thing. > This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously > consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild > west" attitude of every ISP for itself. This would be like herding cats! Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 21:55:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 18:55 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: > And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's > policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend. > > Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? Can "The way inten[ded]" be clearly understood and defined? Before the granting of the allocation? And, if so, was the alocatee warned that the block may not be usable in that way? The reason I follow this trail is because that is the circumstance today. You will be told by the InterNIC that the /20 which you are insisting they allocate will not necessarily be universally usable. If you insist that they give it to you anyway, the public loses, because that is wasted space. Seems to me the most prudent approach would be to follow the practice in the rest of the world and not allocate a prefix longer than say a /19, period. If you can't qualify for a /19, then get space from your provider. And as neither ARIN nor that provider can guaranty that the space will be universally routable, we have completed the circle. Please show me the way out. randy From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 22:18:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 19:18 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: > Especially since membership is only $1,000 per year. Secondly, it is > highly unlikely that even a majority of ISP's will join ARIN. This is a key point in ARIN's income projections. If only 300 ISPs join, then that is on the order of 10% of the operating budget, after the rather large startup costs. Will those 300 ISPs who have gotten InterNIC allocations join ARIN as members? Even if they are not required to do so in order to obtain allocations? Will enough others join to make up for any shortfall in those 300? Then we get to the big chunk of income, the allocation fees. Should income estimates be modeled on o the most recent year of InterNIC allocations? o those allocations presuming some growth? how much? o those allocations presuming shrinkage as it will now cost people money? how much? o some other base for projections? Being an engineer, I am inclined to the first as it is easiest to explain logically. But I suspect real business folk are less seduced by logic than I. Note that a prudent startup estimates income a bit low and expense a bit high. While explaining a bit too much cash in a non-profit can be harder than in a for profit, it's a trivial problem compared to not making payroll, being cut off by your RBOC and ISPs, etc. So, Andrew's offered to pony up. I did the other week. Now don't all stampede. :-) randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 22:16:26 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:16:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > I fully agree many of the issues here are more NANOG/IEPG. Unfortunately, > as you suggest, a significant number of participants here either don't know > of those groups, or don't understand the relationship between ARIN and > NANOG/IEPG. If those people are ISP's then they have got to find the time to learn these things. There is plenty of material on NANOG at http://www.nanog.org and there is some amount of info available on IEPG at http://www.iepg.org Both groups are informal, both have mailing lists, both have regular face-to-face meetings (IEPG generally in conjunction with IETF). Of course many ISP's will claim that they have fulltime jobs already and just don't know where to find the time to learn all this stuff and participate in these discussions and meetings. However, every one of the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees also has a full time job and has to commit some of their personal time to getting ARIN off the ground. Volunteer work and non-profit organizations tend to go hand in hand. > My intuition > is that aggregation is probably best served if the medical group gets a /24 > assigned from Provider A space, with prior agreement from Provider B that > Provider B will advertise the specific hole from Provider A space, if and > only if the customer-to-A link is lost and the customer intelligently > starts advertising the /24 to Provider B. PIARA take note. If provider B were to charge an additional sum of money to the medical group for carrying the hole-punch route then this would tend to be self-regulating. I know some PIARA people want to see wholesale route charging but in the real world a small experiment is usually the wiser course to take. And if anyone here doesn't know what PIARA is or what they have proposed to do, have a look through ftp://archive.apnic.net/mailing-lists/piara/ but remember, it's only an idea and if you don't like something about it you would do best to take it up on the list itself. Send your subscribe request to piara-request at apnic.net and don't be surprised if there's not much traffic. And if you want to talk about what an IP registry SHOULD be doing, the IRE list, now renamed PAGAN is archived at ftp://archive.apnic.net/mailing-lists/pagan/ and you can join by sending your subscribe message to pagan-request at apnic.net > Now -- this is a real world problem. I haven't even scratched issues like > attempts to load balance, having >2 providers, etc. I'm sure that if this > were discussed in detail, there would be many more complexities. You might want to take this up in the IEPG or on the NANOG list. > If you are uncomfortable pointing out > the strengths and weaknesses of this off-the-top-of-my-head example, I > respectfully suggest you have some homework to do before assuming that > other than technical factors are involved in the allocation & routing > policies here. Yes. And the material required to do the homework is readily available on the net. Especially now that we have services like http://www.altavista.digital.com to make it easy to find things. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Feb 2 17:16:19 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:16:19 +0000 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:13:28 EST." <32F26078.6220@driveway1.com> Message-ID: <199702022216.WAA05685@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> >Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable >addresses being issued? Yes. Quite a few. Some organizations are completely uninterested in global Internet routability -- they simply want the uniqueness guarantees the registries provide. A company called SAP is a case in point. Regards, -drc From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Feb 2 17:14:28 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:14:28 +0000 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:45:59 EST." <32F2A057.1F9D@driveway1.com> Message-ID: <199702022214.WAA05663@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> >How about the other case, where there are duplicated addresses? Any >history on this? Any duplicate address allocations are considered extremely bad and no registry would do so knowingly. This is not to say it hasn't happened (registry staff being human after all), but it is _extremely_ rare and immediately corrected when discovered. Regards, -drc From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 22:52:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:52:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Refunds??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Randy Bush wrote: > > Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > You will be told by the InterNIC that the /20 which you are insisting they > allocate will not necessarily be universally usable. If you insist that > they give it to you anyway, the public loses, because that is wasted space. And since the public registry has already incurred the cost of allocating the netblock, I don't think there should be refunds. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Feb 2 17:12:23 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:12:23 +0000 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:07:10 PST." Message-ID: <199702022212.WAA05647@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> [antitrust at usdoj.gov removed from cc's] Karl, >So I count one place: ARIN. Actually, technically speaking, there are two. ARIN and the IANA. >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. "Agreed among themselves"? Please see RFC 1466 and who its authors are. >Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the >three registries allocate anywhere in the world. This has been discussed in the past in numerous venues, however the major sticking point is coming up with a way that insures the competitive registries do not ease allocation requirements in order to obtain additional customers without creating a huge bureaucracy of auditors. If you come up with a way, I'm sure all the registries (myself in particular) will be very interested in hearing about it. Regards, -drc From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 23:29:13 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:29:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702022212.WAA05647@nostromo.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among > >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each > >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. > > "Agreed among themselves"? Please see RFC 1466 and who its authors are. I assume you mean 2050 which supersedes 1466: Network Working Group K. Hubbard Request for Comments: 2050 M. Kosters Obsoletes: 1466 InterNIC BCP: 12 D. Conrad Category: Best Current Practice APNIC D. Karrenberg RIPE J. Postel ISI The authors certainly do represent those amongst whom one would expect an agreement to be made. The authorship tends to represent those who allocate space rather than those who consume it. --karl-- From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 23:58:00 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:58:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Refunds??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > > And since the public registry has already incurred the cost of allocating > the netblock, I don't think there should be refunds. That's generally my feeling. One alternative, albeit a very troublesome one, is that the ISPs which prevent the grant from being effectively being used should be required, as a condition of their respective ARIN grant, to pay the costs. Yes, I know that that is very, very ugly, but ARIN *could* impose such a condition on its grants. There is no reason it could not do so except its own choice not to do so. And since that choice isn't in the proposed charter document on the web site, and since there is no BoT in place, such a decision could not yet have made. There are massive grounds here for potential litigation. If ARIN is going to hold to the "non refund" policy then there should be an extremely clear warning to the potential grantees, before they pay any money, of the dangers of ISPs refusing routing and that the fees paid are for the cost of labor of services rendered. (Overall, I think ARIN is would probably be on pretty good ground with a "no refund" policy, as long as it is articulated well, customers are given good notice beforehand, and that the reasons behind the policy are well documented. [The postings on this thread could possibly constitute part of such documentation.]. I'm not so sure that the ISPs who "protect themselves" by routing filters will be able to have such a safe ride.) --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 20:19:07 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:19:07 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: References: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: At 4:11 PM -0800 2/2/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >> > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of >> > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal >> > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating >> > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a >> > loan to be repaid by ARIN. >> > >> > Or is there something else? >> >> Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, >> office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), >> phone system, etc. > >Why can't this stuff wait until ARIN is incorporated and the members hand >over their checks? > Not sure what you are asking. Without knowing what the costs are, including these mundane ones, how would people know for what amounts the check should be written? The fees still seem arbitrary numbers -- might be reasonable, might not be -- I don't have information to judge. From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 20:19:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 17:19 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or > capricious treatment of other grantees. And how would one define arbitrary or capricious? Some would say that not accepting /20s is neither, but rather is saving one's own routers. > This is one of those situations which reflect the fact that "regulation of > ARIN" by its membership is really not regulation. Since the membership > (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the > policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, > not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be > granting the tax exemptions.) I am not aware of membership being limited to ISPs. The text I see says "Open to any entity or individual wishing to participate in IP-related issues." > This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously > consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild > west" attitude of every ISP for itself. Concrete suggestions solicited. randy From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 20:06:24 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:06:24 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Randy, I fully agree many of the issues here are more NANOG/IEPG. Unfortunately, as you suggest, a significant number of participants here either don't know of those groups, or don't understand the relationship between ARIN and NANOG/IEPG. I'm not sure how to refocus this list onto address registration (ignoring ASN's). People do bring up legitimate concerns, and perhaps there needs to be more of a forum for putting them in context. At 3:30 PM -0800 2/2/97, Randy Bush wrote: >I share your concerns. I also share your questioning if this is the place >to solve them. Smells a bit NANOGish to me. > >> To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and >> don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general >> mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a >> member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing >> information for ARIN grants. > >While suspect it may not be wise to burden ARIN with this mandate, it has >enough problems already, could something be done to communicate this need >to the culture as a whole? > >Observe that this is current accepted practice for reasonably aggregated >routing. But, as has been so well demonstrated on this list, what is an >accepted part of the culture today seems not to be understood by the >massive influx of new folk. We should probably be less surprised than I, >for one, am. > >> What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you >> brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider >> independent class C. > It's a deliberately nasty example, and even then, probably better than in the real world. I stipulated the medical group had thorough exterior routing competence. That isn't as likely as we might like. >What if NSI or ARIN will not allocate less than a /19, and they keep >qualifications for space about the same as they are now? I.e. the medical >group has no alternative but to take its /24 from one of its providers. >The question becomes whether their other providers will accept that /24 >from the medial group and propagate it. And will any of their peers >listen to a /24? Without getting into any issues of what might give an appearance of collusion, I think the long-term solution to this sort of thing will be specific, fairly routine, inter-provider backup arrangements. My intuition is that aggregation is probably best served if the medical group gets a /24 assigned from Provider A space, with prior agreement from Provider B that Provider B will advertise the specific hole from Provider A space, if and only if the customer-to-A link is lost and the customer intelligently starts advertising the /24 to Provider B. Not necessarily pretty, but winds up with only one /24 being advertised occasionally. Of course, that /24 needs to be withdrawn when the primary link comes back up, so some level of dampening probably is necessary. One would hope that with a sufficient number of bilateral provider agreements like this, the workload would tend to equalize. Now -- this is a real world problem. I haven't even scratched issues like attempts to load balance, having >2 providers, etc. I'm sure that if this were discussed in detail, there would be many more complexities. In all sincerity, for those of you who think ARIN is being anticompetitive because it discourages giving out small PI blocks, please read the preceding four paragraphs. I have not tried to be obscure, but have not written a lengthy tutorial either. If you are uncomfortable pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of this off-the-top-of-my-head example, I respectfully suggest you have some homework to do before assuming that other than technical factors are involved in the allocation & routing policies here. > >Before folk who do not run default-free routers today go ballistic, note >that this issue is current today, sans ARIN and independent of the >InterNIC. If someone bludgeons NSI into giving them a /24 out of 208 or >wherever Kim's allocating this week, it is becoming less and less routable >as more and more of us unstall filters. > >So if the InterNIC allows the medical group to bludgeon them out of a /24, >they are really not doing the medical group a favor, in fact, it is a >disfavor. I suggest that ARIN consider not doing so. In general, I agree. > >But, as you suggest, much of this is NANOG and IEPG fodder, as it is an >inter-pprovider matter, and neither InterNIC nor ARIN can dictate to the >providers. > >randy From davec at ZIPLINK.NET Mon Feb 3 00:23:12 1997 From: davec at ZIPLINK.NET (Dave Curado) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:23:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Refunds??? Message-ID: <199702030523.AAA06493@zip1.ziplink.net> >>> Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? In a bizarre twist, this could theoretically cost you money. =-) Kim and David Conrad (et al) have made it clear that the registry is charging for the work that goes into making the allocation, not for the address space itself. When you "de-allocate" space, they have to go through more work (although probably much less) to edit their files, databases, whois server, etc. (all that said, I'd bet they won't charge for this service =-) In any case, the question is not relevant as ARIN (just as the NIC) can only allocate space, but can not guarantee routability. davec From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 3 00:31:52 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:31:52 +0900 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 1997 20:29:13 PST." Message-ID: <199702030531.OAA06554@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Karl, >I assume you mean 2050 which supersedes 1466: No. The registries existed before 2050. 2050 documents current registry allocation guidelines, it does NOT address how the registries were created. RFC 1466 documents why and how the registries were created. Please read RFC 1466 and see what I mean. >The authorship tends to represent those who allocate space rather >than those who consume it. To save you some time: Network Working Group E. Gerich Request for Comments: 1466 Merit Obsoletes: 1366 May 1993 Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract This document has been reviewed by the Federal Engineering Planning Group (FEPG) on behalf of the Federal Networking Council (FNC), the co-chairs of the Intercontinental Engineering Planning Group (IEPG), and the Reseaux IP Europeens (RIPE). There was general consensus by those groups to support the recommendations proposed in this document for management of the IP address space. ... Regards, -drc From apb at IAFRICA.COM Mon Feb 3 00:39:03 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:39:03 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: Dave McClure wrote: > When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a > clarification to our members. Thanks. I didn't know about that. > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control > of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be > under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the trust of the community. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will > elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory > Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board > of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input > from the members of ARIN. Yes, I agree that that might be a problem. Perhaps it would be useful if you proposed a concrete alternative? (Or perhaps you have done so already, and I don't remember it?) > [various good points deleted] --apb (Alan Barrett) From woody at ZOCALO.NET Mon Feb 3 00:39:14 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:39:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Refunds??? Message-ID: <199702030539.VAA02237@zocalo.net> > One alternative, albeit a very troublesome one, is that the ISPs > which prevent the grant from being effectively being used should > be required, as a condition of their respective ARIN grant, to > pay the costs. No, that's not possible either. Let's say that I get a /16 from ARIN, and try to set up a peering session to announce it to MCI, and plan to run default-free. MCI is, of course, not going to actually bother to send packets to me for this this block, regardless of how big it is; they'll want to send the packets to someone they already have a peering agreement with. If it's my whim that I want to run default free, then they've just rendered my block useless. Under the scheme you suggest, I could return it to ARIN and MCI would have to pay a fee. I would, of course, keep doing this over and over until MCI gave in and set up a peering session, or Kim hired a thug to convince me to stop being a pest. Nice plan, but I doubt that Peter Kline, for instance, would sign off on it. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From bmanning at ISI.EDU Mon Feb 3 03:33:00 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:33:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anti-trust concerns vs. reliable address space concerns In-Reply-To: <32F269FF.6F07@driveway1.com> from "Larry Honig" at Jan 31, 97 04:54:07 pm Message-ID: <199702030833.AA15252@zephyr.isi.edu> > Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable > addresses being issued? Or addresses being unintentionally replicated? > How does the newly assigned address block get validated as kosher right > now other than in the "dreaded real world test"? > My case predates NSI and NAIPR handleing of address space. I had received approx. 60 /24 delegations (I'll check the files fr the actual numbers if you -really- need to know) which were also delegated to other sites. I ended up renumbering those 60+ sites into other number space to avoid injecting duplicates. As you can tell, this predates CIDR and RFC 1597 work by a number of years. -- --bill From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 06:14:29 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 06:14:29 -0500 Subject: Rebate? (not) [Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.] Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203061423.0070df1c@lint.cisco.com> At 06:38 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >Suppose someone goes through all the necessary hoops and gets an ARIN >assigned block. > >And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's >policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend. > >Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > I should hope not. Services have been rendered; in fact, they should be charged twice. - paul From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Mon Feb 3 07:23:20 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:23:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Anti-trust concerns vs. reliable address space concerns Message-ID: <199702031223.HAA04093@newdev.harvard.edu> > Also, for my edification, are there any DOCUMENTED CASES of unroutable > addresses being issued? well I got 192.18/16 and 192.19/16 to be used in network device performance testing equipment and asked to be sure that they are not routable - it can get a bit hard on a system to be the target of the type of data stream that this type of gear can produce :-) Scott From hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Feb 3 08:53:15 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:53:15 -0500 Subject: Refunds??? In-Reply-To: <199702030523.AAA06493@zip1.ziplink.net> Message-ID: At 12:23 AM -0500 2/3/97, Dave Curado wrote: >>>> Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid? > >In a bizarre twist, this could theoretically cost you money. =-) >Kim and David Conrad (et al) have made it clear that the registry >is charging for the work that goes into making the allocation, not >for the address space itself. When you "de-allocate" space, they have >to go through more work (although probably much less) to edit their >files, databases, whois server, etc. >(all that said, I'd bet they won't charge for this service =-) Interesting observation. Perhaps a "15% restocking charge" much as imposed by many stores after sales. > >In any case, the question is not relevant as ARIN (just as the NIC) >can only allocate space, but can not guarantee routability. > >davec Yes. This point cannot be made strongly enough. While it would be nice to have a guarantee of routability, the ISP/registry/etc. infrastructure does not exist to do this, cannot be created in the short term before Internic replacement operations must start, and may not be technically possible. Howard From hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Feb 3 08:57:26 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:57:26 -0500 Subject: Congratulations (was RE: AOP Notification) In-Reply-To: References: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: Humor does creep into this flamefest. Thank you, Alan, for a great T-shirt or button design: At 7:39 AM +0200 2/3/97, Alan Barrett wrote: >I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community >chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN >know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in >their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the >trust of the community. IANA: We know how anarchy works ARIN: We document anarchy Howard From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Mon Feb 3 08:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 08:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> PF>ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix PF>is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the PF>business of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting PF>to assume that one could actually do this is not in touch with PF>reality. PF>>ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do PF>so, >impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary PF>or >capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note PF>indicating >that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing PF>such a >condition.] PF>> PF>This is, in my humble opinion, common sense, as well as conventional PF>wisdom. PF>>It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be PF>>independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own PF>>choices without regard for anyone else." PF>> PF>ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, they PF>can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, the fact PF>that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal issue. Under the PF>ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is now they will pay PF>for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining address space directly PF>from ARIN. Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? This whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. I've watched much of the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this proposal. From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be the ISPs and network providers. This is akin to the "not in my backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With ARIN is seems we agree there needs to be some control over address space (albeit we would probably disagree on how much control and what the real purpose of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a minute. They weren't even the ones asking for it from what I can see. Paul's point is there will even be limietd benefit for them, even if they go along with it. So why should they start coughing up money for something which has this little potential for them ? Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 3 09:34:50 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:34:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> from "Jeff Binkley" at Feb 3, 97 08:55:00 am Message-ID: <199702031434.JAA09727@jazz.internic.net> > > > Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why > should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? You don't have to. If you do not require the services of an IP registry and feel that receiving globally unique IP addresses has no perceived value than you do not need to use ARIN's services. However, the IP registry function is no longer US government subsidized so someone must fund it. Who better than those that use those services? Kim > > Jeff Binkley > ASA Network Computing > > CMPQwk 1.42 9999 > From randy at PSG.COM Mon Feb 3 09:34:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 06:34 PST Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C References: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: > Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? Bzzzzzzt! They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. And, if you perceive no benefit in address allocation, the you won't have to play at all. Cool, n'est ce pas? randy From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Mon Feb 3 09:51:51 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:51:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > > Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why > should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? This whole thing > reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. I've watched much of > the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be > ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this > proposal. From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, > hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other > interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be > the ISPs and network providers. This is akin to the "not in my > backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree > they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With ARIN is > seems we agree there needs to be some control over address space (albeit > we would probably disagree on how much control and what the real purpose > of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay > for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a minute. They weren't even the > ones asking for it from what I can see. Paul's point is there will even > be limietd benefit for them, even if they go along with it. So why > should they start coughing up money for something which has this little > potential for them ? I think you are confusing the ISPs who *will* pay the fees, and the downstream ISPs who will bear only the incremental costs. I feel fairly confident that the concensus among ISPs who do get address space directly from InterNIC now is that ARIN is a good idea. I'm sorry if the small ISPs and BBSs don't understand all the issues, but to hold up the proposal because the downstream ISPs won't take the time to educate themselves is akin to GM holding up the development of a new engine because the average shade-tree mechanic doesn't understand the computer controls of the current engine. I will state that I work for an ISP, we get our IP allocations from InterNIC presently, and we support the general idea of the ARIN proposal, even if there are some minor details we would like cleaned up. If the medium to large ISPs were opposed to this, I think you would see evidence of it here. Hell, even mcs.net agrees with parts of it. :) (No offense Karl). Jeremiah ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From aop at cris.com Mon Feb 3 09:54:28 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:54:28 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC11BB.921A87A0@cnc019080.concentric.net> Alan, I actually have proposed (unfortunately, some of them in private notes to Kim Hubbard) a list of small but important changes that could make the proposal far more acceptable. Things like: 1) Opening the loop for member input but stating unequivocally that the Advisory Council will be elected directly by the members, and that the Advisory Council will elect the Trustees. These are inferred in draft two, but as the lawyers say, if it ain't in writing, it ain't. 2) Provide a mission statement up front. Simple, since the mission is obvious to some. But it needs to be there. 3) Reassign the creation of goals for ARIN from the Advisory Council to the Board of Trustees. 4) Remove Kim Hubbard's name from the list of Trustees. Since Kim's intention is to be an employee of ARIN (a good idea, I think), she wouldn't be a Trustee anyway. And this removes the NSI double-trustee problem. 5) Provide better economic information. So far, and still, we have heard only the vaguest of details in support of the extensive fee structure -- first that it is "what they are doing in Europe and Asia", then that it will take this much money (with no details as to why), and finally that since NSI is funding ARIN's startup, it's their business anyway. . . Alan, anarchy is a very poor management model, and generally only works when someone else is footing the bill. ARIN begins the transition to a model in which every penny of this will come, directly or indirectly, from our pockets. This isn't, as has been inferred, as case in which we just replace funding from NSF with a quick gouge of the "big guys". We are those guys. And I'd note again that once ARIN is in place with a closed Board that is not accountable to the industry or its members, you'll play hell trying to change it. Who would you complain to? And why would they listen to you? Anyway, those are my thoughts. . . Dave ---------- From: Alan Barrett[SMTP:apb at IAFRICA.COM] Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 2:39 AM To: Dave McClure Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: RE: AOP Notification Dave McClure wrote: > When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a > clarification to our members. Thanks. I didn't know about that. > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control > of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be > under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the trust of the community. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will > elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory > Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board > of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input > from the members of ARIN. Yes, I agree that that might be a problem. Perhaps it would be useful if you proposed a concrete alternative? (Or perhaps you have done so already, and I don't remember it?) > [various good points deleted] --apb (Alan Barrett) From aop at cris.com Mon Feb 3 10:05:38 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:05:38 -0500 Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding Message-ID: <01BC11BB.954F73E0@cnc019080.concentric.net> Actually, Michael, members will pay $1,000 per year, and membership is not required in order to register for address space. Nonetheless, a fact of life for non-profits is that you cannot survive on dues revenue alone. Most associations earn half or more of their revenues from dues, and I expect ARIN to be no exception. Also, I believe that they will have trouble building a large member base at that dues level. AOP can afford it, but most of our members cannot (or will not). One of the problems in setting a dues level is an old marketing question -- everyone sagely agrees that it is a fair price and that they would likely pay it until they actually have to write the check. I believe that $50,000 plus is a fair price for a Jaguar, but I won't buy one of them, either. That's why it is critical to know exactly how many members of NSI will move to ARIN and what the structure will be. I'm also curious as to why this, one of the most critical elements of the Internet infrastructure, can't be funded by the NSF Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. . . Dave ---------- From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:15 PM To: naipr at arin.net Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding I made some statements about the financing of ARIN by using membership fees. However, I misunderstood the intent of the current proposal which is that members will pay $1,000 when they join but will only pay the annual subscription fee ($2,500 - $20,000) the next time they apply to ARIN for more address space. Since this could be a long time after ARIN is formed, it is clearly impractical to consider it for initial funding. Basically, this leaves NSI's offer to pay good money to move the IP allocation function out of their company, employees and all. And while there is a mystery fund sitting in an NSF trust account, I don't think that there is any way that this could become available soon enough to get ARIN off the ground in April. Given that ARIN is jump-started with NSI funding, it makes sense that their CEO sits on the board. If I were the CEO of NSI, then I would do the same to make sure that things are done right and my goals are achieved. And it seems likely that Mr. Telage's goal is to get this unfunded public service activity out of his corporation. Under more normal circumstances a CEO would either sell the division or shut it down. But since the NSF has managed to saddle him with an operation that is not saleable, the formation of ARIN seems to be the only reasonable way out. I'm sure Mr. Telage would not hesitate to resign from ARIN after the startup stage is complete since he has bigger fish to fry in the domain name business and the intranet consulting business. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 3 10:33:23 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:33:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why > should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for > today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? No one is forced to pay for anything for which they recieve no benefit. > This whole thing > reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. TANSTAAFL. If you don't want to have government's levying taxes then you need to have a user-pay system. > I've watched much of > the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be > ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this > proposal. A lot of the ISP's who would pay the most money under this proposal have already been contacted directly and basically agreed to the whole plan. Remember, the Internic only has allocated IP address blocks to 300 organizations not all of whom are ISP's. And there are 3,500 ISP's and growing just in Canada and the USA alone. There are probably another 1,000 ISP's in the rest of the area under ARIN's jurisdiction. > of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay > for it, This is not wholly accurate. We have said several times and in several ways that most ISP's will pay either nothing, or such a minimal amount that it could not possibly have a negative impact on them. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From hcb at CLARK.NET Mon Feb 3 10:43:58 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:43:58 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND IN C In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> References: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: At 8:55 AM -0500 2/3/97, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >PF>>It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be >PF>>independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own >PF>>choices without regard for anyone else." >PF>> > >PF>ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, they >PF>can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, the fact >PF>that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal issue. Under the >PF>ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is now they will pay >PF>for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining address space directly >PF>from ARIN. > > >Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. Why >should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to pay for >today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? But they don't pay for it today because it's been funded by NSF. They do get benefits of controlled unique addressing. Addressing of this sort is a prerequisite for global routability, but they are not the same thing. >This whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. Take a different government example. When I was a kid, and my mother took me to visit a national park, there were no admission fees or very small fees. Jeff, you don't suggest here that there are no costs to running a Yellowstone or Yosemite, do you? The point I'm making is that the park operations were subsidized by general tax funding. As federal budgets become tighter, there's been more emphasis on user fees for services, privatizing services, etc. Same thing, in my mind, whether it is the Park Service or NSF. >I've watched much of >the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to be >ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this >proposal. I really think you need to distinguish between the smaller ISPs that emphasize customer connectivity, and the larger network service providers (NSP). Think of the latter as those firms with national or large regional backbones, whose primary business is moving large numbers of bytes rather than providing web services, dialup access, etc. The latter don't seem to be complaining here, and I think that is because they take registry services as a cost of doing business. NSPs have been quite active in the IETF, NANOG, etc., so these proposals are not a surprise. NSPs, I suspect, feel they don't need to complain because they have already gone through the discussions in the RFC2050 effort, etc. Don't assume 2050 and related documents were things where it was easy to reach consensus. Sprint had pushed for the minimum allocation being /18, and a lot of effort was to reach compromise on a /19. For whatever reasons, the smaller ISPs are just starting to get exposed to some fairly well-developed issues. >From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, >hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other >interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be >the ISPs and network providers. Other than arguments over the details of the proposal -- parts of which I don't like either -- could you point out a NSP that has major technical problems with the proposal? Smaller ISPs, certainly. Some of these smaller ISPs also are demanding address portability and global routability that no one knows how to do in a reliable and scalable way, regardless of how many people scream "there _ought_ to be a way to do this." In fact, address portability is, IMHO, an obsolescent issue. Current good practice is to design systems such that they are easily renumbered, or to translate addresses on a firewall or gateway that might be installed in any case. Don't misinterpret what I am saying to mean I am opposed to smaller ISPs in the market. I think they have a critical role in supporting end user services, whether dialup access, web hosting, etc. I'm writing this from a personal account, and it is no accident that it is with a local ISP rather than AT&T, MCI, etc. But the smaller ISPs simply have not grown up aware of the operational scalability issues necessary, at least in the short term, to let the Internet grow and prosper. >This is akin to the "not in my >backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree >they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With ARIN is >seems we agree there needs to be some control over address space (albeit >we would probably disagree on how much control and what the real purpose >of the control was for) but the supports are saying make the ISPs pay >for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a minute. They weren't even the >ones asking for it from what I can see. Paul's point is there will even >be limietd benefit for them, even if they go along with it. So why >should they start coughing up money for something which has this little >potential for them ? It comes down to a simple question...you agree there is a need for "some control over address space." You agree, I belive, that providing such control involves expenditure of funds. Then my question to you: who pays? I don't really care who pays as long as the function is funded, and I believe that costs will eventually be reflected in pricing no matter who is charged. I also believe that the costs will be relatively small in relation to the profits to be made and the benefits perceived by customers. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 13:39:44 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:39:44 -0500 Subject: Fundamental misunderstanding Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203133938.006b1150@lint.cisco.com> At 10:05 AM 2/3/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >I'm also curious as to why this, one of the most critical elements of the Internet infrastructure, can't be funded by the NSF Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. . . > Because the NSF is not in the business of subsidizing the commodity Internet. - paul From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Feb 3 14:12:15 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:12:15 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 EST." <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> References: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199702031912.OAA18164@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 EST, Paul Ferguson said: > ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix > is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business > of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume > that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice will render it unrouted from many locations? This sort of ties back to the straw man proposal I made a while back re: /19's for multi-homed groups. I saw one response to that, and nothing further. Are there any updates re: that? -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 14:16:58 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:16:58 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203141655.006c20c4@lint.cisco.com> At 02:12 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix >> is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business >> of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume >> that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. > >I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody >please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving >out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice >will render it unrouted from many locations? > It is my opinion that if an entity wants a prefix (for the sake of this discussion) longer than a /19 which they can safely assume will be routable in the commodity Internet, they should obtain it from their upstream provider. - paul From shiang at earthlink.net Mon Feb 3 14:21:00 1997 From: shiang at earthlink.net (shiang at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:21:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Price dropped!!! Message-ID: <199702031921.LAA10917@lithuania.it.earthlink.net> Dear Sir: Based on our research we feel that you may be interested in receiving periodic updates on prices on various computer components. We apologize for any inconvenience that may have cause you, and if you want to be removed from our list. Please just send us an email with subject REMOVE!! We will take you off our list. For this here is our prices on Computer Components: IBM 133 MHz 166+ CPU-$146.00 72 Pin 1MB X 32 EDO 60 ns(4mb)-$17.00 2mb X 32 EDO 60 ns(8mb)-$30.95 4mb X 32 EDO 60 ns(16mb)-$69.00 Modems 33.6k W/O voice-$67.95 33.6k W/voice-$77.95 Harddrive 1.2G-$189.00 1.6G-$199.00 2.0G-$245.00 Multimedia 8X CD ROM-$92.00 Ess 1868 16 bit soundcard-$28.95 Iomega Zipp Drive Ext. Parallel/SCSI-$179.00 Diamond Stealth 64 1mb Dram PCI-$59.00 Please Visit our website at http://www.rcomputer.com Or email to us at Sales at rcomputer.com Best regards, R-Computer From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Feb 3 14:34:53 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:34:53 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:16:58 EST." <3.0.32.19970203141655.006c20c4@lint.cisco.com> References: <3.0.32.19970203141655.006c20c4@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199702031934.OAA37702@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:16:58 EST, Paul Ferguson said: > It is my opinion that if an entity wants a prefix (for the sake of > this discussion) longer than a /19 which they can safely assume will > be routable in the commodity Internet, they should obtain it from > their upstream provider. That's fine and dandy, unless you also want to multihome. If you're a group (a company for instance) that wants to be *really* available All The Time, what do you do? For instance, (speaking hypothetically) two companies that might fall into this category are Netscape Inc and Yahoo Inc. It appears that www.netscape.com lives in a Barrnet network (198.95.251.X), and www.yahoo.com lives in an MCI space (www1.yahoo.com at 204.71.177.X). Are you saying that you would *prohibit* these two companies from multihoming? Even if they have the technical know-how, have their own BGP wizard in house, and all that? Neither company has anywhere NEAR enough machines to qualify for a /19 based on size. Are they therefor chained to what they can negotiate with *one* provider? (And yes, I know that these 2 companies have a large number of HTTP mirrors, almost certainly spread across multiple vendors. However, not all IP services are as easily mirrored, so saying "you can work around that for HTTP" is *not* an acceptable answer). -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Feb 3 14:43:32 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:43:32 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203144327.0068fa38@lint.cisco.com> At 02:34 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: >> It is my opinion that if an entity wants a prefix (for the sake of >> this discussion) longer than a /19 which they can safely assume will >> be routable in the commodity Internet, they should obtain it from >> their upstream provider. > >That's fine and dandy, unless you also want to multihome. If you're >a group (a company for instance) that wants to be *really* available >All The Time, what do you do? > Dare I say it -- pay for transit. You are never going to reach concensus on how to handle this issue, but by the same token, you can't force any particular service provider to carry a longer prefix if you are not already paying them for service. This gets back into the whole discussion on whether an economic model for route advertisements is feasible, but not an applicable discussion topic for this list. - paul ps. Can you please reconfigure your mailer *not* to attach the mail headers as attachments? Thanks. From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 3 15:19:59 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: <199702031912.OAA18164@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody > please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving > out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice > will render it unrouted from many locations? How could there possibly be any legal exposure when ARIN issues a disclaimer that receiving a globally unique IP address block from them does not guarantee any sort of routability? Didn't you notice Scott Bradner's message about the IP address blocks used for testing equipment? Or SAP's use of globally unique addresses that never hit the net? The registries give out unique addresses whether you want to use them on the public Internet or not. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 3 15:44:02 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:44:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: <199702031934.OAA37702@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > Are you saying that you would *prohibit* these two companies from > multihoming? There is more than one way to achieve the main goal that most compaies have when they decide to multihome. Some of these solutions do not require the company to have their own provider independent (PI) netblock. Therefore, nothing ARIN does can either enable or prohibit these companies from receiving the benefits of multihoming. It's simply not an issue for here on this list. IPv4 address blocks are an international public resource. It's not the job of IANA, RIPE, APNIC or ARIN to make it easy to connect to the Internet or to make it cheap to connect to the Internet. Their job is to prudently allocate the public resource in such a way that the resource is not depleted. If this forces some companies to do things the hard way rather than the easy way, then this is OK because it serves the public interest. > Are they > therefor chained to what they can negotiate with *one* provider? They are at liberty to negotiate with as many providers as they wish. ARIN has nothing whatsoever to do with private business negotiations. If the company is shrewd they will have structured their network so that renumbering is cheap and painless and will thus be in a much stronger negotiating position. It's a free country, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 3 23:36:38 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:36:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN In-Reply-To: <35.264133.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: Having just talked to our NSP today and found that after the address space allocation they gave us today, we will have to go to Internic/Arin (whichever is running the show when the time comes) to get our next address blocks, I decided it was time to have another look at the ARIN site. First, I got sidetracked by www.arin.org (hmm...doesn't look like the right place). Then found the right site and read through the proposal. I think it could have been worded more clearly. Section 2.3 is not exactly clear in that ISP's/NSP's requesting blocks do not pay both a registration fee and a yearly maintenance fee. I had to wade 60% through the 1mb+ file which is the first section of the list archive to find a definitive looking quote from someone at internic.net saying ISP's don't pay the registration fee, just the maintenance fee. If the list is archived in some sort of threaded format rather than 2 mega text files, the arin.net site should have a pointer to it. We don't all have T1's to our houses. Downloading 600kb of text over a 28.8 shared with another computer to get the answer to a simple question is ridiculous. With all the questions people must have about ARIN and what it means to them, a searchable archive of the list would be a bonus idea. So...when FDT does ask ARIN for a /18 (in 6-12 months probably), we'll have to start shelling out $5k/year...plus another $1k/year if we want any say in things, want to send a rep to meetings, or have a vote. Is it too much to ask that those entities who are paying (subsidizing) ARIN for registry maintenance are automatically granted membership? I'm not sure where the numbers and cutoffs for fees came from...but it looks like they were trying to figure out just how much the market would bear rather than what might be reasonable. $5k/year won't kill us...but it will hurt. Why should we pay the same amount as an ISP/NSP 4 times our size? The difference in cash flow must be enormous between ISP's of such different sizes. i.e. for a small ISP with a /19, monthly payments on the $5k ARIN fee might be >10% of their gross montly income...while for an ISP 4x that size in a /16, it might only be ~2% of their gross monthly income. Will fees be collected at the beginning or end of each year? Can they be spread out over the year (monthly payments?) or must they be paid all at once? What methods of payment will be accepted? What happens if we're late on a payment or just don't pay for some reason? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Tue Feb 4 01:07:49 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:07:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Comments on ARIN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: > different sizes. i.e. for a small ISP with a /19, monthly payments on the > $5k ARIN fee might be >10% of their gross montly income...while for an ISP > 4x that size in a /16, it might only be ~2% of their gross monthly income. Ack!...make me wear the silly hat for the night. I just noticed I dropped a decimal point. Those %'s should be more like 1.5% vs 0.3%. Much smaller percentages...but still, an extra $5k/year expense will hurt a small ISP in a /19 a lot more than a large ISP or small NSP in a /16. I can see us at the end of the year trying to decide if we should cut the check to ARIN or buy 16 more modems, or upgrade the news server disks, or spend it on some other equally important upgrade. Whereas the larger ISP in a /16 is trying to decide whether to buy another 4700M or upgrade to the 7k class router. $5k isn't pocket change to us...at least not yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702031434.JAA09727@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: <35.264372.7@asacomp.com> KH>> KH>> KH>> Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. KH>> Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to KH>> pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? KH>You don't have to. If you do not require the services of an IP KH>registry and feel that receiving globally unique IP addresses has no KH>perceived value than you do not need to use ARIN's services. KH>However, the IP registry function is no longer US government KH>subsidized so someone must fund it. Who better than those that use KH>those services? I don't disagree that globalbly registering address space is good thing. Paul is the one who said there would be little benefit, I was only confirming what he said. As for subsidizing the service, I would tend to agree a usage "tax" is the way to go but we must remember there are a lot of "non-profit" organizations who make up this list of users and skew the payign user base vs. the using user base. It would be like making the truckers pay for all of the road taxes but everyone else gets to drive for free. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.264373.7@asacomp.com> HC>At 8:55 AM -0500 2/3/97, Jeff Binkley wrote: HC>> HC>>PF>>It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be HC>>PF>>independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our HC>>PF>>own choices without regard for anyone else." HC>> HC>>PF>ISP's can already do this; if they can justify PI address space, HC>>PF>they can decide to go to the InterNIC to obtain it. Once again, HC>>PF>the fact that it may or may not be routable is an orthogonal HC>>PF>issue. Under the ARIN proposal, the only functional difference is HC>>PF>now they will pay for the services rendered by ARIN in obtaining HC>>PF>address space directly from ARIN. HC>> HC>> HC>>Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. HC>Why >should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to HC>pay for >today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? HC>But they don't pay for it today because it's been funded by NSF. HC>They do get benefits of controlled unique addressing. Addressing of HC>this sort is a prerequisite for global routability, but they are not HC>the same thing. HC>>This whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. HC>Take a different government example. When I was a kid, and my mother HC>took me to visit a national park, there were no admission fees or HC>very small fees. Jeff, you don't suggest here that there are no HC>costs to running a Yellowstone or Yosemite, do you? The point I'm HC>making is that the park operations were subsidized by general tax HC>funding. HC>As federal budgets become tighter, there's been more emphasis on user HC>fees for services, privatizing services, etc. Same thing, in my HC>mind, whether it is the Park Service or NSF. I don't disagree but general funding means everyone pays unless they become tax exempt. This means folks who use the park or not. It's like where I live we subsidize the schools via property taxes. My wife and I have no kids and my neighbor has 5 yet we pay the same taxes. That's quite a big different than what is being proposed. HC>>I've watched much of HC>>the discussion going on here and many of the supporters tend not to HC>be >ISPs or folks who would be directly finacnially impacted by this HC>>proposal. HC>I really think you need to distinguish between the smaller ISPs that HC>emphasize customer connectivity, and the larger network service HC>providers (NSP). Think of the latter as those firms with national or HC>large regional backbones, whose primary business is moving large HC>numbers of bytes rather than providing web services, dialup access, HC>etc. The latter don't seem to be complaining here, and I think that HC>is because they take registry services as a cost of doing business. HC>NSPs have been quite active in the IETF, NANOG, etc., so these HC>proposals are not a surprise. NSPs, I suspect, feel they don't need HC>to complain because they have already gone through the discussions in HC>the RFC2050 effort, etc. The later don't seem to be participating here. That's a big difference. HC>Don't assume 2050 and related documents were things where it was easy HC>to reach consensus. Sprint had pushed for the minimum allocation HC>being /18, and a lot of effort was to reach compromise on a /19. HC>For whatever reasons, the smaller ISPs are just starting to get HC>exposed to some fairly well-developed issues. HC>>From my unofficial counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, HC>>hardware vendors, academic affiliated individuals and a few other HC>>interested parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to HC>be >the ISPs and network providers. HC>Other than arguments over the details of the proposal -- parts of HC>which I don't like either -- could you point out a NSP that has major HC>technical problems with the proposal? Smaller ISPs, certainly. Some HC>of these smaller ISPs also are demanding address portability and HC>global routability that no one knows how to do in a reliable and HC>scalable way, regardless of how many people scream "there _ought_ to HC>be a way to do this." In fact, address portability is, IMHO, an HC>obsolescent issue. Current good practice is to design systems such HC>that they are easily renumbered, or to translate addresses on a HC>firewall or gateway that might be installed in any case. HC>Don't misinterpret what I am saying to mean I am opposed to smaller HC>ISPs in the market. I think they have a critical role in supporting HC>end user services, whether dialup access, web hosting, etc. I'm HC>writing this from a personal account, and it is no accident that it HC>is with a local ISP rather than AT&T, MCI, etc. But the smaller ISPs HC>simply have not grown up aware of the operational scalability issues HC>necessary, at least in the short term, to let the Internet grow and HC>prosper. I would guess they are painfully aware of some of these issues just perhaps not on the same scale. HC>>This is akin to the "not in my HC>>backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all HC>agree >they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. HC>With ARIN is >seems we agree there needs to be some control over HC>address space (albeit >we would probably disagree on how much control HC>and what the real purpose >of the control was for) but the supports HC>are saying make the ISPs pay >for it, while the ISPs are saying wait HC>a minute. They weren't even the >ones asking for it from what I can HC>see. Paul's point is there will even >be limietd benefit for them, HC>even if they go along with it. So why >should they start coughing up HC>money for something which has this little >potential for them ? HC>It comes down to a simple question...you agree there is a need for HC>control "some over address space." You agree, I belive, that HC>control providing such involves expenditure of funds. HC>Then my question to you: who pays? I don't really care who pays as HC>long as the function is funded, and I believe that costs will HC>eventually be reflected in pricing no matter who is charged. I also HC>believe that the costs will be relatively small in relation to the HC>profits to be made and the benefits perceived by customers. I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it would be a mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic pressures. history has proven this. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.264374.7@asacomp.com> JK>On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: JK>> Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal. JK>> Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to JK>> pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? This JK>> whole thing reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes. JK>> I've watched much of the discussion going on here and many of the JK>> supporters tend not to be ISPs or folks who would be directly JK>> finacnially impacted by this proposal. From my unofficial JK>> counting the supporters tend to be: NSI, hardware vendors, JK>> academic affiliated individuals and a few other interested JK>> parties. The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be the JK>> ISPs and network providers. This is akin to the "not in my JK>> backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like. We all agree JK>> they are needed but don't build them next to where I live. With JK>> ARIN is seems we agree there needs to be some control over address JK>> space (albeit we would probably disagree on how much control and JK>> what the real purpose of the control was for) but the supports are JK>> saying make the ISPs pay for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a JK>> minute. They weren't even the ones asking for it from what I can JK>> see. Paul's point is there will even be limietd benefit for them, JK>> even if they go along with it. So why should they start coughing JK>> up money for something which has this little potential for them ? JK>I think you are confusing the ISPs who *will* pay the fees, and the JK>downstream ISPs who will bear only the incremental costs. I feel JK>fairly confident that the concensus among ISPs who do get address JK>space directly from InterNIC now is that ARIN is a good idea. I'm JK>sorry if the small ISPs and BBSs don't understand all the issues, but JK>to hold up the proposal because the downstream ISPs won't take the JK>time to educate themselves is akin to GM holding up the development JK>of a new engine because the average shade-tree mechanic doesn't JK>understand the computer controls of the current engine. JK>I will state that I work for an ISP, we get our IP allocations from JK>InterNIC presently, and we support the general idea of the ARIN JK>proposal, even if there are some minor details we would like cleaned JK>up. If the medium to large ISPs were opposed to this, I think you JK>would see evidence of it here. Hell, even mcs.net agrees with parts JK>of it. :) (No offense Karl). I am not confused at all. I was only responding to Paul's comments. As for assuming that large ISPs are ok with this because they aren't providing any input here would be a big mistake. My onlu point here was that most of the folks who are vocally supporting the funding piece of the proposal aren't the ones who will be footing the bill. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Tue Feb 4 15:55:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35.264371.7@asacomp.com> RB>> Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to RB>> pay for today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ? RB>Bzzzzzzt! RB>They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical RB>accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. This is your opinion. I'm personally still neutral on it. RB>And, if you perceive no benefit in address allocation, the you won't RB>have to play at all. Those weren't my words but Paul's. I was only iterating that if he is correct, then the whole reason for this proposal becomes very cloudy. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 16:38:56 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 16:38:56 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204163853.006a9e7c@lint.cisco.com> At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe >this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic >one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can >move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it would be a >mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules >because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic pressures. >history has proven this. > If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream providers. Problem solved. - paul From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 16:42:31 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 16:42:31 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204164228.006b7318@lint.cisco.com> I'm not quite sure you understand *what( I was talking about, since you keep attributing these silly remarks to me. I never said such a thing at all, or perhaps you just transmogrified something else I did happen to say. Of course registered addresses are necessary, unless you are not connecting to the global Internet. If not, the RFC1918 address space is sufficient. In the future, I'll speak for myself, thank you. - paul At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >I don't disagree that globalbly registering address space is good thing. >Paul is the one who said there would be little benefit, I was only >confirming what he said. As for subsidizing the service, I would tend >to agree a usage "tax" is the way to go but we must remember there are a >lot of "non-profit" organizations who make up this list of users and >skew the payign user base vs. the using user base. It would be like >making the truckers pay for all of the road taxes but everyone else gets >to drive for free. > From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 4 16:46:00 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:46:00 +0100 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 EST." <35.264373.7@asacomp.com> References: <35.264373.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: <9702042146.AA09797@ncc.ripe.net> jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) writes: * * HC>Then my question to you: who pays? I don't really care who pays as * HC>long as the function is funded, and I believe that costs will * HC>eventually be reflected in pricing no matter who is charged. I also * HC>believe that the costs will be relatively small in relation to the * HC>profits to be made and the benefits perceived by customers. * * I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe * this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic * one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can * move onto the organizational and economic pieces. And in the meantime who does the registration? You can't just wait until all of the engineering problems are solved before establishing a new registry system. When the funding stops it stops. If you can find someonbe willing to fund all the registration needs until the engineering problems are solved I'm sure everybody will be happy. John Crain From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 4 16:40:07 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:40:07 +0100 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:55:00 EST." <35.264372.7@asacomp.com> References: <35.264372.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: <9702042140.AA09765@ncc.ripe.net> jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) writes: * * * I don't disagree that globalbly registering address space is good thing. * Paul is the one who said there would be little benefit, I was only * confirming what he said. As for subsidizing the service, I would tend * to agree a usage "tax" is the way to go but we must remember there are a * lot of "non-profit" organizations who make up this list of users and * skew the payign user base vs. the using user base. It would be like * making the truckers pay for all of the road taxes but everyone else gets * to drive for free. A usage tax, in which country? ARIN will not only operate for the USA. How are you going to get all of the authorities in all of ARIN prospective region to agree to a tax system. The ideas nice but not workable. Unless the US ISP's are willing to be taxed for teh rest of teh Americas region:-) John Crain From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Feb 4 17:23:46 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:23:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <35.264371.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > RB>They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical > RB>accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. > > This is your opinion. I'm personally still neutral on it. Then perhaps you should read through http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/ and the ammendments made to it. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Tue Feb 4 18:01:12 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:01:12 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702042251.RAA01865@lists.internic.net> ---------- > At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > > > > >I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I believe > >this is first an engineering question and not an organizational/economic > >one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we can > >move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it would be a > >mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules > >because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic pressures. > >history has proven this. > > > > If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be > having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering > the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream > providers. Problem solved. > > - paul A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does not allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a note of interest.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From randy at PSG.COM Tue Feb 4 18:42:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 97 15:42 PST Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND References: <35.264371.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: >>They do pay today, just in a kinky warped way. Due to historical >>accident, domain registration is subsidizing address allocation. > This is your opinion. I'm personally still neutral on it. You are entitled to your opinion, and the rest of us are entitled to believe the NSF cooperative agreement. randy From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 4 18:30:57 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:30:57 -0700 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: At 12:19 PM 2/3/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > >> I fully agree with that statement. However, could somebody >> please elucidate to me what ARIN's legal exposure is in giving >> out a prefix longer than /19, when they know that *current* practice >> will render it unrouted from many locations? > >How could there possibly be any legal exposure when ARIN issues a >disclaimer that receiving a globally unique IP address block from them >does not guarantee any sort of routability? Didn't you notice Scott >Bradner's message about the IP address blocks used for testing equipment? >Or SAP's use of globally unique addresses that never hit the net? The >registries give out unique addresses whether you want to use them on the >public Internet or not. This is a clarification of an issue I didn't grok until now -- thanks. It and some other messages over the past few days, though, contradicts something that was said when I posted my back-of-the-envelope budget proposal. (Kim, are you planning to post a budget soon to the Web site?) I had allowed for some clerks and a "Fixit" guy, but very little technical talent. I was flamed that ARIN needed network engineers for some unknown purpose. I took it that those engineers ($60K/year and up base salary, or about $200K/year fully burdened) were to make sure that the address issued would "follow the rules" such that it could be routed -- assuming that the address block being allocated was intended for global publication. "NO", said a number of people, "ARIN can't guarantee anything." So why the high-priced bodies? From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 18:01:22 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 18:01:22 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204180119.006a9358@lint.cisco.com> At 06:01 PM 2/4/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: > >A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does not >allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a note of >interest.... > I believe you are mistaken. - paul From blh at NOL.NET Tue Feb 4 20:29:57 1997 From: blh at NOL.NET (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:29:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970204180119.006a9358@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > At 06:01 PM 2/4/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: > > > > >A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does not > >allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a note of > >interest.... > > > > I believe you are mistaken. > > - paul > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Feb 4 20:40:45 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 20:40:45 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204204042.006becf8@lint.cisco.com> At 07:29 PM 2/4/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: >That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were >told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > I reference: http://infopage.mci.net/docs/classc.html - paul From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Wed Feb 5 00:13:50 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:13:50 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702050510.AAA13825@info.netsol.com> I'll go take a look at it Paul....Just passing on what we were told we had to do.... ---------- > >That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were > >told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > I reference: > > http://infopage.mci.net/docs/classc.html > > - paul From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Wed Feb 5 00:15:52 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:15:52 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702050512.AAA13848@info.netsol.com> > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major NSP's. > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that is > a completely different issue. This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales geek.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From karl at MCS.NET Wed Feb 5 00:21:20 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:21:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702050512.AAA13848@info.netsol.com> from "The Innkeeper" at Feb 5, 97 00:15:52 am Message-ID: <199702050521.XAA15038@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we > were > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major > NSP's. > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that > is > > a completely different issue. > > > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales > geek.... > > Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services > http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net > VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 > Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors > http://www.aop.org You want a /19 anyway. Go get it from the NIC. You REALLY want to be independant from any provider. I believe that any ISP in the United States has a colorable restraint of trade claim if the NIC (or ARIN, should ARIN come about) refuses such a request. Now when you go back for more be prepared to show that you're using (as opposed to wasting) what you got in the first place. That's expected, and perfectly fine. Forcing you to be tied as a RESELLER to your vendors is not OK, and gives rise to all kinds of potential problems. Not to mention that "hole punching" in a multi-homed environment probably won't work anyway. If you EVER intend to be multihomed, you NEED provider-independant space -- period. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Feb 4 21:59:51 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:59:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we were > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major NSP's. It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that is a completely different issue. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at cisco.com Tue Feb 4 21:36:21 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 21:36:21 -0500 Subject: [fwd] RFC 2101 on IPv4 Address Behavior Today Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204213619.006d4ae0@lint.cisco.com> Although not directly related to the ARIN proposal, I would like to suggest that RFC2101 be added to the recommended reading list; it certainly provides additional perspective. - paul > > >A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 2101: > > Title: IPv4 Address Behaviour Today > Author: B. Carpenter, J. Crowcroft, Y. Rekhter > Date: February 1997 > Mailbox: brian at dxcoms.cern.ch, j.crowcroft at cs.ucl.ac.uk, > yakov at cisco.com > Pages: 13 > Characters: 31407 > Updates/Obsoletes: None > > URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2101.txt > > >The main purpose of this note is to clarify the current interpretation >of the 32-bit IP version 4 address space, whose significance has >changed substantially since it was originally defined. A short >section on IPv6 addresses mentions the main points of similarity with, >and difference from, IPv4. > >This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo >does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of >this memo is unlimited. > From apb at IAFRICA.COM Wed Feb 5 05:19:54 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:19:54 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I was flamed that ARIN needed network engineers for some unknown > purpose. I don't recall anybody (except you) saying that the engineers were needed for an unknown purpose. > I took it that those engineers ($60K/year and up base salary, or about > $200K/year fully burdened) were to make sure that the address issued > would "follow the rules" such that it could be routed -- assuming that > the address block being allocated was intended for global publication. NO. The need to check that the addressing plan makes sense, and that there is not much wastage of address space. For example, some organisations might apply for a /20 where they could have fitted all their requirements into a /23 by more sensible subnetting. The registry should find such cases and either refuse the applications or allocate the smaller block. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Wed Feb 5 08:13:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:13:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970204163853.006a9e7c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <35.264524.7@asacomp.com> PF>At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: PF>> PF>>I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I PF>believe >this is first an engineering question and not an PF>organizational/economic >one. I think once the engineering pieces PF>are figured out then we can >move onto the organizational and PF>>economic pieces. I think it would be a mistake to use economics to PF>force compliance to engineering rules >because if so done, PF>technology will soon replace the economic pressures. >history has PF>proven this. > PF>If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be PF>having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering PF>the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream PF>providers. Problem solved. As with most everything posted here from the supporters, you seem to have everything figured out and any outside comments are a bother. I'll make your life less bothersome and won't post any additional comments after today. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Wed Feb 5 08:13:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:13:00 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702042254.RAA00583@linux.asacomp.com> Message-ID: <35.264527.7@asacomp.com> TI>---------- TI>> At 03:55 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: TI>> > TI>> >I won't disagree that the address space needs to be managed. I TI>> >believe this is first an engineering question and not an TI>> >organizational/economic TI>> >one. I think once the engineering pieces are figured out then we TI>> >can move onto the organizational and economic pieces. I think it TI>> >would be a TI>> >mistake to use economics to force compliance to engineering rules TI>> >because if so done, technology will soon replace the economic TI>> >pressures. TI>> >history has proven this. TI>> If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be TI>> having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering TI>> the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream TI>> providers. Problem solved. TI>> - paul TI>A point that you may want to make note of in this thread.....MCI does TI>not allow you to get your initial IP allocation from them...Just a TI>note of interest.... And do you think other NSPs might think about changing their policies if this proposal goes through ? I think it would be foolish not to think they won't at least look at them. I personally think we are going to see the whole economic model for the Internet start to shift this year anyway. Keep an eye on the larger ISPs and you'll see the trend starting. I guess the one question I would have for the ARIN supporters is what happens when the ISP market starts to consolidate as Gartner and others have been predicting. This will radically change the customer base and the overall makeup of the Internet ISP market. Will the proposal support this easily from a technical and economic standpoint ? Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 08:28:19 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:28:19 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205082816.006dea3c@lint.cisco.com> Well, you don't elaborate on what you think this paradigm shift actually *is*, so it's a little difficult to comment on how this proposal imapcts issues from a technical or economic perspective is relevant. Overall, I think that the ARIN proposal already reflects practices in use throughout the Internet; a reflection of reality. - paul At 08:13 AM 2/5/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >And do you think other NSPs might think about changing their policies if >this proposal goes through ? I think it would be foolish not to think >they won't at least look at them. I personally think we are going to >see the whole economic model for the Internet start to shift this year >anyway. Keep an eye on the larger ISPs and you'll see the trend >starting. I guess the one question I would have for the ARIN supporters >is what happens when the ISP market starts to consolidate as Gartner and >others have been predicting. This will radically change the customer >base and the overall makeup of the Internet ISP market. Will the >proposal support this easily from a technical and economic standpoint ? > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 08:32:14 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:32:14 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205083210.006e11f0@lint.cisco.com> Don't be so touchy. This should already be apparent -- this is not simply an engineering exercise. This is a straightforward attempt to establish a funding model for the IP registry 'formerly known as the InterNIC' to remain self-supportive after US Government subsidies have gone away. No magic here. - paul At 08:13 AM 2/5/97 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote: > >PF>If this were simply an engineering exercise, then we wouldn't be >PF>having this silly discussion. Small entities wouldn't be pestering >PF>the registries for addresses, they would be going to their upstream >PF>providers. Problem solved. > >As with most everything posted here from the supporters, you seem to >have everything figured out and any outside comments are a bother. I'll >make your life less bothersome and won't post any additional comments >after today. > From sweeting at MCI.NET Wed Feb 5 09:40:26 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:40:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reply to MCI question In-Reply-To: <199702050512.AAA13848@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position. If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our customers. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet Address Engineering | | Enginer III Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we > were > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major > NSP's. > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that > is > > a completely different issue. > > > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales > geek.... > > Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services > http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net > VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 > Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors > http://www.aop.org > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Wed Feb 5 09:56:19 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:56:19 -0500 Subject: Reply to MCI question Message-ID: <199702051452.JAA15115@info.netsol.com> > I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position. > If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer > you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in > following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have > justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC > 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our > customers. Thank you. TKS for the clarification John....But all I needed was a /24 for startup and was still directed to InterNIC...Maybe a mistake....But am glad you clirified that for future reference...TKS again Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org ----------- > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > > > > > That I'm aware of he isn't, when we moved to MCI from *spit* sprint we > > were > > > > told right up front we needed to go to Internic and get our IP blocks. > > > > > > I've heard a lot of wierd stories like this about most of the major > > NSP's. > > > It usually turns out to be some confused sales droid who doesn't really > > > know what his company's policy is. Now if you are multihoming to MCI and > > > elsewhere, they may well refuse to let you use their netblocks but that > > is > > > a completely different issue. > > > > > > This came from one of their folks handling routing and porting...No sales > > geek.... From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Wed Feb 5 10:48:11 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:48:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reply to MCI question In-Reply-To: from "John Sweeting" at Feb 5, 97 09:40:26 am Message-ID: <199702051548.KAA06550@linux.silkroad.com> It is nice to know, BTW, that MCI has such a reasonable policy. Providers who force subproviders to use non-portable address space create a non-competitive business climate and to do so for the sake of making route forwarding tables as small as possible are asking for trouble in the future. Firms, like MCI, who understand this and try to work a balanced approach, are quite ethical in their approach and should be praised. If we recall the early days of MCI, they were forced to unlease a series of lawsuits in Federal Court to force the big provider to allow them to compete and to have equal access. Vendors, such as cisco, with spokesmen like Paul Ferguson, who should state 'all providers must get address from upstream providers' do so because they do not understand competiveness issues, as MCI does. Traditionally, cisco has had the excellent position of being the 'only real kid on the routing block' so, the can dictate, mandate, and direct. It will not be long into the future, a new routing protocol will be introduced, which will make provider based, non-portable address space obsolete. And, more than likely, it will be necessary for someone to go to court, similar to the olds days of MCI, to force the industry to implement this new paradigm, for foster competitiveness in the industry. It was good to hear from MCI, a policy, which is not perfect, but is a compromise between competitiveness and the reality of current scalability problems. I wanted to react strongly, a few days ago, to Mr. Ferguson's (representing cisco Systems?) demand all ISP get address space from providers. However, I did not, and deleted a very harsh censure of his statement. It is just not worth the energy to debate with individuals with very narrow perspectives on very broad issues. Albert Einstein once said, to the effect: "A new idea which is not judged by your peers as insane cannot be a profound discovery". I wish Albert could return from his place of repose to watch the reactions to those who know and understand, a better inter-domain routing protocol is on the horizon. Best Regards, Tim > > I'll just take one second to clarify MCI's position. > If your request is for address space equal to a /18 or more than we refer > you to the InterNic since our addresses are non-portable and also in > following Kim's recommendations and RFC 2050. If it is less and you have > justified your request and you are also following "slow start" IAW RFC > 2050 then we have no problems allocating address space to any of our > customers. Thank you. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > | John Sweeting Internet Address Engineering | > | Enginer III Internet: sweeting at mci.net | > | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | > | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 11:03:18 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 11:03:18 -0500 Subject: Reply to MCI question Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205110315.006d91c4@lint.cisco.com> At 10:48 AM 2/5/97 -0500, Tim Bass wrote: > >Vendors, such as cisco, with spokesmen like Paul Ferguson, who >should state 'all providers must get address from upstream providers' >do so because they do not understand competiveness issues, as >MCI does. Traditionally, cisco has had the excellent position >of being the 'only real kid on the routing block' so, the can >dictate, mandate, and direct. > Once again, you have paraphrased my comments quite out of context. The analogy that stated was that *if* this were an *engineering* exercise, all entities would obtain their addresses from their upstream providers. In a follow-up, I stated the discussions on this list do not encompass strictly engineering problems. Please redirect your insults and conspiracy theories elsewhere. - paul From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Feb 5 11:38:35 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:38:35 -0500 Subject: A Simple Question of Timing Message-ID: Something that I've missed in all the detailed discussions, which certainly would add perspective: When does NSF funding for address registration end, or has it? Is there any "short-term" funding by NSI, subsidized by domain registration? Does IANA have any contingency plans if Internic ceases operations but ARIN is not agreed to? There's a lot of discussion here about how the process _ought_ to work. But in my mind, there is an even more critical issue: If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? This is not meant to suggest that we should charge ahead and adopt the current ARIN proposal. But it is an attempt to get a better idea of the urgency of the process. From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 5 11:50:05 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 01:50:05 +0900 Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 11:38:35 EST." Message-ID: <199702051650.BAA14777@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Hi, > If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become >impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other >than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? Not to worry -- if ARIN doesn't launch and InterNIC goes away, I'm sure the APNIC membership will be happy to extend membership to anyone in the Americas willing to pay our fees... :-) Cheers, -drc From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 12:06:42 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:06:42 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:21:20 CST." <199702050521.XAA15038@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> References: <199702050521.XAA15038@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:21:20 CST, Karl Denninger said: > You want a /19 anyway. Go get it from the NIC. You REALLY want to be > independant from any provider. > > I believe that any ISP in the United States has a colorable restraint of > trade claim if the NIC (or ARIN, should ARIN come about) refuses such a > request. Karl: Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) It would *definitely* be 'restraint of trade' if you can't get a /19 from the NIC until you're "big enough", if you can't get big enough without multihoming. And trust me - down here in southwest Virginia, you have to seize a *big* chunk of customer base to get that big, and with 4-5 companies actively involved, reliability is a big issue. With infi.net and Bell Atlantic looking for more people, it's getting to be a squeeze for the smaller ISPs who only have one link and Lose Big Time if that one link goes belly-up. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davids at WIZNET.NET Wed Feb 5 12:54:15 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:54:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: What am I missing here? It's not ARIN's fault that Sprint or AGIS or whoever won't route your block, is it? If WIZnet decided to start filtering at /16, should ARIN give everyone who multihomes a /16? What if I decide to start filtering at /8? David Schwartz WIZnet On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:21:20 CST, Karl Denninger said: > > You want a /19 anyway. Go get it from the NIC. You REALLY want to be > > independant from any provider. > > > > I believe that any ISP in the United States has a colorable restraint of > > trade claim if the NIC (or ARIN, should ARIN come about) refuses such a > > request. > > Karl: > > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 5 12:54:35 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:54:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <35.264527.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote: > starting. I guess the one question I would have for the ARIN supporters > is what happens when the ISP market starts to consolidate as Gartner and > others have been predicting. But Gartner is wrong. We are *IN* the Internet industry, and most of us know quite intimately how it works, who's doing what, etc. Gartner's prediction implies that small ISP's will die or be bought out to form fewer larger companies and very few new ISP's will start up. It's true that some ISP's are starting to fail and that some are growing and that some are being bought out. However, the pace of new startups has not slowed and is not likely to slow for a while yet. > This will radically change the customer > base and the overall makeup of the Internet ISP market. Will the > proposal support this easily from a technical and economic standpoint ? ARIN is not a regulatory organization. It can change its policies, procedures, fees and its structure anytime the membership sees a need. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 13:14:16 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:14:16 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:54:15 EST." References: Message-ID: <199702051814.NAA38704@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:54:15 EST, David Schwartz said: > > What am I missing here? It's not ARIN's fault that Sprint or AGIS > or whoever won't route your block, is it? If WIZnet decided to start > filtering at /16, should ARIN give everyone who multihomes a /16? What if > I decide to start filtering at /8? What you're missing is that currently, much of the core routing filters at /19. Therefore, if you dont have at least a /19, you can't effectively multihome. I do not expect to see that "magic number" change drastically - if an ISP starts filtering at /17 or higher, they will cut off enough of the net that their own customers will start leaving for someplace they *can* get connectivity to other sites, and going to /21 or lower is just asking for router meltdown on your part. But right now, there seems to be common consensus that /19 is "the magic number". Given that ARIN will be presumably composed many of the same people who currently manage the core routing, if ARIN makes it effectivly impossible to get a /19, this would look suspiciously like collusion among the big players to prevent your entry into the game. And that's a no-no. If a lawer decides that the RICO statutes apply, you're looking at triple punitive damages and all that. RFC2050, section 2.1, says an ISP *can* ask for a global prefix if they are multi-homed. RFC2050, section 3.1, says the following conditions should be met: 25% immediate utilization rate 50% utilization rate within 1 year and also "A prefix longer than /24 *may* be issued if deemed appropriate". (emphasis mine). All we need to do to resolve this is for somebody to state the policy *will* deem qualifying under section 2.1 to be appropriate, even if you don't meet the 25%/50% rule. I have *no* problem with ARIN applying additional technical criteria for such an exemption (such as requiring copies of PO's for routers and redundant links, and proof of employment of a full-time router wizard), as long as they are in line with "reasonable and customary" requirements to sucessfully multihome. Would anybody at ARIN like to go out on a limb and say "Yes we'll do it", or "yes we'll consider this" or "no way"? ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 13:30:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:30:34 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205133030.006d6c48@lint.cisco.com> I'm not sure how you got the impression that ARIN will be composed of 'many of the same people who currently manage the core routing', but you are sorely mistaken. - paul At 01:14 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > >Given that ARIN will be presumably composed many of the same people >who currently manage the core routing, if ARIN makes it effectivly >impossible to get a /19, this would look suspiciously like collusion >among the big players to prevent your entry into the game. > From markk at internic.net Wed Feb 5 14:04:23 1997 From: markk at internic.net (Mark Kosters) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:04:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 5, 97 11:38:35 am Message-ID: <199702051904.OAA24557@slam.internic.net> > When does NSF funding for address registration end, or has it? > NSF officially ended funding any portion of InterNIC Registration Services starting on Sept 14, 1995 (when domain charging took effect). IP and ASN allocations, Net Scout Services, Information and Education Services (used primarily by the R&E community), and funding for the US domain registry are also currently being funded by these domain fees. Mark -- Mark Kosters markk at internic.net +1 703 742 4795 InterNIC Registration Services PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48 From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Wed Feb 5 14:46:59 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:46:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > It would *definitely* be 'restraint of trade' if you can't get a /19 > from the NIC until you're "big enough"... It's my feeling that ARIN itself would be pretty safe from this sort of complaint if they: - Have a well articulated policy about this - Express that policy clearly to applicants for address space *before* fees are paid and let the applicants know the risks of getting an address that some ISPs won't route. - Have a well expressed and applied conflict-of-interest policy for their relationships with ISPs. (As usual, I'm not expressing this very well... what I'm trying to get at is that there are a lot of potential ISP relationships with ARIN due to BoT and advisory council memberships, and we need to prevent even the appearance that ARIN is, in-effect, an ISP-owned body.) As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to fairly offer their services to all comers. --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Feb 5 14:50:21 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:50:21 -0500 Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become >> impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other >> than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? > >It will never become "impossible" to get IP address space. This is because >if the ARIN proposal collapsed and NSI shut down their operation anyway >the large NSP's could still make mutual agreements to route IP address >blocks from currently unallocated space. That's specifically what I meant by "assignments from previously allocated blocks." >However, I think it much more >likely that if the above catastrophe occurred, 3 or 4 of the large NSP's >would simply pony up some money to form a consortium and hire some of the >current IP allocation people to continue the work. In other words, if you >are looking for a downside here, there really isn't much of one since, as >is normal in an anarchy, when a need is seen, someone will move to fill >the need. But I doubt that contingency plans are in place to do this immediately. I cannot help but think that at best, there might be a 30 day or longer hiatus for new allocations. Mind you, I also don't think this would be catastrophic to the growth of the Internet, because the number of people that need routable PI space is a small part of the total requests. > >While there is no big emergency to push ahead with ARIN in a big rush, >there is also no need to waste time either. The timeframe suggested >which would see ARIN become operational sometime in April, seems >pretty reasonable and I sense that there are not a whole lot more >objections to be overcome before an acceptable structure and bylaws >are presented to the community. I don't have a problem with this. While I think there is a lot of flaming going on, a certain level will never stop. I do have concerns I have voiced about the proposal and its lack of cost and process detail, but these are not show-stoppers. Howard From hcb at CLARK.NET Wed Feb 5 16:23:24 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:23:24 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: References: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Karl, Up front, I'd like to thank you for some of your comments. I may disagree fervently with you at times, but just as often, you make me think. At 11:46 AM -0800 2/5/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> It would *definitely* be 'restraint of trade' if you can't get a /19 >> from the NIC until you're "big enough"... > >It's my feeling that ARIN itself would be pretty safe from this sort of >complaint if they: > > - Have a well articulated policy about this > > - Express that policy clearly to applicants for address space > *before* fees are paid and let the applicants know the risks > of getting an address that some ISPs won't route. > > - Have a well expressed and applied conflict-of-interest policy > for their relationships with ISPs. (As usual, I'm not > expressing this very well... what I'm trying to get at is that > there are a lot of potential ISP relationships with ARIN due > to BoT and advisory council memberships, and we need to prevent > even the appearance that ARIN is, in-effect, an ISP-owned body.)\ This is hard to express also. At some level, I am not as worried as I might be about this. Now, I am the first to admit that the Internet is not in the same environment as the telecom carriers. Yet there are parallels. AT&T, when it was Ma Bell, took on certain functions by industry consensus. These included North American Numbering Plan admistration, the telco part of the national emergency Restoration Priority System, etc. After Judge Greene spoke, some of these functions went to Bellcore, while others went into other industry forums. I am drawing a blank on the operational one, as it's been a while ... Inter-Carrier Forum. There was also the Exchange Carriers Standards Association, and, as ISDN became common, the North American ISDN Users Forum (which had a significant carrier piece). The IC-whatever-forum had some aspects of NANOG, but was a much more formal activity. NANOG serves a very useful function and is not broken. I do wonder, however, if there is getting to be a need for more of an inter-carrier policy organization dealing with the broad sense of ISP issues, routing policy, issues. ARIN is not the place for this sort of discussion. IETF or ISOC conceivably could be, but have not stepped up to the role. Perhaps no one can. Perhaps the partially regulated telecom industry is too different. I don't know, but I don't want to keep diverting the ARIN discussions into out-of-scope policy issues. Two obvious problems arise in creating an organization to deal with intercarrier policy: the appearance of collusion for restraint of trade, and the not-unrelated perception of lack of user input. Smaller ISPs have aspects of both users and carriers, and don't fit neatly into the model. My experiences in dealing with the first problem date from my 5+ years at the Corporation for Open Systems (COS), which, for those of you that don't remember, was a not-for-profit consortium intended to accelerate the adoption of interoperable OSI and ISDN products. Lots of things done wrong there, but some things are relevant. COS was a membership organization with a substantial staff -- up to about 140 when we were doing active development of protocol test systems. I was employee #4, and the first technical person on the staff. While most of my time was in software development, product certification,and education, I still spent time in secretariat functions. When the organization was first set up, the Justice Department was invited in to review matters to avoid antitrust. Certainly for the first couple of years, until the DoJ was satisfied we did not pose an antitrust threat, the lawyers were very involved, to a ridiculous extent at times. But one of the secretariat jobs was to watch for suggestions of prohibited collusion, and intervene IMMEDIATELY. For example, if during a technical meeting, a member got up and uttered even a couple of words about pricing or his company strategy, in those terms, I was REQUIRED to jump up, YELL If necessary, and warn him to cease immediately. There were cases where the staff had to go to the mat with members and stop meetings. But it could be done. We never established a satisfactory way to get user input, which in large part came down to the reality that most users did not want to be involved in the continuing process and expense. They expected their vendors to do it. Certain large users, such as the Defense Department, General Motors, etc. did take an active role, typically representing an industry segment as well as their own organization. > >As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have >a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental >cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs >want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against >being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to >fairly offer their services to all comers. Now you've got me struggling to articulate something. At one level, you are quite correct to say the incremental cost of carrying a /24 is the same as carrying a /8. Yet, at a different level, the cost of carrying the set of /24 prefixes is much greater than the cost of carrying the set of /8 prefixes. There is demonstrably more economic and technical risk into agreeing to the principle of carrying the set of /24 prefixes -- and we probably can't do it. So incremental cost isn't quite the term we want, although it is a factor. Perhaps someone can come up with a better term, but to me incremental cost has to be considered in the context of the size of the theoretical number of increaments -- of quanta -- in the universe of discussion. > > --karl-- From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 16:54:42 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 16:54:42 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 03:31:08 +0900." <199702051831.DAA15117@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: <199702051831.DAA15117@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <199702052154.QAA36698@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 03:31:08 +0900, "David R. Conrad" said: > I'm not at ARIN, but I'd direct your attention to RFC 1814. Umm.. we need an RFC2026 expert here. RFC2050 is flagged as 'BCP', and only references 1814 in the 'references' section. RFC1814 is itself tagged as "Informational". As best I can figure, this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way shape or form, so saying "we follow RFC2050" (which ARIN has done) does not transitively imply following 1814 as well. The most applicable part of RFC1814 is at the bottom of page 2: If an enterprise with a small to medium number of hosts desires unique IP addresses, and is unable to obtain them under reasonable conditions from a service provider, or has no service provider, the Internet registries are recommended to assign such addresses without conditions with respect to service provider selection. The But alas, 1814 is only "informational", and it only says "recommended to assign". So we'd still need somebody at ARIN to actually say "yes we'll do that...." (As an aside, RFC1814 has some classful A/B/C cruft left in it - would it be worth the effort of doing a re-write for the CIDR world?) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 5 18:44:40 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:44:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702052154.QAA36698@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > Umm.. we need an RFC2026 expert here. RFC2050 is flagged as 'BCP', > and only references 1814 in the 'references' section. RFC1814 is > itself tagged as "Informational". > > As best I can figure, this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way No RFC's are binding. Some of them are a means of publishing how things are done, some are documents that reflect Best Current Practices within the Internet community, and some are considered Standards. You can ignore them if you wish but since they do reflect various levels of community consensus you will find that people won't co-operate with you. That's not exactly "binding" though. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Wed Feb 5 20:03:55 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:03:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 5, 97 09:54:35 am Message-ID: <199702060103.RAA16255@songbird.com> Michael Dillon allegedly said: > [...] > some are being bought out. However, the pace of new startups has not > slowed and is not likely to slow for a while yet. Do you have any references or data to support this? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From huddle at MCI.NET Wed Feb 5 20:18:01 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:18:01 -0600 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205190653.00dd63d8@mci.net> Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" to be in the business. This would also eliminate the concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the price rather than beaurocrats. -scott At 03:19 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote on NANOG >> If you need to know that there will be a registry >> for each new gTLD, then I'm willing to run any of >> them that cannot otherwise find a home. > >The new gTLD's are all ultimately going to be shared. There's going to be >a crossbar effect where registries and gTLDs are not mapped one to one; any >registry will be able, if willing, to register names in any of the new gTLDs. > > From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 5 19:25:41 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:25:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702060103.RAA16255@songbird.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Kent Crispin wrote: > > some are being bought out. However, the pace of new startups has not > > slowed and is not likely to slow for a while yet. > > Do you have any references or data to support this? This is based on my own observations within the industry and my own analysis of the industry and is not based solely on statistics. Currently the only statistics I know of that are publicly available and anywhere near being accurate are Boardwatch's survey of North American ISP's. I'm not an academic so I don't keep a lot of references around. You would do better to ask this question of academics who study the Internet industry such as the people at Vanderbilt University. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 19:48:57 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:48:57 -0500 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205194850.006d5cc0@lint.cisco.com> At 07:18 PM 2/5/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: >Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address >allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort >of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists >for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service >and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" >to be in the business. This would also eliminate the >concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the >price rather than beaurocrats. > >-scott > Talk about route table bloat... - paul From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Wed Feb 5 17:27:04 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:27:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <199702052227.RAA10709@newdev.harvard.edu> > we need an RFC2026 expert here since my name is on it ... > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way nor are any IETF "standards" the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard) for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is Scott From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 5 17:42:40 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 14:42:40 PST Subject: No subject Message-ID: <199702052242.OAA09862@puli.cisco.com> Scott, > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way nor are any IETF "standards" the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard) for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is Just to clarify RFC1814 is Informational, not BCP. Moreover, I would suggest to read RFC2101 to get a more recent IAB's perspective on some of the issues discussed in RFC1814. Yakov. From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 5 17:37:26 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:37:26 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:27:04 EST." <199702052227.RAA10709@newdev.harvard.edu> References: <199702052227.RAA10709@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <199702052237.RAA10500@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:27:04 EST, Scott Bradner said: > > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way > > nor are any IETF "standards" > the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea > or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard) > for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger > than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is Right. We're an anarchy ;) My point was that the "proposed standard/standard/BCP" status has more weight behind it than the mere "informational" status that RFC1814 currently has. I'm sure that digging through the RFC index, we can find any number of examples of bad ideas flagged as "informational". Also, although ARIN has said that they'll follow RFC2050, I don't see any transitivity to imply 1814 as well... /Valdis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 03:08:06 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:08:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Communications Weekly International Message-ID: An article about ARIN. http://www.emap.com/cwi/178/178news17.html Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 03:35:54 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:35:54 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702051706.MAA24946@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers that you want to carry your route. --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 04:28:12 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:28:12 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Cost per route In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have > a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental > cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs > want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against > being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to > fairly offer their services to all comers. Carrying a route has both a cost and a benefit. The costs depend chiefly on memory usage, flap frequency, and the effort of keeping filters up to date. The benefits depend chiefly on the utility of being able to reach hosts inside the address block. The cost per route would appear to be independent of prefix length, as you said. However, routes that cover many hosts are likely to carry a greater benefit per route. Also, routes that cover many interesting destinations are likely to be associated with infrastructure that is engineered to be less likely to cause route flap. So we see that routes that cover many destinations have a higher benefit (we're more likely to want to get to some of those destinations) and a lower cost (the routes are less likely to flap) that do routes that cover fewer destinations. Notice that I was careful to talk about the number of destinations behind the route, rather than the length of the prefix. A /8 prefix with 10 hosts behind it costs the same as a /28 prefix with the same 10 hosts behind it, and has the same benefits. However, if the registries do their jobs well[*], we would expect a very strong correlation between prefix length and number of hosts behind a route. Thus, it is a reasonable first approximation to assume that longer prefixes have higher costs (due to more flap) and lower benefits (due to fewer useful services) than do shorter prefixes. --apb (Alan Barrett) * See, this message is (only just) on topic for naipr. But perhaps we should move this discussion to piara. From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 5 13:31:08 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 03:31:08 +0900 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:14:16 EST." <199702051814.NAA38704@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <199702051831.DAA15117@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Valdis, >Would anybody at ARIN like to go out on a limb and say "Yes we'll do it", >or "yes we'll consider this" or "no way"? ;) I'm not at ARIN, but I'd direct your attention to RFC 1814. Regards, -drc From michael at memra.com Wed Feb 5 13:40:10 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:40:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become > impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other > than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? It will never become "impossible" to get IP address space. This is because if the ARIN proposal collapsed and NSI shut down their operation anyway the large NSP's could still make mutual agreements to route IP address blocks from currently unallocated space. However, I think it much more likely that if the above catastrophe occurred, 3 or 4 of the large NSP's would simply pony up some money to form a consortium and hire some of the current IP allocation people to continue the work. In other words, if you are looking for a downside here, there really isn't much of one since, as is normal in an anarchy, when a need is seen, someone will move to fill the need. While there is no big emergency to push ahead with ARIN in a big rush, there is also no need to waste time either. The timeframe suggested which would see ARIN become operational sometime in April, seems pretty reasonable and I sense that there are not a whole lot more objections to be overcome before an acceptable structure and bylaws are presented to the community. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at cisco.com Wed Feb 5 15:34:04 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 15:34:04 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205153358.006b1954@lint.cisco.com> At 11:46 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >As for the ISPs that block -- well, I think that they may eventually have >a lot of explaining to do. The reason for this is that the incremental >cost of carring a route for a /24 is the same as for a /8. If the ISPs >want to be "common carriers" (and hence obtain many protections against >being liable for the content of the traffic they carry) they may have to >fairly offer their services to all comers. > Personally, I think there are better way to deal with misbehaving 'long prefixes' than by filtering on length, such as prefix-length based dampening advertisement suppression policies. But I digress, and we are now drifting far afield of the topics suitable for discussion on this list. - paul From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Wed Feb 5 21:47:35 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 21:47:35 -0500 Subject: Competition for address allocation References: <3.0.32.19970205190653.00dd63d8@mci.net> Message-ID: <32F94647.66AA@driveway1.com> Scott Huddle wrote: > > Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address > allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort > of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists > for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service > and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" > to be in the business. This would also eliminate the > concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the > price rather than beaurocrats. > > -scott > > At 03:19 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote on NANOG > >> If you need to know that there will be a registry > >> for each new gTLD, then I'm willing to run any of > >> them that cannot otherwise find a home. > > > >The new gTLD's are all ultimately going to be shared. There's going to be > >a crossbar effect where registries and gTLDs are not mapped one to one; any > >registry will be able, if willing, to register names in any of the new gTLDs. > > > > Yeah. This was what I meant a few days ago when I suggested that perhaps the SOA (Source of Authority) of the address allocation become part of the actual IP. I recognize that, in a way, the /8 end of the IP address (or the /16, or the /19) is actually being treated that way now (the authority being the hierarchical level from which PI space begins), but the discussions re: multihoming and address holes lead me to ask whether, as Scott asks, can this be externalized (without incurring an unpayable route lookup bandwidth penalty) in practice? (Again, I'm not sure if this is on-topic vis a vis ARIN). The externalization of IP source of authority would, it seems to me, render the anticompetitive fears expressed here (on this list) somewhat less threatening. And I understand less about the flexibility of the installed base of routers and their abilities to deal with this than I ought to (admittedly, I know *nothing* about them operationally!). From michael at memra.com Wed Feb 5 15:56:43 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Simple Question of Timing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > >> If ARIN does not "launch," whatever that means, when will it become > >> impossible to get new address space (in the "Internic" service area) other > >> than from the IANA or by assignments from previously allocated blocks? > > > >It will never become "impossible" to get IP address space. This is because > >if the ARIN proposal collapsed and NSI shut down their operation anyway > >the large NSP's could still make mutual agreements to route IP address > >blocks from currently unallocated space. > > That's specifically what I meant by "assignments from previously allocated > blocks." Except that I said "currently UNallocated space". > But I doubt that contingency plans are in place to do this immediately. It would take a few hours at most to deal with the IP allocations part on a provisional basis, maybe a day to get the basic business committments from consortium members and then a week or so for legal agreements to be drawn up and signed. I don't think any contingency plan is necessary since the critical time sensitive part is the allocations and it can be handled on a moment's notice. > I cannot help but think that at best, there might be a 30 day or longer > hiatus for new allocations. Basically, anyone can allocate space to themselves today and announce it via BGP and it will work everywhere it is not filtered. If a catastrophe occurred and people picked a rational allocation scheme like carving up 223/8 into /12's then it wouldn't take a lot to get filters updated. This is the ultimate catastrophe scenario and it really isn't that scary. It is far more likely that a failure would have some warning time and that IANA could enlist the services of APNIC or RIPE to take over for some interim time period. > >pretty reasonable and I sense that there are not a whole lot more > >objections to be overcome before an acceptable structure and bylaws > >are presented to the community. > > I don't have a problem with this. While I think there is a lot of flaming > going on, a certain level will never stop. I do have concerns I have > voiced about the proposal and its lack of cost and process detail, but > these are not show-stoppers. Yep. I'm sure that the proposed board is not going to release any figures until they have a pretty strong case to back up each and every line item in their budget. And not only are the process details moving in the right direction, but I haven't seen any substantial objections even though I tried trolling for some issues that I thought could be hot buttons. To me this indicates that if the issues previously introduced on the list are dealt with, then ARIN is pretty close to a done deal. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 5 21:17:36 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:17:36 -0600 Subject: FW: OIG Investigates the NSF (revised) Message-ID: <01BC13A1.A1581CE0@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 1997 11:26 AM To: 'New Newdom' Cc: 'ckuehn at nsf.gov'; 'lsundro at nsf.gov' Subject: OIG Investigates the NSF (revised) The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government the large number of Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar) Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the clout for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. The InterNIC was originally made up of three companies, General Atomics, AT&T, and Network Solutions, Inc. These three companies were supposed to work together in various capacities to provide a variety of services including the important clerical duties commonly called "registrations". In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF was supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, many NICs would have been developed through education programs and the Internet Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State of Virginia and the few companies originally contracted to be part of the cooperative agreement. That has not occurred. The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, Network Solutions, Inc. suggested that they should do the entire job. Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds of the IANA, are listed on the original Network Solutions, Inc. bid as subcontractors to Network Solutions, Inc. As history has shown, the IANA, working in conjunction with the "InterNIC" (Network Solutions, Inc.) has helped to continue to promote Network Solutions, Inc. to a point where most people consider NSI to be the InterNIC. Throughout the evolution of the InterNIC from a three-company cooperative to a one company monopoly, the NSF has apparently been caught like a deer in the headlights of a car, frozen in indecision but providing mass when needed to allow a few individuals and companies to leverage themselves into positions of great wealth. The NSF has been skillfully used to provide the U.S. Government seal of approval, while policies are enacted by private parties who openly claim that the NSF is "backing" their agendas. Many companies operating within the United States under Federal and State laws, have been shocked over the past few years at how their tax dollars are used to fund the NSF which in turn funds Internet infrastructure with apparently no control over the outcome. Furthermore, despite repeated efforts for other companies to participate in and make investments in the Internet infrastructure, the NSF has stood by and allowed plans and systems to be developed which lock certain companies out while others are given a free pass and in some cases millions of dollars to jump start their business. The recent IAHC activity is an excellent example of how a private company (ISOC) , with less members than many ISPs, is provided an NSF representative, Dr. George Strawn, for credibility, while they develop a plan to sell what amounts to Internet Domain Registration Franchises to companies willing to pay large fees to fund the private ISOC. Another example is the recently proposed ARIN organization which claims to have strong support from the NSF to charge fees for IP addresses. The proposed Board of Direcors of ARIN are mostly people funded directly, or indirectly, by the National Science Foundation. @@@@@ @@@@@@@@@ "Network Solutions is leading the ARIN proposal based on a mandate from the Internet community reached in rough consensus with strong support from the National Science Foundation and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Fortunately, the U.S. Government had the wisdom to set up an agency within the NSF to provide some of the checks and balances needed to regulate the NSF. That agency is the Office of Inspector General (OIG) . OIG is headed by the Inspector General (IG), who reports directly to the President (via the NSB) and to Congress. ---- Inspector General ------- name: Sundro, Linda G. email: lsundro at nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2100 office_phone: (703) fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 -------------------------------------- In a recent discussion with Ms. Sundro, she indicated that the NSF Office of Inspector General has been investigating the matters surrounding the InterNIC and a Report to the Deputy Director is about to be published. Ms. Sundro indicated that Ms. Clara Kuehn, a physicist AND ATTORNEY, has been assigned to handle the investigations and can provide information on the status of the report. -------------------------------------- name: Kuehn, Clara email: ckuehn at nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2001 office_phone: (703)306-2001 x 1505 fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 ------------------------------------------ Ms. Sundro also noted that the e-mail address (oig at nsf.gov) listed on the Office of Inspector General as an "Electonic Mail Hotline" is not useful in contacting her office. She indicated that Ms. Kuehn will welcome input from people on all topics related to these matters and that the above e-mail address (ckuehn at nsf.gov) should be used. In summary, I think that U.S. citizens should be proud that their great country developed much of the technology and infrastructure for the Internet. I also think that the world population should be aware that the hundreds of years of government development in the U.S. has resulted in a system that has the proper agencies to not only help to foster increased growth of the Internet but also to help ensure that citizens around the world are able to compete in this marvelous advancement on a playing field that is fair and level. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unir.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Feb 6 07:04:50 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 07:04:50 -0500 Subject: Cost per route Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206070446.006c4714@lint.cisco.com> At 11:28 AM 2/6/97 +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > >Notice that I was careful to talk about the number of destinations behind >the route, rather than the length of the prefix. A /8 prefix with 10 >hosts behind it costs the same as a /28 prefix with the same 10 hosts >behind it, and has the same benefits. > There's an important distinction subtly hidden here. Carrying & advertizing a shorter prefix most likely provides reachability for more end-point destinations, which in turn results in more traffic transiting the advertisement path towards the destination. As Alan suggested, this is a key argument for PIARA proponents, in that advertizing a shorter prefix = advertizing more end-stations = more traffic. - paul From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Feb 6 12:14:04 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 12:14:04 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200." References: Message-ID: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200, Alan Barrett said: > Both small and big providers have to justify their address space > requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either > pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes > should be carried for no charge. > > So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated? The basic problem is that the "general guidelines" in RFC2050 say that you should have 25% *IMMEDIATE* use of an allocation - you don't get one until you will be at least 1/4 full.. So for a /19, you can be denied getting it until you have 2048 addresses *IN USE*. And this is *after* you've already started doing DHCP and all for those PC's and Macs that subscribe to your ISP. So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them connected *AT ONE TIME*. If you assume that the average subscriber is connected 2 hours a day, and mostly within a 12-hour "prime time", this means you need close to 12-15K or more subscribers to get 2K on at one time so you can get your /19. Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This will cost you market share. We're not talking about "mom and pop" ISPs getting cut out here. We're talking about ISPs that have 15K customers being cut out, to the benefit of those that are already 10X bigger than that. Hmm.. 15K customers, at $20/mo a pop, that's about $3.6M/year cash flow. And still not big enough to qualify for effective multihoming. That's the problem. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 13:05:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:05:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember > that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less > reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > will cost you market share. You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. It really isn't ARIN's job to be an all-purpose business consultant for ISP's supplying creativity services, marketing and planning advice, purchasing assistance, etc. All ARIN has to do is to apply the same international policies that RIPE and APNIC are applying and do it well. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 14:37:26 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:37:26 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu said: > So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really > multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them > connected *AT ONE TIME*. You seem to be assuming that there's something magical about "/19". I am assuming that, if you offer sufficient value in return, people whom you would like to carry your route will indeed be willing to carry your route, regardless of its prefix length. The "value" can be in the form of money, or of interesting reachable destinations. If there's any magic in "/19", it's simply that it's perceived as a size that is likely to cover a reasonable number of interesting reachable destinations, so there's an incentive for folk to carry the route without a direct exchange of cash. If you get your "/19" just by saying saying "I need to multihome and I don't want to be filtered", then it will no longer be safe for the controllers of the filters to make the assumption that a /19 route is likely to cover a lot of interesting destinations. In other words, the benefit to others from their carrying your /19 that you couldn't justify under RFC2050 rules, will be lower than the benefit to others of their carrying somebody else's /19 that _was_ justified under RFC2050. Suddenly, "/19" just lost that "magic" "guarantee" that it's sufficiently interesting for folk to want to carry the route free of charge. But I think this is getting significantly off topic for naipr. I will let Karl, Tim and Valdis have the last word if they wish, but I expect this to be my last message in this thread. --apb (Alan Barrett) From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 6 15:36:40 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:36:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061714.MAA14354@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> from "Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU" at Feb 6, 97 12:14:04 pm Message-ID: <199702062036.PAA10879@jazz.internic.net> > Valdis, You keep quoting from the *assignment* section of RFC2050. That criteria is for end-sites requesting address space directly from the registries. Please reread the RFC, specifically the *allocation* section that refers to ISPs. Regards, Kim Hubbard > --==_Exmh_1618832612P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200, Alan Barrett said: > > Both small and big providers have to justify their address space > > requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either > > pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes > > should be carried for no charge. > > > > So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated? > > The basic problem is that the "general guidelines" in RFC2050 say that > you should have 25% *IMMEDIATE* use of an allocation - you don't get > one until you will be at least 1/4 full.. So for a /19, you can be > denied getting it until you have 2048 addresses *IN USE*. And this is > *after* you've already started doing DHCP and all for those PC's and > Macs that subscribe to your ISP. > > So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really > multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them > connected *AT ONE TIME*. If you assume that the average subscriber is > connected 2 hours a day, and mostly within a 12-hour "prime time", > this means you need close to 12-15K or more subscribers to get 2K on > at one time so you can get your /19. > > Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember > that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less > reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > will cost you market share. > > We're not talking about "mom and pop" ISPs getting cut out here. > We're talking about ISPs that have 15K customers being cut out, to the > benefit of those that are already 10X bigger than that. Hmm.. 15K > customers, at $20/mo a pop, that's about $3.6M/year cash flow. > > And still not big enough to qualify for effective multihoming. > > That's the problem. > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Engineer > Virginia Tech > > > > --==_Exmh_1618832612P > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > > -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBMvoRWNQBOOoptg9JAQETwQP+OTaxXPFZYMYX8DpVUpPPcFEZnwsKcKk3 > 2z4sxa4kRhfVj2tu79TtRosbOeGl8g/oCZntkhUZas9rTAGs+BercSBfkHrOjOxi > MmPAL3dvWZsG8TCisFOq9Uzgf6wEvITXRzKE47o7P+kLqEuANOYJRV75pmyzApMo > GX9oMptU5tg= > =WSl5 > -----END PGP MESSAGE----- > > --==_Exmh_1618832612P-- > From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 6 19:10:18 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:10:18 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206191016.00f33294@justin.erols.com> At 05:12 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: >> >Justin, > >Nowhere in my message was the term "foregone conclusion" used. The >term "intention" was used. Please accept my apologies for the misinterpretation. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 18:58:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:58:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702062212.RAA10955@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Nowhere in my message was the term "foregone conclusion" used. The > term "intention" was used. If you know of other individuals you > feel would be more appropriate for the position, I'm sure the Board > would be interested in hearing about them. When I look at this overall situation, it looks a lot like when one corporation sells off a division and the new owner gets the existing employees, software, files, etc. intact. Except that in this case, the IP allocation function isn't owned by anyone and thus cannot be sold. Am I correct in assuming that this is the "intention" of the ARIN proposal, to transfer the existing operation including the existing employees as a more or less intact unit? > and say "but you are on the Board", I am getting ready to make > some minor changes to the proposal, one of which is the modification > of the makeup of the ARIN Board. Minor nit here, but when you redo the BoT web page could you revise the bio for Raymundo as per my earlier email to the list? I think there will still be newcomers who need more information on the personalities involved. And I think it wouldn't hurt to include a little more background on yourself such as your participation in NANOG, IETF and similar groups. I know this but a lot of people will get a somewhat narrower picture from the bio that is currently there for you. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Feb 6 19:16:42 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:16:42 -0500 Subject: MCI position on Class C... Message-ID: <199702070010.TAA21179@info.netsol.com> I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... >Steve, >You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class c's >anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page >www.infopage.mci.com. This came direct from MCI folks.... - Steve - Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From huddle at MCI.NET Thu Feb 6 20:34:25 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:34:25 -0600 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206191822.00de3f98@mci.net> Yes, this is the "mom said no, so ask dad" problem. The delegation of stewardship to a registry is not an abdication of responsibility. Obviously the delegator must insure that these stewards do a good job. -scott At 07:48 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 07:18 PM 2/5/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: > >>Why not introduce this same sort of competition to address >>allocation services? I can forsee that you have the sort >>of problem of "Mom said no, so ask Dad", but this exists >>for gTLDs as well. Registries would compete on service >>and price but would have to be "blessed" or "licensed" >>to be in the business. This would also eliminate the >>concerns over pricing as well, the market would set the >>price rather than beaurocrats. >> >>-scott >> > >Talk about route table bloat... > >- paul > > > From cts at VEC.NET Thu Feb 6 19:44:38 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:44:38 EST Subject: MCI position on Class C... Message-ID: <009AF7EE.A6B8BA0A.36@vec.net> >I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a >position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > >>Steve, >>You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class >c's >>anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page >>www.infopage.mci.com. > >This came direct from MCI folks.... Hmmmm..... it's even worse than that; my browser doesn't find anything at www.infopage.mci.com; however, the page at www.infopage.mci.NET has the IP address space application; a statement that MCI is processing applications from Jan 31st, etc. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 6 20:00:12 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:00:12 -0600 Subject: FW: Summing up two years... Message-ID: <01BC145F.FC027780@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 1997 6:58 PM To: 'New Newdom' Subject: Summing up two years... The following sequence of seven messages seem to sum up the last two years, since Network Solutions, Inc. began to agressively move from being a small company and a member of a three-company cooperative NSF team to the current status. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] As shown below, the thread starts with a simple observation about an article that appeared in the Washington Post regarding Network Solutions, Inc. and the fact that they have no intention of sharing registrations in the Top Level Domain .COM. NSI evidently claims that their NSF agreement must be followed. It is interesting that the NSF is not consulted on other matters but when it comes to "sharing", the NSF becomes the clout. >From there, the thread turns a corner at [3] and the discussion heads in the direction where NSI is accused of positioning itself in preparation for a move to claim rights to the .COM Top Level Domain This is somewhat misguided, because any company or government body can currently set up a .COM server and offer to "mirror" NSI registrations for a fee to domain name holders. NSI and the IANA have no ability to stop this action. If the domain name holders feel that it is important enough to be listed in the "mirrored" .COM server then they can pay the fee. Depending on how many users the "mirrored" .COM server supports, the .COM domain name owner may feel obligated to pay. For example, if the Canadian government set up a .COM server, most Fortune 1000 companies would likely be willing to send $50 across the border to Canada each year, especially, if most the of the Canadians used that .COM server either by choice or law. Once the misguided turn is taken in [3], the [4], [5], [6], [7] represent a pattern that has been seen over and over for years. The IANA is defended at all cost. A steady stream of the same players enter the scene to defend the actions of Jon Postel (the IANA) in helping to create the monopoly enjoyed by Network Solutions, Inc. The defense is always the same, Jon Postel has the right to do as he pleases with the Internet, despite the impact on people and and companies, because he designed some protocols and wrote some documents many years ago. Using this "Pope logic", some might conclude that the inventor of the automobile would get to decide who gets drivers licenses or where one is allowed to drive. Others might conclude that the lawyer who developed "zoning" laws gets to personally decide where ALL people are allowed to build houses or live. Only on the Internet can such warped, dictatorial, socialistic, views be allowed to not only develop but be supported each year with more and more blind enthusiasm. This pattern continues to repeat month after month and year after year. There appears to be no end.... ...the claim is always, this is what the "consensus" wants... ...is it...? JF [1] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0176.html Interesting NSI note Vince Wolodkin (wolodkin at digitalink.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:57:30 -0500 I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his company would not agree to let other organizations register addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF expires next year. Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for the next contract? Vince Wolodkin [2] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0177.html Re: Interesting NSI note Carl Oppedahl (carl at oppedahl.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:57:44 -0500 At 10:57 AM 02/06/97 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote: >I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: > > Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his > company would not agree to let other organizations register > addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF > expires next year. > >Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to >charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one >year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI >for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for >the next contract? Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how many months are left on the NSI contract. [3] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0178.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:46:17 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by Carl Oppedahl at oppedahl.c > Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the > application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how > many months are left on the NSI contract. Considering NSI's track record, I highly doubt they are going to do anything of the sort. Other than coming out and saying it, I think NSI is going to try their hardest to keep running .COM. Probably something about how *they* own COM and they have intellectual rights to those names. Which is about as bogus as Alternic claims to their TLDs. Of course, reality sets in -- NSI is part of a huge company with probably a huge legal budget... it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [4] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0181.html Re: Interesting NSI note bmanning at ISI.EDU Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:32:17 -0800 (PST) > it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. > > Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu And that monster would be ...the internet...? -- --bill [5] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0184.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:23:19 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by bmanning at ISI.EDU > And that monster would be ...the internet...? Don't flatter yourself. IANA has done well on stuff like assigning ports and what not, but a monopoly contract to NSI with no specific clauses against charging or at least some sort of public forum on it was the monster. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [6] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0186.html Re: Interesting NSI note Perry E. Metzger (perry at piermont.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:28:14 -0500 You might want to look at who's name is on the early RFCs for our protocol stack. Perry [7] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0187.html Re: Interesting NSI note Michael Dillon (michael at memra.com) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:27:31 -0800 (PST) IANA is primarily the work of Jon Postel. And Jon is one of a small handful of people that could rightly claim to have created the Internet. Read your histroy for more details. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 6 20:01:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:01:26 -0600 Subject: FW: Summing up two years... Message-ID: <01BC1460.28028140@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 1997 6:58 PM To: 'New Newdom' Subject: Summing up two years... The following sequence of seven messages seem to sum up the last two years, since Network Solutions, Inc. began to agressively move from being a small company and a member of a three-company cooperative NSF team to the current status. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] As shown below, the thread starts with a simple observation about an article that appeared in the Washington Post regarding Network Solutions, Inc. and the fact that they have no intention of sharing registrations in the Top Level Domain .COM. NSI evidently claims that their NSF agreement must be followed. It is interesting that the NSF is not consulted on other matters but when it comes to "sharing", the NSF becomes the clout. >From there, the thread turns a corner at [3] and the discussion heads in the direction where NSI is accused of positioning itself in preparation for a move to claim rights to the .COM Top Level Domain This is somewhat misguided, because any company or government body can currently set up a .COM server and offer to "mirror" NSI registrations for a fee to domain name holders. NSI and the IANA have no ability to stop this action. If the domain name holders feel that it is important enough to be listed in the "mirrored" .COM server then they can pay the fee. Depending on how many users the "mirrored" .COM server supports, the .COM domain name owner may feel obligated to pay. For example, if the Canadian government set up a .COM server, most Fortune 1000 companies would likely be willing to send $50 across the border to Canada each year, especially, if most the of the Canadians used that .COM server either by choice or law. Once the misguided turn is taken in [3], the [4], [5], [6], [7] represent a pattern that has been seen over and over for years. The IANA is defended at all cost. A steady stream of the same players enter the scene to defend the actions of Jon Postel (the IANA) in helping to create the monopoly enjoyed by Network Solutions, Inc. The defense is always the same, Jon Postel has the right to do as he pleases with the Internet, despite the impact on people and and companies, because he designed some protocols and wrote some documents many years ago. Using this "Pope logic", some might conclude that the inventor of the automobile would get to decide who gets drivers licenses or where one is allowed to drive. Others might conclude that the lawyer who developed "zoning" laws gets to personally decide where ALL people are allowed to build houses or live. Only on the Internet can such warped, dictatorial, socialistic, views be allowed to not only develop but be supported each year with more and more blind enthusiasm. This pattern continues to repeat month after month and year after year. There appears to be no end.... ...the claim is always, this is what the "consensus" wants... ...is it...? JF [1] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0176.html Interesting NSI note Vince Wolodkin (wolodkin at digitalink.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:57:30 -0500 I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his company would not agree to let other organizations register addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF expires next year. Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for the next contract? Vince Wolodkin [2] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0177.html Re: Interesting NSI note Carl Oppedahl (carl at oppedahl.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:57:44 -0500 At 10:57 AM 02/06/97 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote: >I just read a quote from NSI in the Washington Post as follows: > > Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said his > company would not agree to let other organizations register > addresses ending in .com before its agreement with the NSF > expires next year. > >Which made me think up an interesting point. NSI is continuing to >charge people for the next 2 years, even though they may only have one >year left as a registry in .com. Shouldn't all monies collected by NSI >for a time after their contract expires be put in a escrow account for >the next contract? Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how many months are left on the NSI contract. [3] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0178.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:46:17 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by Carl Oppedahl at oppedahl.c > Yes, that's a very good point. The other possibility is for the > application fee, now $100, to be reduced on a sliding scale based on how > many months are left on the NSI contract. Considering NSI's track record, I highly doubt they are going to do anything of the sort. Other than coming out and saying it, I think NSI is going to try their hardest to keep running .COM. Probably something about how *they* own COM and they have intellectual rights to those names. Which is about as bogus as Alternic claims to their TLDs. Of course, reality sets in -- NSI is part of a huge company with probably a huge legal budget... it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [4] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0181.html Re: Interesting NSI note bmanning at ISI.EDU Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:32:17 -0800 (PST) > it'd be interesting to see IANA try to stop the monster they've created. > > Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu And that monster would be ...the internet...? -- --bill [5] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0184.html Re: Interesting NSI note Aveek Datta (MoNoLiTH+ at CMU.EDU) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:23:19 -0500 (EST) Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 6-Feb-97 Re: Interesting NSI note by bmanning at ISI.EDU > And that monster would be ...the internet...? Don't flatter yourself. IANA has done well on stuff like assigning ports and what not, but a monopoly contract to NSI with no specific clauses against charging or at least some sort of public forum on it was the monster. Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: aveek at andrew.cmu.edu _ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org _| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu [6] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0186.html Re: Interesting NSI note Perry E. Metzger (perry at piermont.com) Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:28:14 -0500 You might want to look at who's name is on the early RFCs for our protocol stack. Perry [7] @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/0187.html Re: Interesting NSI note Michael Dillon (michael at memra.com) Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:27:31 -0800 (PST) IANA is primarily the work of Jon Postel. And Jon is one of a small handful of people that could rightly claim to have created the Internet. Read your histroy for more details. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Feb 6 20:05:41 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:05:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... In-Reply-To: <199702070010.TAA21179@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... Not particularly, *sigh*, read on... > >Steve, > >You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > c's > >anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > >www.infopage.mci.com. Just the teensiest bit of Internet enabled research would have allowed you to determine that this host does not exist. And the teensiest bit of extra effort would have taken you to http://www.infopage.mci.net where you would find a link labelled "Request Internet Address Space". After reading the page at that link and finding no mention of the supposed MCI policy you might have been further inclined to check the first link on that page which was this phrase "how MCI reviews the IP network requests". Having thus satisfied your curiosity about MCI's published policy, you would have been forced to conclude that the MCI employee you were talking to was likely a janitor engaged in scraping paint out of all the power outlets that he had painted over the preceding day. I can understand that as a BBS sysop you might not fully understand all the ins and outs of the Internet, however I fail to understand how you could hope to function as a business person when you display such an utter lack of communications and commerce skills. And in order to assure the other list members that I am not merely being harsh and unforgiving, let me explain so that you may learn. When communicating with suppliers, customers and any governmental authorities under whose jurisdiction you fall, it is imperative to verify the information you receive. In this case, you could have checked the web page, you could have requested a signed and written confirmation from the MCI employee, you could have even spoken to another MCI employee such as a supervisor or another salesperson. In this case the mistake doesn't have lethal implications for your business, but should you be applying the incorrect tax collection policy based on an unrecorded phone conversation with some anonymous person purported to work for the state taxation authority, then you might find otherwise. This is basic business common sense and I am surprised that any ISP would not know and practice these basic rules. > This came direct from MCI folks.... This only goes to show that not all MCI folks are quite up to the caliber of Vint Cerf... Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From lfutten at www.readysoft.es Thu Feb 6 22:06:19 1997 From: lfutten at www.readysoft.es (Luz Futten) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:06:19 +1GMT Subject: An article at the www.news.com Message-ID: <199702062057.VAA09503@www.readysoft.es> Hi everybody, If you got time, go to this URL: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7681,00.html, you'll see another article about the proposal for new domains from the International Ad Hoc Commite. Just that. Have a nice day. Luz Futten lfutten at readysoft.es From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Feb 6 14:42:33 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:42:33 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:05:15 PST." References: Message-ID: <199702061942.OAA14538@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:05:15 PST, you said: > You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same > reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does > multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service > to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. Hmm... I guess the fact that Virginia Tech still has connectivity via MCI even if Sprint has a routing flap, and vice-versa, is just a hallucination on my part. Yes, you get more reliability with 2 T-1s instead of 1 to an upstream provider. But you get even more if the 2 T-1s go to different providers and you have good fall-over routing. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Thu Feb 6 21:15:38 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:15:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Competition for address allocation In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970206191822.00de3f98@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 6, 97 07:34:25 pm Message-ID: <199702070215.VAA16504@linux.silkroad.com> It appears the gentlemen are having some difficulty understanding the concept of competitiveness in telecommunications, or, maybe they are content inventing their personal interpretations! Competitiveness *does not* translate to competing for IP address space, as the industry defines it. (and the RF spectrum paradigm does not hold as an analogy.... thats an exercise for the interested reader to do off line, after reading Freiden). Here is a passage from Friden's book, re: pro-competitive environs: \begin{quote} ``The greatest degree of negotiating clout will lie with users who generate large traffic volumes and can migrate to other suppliers \ldots'' \cite{F95} \end{quote} Frieden \cite{F95} cites numerous tactics in networking and telecommunications services markets which are considered anticompetitive and a subset of these tactics may be directly applicable to bilateral IP internetworking; \begin{itemize} \item refusal to grant an operating agreement, \item discriminatory network access, \item impediments to network usage, and \item discriminatory prices or special relationships. \end{itemize} Furthermore: \begin{quote} 'While international telecommunications can ``contribute to world peace and understanding'', it primarily constitutes an industry with enterprises vying for billions of dollars in annual revenues.' \cite{F95} \end{quote} According to telecommunications studies \cite{F95} the future consumer of networking services will demand the ability to move their networks anywhere in the world easily and quickly. Consumers will require the ability to change service providers immediately and upon demand . Likewise, service provides will demand the same ability, to change their upstream service providers quickly and effectively with little or no impact to their established customer base. And finally: \begin{quote} ``Antitrust is intended to protect the competitive process from \ldots collusive interference \ldots'' \cite{K94} \end{quote} \bibitem{F95} Frieden, R., \newblock {\em International Telecommunications Handbook}, \newblock Artech House, Boston, MA, 1995. \bibitem{K94} Kennedy, C., {\em An Introduction to U.S. Telecommunications Law}, \newblock Artech House, Boston, MA, 1994. ---------------- It would be quite good if some of the more opinionated NAIPR posters would broaden their reading list beyond RFCs and email lists. The history of competitiveness in US and international telecommunications is quite well documented. There is little reason for the gentlemen to conjecture on what is competitiveness when Freiden has done such an excellent job. Regards, Tim From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 6 22:19:40 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:19:40 -0600 Subject: Competition for address allocation Message-ID: <01BC1473.7799E460@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 06, 1997 3:15 PM, Tim Bass[SMTP:themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM] wrote: @ @ @ It would be quite good if some of the more opinionated NAIPR posters @ would broaden their reading list beyond RFCs and email lists. The @ history of competitiveness in US and international telecommunications @ is quite well documented. There is little reason for the gentlemen @ to conjecture on what is competitiveness when Freiden has done @ such an excellent job. @ Tim, Thanks for the great information. I agree with you completely that many of the Internet Politicians should broaden their horizons. Also, they may want to prepare for the day when they are sitting in a court room that does not provide them with high-speed access to the Internet. They may have to actually answer questions in front of other humans. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 7 00:28:46 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:28:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Competition for address allocation In-Reply-To: <199702070215.VAA16504@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Tim Bass wrote: > It would be quite good if some of the more opinionated NAIPR posters > would broaden their reading list beyond RFCs and email lists. You mean like this article from Communications Week International? http://www.emap.com/cwi/177/177news14.html > history of competitiveness in US and international telecommunications > is quite well documented. There is little reason for the gentlemen > to conjecture on what is competitiveness when Freiden has done > such an excellent job. Some of us are just born skeptics, I guess. Seriously, though, this conversation would be a good thing to carry on in the com-priv list. Send a message reading subscribe com-priv to the address com-priv-request at lists.psi.com and bring up the topic. These days, com-priv is not a very high traffic list so I think there is room for discussion of some of these issues of competition etc. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Fri Feb 7 01:59:50 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:59:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember > > that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less > > reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > > You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same > reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does > multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service > to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. Multiple connections to a single provider is "less redundant" than multiple connections to different providers. If your one provider has major problems, you can still end up dead to the net whether you connect to one of their POP's or two. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From russell at PROBE.NET Fri Feb 7 02:42:49 1997 From: russell at PROBE.NET (Tim Russell) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:42:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: from "Jon Lewis" at Feb 7, 97 01:59:50 am Message-ID: <199702070742.BAA28080@elwood.probe.net> > Multiple connections to a single provider is "less redundant" than > multiple connections to different providers. If your one provider has > major problems, you can still end up dead to the net whether you connect > to one of their POP's or two. No kidding. IMHO, anyone who said that connecting at multiple point to the same provider backbone is "redundant" wouldn't know "redundant" if it came up and bit him in the ass. I have an MCI connection that's been great, but they've also melted down a couple of times; it happens. Nowadays, I'm hosting several sites and users that make that an unacceptable occurrance, and I'll shortly be multihoming. It won't be with another connection to MCI, no matter how happy I am with their performance. I've already been told by NSI that I can't have an ASN until I've got a second connection or it's imminent - within 30 days. Nevermind that when that becomes the case, they'll most likely ignore me for three months and waste thousands of my $$$ like they do with domain registrations. -- Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine From davidc at APNIC.NET Fri Feb 7 03:50:25 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:50:25 +0900 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:57:45 CST." <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: <199702070850.RAA13064@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Karl, The law school you got your law degree from would seem to have left out or misinformed you on certain aspects of anti-trust law in the US. I'd recommend suing them for a refund. Regards, -drc -------- >> >> > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out >> > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're >> > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) >> >> I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify >> for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble >> getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers >> that you want to carry your route. >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. > >-- >-- >Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity >http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo >Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ >Fax: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 10:37:44 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061524.KAA12942@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: > It is quite interesting how many of these folks are totally > oblivious to the rights of small businesses to compete on equal > footing with large ones, in the US, especially in telecommuniation > related businesses. There's obviously something I don't understand here. Both small and big providers have to justify their address space requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes should be carried for no charge. So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated? --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at IAFRICA.COM Thu Feb 6 10:15:37 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:15:37 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: > > I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify > > for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble > > getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers > > that you want to carry your route. > > You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. The registry is entrusted with the task of ensuring that address space is not wasted, and they would not be violating that trust. The registry has nothing to do with the prices that providers charge to carry anybody's route announcements. If the USA has laws against registries doing their job properly, then that should be fixed. I am not a lawyer, I don't live in the USA, I don't know whether the USA's anti-trust laws could be used to prevent a registry from doing its job properly. --apb (Alan Barrett) From justin at erols.com Thu Feb 6 16:44:22 1997 From: justin at erols.com (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:44:22 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206164421.00cc6650@justin.erols.com> At 10:31 PM 2/1/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but >rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is >common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't >think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows >more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. I must have missed the request for applications for the position of Executive Director (I am assuming that is what you meant instead of Chief Executive). Regardless of anyone's overwhelming experience, it would be wise for the position to be open until a search is made, and people are invited to apply for the position. IP allocation is one part of the job. Managing people and financial resources is another. The two skills are not necessarily interrelated. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From justin at erols.com Thu Feb 6 16:59:48 1997 From: justin at erols.com (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:59:48 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206165947.00cc9854@justin.erols.com> At 01:29 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: >> >Karl, > >If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that >once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on >the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Although many of us have assumed so as a start, why is it a foregone conclusion that you are going to be ED of ARIN? (I actually think that you are the best choice that I know of, but it still shouldn't be a foregone conclusion IMHO). >Of course, you are >free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is >probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel >that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. I will state that I do not believe that NSI has a hidden agenda with respect to ARIN. If I were NSI I would want to get as far from IP allocation as I could. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 6 17:12:54 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:12:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970206165947.00cc9854@justin.erols.com> from "Justin W. Newton" at Feb 6, 97 04:59:48 pm Message-ID: <199702062212.RAA10955@jazz.internic.net> > Justin, Nowhere in my message was the term "foregone conclusion" used. The term "intention" was used. If you know of other individuals you feel would be more appropriate for the position, I'm sure the Board would be interested in hearing about them. And before you jump in and say "but you are on the Board", I am getting ready to make some minor changes to the proposal, one of which is the modification of the makeup of the ARIN Board. The ARIN Board will now consist of 7 members, 5 voting and 2 ex-officio. I will be an ex-officio member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. Regards, Kim Hubbard Kim Hubbard > At 01:29 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >> > >Karl, > > > >If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that > >once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on > >the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. > > Although many of us have assumed so as a start, why is it a foregone > conclusion that you are going to be ED of ARIN? (I actually think that you > are the best choice that I know of, but it still shouldn't be a foregone > conclusion IMHO). > > >Of course, you are > >free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is > >probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel > >that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. > > I will state that I do not believe that NSI has a hidden agenda with > respect to ARIN. If I were NSI I would want to get as far from IP > allocation as I could. > > > > Justin Newton > Network Architect > Erol's Internet Services > From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Thu Feb 6 14:02:29 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:02:29 -0800 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <01BC141D.3F2F41C0@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] >Sent: Thursday, February 06, 1997 10:05 AM > >On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > >> Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember >> that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less >> reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This >> will cost you market share. > >You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same >reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does >multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service >to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. Now now Michael, you are sounding like a Sprintlink rep. Having multiple connections to the same upstream provider does *not* provide the same level of redundancy as connections to multiple upstream providers, especially if you are talking about multiple connections to the same provider in the same geographic area (which would no doubt be the case for a new ISP). There are too many examples of provider specific router problems, congestion, and power outages taking down a whole area (remember the Stanford facility problem?) for the two solutions to be considered equivalent. >It really isn't ARIN's job to be an all-purpose business consultant for >ISP's supplying creativity services, marketing and planning advice, >purchasing assistance, etc. All ARIN has to do is to apply the same >international policies that RIPE and APNIC are applying and >do it well. On that we agree. In fact this whole discussion of allocation policies is inappropriate on the ARIN list. Policy issues are within the scope of PAGAN, and they apply to more than ARIN. ARIN will be following the same allocation guidelines InterNIC has used (similar but not identical to RIPE and APNIC), which are documented and in use. -- Jim Browning From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Thu Feb 6 10:24:49 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:24:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> from "Karl Denninger" at Feb 6, 97 08:57:45 am Message-ID: <199702061524.KAA12942@linux.silkroad.com> Karl observes: -apb (Alan Barrett) >.... have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. ------------ Agreed. It is quite interesting how many of these folks are totally oblivious to the rights of small businesses to compete on equal footing with large ones, in the US, especially in telecommuniation related businesses. ------------- Here is a blurb from CNN today: With growth like that there's a lot more opportunity for new mom-and-pop Internet providers -- and a lot more choices for the consumer. ------------- However, if the established big providers have it 'there way' all of the mom-and-pop providers would be forced to be subproviders to them. Moreover, it is absolutely amazing the InterNIC tacitly supports this. Just go figure..... Best Regards, Tim > > -- > -- > Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity > http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo > Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ > Fax: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > From karl at Mcs.Net Thu Feb 6 09:57:45 1997 From: karl at Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:57:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: from "Alan Barrett" at Feb 6, 97 10:35:54 am Message-ID: <199702061457.IAA14192@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) > > I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify > for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble > getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers > that you want to carry your route. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From michael at memra.com Thu Feb 6 14:12:34 1997 From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:12:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <01BC141D.3F2F41C0@jfbb.atmnet.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jim Browning wrote: > >> reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This > >> will cost you market share. > > > >You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same > >reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does > >multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service > >to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. > > Now now Michael, you are sounding like a Sprintlink rep. Having multiple > connections to the same upstream provider does *not* provide the same level > of redundancy as connections to multiple upstream providers, especially if > you are talking about multiple connections to the same provider in the same > geographic area (which would no doubt be the case for a new ISP). Nothing will *GUARANTEE* that you will get 5 nines uptime. But if you connect to a regional provider who is triple homed then you can solve the one problem most people are concerned with and that is dependence on one company's backbone. It still doesn't eliminate problems but local problems tend to get fixed faster. > There > are too many examples of provider specific router problems, congestion, and > power outages taking down a whole area (remember the Stanford facility > problem?) for the two solutions to be considered equivalent. I remember Stanford quite well. Inadequate generator backup that hadn't been tested recently and no good emergency procedures. But there are providers who plan and engineer for emergency situations. An ISP can install two demarcs and run connections through two CO's to two different POP's of the same upstream regional provider. And the more demand there is for this sort of service, the more regional providers will start offering it. > In fact this whole discussion of allocation policies is inappropriate on > the ARIN list. Policy issues are within the scope of PAGAN, and they apply > to more than ARIN. ARIN will be following the same allocation guidelines > InterNIC has used (similar but not identical to RIPE and APNIC), which are > documented and in use. Exactly! Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From sweeting at MCI.NET Fri Feb 7 08:58:19 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:58:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... In-Reply-To: <199702070010.TAA21179@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: Steve, Sorry but would you please provide the date of that message. Thanks. John --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > > >Steve, > >You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > c's > >anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > >www.infopage.mci.com. > > This came direct from MCI folks.... > > - Steve - > > Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services > http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net > VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 > Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors > http://www.aop.org > From sweeting at MCI.NET Fri Feb 7 09:01:21 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:01:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... In-Reply-To: <009AF7EE.A6B8BA0A.36@vec.net> Message-ID: Again the information "the Innkeeper" is providing is old information. Real Old. The correct address is infopage.mci.net and we are currently processing orders for the 5th fo February as posted. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Charles T. Smith, Jr. wrote: > >I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > >position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > > > >>Steve, > >>You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > >c's > >>anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > >>www.infopage.mci.com. > > > >This came direct from MCI folks.... > > Hmmmm..... it's even worse than that; my browser doesn't find anything at > www.infopage.mci.com; however, the page at www.infopage.mci.NET has the > IP address space application; a statement that MCI is processing applications > from Jan 31st, etc. > > From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 7 09:33:28 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:33:28 -0600 Subject: ASN Application Message-ID: <01BC14D1.98942FA0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 06, 1997 7:42 PM, Tim Russell[SMTP:russell at PROBE.NET] wrote: @ @ I've already been told by NSI that I can't have an ASN until I've @ got a second connection or it's imminent - within 30 days. Nevermind that @ when that becomes the case, they'll most likely ignore me for three months @ and waste thousands of my $$$ like they do with domain registrations. @ @ -- @ Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net @ "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, @ since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine @ I suggest that you take your ASN Application to George Strawn of the National Science Foundation. George and Don Mitchell oversee the Network Solutions, Inc. contract. You will find that they can help you obtain Internet resources in days rather than "months", years, or never. If they can not help you, then the following Road Map might help. JF @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov ===== @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/mission.html "The FNC supports the goals of the CIC, particularly those related to building the national information infrastructure (NII). It also seeks to address Federal technology transition goals and allow the operational experiences of FNC agencies to influence future Federal research agendas. It also contributes funds to important Internet infrastructure organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA), and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)." @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html Federal Networking Council George Strawn - Chairman GSTRAWN at NSF.GOV Walter Wiebe - Executive Director WWIEBE at NSF.GOV Bruce Almich ALMICH.BRUCE at EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Bruce Bottomley BBB at ROMULUS.NCSC.MIL Dick desJardins DESJARDI at EOS.NASA.GOV Frank Hartel HARTEL at BOX-H.NIH.GOV Craig Hunt CHUNT at NIST.GOV Pamela G. Kruzic PJK at NRC.GOV Henry Lai HENRY.LAI at GSA.GOV Fred Lee FLEE at NSF.GOV Fred Long FLONG at SUN1.WWB.NOAA.GOV Hilarie Orman HORMAN at DARPA.MIL Camillo J. Pasquariello PASQUARC at NCR.DISA.MIL Alexis Poliakoff ALEX_POLIAKOFF at ED.GOV Ken Roko KROKO at USAID.GOV Elaine Stout ESTOUT at USGS.GOV @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC.html The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) is chartered by the National Science Foundation to provide the FNC with technical, tactical, and strategic advice from the constituencies involved in the NREN Program..." FNCAC Members Dr. Sidney Karin KARIN at SDSC.EDU Dr. George Brandenburg BRANDENBURG at HUHEPL.HARVARD.EDU Dr. Henriette Avram AVRAM at IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU Mr. Jim Beall, Jr. BEALL at VNET.IBM.COM Mr. Alan Blatecky ALANB at MCNC.ORG Mr. Matt Blaze MAB at RESEARCH.ATT.COM Ms. Susan Estrada SESTRADA at ALDEA.COM Dr. Kenneth S. Flamm FLAMM at BROOK.EDU Dr. John Gage JOHN.GAGE at ENG.SUN.COM Ms. Carol Henderson CCH at ALAWASH.ORG Dr. Kenneth J. Klingenstein KJK at SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Mr. Richard Liebhaber 2714743 at MCIMAIL.COM Mr. Stu Loken SCLOKEN at LBL.GOV Dr. Paul Mockapetris PVM at SOFTWARE.COM Mr. Robert G. Moskowitz RGM3 at IS.CHRYSLER.COM Dr. Ike Nassi NASSI at SCRUZNET.COM Mr. Carl Edward Oliver OLIVERCE at ORNL.GOV Dr. Stewart Personick SDP at BELLCORE.COM Mr. Thomas C. Rindfleisch THOMAS_RINDFLEISCH at MEDMAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Mr. Mike Roberts ROBERTS at EDUCOM.EDU Ms. Connie D. Stout CSTOUT at TENET.EDU Brigadier General Harold Thompson THOMPSON at ICN.STATE.IA.US Dr. Stephen Wolff SWOLFF at CISCO.COM @@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sweeting at MCI.NET Fri Feb 7 10:45:20 1997 From: sweeting at MCI.NET (John Sweeting) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: MCI position on Class C... (fwd) Message-ID: Just thought everyone should be privy to this with one correction. Again it is not standard MCI policy to send new ISP's to the InterNic. We fully support and conform to RFC 2050 and the guidelines that the InterNic sets forth regarding the allocation/assignment of registered Internet address space. Thank you. John --------------------------------------------------------------- | John Sweeting Internet: sweeting at mci.net | | MCI Internet Services http://infopage.mci.net | | 4408 Silicon Drive, P.O. Box 14901, RTP, NC 27709 | --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:25:03 -0500 From: The Innkeeper To: John Sweeting Subject: Re: MCI position on Class C... I did some more research into this after I sent the response to the list and what had happened was a misunderstanding with the network folks...They assumed I was a starting ISP (even though I provided them with MCI Ckt #'s and the such) and said I must go thru InterNIC to receive my Class C (which IS standard MCI policy)....From that point on I draw from their pool as I was previously informed....I guess an honest mistake at the MCI end from someone who may have been a wee bit tired.... - Steve - ---------- > Again the information "the Innkeeper" is providing is old information. > Real Old. The correct address is infopage.mci.net and we are currently > processing orders for the 5th fo February as posted. Thanks. > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Charles T. Smith, Jr. wrote: > > > >I thought I would send this response to the list since we received a > > >position from an MCI person...I thought you folks might be interested.... > > > > > >>Steve, > > >>You must get the addresses from the internic now. We do not provide class > > >c's > > >>anymore. This info and much more is listed on the MCI web page > > >>www.infopage.mci.com. > > > > > >This came direct from MCI folks.... > > > > Hmmmm..... it's even worse than that; my browser doesn't find anything at > > www.infopage.mci.com; however, the page at www.infopage.mci.NET has the > > IP address space application; a statement that MCI is processing applications > > from Jan 31st, etc. > > > > From matt at netmeg.net Fri Feb 7 12:01:00 1997 From: matt at netmeg.net (Matt Magri) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 12:01 EST Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: Tim Russell (russell at PROBE.NET) wrote: >Jon Lewis (jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net) wrote: >>Michael Dillon (michael at MEMRA.COM) wrote: >>> You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same >>> reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does >>> multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service >>> to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on. >> >> Multiple connections to a single provider is "less redundant" than >> multiple connections to different providers. If your one provider has >> major problems, you can still end up dead to the net whether you connect >> to one of their POP's or two. > > No kidding. IMHO, anyone who said that connecting at multiple point >to the same provider backbone is "redundant" wouldn't know "redundant" >if it came up and bit him in the ass. > > I have an MCI connection that's been great, but [ ... ] While I don't necessarily agree with Michael's claim that you get "the same reliability" (I'm not too sure what it means in this context), I think it's pretty plain from the text you snipped (I returned it up at the top), that he's not talking about multiple connections to a net like MCI. he's talking about a regional provider which already has multiple connections to various providers (one of which could be MCI, etc.). I think if you have a quality multihomed regional provider operating in your area then that's an excellent choice for a first connection. A second connection to that provider (if you could touch their net in a different, sensible location, perhaps) would be nice for redundancy on what is likely to be your most reliable link to the net. OTOH, I, _personally_, wouldn't budget the money towards that until I had already established connections of my own to multiple providers. Of course, if your goal wasn't to become a regional provider yourself then you might make a different choice. If so, keep an eye on the regional you're connected to for signs that the quality is waning, etc. since your fortunes are strongly linked to how they run their net. Matt Magri Netmeg Internet From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Fri Feb 7 12:48:42 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:48:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: <199702070850.RAA13064@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: Ummm... I am Karl Auerbach. I am not Karl Denninger, the author of the e-mail you quoted and are apparently responding to. I graduated from Loyola of Los Angeles Law School with a JD cum laude. I am an attorney, licensed in California and the US Federal courts. Your email, quoted below, really concerns me. Many people on this list do not realize that there are two "Karl"s. As a consequence many people may take your comments below as deriding me and my ability in one of my professions. I don't like that. Please be careful to launch barbs at the right target. --karl-- On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > Karl, > > The law school you got your law degree from would seem to have left > out or misinformed you on certain aspects of anti-trust law in the US. > I'd recommend suing them for a refund. > > Regards, > -drc > -------- > >> > >> > Very true. Now if *SOMEBODY*, *ANYBODY* at ARIN would just come out > >> > and *say* "you can get a /19 if you're multihoming, even if you're > >> > not big enough", I'll shut up on this topic. ;) > >> > >> I don't think that would be sensible. If you're not big enough to qualify > >> for a /19 then you should get a longer prefix. If you have trouble > >> getting that routed, perhaps you are not paying enough to the providers > >> that you want to carry your route. > >> > >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > > > >You have just described a textbook violation of anti-trust law. > > > >-- > >-- > >Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity > >http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo > >Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ > >Fax: [+1 773 248-9865] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > > > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Fri Feb 7 13:43:52 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 13:43:52 -0500 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970207134349.006dfd80@lint.cisco.com> Folks, I think one would have to be a bit more precise about what problem it is that they are trying to solve, what 'redundancy' actually means. Chances are, that if you have more than one circuit to an upstream provider (whether a single provider or several), both of them come into your customer premise on the same entrance facilities, or ride the same piece of fiber to the local CO. If this is the case, the only 'redundancy' one would obtain by multihoming to two different providers would be pseudo _transit_safety_ if one of the upstream provider networks melted down; the ability to route packets via a different path if the transit were somehow munged on a particular Layer 3 upstream path. In any event, this is definitely *not* appropriate discussion for this list; the IP registries do not control the ability of an applicant to multihome, nor can they ensure that a particular prefix will be routable on the global Internet. Haven't we pretty much hashed this topic to death? - paul At 12:01 PM 2/7/97 EST, Matt Magri wrote: > >I think if you have a quality multihomed regional provider operating >in your area then that's an excellent choice for a first connection. >A second connection to that provider (if you could touch their net in >a different, sensible location, perhaps) would be nice for redundancy >on what is likely to be your most reliable link to the net. OTOH, I, >_personally_, wouldn't budget the money towards that until I had >already established connections of my own to multiple providers. Of >course, if your goal wasn't to become a regional provider yourself then >you might make a different choice. If so, keep an eye on the regional >you're connected to for signs that the quality is waning, etc. since >your fortunes are strongly linked to how they run their net. > From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Fri Feb 7 14:19:02 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:19:02 -0500 Subject: Mea Culpa (was Re: LET'S JUST GO AROUND) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:36:40 EST." <199702062036.PAA10879@jazz.internic.net> References: <199702062036.PAA10879@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: <199702071919.OAA12128@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> I'd like to thank Scott Bradner for injecting some actual hard info into the discussion (via a private e-mail to me). I'm sure that Scott will chastise me appropriately if I've mis-paraphrased what he told me, and everybody else will flame me if I added 2 and 2 and got 5. ;) Scott pointed out to me that at least at first, the ARIN registry will operate with exactly the same policies as the already existing registries, and that any changes in said policies would have to be thrashed out and agreeed to by all the registries, on a *different* already existing list. Taking that info, and poking around www.ra.net for RADB information, I eventually stumbled onto a document RIPE-140, which stated the policy for the European side of the puddle. Section 3.4.2 of said document basically answered the question re: multihoming, by saying that even if a request was for provider-independent addresses, the registry should trim it down to the smallest CIDR-sized/aligned block that would fulfill the address regardless of routing. My conclusions after reading the additional documents are: 1) The *current* policy doesn't cut any slack for people wishing to multihome. (I'm assuming that if the RIPE document doesn't, that the other registries and IANA don't either, via implied transitivity by having similar policies). 2) ARIN won't either, unless there's a global change in policy. 3) The issue of too-small companies trying to multihome is mostly a moot point, as apparently one of the following has happened for every case of what I was concerned about: a) They were big enough to get a globally routable address b) They decided to go with redundant links to a large ISP such as NetAXS. c) They managed to bribe those long-haul people with filters to pass their announcements anyhow. d) They appealed directly to IANA and got an allocation anyhow e) They were picked up by the guys in the black helicopters. ;) In any case, we've not seen any actual lawsuits about this policy, so I guess ARIN adopting it won't change things any. And I *know* that we heard about at least the first several lawsuits against NSI re: their domain name policies... I personally remember multihoming being a contentious issue when CIDR was first designed and deployed, and apparently the question of exactly what a registry (or anybody else, for that matter) should do regarding multihoming and its impacts on CIDR is still an open research question... TIme for me to go off, eat some crow (who's got the tabasco sauce? ;), ponder the RADB databases, and shut up on this particular issue until I have some hard numbers regarding multihoming and CIDR ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From huddle at MCI.NET Sat Feb 8 09:36:32 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 08:36:32 -0600 Subject: Membership Fee Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970208013810.00d10c64@mci.net> Ideally these sorts of decisions are done through some consensus building rather than a strict voting scheme, a voting scheme, though, coule be proportional to size of allocation, or perhaps based on membership status. Suggestions welcome here. -scott (still playing catchup on old mail) At 02:03 PM 1/20/97 -0800, Jerry Scharf wrote: >> > My only concern at this point regarding the ARIN proposal (while we wait >> > for Kim, anyways) is why the membership fee has to be so high. I'm an >> > individual who is quite interested in IP allocation issues and who would >> > very much like to use any vote I might get to ensure that allocations are >> > in the hands of people I feel appropriate. However, as a high school >> > geekoid searching for enough cash to get into university, I don't really >> > have that ability, do I. :) >> > >> > I would prefer a model whereby ARIN membership could be expanded to >> > include those hobbyists who care about abstract number assignments. >> > While we aren't the ones likely to be multi-homed, the thought of an >> > organization this powerful solely in the hands of the companies who want >> > provider independant space doesn't sound appealing to me. >> > >> Very good point Billy....That is something that I am sure many folks out >> there would like to see (myself included)... >> >> Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services >> http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net >> Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors >> http://www.aop.org > >I, for one, think this is totally unreasonable. The people actually getting >addresses from ARIN will probably be in the few hundred range. If thousands of >people are financially encouraged to be able to vote on the funding issues, >the people footing the bills loose their voice. I don't want to make this >sound like a club, but it is for the people who get services from ARIN, not >for steering allocation policies or fee structures by outside organizations. > >We're not in a governemtnal situation here, there must be somre reflection of >the size of the players. IMO. I don't deserve the same size vote as MCI or >UUNet even if I get addresses from ARIN. > >Jerry > > From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 10 00:24:15 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:24:15 +0900 Subject: LET'S JUST GO AROUND In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:48:42 PST." Message-ID: <199702100524.OAA02807@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Karl Auerbach, >Many people on this list do not realize that there are two "Karl"s. Perhaps, but including Karl Denninger's note in full would hopefully lead most people to believe I was responding to his note, not to any comment you might have made. >As a >consequence many people may take your comments below as deriding me and my >ability in one of my professions. I don't like that. I, in no way, would deride either you, your ability or one of your professions as I have some idea of your contributions to the field and am aware of your legal training. While I might think you have a tendency to engage in scaremongering, I do respect your opinions and if you were to claim Alan's statements were textbook anti-trust, I would take your statement at face value and adjust my position appropriately. However, the "other Karl" (Karl Denninger) is, as I'm sure your aware, quite infamous for threatening "actions", going to the DA, the DOJ, Janet Reno, etc. at the drop of anyone's hat. My comment was a result of the exasperation I felt at his constant blustering and what I felt to be a complete misrepresenttation of what I understand to be the reality of anti-trust violations in the context of ARIN. >Please be careful to launch barbs at the right target. Please be careful not to jump into the path of incoming barbs in no way intended for you. In any event, as this is unrelated to ARIN, you can have the last word -- I'll not respond further to this thread. Regards, -drc From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 13 16:39:07 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:39:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Updates to ARIN Proposal Message-ID: <199702132139.QAA12297@jazz.internic.net> I have made a few minor modifications to the ARIN proposal. These modifications include: 7 member Board of Trustee, 5 voting members and 2 non-voting ex-officio members. 15 member Advisory Council members with terms listed. The maintenance fee for individual (end-site) assignments and ASNs will be $50 per year. For more details please see the ARIN webpage at www.arin.net. Thanks, - Kim From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 14 21:01:59 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:01:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: CAIP Message-ID: Even though this message comes from the IAHC list it does have some relevance to ARIN. About a week and a half ago, one of the CAIP executive in Canada posted a message to can.infohighway (USENET) in a thread about IP allocation registries in Canada. He seemed to think that Canada would soon be taking over the IP allocation duties for our country again. I spoke to Kim Hubbard briefly about this at the NANOG meeting and, as usual, this was a CAIP plan that they hatched without consulting with anyone else. Since this message from the IAHC list appears to indicate some sort of closure on this issue I thought it would be relevant here. In other words, saner heads have convinced the CAIP people that ARIN is good and national IP registries are bad. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:26:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard J. Sexton" To: iahc-discuss at iahc.org Cc: drc at apnic.net Subject: CAIP Recently Micahel Dillon posted about CAIP and other Canajun (eh?) stuff that was basically factual, except the facts were jumbled around a bit. Since I was around for the formation of CAIP I thought I'd correct a few things. Michael Dillon (michael at memra.com) >Industry Canada is the government ministry that initiated the formation >of CAIP with a plan to take over the .CA domain and IP allocation within No. CAIP was started by Lorien Gable (interlog.com) John Mnemonic (idirect.ca) and John Epstein (passport.ca) at the time when Bell Canada began selling dial up analog IP on the same day that they tried to renegue on existing Centrex III contracts to ISPs. Industry Canada was NOT involved. CAIP has many members today. I'm not one of them; I have better uses for $500. >Canada. Of course they never bothered to ask the .CA domain committee >whether they needed help (they didn't and still don't) Jon Postel (or the Internic, I don't rememebr) posted to usenet they was seeking proposals to replace the .CA registrar, as he had lost his funding. In Jon's words (pers. comms.) "The first resonable proposal to get here, wins". I assume one never did, and with roughly 8000 .CA names, it was tough to make a business case for the then free names. As a sidebar, one of the fellows who is on the .CA committee accepts .CA registrations ($50) but still does the UUCP maps (free). >and they never >bothered to discuss the IP allocation function with the Internic. After >the University of Toronto dropped the IP allocation function, the duty was >taken over by the Internic. >However, CAIP had a couple of meetings at Industry Canada's offices in >Ottawa where they hatched a scheme to have a secret committee make IP >allocation and domain name decisions. The members of the committee >would be kept secret and each member would have to swear a lifetime oath >to keep all activities of the committee secret as well as keeping the >identity of other committee members secret. This part is correct. From the horses mouth: ================= From: woods at weird.com (Greg A. Woods) Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada There was a point where CAIP had big plans to propose take-over of .CA with another secret comittee. I was asked to fill out their on-line form and basically offer my views and I essentially told them to stick their ideas about secret committees where the sun don't shine. ================ So did everybody else and the novel concept went awsy. Techies uber alles. >This same organization, >CAIP, now has representatives of the RCMP or the Ontario Provincial Police >speaking at their meetings on the subject of Internet porn. The only >reason I'm not ashamed to be Canadian is that all these CAIP shenanigans >are happening in Ontario and I left that province 16 years ago to live in >B.C. where people are more normal and some even have a clue. CAIP thanked them very much and promptly ignord them. These days CAIP is trying to get ISP access into the (TV) cable infrastructure. >Now CAIP has publicly stated that there are "plans" afoot to bring the >IP allocation back into Canada. Some people never manage to get a clue, >it seems. The job simply does not belong in Canada because it transcends >the boundaries of the nation state. The Internic people do a darn good >job and unlike the government bureacrats I have encountered, the Internic >folks are smart and they are nice. Soon they will all be working for ARIN >which is a significant move towards industry self-regulation and is >a good thing. Anybody who wants more government interference in the >Internet, no matter what country, needs their head examined. >From Greg Woods again: I'm a member of that committee, and I've never know that it was supposed to be a secret. The CAIP asked Rayan (uunet.ca) to form it. We've had a couple of conference calls, and lots of discussion on . It's basically stagnated since those of us who know the technical side have shut down the empire builders. Michael is right -- Canada has no business being in the IP # allocation business -- it only makes sense for those regions that are truely geographically and network isolated. While this was not my original stance, I now believe that IP allocations in Canada do not belong in Canada and the interests of the Internet are best served by ARIN handling this. The fees make me nervous, but we'll see how that plays out. -- richard at vrx.net In a little while it may be over. We may fail. But the rights for which we contend will not die. Louis Riel 1885 From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Mon Feb 17 17:21:03 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:21:03 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3308D9CF.4D2C@driveway1.com> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? From russell at PROBE.NET Mon Feb 17 18:27:32 1997 From: russell at PROBE.NET (Tim Russell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:27:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? Message-ID: <199702172327.RAA16451@elwood.probe.net> Okay, since I haven't heard anything from the list in quite some time, I'll hopefully get things going again by asking a little question that's been on my mind: The proposal says that the rates for service are set such that NAIPR will break even the first year. Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been on my mind is this: what about the second year? I've been told about the huge startup costs, and I can see that. But then, if the funding for the first year will cover that (it has to, because NAIPR is supposed to break even that year, remember?), what about the second year when there aren't startup expenses? Is it just me, or will NAIPR not have quite a bit of cash left over with nowhere to spend it and nothing in the proposal about what to do with it? -- Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 17 19:04:56 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:04:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: test - is this list still alive? In-Reply-To: <3308D9CF.4D2C@driveway1.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco last week. In fact, I met three of the BoT people at NANOG so that kept them busy for a few days. No doubt they had to dig out from a pile of email after returning to work, I know I certainly did. Then this weekend is a holiday in the USA so it's not surprising that there isn't much email. The web site did get updated last week so you might want to check it out again if you haven't done so recently. At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have questions. But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still written in conditional language. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 17 19:55:23 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:55:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: test - is this list still alive? In-Reply-To: <3308D9CF.4D2C@driveway1.com> from "Larry Honig" at Feb 17, 97 05:21:03 pm Message-ID: <199702180055.TAA22189@moses.internic.net> > Yes, the lack of discussion has surprised me also. It also has me hopeful that ARIN is receiving the ISP support needed. Kim > Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? > From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 17 20:03:26 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:03:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702172327.RAA16451@elwood.probe.net> from "Tim Russell" at Feb 17, 97 05:27:32 pm Message-ID: <199702180103.UAA22218@moses.internic.net> > Actually, the proposal says that ARIN funding is for cost recovery - not just for the first year. Most of the costs for operating ARIN will be ongoing. For instance, rental space, equipment, connectivity, staffing will be leased/ongoing so startup costs are not expected to be the major cost. However, if operational costs are met along with an adequate surplus and the expectation is that there will be extra money than I expect the BoT will review the registration fees and consider lowering them. Kim > Okay, since I haven't heard anything from the list in quite some time, > I'll hopefully get things going again by asking a little question that's been > on my mind: > > The proposal says that the rates for service are set such that NAIPR will > break even the first year. > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > I've been told about the huge startup costs, and I can see that. But > then, if the funding for the first year will cover that (it has to, because > NAIPR is supposed to break even that year, remember?), what about the second > year when there aren't startup expenses? > > Is it just me, or will NAIPR not have quite a bit of cash left over with > nowhere to spend it and nothing in the proposal about what to do with it? > > -- > Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell at probe.net > "You need what's technically known as a quick gross hack. Fortunately, > since this is unix, 'quick gross hack' is our middle name." -- John Levine > From justin at EROLS.COM Mon Feb 17 20:13:55 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:13:55 -0500 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970217201353.01323f88@justin.erols.com> At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been >on my mind is this: what about the second year? The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in not doing so? Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From justin at EROLS.COM Mon Feb 17 20:16:50 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:16:50 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970217201649.013b8664@justin.erols.com> At 04:04 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to >go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still >written in conditional language. You have my full concurence on this. The proposal has really come a long way and is IMHO one revision away from being ready to become a framework for by-laws. (And even the changes between the current revision and the by-laws will only need to be relatively minor). Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 17 21:45:56 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970217201353.01323f88@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > >on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would > suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in > not doing so? That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 17 21:45:56 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970217201353.01323f88@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > >on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would > suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in > not doing so? That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Mon Feb 17 22:24:49 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:24:49 -0500 Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act Message-ID: <33092101.7CD8@driveway1.com> Hi. This may seem offtopic, but perhaps not. ARIN itself may need to become involved in the medium term if and when telephone numbers and IP addresses converge. I was perusing the '96 Telecom Act (my usual lite bedtime reading) and I came across the following: "All LECs must immediately provide interim number portability measures such as remote call forwarding ("RCF"), flexible direct inward dialing ("DID") or other comparable and technically feasible methods." Now my question is: since ISPs and IX operators are not presently defined as LECs under this Act, are they therefore exempt? If there is some uncertainty about the durability of any exemption, shouldn't a prudent Board of Directors (of an IX operator or ISP) be asking questions now about their liability to conform with an expanded interpretation of the Act should it occur? How would ARIN's authority be exercised when renumbering disputes occur? The full text of the portions of the Act pertaining to local number provisioning can be found here: http://www.technologylaw.com/techlaw/local_access.html#lnp From kimh at internic.net Mon Feb 17 22:50:15 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:50:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: from "Jon Lewis" at Feb 17, 97 09:45:56 pm Message-ID: <199702180350.WAA22753@moses.internic.net> > Are you suggesting that the rates never be lowered? I would guess that considering the ISPs will be paying an annual fee that lowering them at any time would be welcomed. Kim > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: > > > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that > > >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been > > >on my mind is this: what about the second year? > > > > The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would > > suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in > > not doing so? > > That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of > ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for > it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the > first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 17 23:02:31 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:02:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702180350.WAA22753@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that the rates never be lowered? I would guess > that considering the ISPs will be paying an annual fee that lowering > them at any time would be welcomed. It surely would be welcomed by most, though the first organizations to have paid the original fees might be bitter when their younger competitors pay a fraction of what they just paid for the same "service". I just can't see it [lower fees] really happening. Usually, expenses grow to meet the available budget. If there's extra cash, what's to stop the BOT from blowing it on more T1's, upgrades to fractional T3's, bigger staff, etc.? Has anything been said about salaries for the president and other operational staff other than the BOT will decide them? Perhaps after the first year, when rather than break even, there is a revenue surplus, everyone will get big raises?? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From aop at cris.com Mon Feb 17 23:26:01 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:26:01 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <01BC1D29.F3C57540@dave> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco last week. [Dave McClure] Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of Trudtees?????" At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have questions. [Dave McClure] And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the system, and a real non-profit status. But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still written in conditional language. [Dave McClure] Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything else that **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a proposed budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, or the authority under which these hijackers are operating???? Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs who do not. . .large, and small. The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined organization whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP addresses in the Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational mission. It is a simple overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed. If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as APNIC and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set forth how the Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the organization will be responsible to the industry? Why no open information about accounting, or what their costs will be. This organization will pull more than $3 million from the industry in its first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or what the accountability will be to the industry. The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any opportunity to do so. Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be transferred to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in public. Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who almost immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. . . Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? Yes, or no? David P. McClure Association of Online Professionals From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 17 23:53:43 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:53:43 +0900 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:02:31 EST." Message-ID: <199702180453.NAA27187@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Jon, >I just can't see it [lower fees] really happening. As several have pointed out, it has already happened in the European registry's case. >Usually, expenses grow to meet the available budget. In APNIC and RIPE's case, when you are responsible to a group of individuals who are (to put it mildly) not particularly interested in paying for more than they need, and the activities of the registry are made public knowledge along with the budgets, it becomes somewhat of a "challenge" to cause expenses to grow without approval. Regards, -drc From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 00:45:55 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:55 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702180103.UAA22218@moses.internic.net> References: <199702172327.RAA16451@elwood.probe.net> from "Tim Russell" at Feb 17, 97 05:27:32 pm Message-ID: >> >Actually, the proposal says that ARIN funding is for cost recovery - not >just for the first year. Most of the costs for operating ARIN will be >ongoing. For instance, rental space, equipment, connectivity, staffing >will be leased/ongoing so startup costs are not expected to be the >major cost. > >However, if operational costs are met along with an adequate surplus and >the expectation is that there will be extra money than I expect the >BoT will review the registration fees and consider lowering them. > >Kim We still need the proposed budget -- a three-year projection would be nice. Also, if the capitalization is coming from a grant or lump-sum distribution from NSI, that should be indicated as well. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 00:59:54 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:59:54 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702180453.NAA27187@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:02:31 EST." Message-ID: At 8:53 PM -0800 2/17/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Jon, > >>I just can't see it [lower fees] really happening. > >As several have pointed out, it has already happened in the European >registry's case. > >>Usually, expenses grow to meet the available budget. > >In APNIC and RIPE's case, when you are responsible to a group of >individuals who are (to put it mildly) not particularly interested in >paying for more than they need, and the activities of the registry are >made public knowledge along with the budgets, it becomes somewhat of a >"challenge" to cause expenses to grow without approval. The reason to lower fees later is because your budget model was wrong and you charged too much in the beginning. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but we NEED the proposed budget NOW so that we can see where the money is coming from (revenue projections) and where the money is going (expenses). As for paying $1000 to participate in ARIN, don't count on me. I don't have that kind of money to throw around. If on the off chance you want me to continue to provide input to the process you will have to find a way to do it without bankrupting me. And don't expect my company, Motorola, to be willing to fork over that kind of money for me to participate in ARIN. Won't happen. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Feb 18 01:41:31 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:41:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Answer to Dave McClure's concerns In-Reply-To: <01BC1D29.F3C57540@dave> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but > that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to > claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who > elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone > even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of > Trudtees?????" If you would read through the materials in the Reading List at http://www.arin.net you would realize that ARIN is not claiming a monopoly on all North and South American IP addresses. On the contrary, ARIN is offering to act as a "steward" for the IP address space allocated in the Western hemisphere which is, no doubt, why there is a Board of "Trustees" rather than a Board of "Directors". It is also incorrect to say that the BoT is self-elected. Obviously they haven't been directly elected by any constitutency but this is not surprising in the absence of a structure to run such an election. However, they have consulted with IANA, NSF, the current IP allocation folks at the Internic, and most of the major users of IP space in North America. In addition, they have submitted their plans to the open scrutiny of the Internet community on this mailing list and on the website. The plan also provides for an election mechanism for future trustees as it does for the future Advisory Council. As far as the ISP connections. Both Randy Bush and John Curran currently work for large backbone providers as you can read in the biographies on the website. That's one more than you mentioned. But ISP's are not the only users of IP address space. The educational and research community are also large users of IP addresses and Raymundo Vega and Scott Bradner represent that sector. Donald Telage holds a trustee position because his firm will be funding the transfer of the existing IP allocation function to ARIN. It is quite reasonable that he should have a position as a trustee while his company's money is being spent. The other two positions are ex-officio and I assume that the intent is to have the current IANA director and the current Executive Director of ARIN as permanent members of the board. This provides the essential liaison with IANA, from whom all IP allocations originate, and with the operational employees of ARIN who actually do the job. > BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at > the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** > collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing > systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the > system, and a real non-profit status. I don't understand why you feel that ARIN will not have real non-profit status. I'm not all that familiar with U.S. tax law, however ARIN is being chartered as an organization that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(6) of the U.S. tax code. I know that in Canada that tax exempt organizations have to follow some fairly strict rules about handling money and I have no reason to doubt that U.S. law is significantly different. Perhaps the people from APNIC and RIPE can comment on the open election questions. I certainly do not find it unusual that an organization gets bootstrapped into existence with no elections in the first year. As long as the structure is in place for future elections I believe that the ISP members of ARIN will ensure that the organization is above reproach. And ARIN will certainly be far more open that the current privately run Internic. > > But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready > > to > > go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still > > written in conditional language. > Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the > Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, Yes, something like that. As far as by-laws are concerned, they are most likely available in boilerplate. I have been involved in the incorporation of several non-profits here in Canada and in one case we used the boilerplate provided in the provincial Society Act, in two other cases we used boilerplate provided by the provincial law society. I don't expect people to give their final consensus on the matter until the bylaws are actually presented, but knowing that the Trustees are all volunteers with full-time jobs elsewhere, I'm not terribly worried that details are coming out in a trickle. In fact, I'd be far more worried if we had been presented with a nice neat package from day one. > a mission, http://www.arin.net/arin_intro.html seems good enough so far. I agree it would sound better if rewritten as a mission statement, but the basic info is there. > How about a proposed > budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, Yes, definitely. I agree 100% with you on these two points. However, given the level of vituperative attack we have seen on this mailing list, it doesn't surprise me that the Trustees are keeping the budget secret until they can justify every line item on it. And I am confident that ISP's who intend to become ARIN members or subscribe to ARIN's services will make their views known to the Board of Trustees. Sadly, I expect a number of them will not want to speak publicly due to the level of discord on this list, but that is their prerogative. > or the > authority under which these hijackers are operating???? You really must check out the website in more detail. http://www.arin.net/iana.html > Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who > support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs > who do not. . .large, and small. I'm not on the Board of Trustees and I have not personally surveyed even the backbone providers so I cannot give you this information. I would like to point out, however, that several of the trustees do participate in a number of forums that the major providers attend such as NANOG and IETF. They certainly know how to contact the providers and the providers know how to contact them. I interpret the absence of public comment from the major NSP's on this list as a tacit vote of confidence for ARIN. > As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon > organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit > status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational > mission. You should read through section 501 of the tax code. While your comments would certainly apply to a 501(c)(3) corporation, they do not appear to apply to 501(c)(6). > Why have we not seen ... Like I said, the volunteers have sull time jobs, and they are asking the industry for input. If anyone has some direct advice on how to structure ARIN, bylaws, budgets, please share them with the BoT if not with the entire list. > but offers **NO** > accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or > what the accountability will be to the industry. In reading through the current draft proposal I do see accountability built into it. If you feel there is a shortcoming in the accountability, let's hear your suggestions for improvement. > The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little > interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any > opportunity to do so. Perhaps this is the truth in your worldview, but not in mine. Of course, I have personally met Kin Hubbard on two occasions, and met both Randy Bush and John Curran on one occasion. In addition I have met and talked to some Internic employees in person. One thing that face-to-face meetings do for me is to give me insight into a person's character. And I have to say that I get generally good impressions of these people. I have encountered sleazy people several times in my life and the ARIN folks do NOT fit that mold. This doesn't mean that they will automatically do everything perfectly, but since I'm not perfect either, I won't hold them to such a high standard. And with the open process exepmlified by this mailing list, I think we can all ensure that the job is done right. > Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a > simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will > become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be > transferred to ARIN. I'm not interested in numbers. But I hope that 100% of the people engaged in IP allocation functions at the Internic move to ARIN with basically the same job description. I think we are fortunate that Network Solutions is supportive of this because in most industries you would get sued for hiring away an entire department. And in order to maintain the stability of IP allocations in this continent we need as little disruption as possible. > Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising > law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the > possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of > Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? Some people on the ISP/C Board think that we should have a member on the Advisory Council and I am one of three ISP/C directors that our board has discussed as possibilities. However, the ISP/C has not been asked to appoint a member to ARIN's Advisory Council. In addition, the ISP/C board has not received any indication that the Advisory Council will be set up as a series of appointments by other organizations. In fact, I don't think that is a good way to set up the initial AC, they should be appointed directly by the initial BoT. I don't believe that the earlier proposals specified how the AC would be chosen, but the current proposal contains this statement: The initial Advisory Council will be selected from among ARIN's membership by the Board of Trustees. Since the current annual membership fee is $1000, I won't be joining ARIN as an individual and would thus be ineligible to be an AC member. Unless, of course, I end up working for a company that joins ARIN but then I would expect the choice of which employee would hold the ARIN membership would rest with the CEO of that company. It is entirely possible that the BoT already has a set of candidates for the AC and I have never discussed this with any BoT members except on this list. If you have reviewed the archives you will note that I made a number of suggestions about structuring the Advisory Council as a body elected directly by the membership of ARIN. As for the BoT, I don't think it would be good for it to expand in size. The ex-officio appointment of Jon Postel is a good idea leaving the board with 5 voting members which is a good size, IMHO, for a non-profit. This may seem like a complex answer to a simple question but I wanted to cover as many bases as possible and answer many of the questions that you have hidden inside your question. One thing that you fail to realize is that the Internet community is quite open to new ideas if they are good ideas. It is not necessary to have connections or to bribe somebody in order to be listened to. Good ideas speak for themselves. This isn't the first forum in which I have freely contributed my ideas and found that some of them have been accepted as part of the "stone soup". If you have some good ideas, there is a good possibility that they will also be accepted here. And I'm sure most of the people on this list would be happier to read a few good ideas than to read your constant critique of everything about ARIN. Let's face it, there may well be some bad things that could be fixed but it's really stretching it to suggest that everything is as bad as you make out. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 02:24:33 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:24:33 +0100 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:59:54 PST." References: Message-ID: <9702180724.AA03994@ncc.ripe.net> Stephen Satchell writes: * At 8:53 PM -0800 2/17/97, David R. Conrad wrote: * The reason to lower fees later is because your budget model was wrong and * you charged too much in the beginning. I know I'm beginning to sound like * a broken record, but we NEED the proposed budget NOW so that we can see * where the money is coming from (revenue projections) and where the money is * going (expenses). The reason that the RIPE prices were lowered was partially because of the extra growth in the Internet, meaning more registries than expected. Now if you can guarantee how the Internet will grow in the next three years so that people can budgetize correctly for that length of time, I'm sure that everybody would find it useful. ARIN must be funded and cannot risk being underfunded, a one year budget can ensure that they can adjust in 12 months to the situation at that point in time. A three year budget that guarantees them enough funding would seem to me very difficult to make while keeping the prices down to a realistic level. At the RIPE NCC we keep getting more registries but we don't have any way of knowing how long this growth will continue. What happens if we budgetise for three years and the growth slows, stops or even turns around in year two, I think then the contributors would be telling us we should have budgetised for one year. Of course I'm not an economist so I could be wrong. * * As for paying $1000 to participate in ARIN, don't count on me. I don't * have that kind of money to throw around. If on the off chance you want me * to continue to provide input to the process you will have to find a way to * do it without bankrupting me. And don't expect my company, Motorola, to be * willing to fork over that kind of money for me to participate in ARIN. * Won't happen. If your company doesn't consider it important to be involved, that's their choice. It is a shame that individuals who wish to be involved in this and don't have a $1000 that they can miss will miss out. I think this will be a minority, most people will be involved for reasons of business, for yourself your company would have decided it's not important to your business. I guess it's like anything in life there are always those who don't have the resources to contribute even when their contribution could be useful. John Crain RIPE NCC (These are my opinions and nobody elses, you want opinions get your own:-) From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 02:32:13 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:13 +0100 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:56 EST." References: Message-ID: <9702180732.AA04178@ncc.ripe.net> Jon Lewis writes: * On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: * * * That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of * ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for * it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the * first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? That depends totally on the reason for lowering the price. If it's because ARIN wildly overbudgeted for year one, based on the data they have now, then I agree. If it's because of market forces, i.e. it becomes fashionable to be an ARIN Member, then I disagree. I think 99% of the contributors would just be glad that the service becomes cheaper. If the ARIN people have their figures correct then it's not guaranteed that it will. John Crain RIPE NCC These opinions are mine, you want some get your own. * * ------------------------------------------------------------------ * Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will * Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. * ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ * From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 04:03:14 1997 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:03:14 +0100 Subject: Answer to Dave McClure's concerns In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:41:31 PST. References: Message-ID: <9702180903.AA06328@ncc.ripe.net> > Michael Dillon writes: > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: ... > > BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at > > the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** > > collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing > > systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the > > system, and a real non-profit status. > > ... Perhaps the > people from APNIC and RIPE can comment on the open election questions. > I certainly do not find it unusual that an organization gets bootstrapped > into existence with no elections in the first year. As long as the > structure is in place for future elections I believe that the ISP members > of ARIN will ensure that the organization is above reproach. And ARIN > will certainly be far more open that the current privately run Internic. The key element in this is establishing a level of trust of the community. The methods can vary widely. In the case of the RIPE NCC even at this point we have no elected board of [DT].*s. The NCC is currently run under the umbrella of TERENA, an organisation similar but not directly comparable to FARNET. For various reasons we now plan to set up a sepearate legal entity early next year. We are following the ARIN process with interest in this respect. The key thing to be constantly aware of is that almost any formal system works as long there is a level of trust that the organisation operating the registry is neutral and does a good job and -maybe even more importantly- that the people actually running the NCC are trustworthy. It has taken us more than five years to establish this. It is with great admiration that I follow the process around ARIN, especially the speed at which the *people* involved succeed in establishing such a high level of trust. And I think they deserve it. ... > > How about a proposed > > budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, > > Yes, definitely. I agree 100% with you on these two points. However, given > the level of vituperative attack we have seen on this mailing list, it > doesn't surprise me that the Trustees are keeping the budget secret until > they can justify every line item on it. And I am confident that ISP's who > intend to become ARIN members or subscribe to ARIN's services will make > their views known to the Board of Trustees. Sadly, I expect a number of > them will not want to speak publicly due to the level of discord on this > list, but that is their prerogative. I also agree that open budgeting is an absolutely required key ingredient to establishing trust. Seperate but following from that is open development of the charging scheme. We religiously publish everything concerning these two items. Have a look at our website if you want the details on how we do it: ripe-143 Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997 ripe-144 RIPE NCC Activities & Expenditure 1997 ripe-145 RIPE NCC Contributors Committee 1996 Annual Meeting ripe-146 RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 1997 However we also bootstrapped it at some point. So I suggest cutting the people who try to make it work some slack and allow them to get their homework done before facing the tomato throwing crowd. Added remark in response to some other messages on this list: The Internet is a constantly moving target. Asking for five year plans is not going to work. The RIPE NCC's planning period is more than 15 months as budgets for the following calendar year get approved in September. We have had to ammend every single budget during our existance. Fortunately the changes required were not big enough to cause us to keel over - just. However I can tell you that in the beginning we were several times seriously understaffed because of changing and unforeseen developments such as growth exceeding our wildest dreams - eh - most ambitious planning scenarios. Of course the customers were not happy about the resulting delays in service. So they cut us some slack because they trust us. We were authorised to build a decent level of reserves and received approval for necessary budget ammendments ... retrospectively. I believe this is absolutely necessary for success and all comes back to the initial issue of trust. If you give noone a reasonable initial credit of trust you might as well not do business or even function in society. Of course the very trust is an obligation to the one who is trusted and living up to it can be a hard job. Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC Manager From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Tue Feb 18 08:27:22 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:27:22 -0500 Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act References: Message-ID: <3309AE3A.40F3@driveway1.com> Stephen Satchell wrote: > This is more a telephony issue, and belongs in comp.dcom.telecom> > The existing telephone system converts the seven-digit number to an > equipment address, and that equipment address is used by the switch to > locate your pair. This is why you can move in-town and get service > almost instantly, even though there was no physical re-wiring at the > frame. I understand the differences between 7-digit phone numbers and IPv4 addresses. My question is a little deeper. I am NOT concerned about an individual at the /24 end of the tree who changes providers, NICs, etc, having to change an IP reference he/she may have inadvertently or ignorantly published instead of a DNS name. I am asking about the situation where an ISP decides to re-home or multi-home, and the implied latency in propagating any IP changes related to this decision to the world of DNS servers out there (some of which, IMHO *NEVER* pci up the new reference ;-| ). I know (I think) that there is no present binding authority in the '96 Act which mandates anything pertaining to this *under present interpretations*. But... > "Number portability" already exists on the Internet: the DNS facility > provides for this. Indeed, users are discouraged from ever saving internet > addresses anywhere they don't have to be saved so that number changes may > occur relatively transparently. It's too bad that there isn't a scheme for > a system to "discover" where to find a name server by using broadcast > requests initially so the poor user doesn't have to hard-code the name > server address. (I'm a dreamer.) > > Remember that in telephony the identifier is a string of digits; on the > Internet, the identifer is a name. > > --- > Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} > for contact and other info > Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 11:32:20 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <9702180724.AA03994@ncc.ripe.net> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:59:54 PST." Message-ID: At 11:24 PM -0800 2/17/97, John LeRoy Crain wrote: >Now if you can guarantee how the Internet will grow in the next three years >so that people can budgetize correctly for that length of time, I'm sure >that everybody would find it useful. ARIN must be funded and cannot risk being >underfunded, a one year budget can ensure that they can adjust in 12 months >to the situation at that point in time. A three year budget that guarantees >them enough funding would seem to me very difficult to make while keeping the >prices down to a realistic level. At the RIPE NCC we keep getting more >registries but we don't have any way of knowing how long this growth will >continue. What happens if we budgetise for three years and the growth slows, >stops or even turns around in year two, I think then the contributors would >be telling us we should have budgetised for one year. If there was no track record, I'd agree with you that you couldn't "guarantee" anything. The thing is, NSI *has* information about registry information, and the trends that go with it. You can plan with a three-year horizon, and adjust every month if you have to in order to keep things going properly. Just because you have a three-year budget forecast doesn't mean that you can't change it month to month to react to changing conditions. Growth stopping or turning around is part of the risk of being in any business, for-profit or not. That's one of the arguments for this function to be a part of government: if the revenue stream slows down, the government agency can raise taxes. >It is a shame that individuals who wish to be involved in this and don't have >a $1000 that they can miss will miss out. I think this will be a minority, >most people will be involved for reasons of business, for yourself your >company would have decided it's not important to your business. I guess it's >like anything in life there are always those who don't have the resources >to contribute even when their contribution could be useful. If this were a standards body consisting in the main of manufacturers, the US$1K entry fee makes sense. Indeed, the Telecommunications Industry Association wanted to see US$2400/yr from me as an individual, with companies paying around US$10K or more. This is the Internet, though. By "soaking" those interested in the process, ARIN is raising a significant barrier to participation by the users and (more or less) disinterested parties. How many people associated with the Internet do you know that (a) have an interest in the process but (b) don't derive a profit from the Internet? The *last* thing I want is for ARIN to be run by people who have a financial axe to grind. On the other hand, there is a benefit to wanting people to have some stake in the process. That's why in my strawman budget I assumed that the entry tax would be US$100, not US$1000, per member. I believe that far more people would be able to afford to not do dinner and a movie twice in order to participate in the process. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Tue Feb 18 12:00:40 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:00:40 +0100 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." References: Message-ID: <9702181700.AA24025@ncc.ripe.net> Stephen Satchell writes: * If there was no track record, I'd agree with you that you couldn't * "guarantee" anything. The thing is, NSI *has* information about registry * information, and the trends that go with it. RIPE also has a lot of statistics on this, the only thing we can predict about he growth on long term basis is that it will be unpredictable:-) * * You can plan with a three-year horizon, and adjust every month if you have * to in order to keep things going properly. Just because you have a * three-year budget forecast doesn't mean that you can't change it month to * month to react to changing conditions. What use is a three year budget if you change it every month/ or every three months? * Growth stopping or turning around is part of the risk of being in any * business, for-profit or not. That's one of the arguments for this function * to be a part of government: if the revenue stream slows down, the * government agency can raise taxes. * Which government? How do you get all of the involved governments to agree on a tax? This is a proposal for the Western hemisphere not just the USA. * * If this were a standards body consisting in the main of manufacturers, the * US$1K entry fee makes sense. Indeed, the Telecommunications Industry * Association wanted to see US$2400/yr from me as an individual, with * companies paying around US$10K or more. You had $2400 to spare but not $1000, this is a body that is entrusted with the stewardship of an important resource, if people don't value it high enough to pay $1000 then, IMHO, they don't need to be a member. * * This is the Internet, though. By "soaking" those interested in the * process, ARIN is raising a significant barrier to participation by the * users and (more or less) disinterested parties. How many people associated * with the Internet do you know that (a) have an interest in the process but * (b) don't derive a profit from the Internet? The *last* thing I want is * for ARIN to be run by people who have a financial axe to grind. The end users of IP won't normally use ARIN directly. They should go to their upsteam provider for addresse and these will probably be ARIN members. Large companies who have /19's etc. may well use ARIN directly, these people could normally afford $1000 if they chose to be members. * * On the other hand, there is a benefit to wanting people to have some stake * in the process. That's why in my strawman budget I assumed that the entry * tax would be US$100, not US$1000, per member. I believe that far more * people would be able to afford to not do dinner and a movie twice in order * to participate in the process. If you are a user of ARINs services then I can see a need to have a say in how it works, if you're john doe from the street with a couple of IP addresses you shouldn't need to be involved in ARIN. If you wish to be then there's a price to pay. Kind regards, John Crain RIPE NCC These opinions are my own, you want some, get your own. From huddle at MCI.NET Tue Feb 18 13:25:25 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:25:25 -0600 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970218104146.0075535c@mci.net> I propose that any excess funds collected in year 1 be used to host A Fine Dinner (AFD) in which all registrants will be invited to attend (with the number of tickets in a ratio of excess funds contributed, of course). If the funds are not substantial enough to fund AFD, we all get a free video rental (no current releases, 50cent rewind fee still in effect) -scott At 09:45 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > >> At 05:27 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Tim Russell wrote: >> > Now, notwithstanding the fact that I'd /love/ to start a business that >> >is guaranteed to break even the first year :-), the question that's been >> >on my mind is this: what about the second year? >> >> The BoT will lower the rates? RIPE has already done this, and I would >> suspect that ARIN would follow their example. What gain would they have in >> not doing so? > >That would mean organizations that get address space in the first year of >ARIN get the shaft, and those that grow to that size later pay less for >it. Is it really reasonable to expect those that are allotted space in the >first year to subsidize the creation of ARIN? > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. >________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > > > From huddle at MCI.NET Tue Feb 18 13:25:17 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:25:17 -0600 Subject: Nit for section 2.3 Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970218101638.00e84fd4@mci.net> What are the routing restrictions that are mentioned here? Is this the general scaling problem of routing tables or the specific filters on routing announcements that some providers choose to implement? -scott --- SECTION 2.3 Individual Address Space Assignment Those individuals/entities who will be the end users of a block of IP address space, and who receive their IP address space assignments directly from ARIN as opposed to through an ISP, will be charged a one-time registration fee. This one-time registration fee is based on the amount of address space assigned. The fee structure for receiving IP address space as an end user, directly from ARIN, is as follows: PLEASE NOTE: Almost all end users will receive IP address space from their upstream Internet Service Providers - not directly from ARIN. Due to current routing restrictions, the IP registries in almost all cases issue a minimum of a /19. As a result, the fee structure outlined here begins with /19. All individuals/entities that do not meet the requirements for a /19 will be referred to their upstream service provider. From kimh at internic.net Tue Feb 18 16:15:01 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:15:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Nit for section 2.3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970218101638.00e84fd4@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 18, 97 12:25:17 pm Message-ID: <199702182115.QAA13379@jazz.internic.net> > The "current" routing restrictions refer to the specific filters in place. Kim > What are the routing restrictions that are mentioned here? Is > this the general scaling problem of routing tables or the > specific filters on routing announcements that some providers > choose to implement? > > -scott > > --- > SECTION 2.3 Individual Address Space Assignment > > Those individuals/entities who will be the end users of a block of IP > address space, and who receive their IP address space assignments directly > from > ARIN as opposed to through an ISP, will be charged a one-time registration > fee. This one-time registration fee is based on the amount of address > space assigned. > > The fee structure for receiving IP address space as an end user, directly > from ARIN, is as follows: > > PLEASE NOTE: Almost all end users will receive IP address space from > their upstream Internet Service Providers - not directly from ARIN. > Due to current routing restrictions, the IP registries in almost all > cases issue a minimum of a /19. As a result, the fee structure outlined > here begins with /19. All individuals/entities that do not meet the > requirements for a /19 will be referred to their upstream service provider. > From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 18 15:27:23 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:27:23 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <9702181700.AA24025@ncc.ripe.net> References: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." Message-ID: At 9:00 AM -0800 2/18/97, John LeRoy Crain wrote: >What use is a three year budget if you change it every month/ or every >three months? The purpose for using a long planning horizon is to see problems before they become problems, and adjust to them. Going month-by-month is a trick which Scott Adams has exposed in his _Dilbert_ series. The main benefit to the "customers" is that you can make smaller adjustments earlier and hurt them less -- and *they* can do longer-range planning, too. >You had $2400 to spare but not $1000, this is a body that is entrusted >with the stewardship of an important resource, if people don't value >it high enough to pay $1000 then, IMHO, they don't need to be a >member. I didn't have $2400/year to spare. TIA was kind enough to "comp" me because of my contributions to the standards efforts as an individual who wasn't raking in the cash from my efforts. Now that I'm working for a company already a member of TIA, I don't have to worry. >The end users of IP won't normally use ARIN directly. They should go >to their upsteam provider for addresse and these will probably be ARIN >members. Large companies who have /19's etc. may well use ARIN directly, >these people could normally afford $1000 if they chose to be members. Then I would argue that the membership for customers be built into their registry rates, not a separately billed item. It *is* in the interest of the customer to have a say in the matter. >If you are a user of ARINs services then I can see a need to have a say >in how it works, if you're john doe from the street with a couple of IP >addresses you shouldn't need to be involved in ARIN. If you wish to be >then there's a price to pay. In the case of the United States, the fact that ARIN will be a not-for-profit means that the taxpayers of this country will be subsidizing the efforts of ARIN. This is true for all not-for-profits. This means that I, as a taxpayer, may want to have more say in the organization than if it were a true for-profit enterprise. The proposed price is too high, in my opinion. >John Crain >RIPE NCC >These opinions are my own, >you want some, get your own. As you can see, I have plenty already. :) --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From davidc at APNIC.NET Tue Feb 18 22:55:46 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:55:46 +0900 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." Message-ID: <199702190355.MAA04352@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, >If there was no track record, I'd agree with you that you couldn't >"guarantee" anything. The thing is, NSI *has* information about registry >information, and the trends that go with it. What track record does NSI have with respect to the number of organizations which will decide to go with their provider instead of paying the fees? They get the service for "free" now. How many customers will ARIN have after the funding plan is initiated? Regards, -drc From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Wed Feb 19 00:18:23 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:23 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702190355.MAA04352@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:20 PST." Message-ID: At 7:55 PM -0800 2/18/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Stephen, > >What track record does NSI have with respect to the number of >organizations which will decide to go with their provider instead of >paying the fees? They get the service for "free" now. How many >customers will ARIN have after the funding plan is initiated? For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many backbone providers there are. If we don't know the customer base, we better damn well better find out before we even think about how to organize the thing. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 00:36:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 21:36 PST Subject: Funding - what about the second year? References: <199702190355.MAA04352@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they > have. Send code. randy From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 19 00:50:13 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:50:13 +0900 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:23 PST." Message-ID: <199702190550.OAA05357@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, >For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they >have. Easily? How? And of those, how many will need additional resources such that they'll need to become members? >They also know how many backbone providers there are. No, they don't, after all, it has proven impossible to come up with a definition of "provider" much less "backbone provider". However, lets look at "backbone providers" that I think we all (or at least most) can agree on: I think we can all agree UUNet, MCI, and Sprint will likely become members. But how about BBN? They've got (or had) more address space than APNIC and RIPE. How about PSI? Similar situation. I think they will, but I don't think they actually need to. Then you get into when they'll become members, since presumably they won't become members until they need the registry's services, so if they have enough address space or ASNs to last them a while, I'm sure they'd prefer to spend the money on something else. Looking at the wider audience, you get to guess how many of the smaller ISPs will decide the fees are too much to justify, how many will wait, and how many will file anti-trust lawsuits. Just a few variables, no? >If we don't know the customer base, we better damn well better find out >before we even think about how to organize the thing. I think we know the customer base -- the people who need resources. Unforunately, as with most businesses I'm aware of, determining the exact magnitude of your customer base tends to be a bit tricky. Regards, -drc From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 19 01:10:27 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:10:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Randy Bush wrote: > > For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they > > have. > > Send code. Randy is the master of the succinct reply :-) He means that it ain't so easy and would involve analyzing current BGP route announcements and correlating that with AS ownership and that there is no current software tool that can do this. Basically, the concept of "multihoming" is an operational concept and not something determined by or known to the registries. I am assuming that the reason Network Solutions is providing the initial startup funding for ARIN is to alleviate this uncertainty about the revenue stream and to ensure that the new organization gets on its feet with a minimum of disruption to service. If this is the case then I don't think we need to worry too much about how many ISP's join ARIN or subscribe to ARIN's services because if there is a shortfall due to low numbers we will know about this far enough in advance to be able to adapt the organization to the reduced funding level that would result. And this is all hypothetical because the latest reports on Internet growth show that it continues to grow exponentially and there are no signs of anything that would dampen that growth. Recent experience has shown us that it is wiser to be prepared for rapid growth than for downsizing. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From darin at GOOD.NET Wed Feb 19 01:30:48 1997 From: darin at GOOD.NET (Darin Wayrynen) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:30:48 -0700 (MST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702190550.OAA05357@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at Feb 19, 97 02:50:13 pm Message-ID: <199702190630.XAA20942@indy.good.net> > I think we can all agree UUNet, MCI, and Sprint will likely become > members. But how about BBN? They've got (or had) more address space > than APNIC and RIPE. How about PSI? Similar situation. I think they > will, but I don't think they actually need to. >From http://www.arin.net/arin_board.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Board Of Trustees [snip] John Curran -- Chief Technical Officer, BBN Planet ------------------------------------------------------------- John is openly advocating ARIN. That should answer your question regarding BBN. Another proposed BOT member is Randy Bush of WNA, whose backbone will participate. Though much smaller of a backbone provider than the ones you mentioned, GoodNet will become a member of ARIN and will most likely use ARIN's services (they are seperate actions). Darin -- \//// ( o o ) 'shredding packets from coast to coast' ======oOO-(.)-OOo======================================================== Darin Wayrynen, VP of Technology, (602) 303-9500 ext 3234, darin at good.net From aop at cris.com Wed Feb 19 01:38:21 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:38:21 -0500 Subject: Answer to Michael Dillon Message-ID: <01BC1E05.A7959880@cnc019051.concentric.net> Michael, first of all thanks for your thoughtful response to our concerns. While I do not agree with all of your points, they are well taken. Let's begin with the questions of stewardship. I would submit that stewardship for the IP address space allocation in the Western hemisphere should rest with the users of that space, following the APNIC and RIPE models, and that ARIN should be a coordinating agency between those entities. The issue is one of control, and of trust. I'll come back to the trust issue. I agree that universities and research institutes should have a voice in ARIN, as should all users of the system. I understand that InterNIC issued about 300 allocations last year -- were 2/3 of them to universities and research institutes, as is reflected in the current ARIN Board? As for the appointment of the Executive Director and the ED of IANA as ex officio members, I would agree that that makes sense. But, of course, it leaves the question of whether IANA will continue at all, since the decisions will now be made by ARIN. And why was this decision made secretly? This is not a major point of contention, except that it continues the tradition of secret meetings and decisions by a self-appointed cabal. We actually might have supported such a decision, had it ever been open for discussion. But so far, not much of ARIN besides its fee schedule and the announcement of trustees has been open for discussion. It is the opinion of AOP's tax attorneys that ARIN, as presently outlined, would not be likely to qualify as a non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(6) of the US Tax Code. That code reads for that section: "Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." Actually, an ARIN organization might more properly fit under Section 501(c)(3), which reads: "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." But understand that the rule are very strict. It is not a matter of having strict rules about handling money. It is about having a mission that is aimed at educational purposes. While the ARIN proposal takes a minor swipe at a half-baked educational mission in the FAQ as posted: "16. What educational services will ARIN supply to the Internet community? ARIN will be an organization responsible for maintaining a public trust. As part of its charter, ARIN is tasked with managing and conserving IPv4 address space. To help with this task it is necessary to educate the Internet community regarding efficient utilization of address space. This education is expected to take several forms, such as, policy and procedure training, website documents detailing efficient utilization guidelines and/or pointers to other documents, continued modifications to allocation guideline RFCs and any other form the membership determines. This education will in the long run benefit all Internet users by extending the longevity of the IPv4 address space. Contrary to recent postings, at no time, does ARIN plan to offer consulting services " It is unlikely that a free market will need, in the long term, to be taught the importance of IPv4 addresses. And this still begs the question. . .isnt this what IANA does today? ARIN is proposed as an organization that will charge a fee (see schedule in proposal) for a service (registering IP addresses). Fee-for-service is not a non-profit function. As I pointed out to Kim Hubbard several times, there are some basics of frming a non-profit -- bylaws, mission statement, etc. -- that could make much of the opposition in this newsgroup disappear. But, of course, no one involved with ARIN is actually listening. As for the bylaws, Michael, they are critical. You would excuse the trustees, who will be compensated for their work for ARIN, for not having the time to properly develop bylaws. I would submit that if we do not have the luxury of personally knowing all those involved, we must rely on the formal contract to assure that we can trust ARIN. That contract is spelled out in the bylaws. Without proper bylaws that commit ARIN to some things -- open elections, accountability to the industry, etc. -- this is a sloppy job at best and a hijacking at worst. Frankly, if the trustees do not have the time to do this right, why are they trustees? And why should we automatically trust them to "do it right" in managing ARIN? Michael, the level of vituperative attacks on this listserv are not because people are afraid to voice their support for ARIN. It is because virtually everyone involved in ARIN is engaging in secret meetings, evasion of the facts, avoidance of answers and other actions that make them seem untrustworthy. There are seven members of the ARIN Board of Trustees. Who besides Kim Hubbard -- who is not posting regularly (Note: I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to take the rap for the whole Board, either) -- has even bothered to post here? This is the Board you asuume will fix all rights, and will be sensitive to the needs of ARIN members. How many even bother to post here? ARIN, in its most recent proposal, claims to have authority to take control over American IP addresses from IANA. Okay. Who gave IANA the authority to assign a non-competitive contract to ARIN? I'll repeat my comment about the major ISPs. How many support this proposal? Why are they not here, voicing it? I can tell you that the ISPs who are members of AOP -- more than 600, large and small -- do not support the current proposal. And I would dearly love to hear withat MCI, SPrint, AT&T, UUNet, Earthlink, Netcom and others have to say on this subject. Where are they in this disucssion? Sigh! Michael, I know that I seem to be a constant critic of ARIN. But the truth is that this is beeing done sloppily at best, and at wrost to the very detriment of our industry. I have several times offered simple suggestions to improve or fix the proposal -- publicly and privately. All have been ignored. On a personal level, I can accept that. After all, I've been called worse than the names I've been called here. But the fact is that what we are proposing is nothing short of the future of IP administration in the northern hemisphere, and I am stunned that it is being handed over so casually on the basis of blind trust. If you are wrong, Michael, who will you complain to? You will have no input, no voice, and no one in control except the seven people you helped give control of IP registries to. What then? Regards, Dave McClure From aop at cris.com Wed Feb 19 01:50:09 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:50:09 -0500 Subject: Bylaws for ARIN Message-ID: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> Kim: Several people have argued that since no one involved with ARIN is a full-time person, and presumably does not have the time to draft real bylaws and an appropriate mission statement for ARIN (even though there are very good models available from APNIC and RIPE). I would therefore offer the service of AOP, its legal and tax experts, and our staff in this endeavor. We do not look for any compensation for this effort, we do not ask to be on the ARIN Board or Advisory Council, and we have no particular ax to grind beyond the fact that ARIN be a true non-profit, duly constituted, with appropriate checks and balances built in. Would ARIN accept our assistance? We would be more than willing to run them by the ARIN Board of Trustees and post them for public comment. What do you say? Regards, Dave McClure From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 01:58:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 22:58 PST Subject: Bylaws for ARIN References: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> Message-ID: > Several people have argued that since no one involved with ARIN is a > full-time person Though my SO might agree with you, I suggest not resorting to ad homina in a public forum. But thanks for the kind offer, ARIN already has scary serious legal council. In my organizational experience, a mission statement's main value is the process through which the management team goes agreeing on it, not the paper result. randy From mje at mje99.posix.co.za Wed Feb 19 02:37:05 1997 From: mje at mje99.posix.co.za (Mark J Elkins) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:37:05 +0200 Subject: naipr and South Africa Message-ID: <199702190737.JAA31224@mje99.posix.co.za> I'm not sure why South Africa has been lumped in to the same administrative area as the USA (historical - but why explicitly named?). Anyway - we are in the process of sorting out our own local NIC - hopefully with an influence that covers most of Africa. The costs that are mentioned are High - especially if paying for them in South African Rands. OK - so living in the USA is high - but why must we pay (to us) four times more than folk in the USA! The cost of living in South Africa is much lower than in the USA (and the proposed funds in the USA would cover the cost of "black helocopters", along with the limo's, for all trustees! :-) At least the USA is kicking Africa into action.. what with this and the IAHC. Just another voice from the African continent - along with Alan Barrett. -- . . ___. .__ Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Sth Africa /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 11 456 3125 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 02:46:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 23:46 PST Subject: naipr and South Africa References: <199702190737.JAA31224@mje99.posix.co.za> Message-ID: > why must we pay (to us) four times more than folk in the USA! Historical, and far more to do with apartheid sanctions than internet numbers. ARIN has yet to take over the currency exchange rates. So how about taking it to soc.culture.africa or something? randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 19 03:11:04 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: naipr and South Africa In-Reply-To: <199702190737.JAA31224@mje99.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Mark J Elkins wrote: > named?). Anyway - we are in the process of sorting out our own local > NIC - hopefully with an influence that covers most of Africa. The way you worded this makes it wound like you plan to have some sort of national NIC in the RSA and then extend it to serve the rest of the continent. If this is so, I would suggest that you should reconsider how this is being done and get other countries in your continent involved in a truly international effort from the beginning. I can understand that the political situation would make it hard to get everybody to agree but it should still be possible for most African countries to sit down at one table and agree to run the IP allocation infrastructure for the continent. And there is probably no need to rush into this either. IP allocations should be done for engineering reasons, not political or nationalistic ones. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Wed Feb 19 03:55:28 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:55:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bylaws for ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> from "Dave McClure" at Feb 19, 97 01:50:09 am Message-ID: <199702190855.AA032782529@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Dave McClure supposedly said: Michael, first of all thanks for your thoughtful response to our concerns. >Let's begin with the questions of stewardship. I would submit that >stewardship for the IP address space allocation in the Western hemisphere >should rest with the users of that space, following the APNIC and RIPE >models, and that ARIN should be a coordinating agency between those >entities. The issue is one of control, and of trust. I'll come back to >the trust issue. I believe it is clear that ARIN is designed in the same vein as RIPE and APNIC, but is born of different circumstances and thus has a slightly different set of startup criteria. Since it will be run be its members who will be the users of the IP space I see no conflict with your statement and ARIN's goals. >I agree that universities and research institutes should have a voice in >ARIN, as should all users of the system. I understand that InterNIC issued >about 300 allocations last year -- were 2/3 of them to universities and >research institutes, as is reflected in the current ARIN Board? An unfair question. Since most of the development of the Net was done at Universities and Research Institutes many have had their addresses for years and years. It should be clear to anyone that the greatest number of registrations would have been to ISP for commercial allocations. My math also comes out with 40% University affiliated BOT members (2 of 5), and that is fairly arbitrary since I know that Scott Bradner may be affiliated with Harvard, but he does commercial consulting and technical writing as well. Do we count him as .5 University and .5 Commercial ? >As for the appointment of the Executive Director and the ED of IANA as ex >officio members, I would agree that that makes sense. But, of course, it >leaves the question of whether IANA will continue at all, since the It is clear you have little idea what the IANA actually does. Assigning IP addresses are only a small part of IANA's duties. Secondly ARIN will only be assigning addresses from the block that the IANA assigns it to allocate from. (In the exact same way APNIC and RIPE do). >decisions will now be made by ARIN. And why was this decision made >secretly? This is not a major point of contention, except that it >continues the tradition of secret meetings and decisions by a >self-appointed cabal. We actually might have supported such a decision, >had it ever been open for discussion. But so far, not much of ARIN besides >its fee schedule and the announcement of trustees has been open for >discussion. Have you been following this thread with any seriousness? The whole concept has been completely open for dicussion. An original proposal was made, significant discussion was had, another draft was produced taking into account the discussion. There have been more tweaks since then. I fully expect the by-laws, etc. to go through a similar round of revisions. There is another issue to consider. The function of address allocation is currently under contract to NSI for the next odd year or so. It is only with their consent for the next year or so. >It is the opinion of AOP's tax attorneys that ARIN, as presently outlined, >would not be likely to qualify as a non-profit organization under Section >501(c)(6) of the US Tax Code. That code reads for that section: >"Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of >trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a >pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of >the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder >or individual." >Actually, an ARIN organization might more properly fit under Section >501(c)(3), which reads: > ...Other legal stuff deleted for brevity. I am not a lawyer but I have been assured that ARIN has heavy duty legal advisors working on all the legal aspects. >It is unlikely that a free market will need, in the long term, to be taught >the importance of IPv4 addresses. And this still begs the >question. . .isnt this what IANA does today? No. Feel free to look at the IANA web page to actually understand what the IANA does. >But, of course, no one involved with ARIN is actually listening. What evidence do you have to back this spurious statement? The entire process has been open and has been responsive to suggestions and feedback. If people disagree with your suggestions and they are not incorporated into the proposal it does not necessarily follow that no one is listening, but perhaps they don't agree with you. >Michael, the level of vituperative attacks on this listserv are not because >people are afraid to voice their support for ARIN. It is because virtually >everyone involved in ARIN is engaging in secret meetings, evasion of the >facts, avoidance of answers and other actions that make them seem Once again do you have any proof for your conspiracy theories. IT should be clear that undertaking such a complicated task, a lot of preliminary meetings and discussions have to take place. It sounds like you have been reading to many IAHC messages :-) >untrustworthy. There are seven members of the ARIN Board of Trustees. Who >besides Kim Hubbard -- who is not posting regularly (Note: I don't blame >her, I wouldn't want to take the rap for the whole Board, either) -- has >even bothered to post here? Scott Bradner, John Curran and Randy Bush. >ARIN, in its most recent proposal, claims to have authority to take control >over American IP addresses from IANA. Okay. Who gave IANA the authority >to assign a non-competitive contract to ARIN? It has not. They have not. IANA has given ARIN a block of addresses to assign from. This does not preclude the IANA from assigning other blocks to other registries (not that I seriously believe that they will) >I'll repeat my comment about the major ISPs. How many support this >proposal? Why are they not here, voicing it? I can tell you that the ISPs >who are members of AOP -- more than 600, large and small -- do not support >the current proposal. And I would dearly love to hear withat MCI, SPrint, >AT&T, UUNet, Earthlink, Netcom and others have to say on this subject. >Where are they in this disucssion? Have you actually polled all 600 of your members? After your inflammatory "Alert" I would expect a lot of opposition. I have personaly talked with almost all of your members who have posted to this list and in every case they have gone back satisfied that the proposal is reasonable even if they would like to continue to have it subsidized. It's also wierd that all 600 members are against it but there were only about 300 allocations made last year, so it is clear that at least half of your members are smaller providers who will be minimally effected because their allocations are so small. >On a personal level, I can accept that. After all, I've been called worse >than the names I've been called here. But the fact is that what we are >proposing is nothing short of the future of IP administration in the >northern hemisphere, and I am stunned that it is being handed over so >casually on the basis of blind trust. Not blind trust. I doubt anyone here believe that ARIN will go forward until there are by-laws and more specifics worked out. Typically you try to define broad goals and objectives before you do the nitty gritty detail. >If you are wrong, Michael, who will you complain to? You will have no >input, no voice, and no one in control except the seven people you helped >give control of IP registries to. What then? As always, you can appeal to the IANA to assign a different block to another registry, and appeal to the IAB who appoints the IANA. >Regards, >Dave McClure ---> Phil From randy at PSG.COM Wed Feb 19 04:10:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 01:10 PST Subject: Bylaws for ARIN References: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> <199702190855.AA032782529@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: > Scott Bradner may be affiliated with Harvard, but he does commercial > consulting and technical writing as well. Do we count him as .5 > University and .5 Commercial ? I would say .8 and.8. Have you tried to keep up with him? We had to have him pushed down the stairs and sent to hospital the other week, just so we could catch up. > I am not a lawyer but I have been assured that ARIN has heavy duty legal > advisors working on all the legal aspects. I have really been impressed with both their quality and their integrity. > Scott Bradner, John Curran and Randy Bush. Raymundo Vega has also posted here. The scremers probably missed it as he is the subtle type. But there are those who seem amazingly uninterested in listening and would rather indulge in quite clueless accusations and wild conspiracy theories. Ever stop to wonder what they think this behavior gains? randy From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Wed Feb 19 04:09:24 1997 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:09:24 +0100 Subject: naipr and South Africa In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:11:04 PST. References: Message-ID: <9702190909.AA11203@ncc.ripe.net> > Michael Dillon writes: > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Mark J Elkins wrote: > > > named?). Anyway - we are in the process of sorting out our own local > > NIC - hopefully with an influence that covers most of Africa. > > The way you worded this makes it wound like you plan to have some sort of > national NIC in the RSA and then extend it to serve the rest of the > continent. If this is so, I would suggest that you should reconsider how > this is being done and get other countries in your continent involved in > a truly international effort from the beginning. I can understand that the > political situation would make it hard to get everybody to agree but it > should still be possible for most African countries to sit down at one > table and agree to run the IP allocation infrastructure for the continent. > > And there is probably no need to rush into this either. IP allocations > should be done for engineering reasons, not political or nationalistic > ones. Amen! A pan-African regional registry is an excellent idea, but it requires true international support. That is hard to build and takes time. Needless to say the RIPE NCC is very much willing to support any serious effort in this direction. Daniel From kimh at internic.net Wed Feb 19 09:51:25 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:51:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bylaws for ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC1E07.4186F820@cnc019051.concentric.net> from "Dave McClure" at Feb 19, 97 01:50:09 am Message-ID: <199702191451.JAA13797@jazz.internic.net> > As previously pointed out, ARIN has very qualified legal assistance of its own, although I appreciate AOPs offer. Also, please note, that the ARIN bylaws are being worked on as we speak and have been for quite a while now. The Board of Trustees has no intention of publicly posting the bylaws or the budget until we are satisfied they are complete. I learned my lesson after posting the first ARIN proposal and getting flamed for it not being the perfect document. Kim > > Kim: > > Several people have argued that since no one involved with ARIN is a full-time person, and presumably does not have the time to draft real bylaws and an appropriate mission statement for ARIN (even though there are very good models available from APNIC and RIPE). > > I would therefore offer the service of AOP, its legal and tax experts, and our staff in this endeavor. > > We do not look for any compensation for this effort, we do not ask to be on the ARIN Board or Advisory Council, and we have no particular ax to grind beyond the fact that ARIN be a true non-profit, duly constituted, with appropriate checks and balances built in. > > Would ARIN accept our assistance? We would be more than willing to run them by the ARIN Board of Trustees and post them for public comment. > > What do you say? > > Regards, > Dave McClure > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 19 13:37:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:37:34 -0500 Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219133727.006f7420@lint.cisco.com> At 10:24 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Larry Honig wrote: >Hi. > >This may seem offtopic, but perhaps not. ARIN itself may need to become >involved in the medium term if and when telephone numbers and IP >addresses converge. > They will not converge. - paul (looking into his crystal ball) From yakov at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 19 13:47:54 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:47:54 PST Subject: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 97 13:37:34 EST." <3.0.32.19970219133727.006f7420@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199702191847.KAA29416@puli.cisco.com> Paul, > At 10:24 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Larry Honig wrote: > > >Hi. > > > >This may seem offtopic, but perhaps not. ARIN itself may need to become > >involved in the medium term if and when telephone numbers and IP > >addresses converge. > > > > They will not converge. Just to add, observe that it is FQDNs, and not IP addresses that are analogous to phone numbers (as usually people use FQDNs, rather than IP addresses on their business cards). Yakov. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Wed Feb 19 13:49:32 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:49:32 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219134928.006f7bac@lint.cisco.com> *plonk* That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. - paul At 11:26 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > >> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this >> list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? > >The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes >to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco >last week. >[Dave McClure] >Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of Trudtees?????" > >At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about >ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives >and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will >be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have >questions. >[Dave McClure] >And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the system, and a real non-profit status. > >But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to >go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still >written in conditional language. > >[Dave McClure] >Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything else that **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a proposed budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, or the authority under which these hijackers are operating???? > >Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs who do not. . .large, and small. > >The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined organization whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP addresses in the Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational mission. It is a simple overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed. > >If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as APNIC and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set forth how the Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the organization will be responsible to the industry? Why no open information about accounting, or what their costs will be. This organization will pull more than $3 million from the industry in its first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or what the accountability will be to the industry. > >The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any opportunity to do so. > >Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be transferred to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in public. > >Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who almost immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. . . > >Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? > >Yes, or no? > > >David P. McClure >Association of Online Professionals > > From huddle at MCI.NET Wed Feb 19 17:42:27 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:42:27 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219164219.00b432dc@mci.net> Huh? I don't follow, anyway little multihomed sites can always buy space out of The Swamp. Market opportunity anyone? -scott At 09:18 PM 2/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they >have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if >I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many >backbone providers there are. From kimh at internic.net Wed Feb 19 17:20:38 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:20:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 18, 97 09:18:23 pm Message-ID: <199702192220.RAA14226@jazz.internic.net> > > At 7:55 PM -0800 2/18/97, David R. Conrad wrote: > >Stephen, > > > >What track record does NSI have with respect to the number of > >organizations which will decide to go with their provider instead of > >paying the fees? They get the service for "free" now. How many > >customers will ARIN have after the funding plan is initiated? > > > For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they > have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if > I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many > backbone providers there are. I definitely do not want to get into a policy discussion on multi-homing, but, multi-homed customers do not *have* to get their allocations from ARIN. Multi-homed customers would prefer to get their allocations from the InterNIC, however, being multi-homed is not enough justification by itself to receive addresses directly from InterNIC. I expect this topic will be one of the first to be discussed by the ARIN membership/AC and BoT. Kim > > If we don't know the customer base, we better damn well better find out > before we even think about how to organize the thing. > > --- > Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} > for contact and other info > Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. > > From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 19 22:49:44 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:49:44 +0900 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:42:27 CST." <3.0.32.19970219164219.00b432dc@mci.net> Message-ID: <199702200349.MAA13958@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Scott, While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does not change hands via the registries. Regards, -drc -------- >Huh? I don't follow, anyway little multihomed sites can always >buy space out of The Swamp. Market opportunity anyone? > >-scott > >At 09:18 PM 2/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >>For starters, NSI can determine easily how many multi-homes customers they >>have. Multi-homed customers *have* to get their allocations from ARIN, if >>I'm reading the information on this list properly. They also know how many >>backbone providers there are. > > From vgoel at SPRINT.NET Wed Feb 19 23:35:37 1997 From: vgoel at SPRINT.NET (Vab Goel) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:35:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <199702200349.MAA13958@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > Scott, > > While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices > disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does > not change hands via the registries. In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. vab.. From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Feb 20 00:09:21 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:09:21 +0900 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:35:37 EST." Message-ID: <199702200510.OAA14065@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Vab, >> While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices >> disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does >> not change hands via the registries. >In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? It is the case with all 3 registries that you can update the database autonomously with no human interaction from registry staff, however the restriction mentioned above still exists. >Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. That is, of course, true. This discussion is rapidly diverging off ARIN and moving towards PIARA (one of the specific subjects PIARA looked into was removing the transfer restriction from the 192 block) however, it would appear PIARA has died. Regards, -drc From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Thu Feb 20 02:11:08 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:11:08 -0800 Subject: Funding - what about the second year? In-Reply-To: <199702192220.RAA14226@jazz.internic.net> References: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 18, 97 09:18:23 pm Message-ID: At 2:20 PM -0800 2/19/97, Kim Hubbard wrote: >I definitely do not want to get into a policy discussion on multi-homing, >but, multi-homed customers do not *have* to get their allocations >from ARIN. Multi-homed customers would prefer to get their allocations >from the InterNIC, however, being multi-homed is not enough justification >by itself to receive addresses directly from InterNIC. > >I expect this topic will be one of the first to be discussed by the >ARIN membership/AC and BoT. I'm happy to say that I've already received the answer to this question, and the description shows me that a small multi-homed site does *not* have to get their space from ARIN. That was the one piece of the puzzle I needed to see the picture, and I thank the people on this list for their patience in explaining the matter to me in detail. Without that one puzzle piece, the whole discussion was looking like a pissing contest. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From randy at PSG.COM Thu Feb 20 14:23:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 11:23 PST Subject: TEST - IS THIS LIST S References: <3.0.32.19970219134928.006f7bac@lint.cisco.com> <35.266721.7@asacomp.com> Message-ID: >> That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. > This seems to be the case for folks who disagree with you. No. E.g. Paul Ieither of them) and I disagree on a number of things. But more and more of us do dump those who repeatedly flame with no intent to improve their or anyone else's knowledge level. When it becomes pretty clear that someone's only effect is to destroy, detract, and distract, those of us who are old and tired .procmailrc them in the hope that this will give us more time and bandwidth to deal with those who are constructive and/or willing to teach or learn. randy From dennis at JNX.COM Thu Feb 20 14:25:37 1997 From: dennis at JNX.COM (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:25:37 -0800 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:02:22 PST." Message-ID: <199702201925.LAA16921@skank.jnx.com> > > Secondly, I would hope that most, if not all, ISPs are checking WHOIS to verify > > the address space actually belongs to their customer before they route it. > > This sounds like backtracking on the notion that ARIN is intended to be > independent from ISPs and their routing policies. This sounds like trying to have the cart lead the horse. The only value that getting address space from ARIN, or any registry, has is that they associate your name with the address space in a database. The entries in the database are the only things the address registry controls. Having your name in a database is by itself worthless (from the amount of spam mail I get I can tell my name must be in a lot of databases, none of which have provided me with any value). The sole value of having your name in an address registry's database is that ISP's sometimes consult address registry databases when configuring their routers, and having your address space routed on the Internet (or not routed on the Internet, at your choice) is of substantial value. So the value of an address registry, and of the addresses provided by that address registry, derives solely from the entirely voluntary use of the registry data by ISPs. It is hence hard to see how an address registry could do anything independent of ISPs and their collective routing policies (as opposed to individual ISPs and their individual routing policies, which the registry must remain scrupulously independent of if they are to continue to enjoy wide support), and entirely understandable that a registry operator would very much wish that ISPs would use the data. Dennis Ferguson From huddle at MCI.NET Thu Feb 20 15:28:47 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:28:47 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970220103956.006ff0f4@mci.net> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a contiguous block. -scott At 02:09 PM 2/20/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >Vab, > >>> While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices >>> disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does >>> not change hands via the registries. >>In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? > >It is the case with all 3 registries that you can update the database >autonomously with no human interaction from registry staff, however >the restriction mentioned above still exists. > >>Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. > >That is, of course, true. > >This discussion is rapidly diverging off ARIN and moving towards PIARA >(one of the specific subjects PIARA looked into was removing the transfer >restriction from the 192 block) however, it would appear PIARA has died. > >Regards, >-drc > > > From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 20 15:26:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:26:19 -0600 Subject: Internic Abuse Mailing List Message-ID: <01BC1F3A.0AA3C340@webster.unety.net> Dr. George Strawn National Science Foundation Arlington, VA Dear Dr. Strawn: As the NSF employee in charge of the InterNIC contracts you might want to consider following the mailing list described below. As you know, it is always important to get customer feedback especially in a business like yours which is financed by the taxpayers in the United States. Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: Internic Abuse Mailing List From: brent at ime.net (Brent) Date: 1997/01/19 Message-Id: <5bscq9$cr2$1 at news.ime.net> Organization: Internet Maine, Inc. Keywords: abuse internic nsi money Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-Ip.domains Summary: Internic Abuse Greetings, Just in time for 1997 I have established a mailing list that is specifically to deal with the abuses committed by Network Solutions Inc., aka The Internic. The Internic has been double billing, over charging and refusing refunds for over a year now. It's time we all put an end to them, and to thier pathetic attempt to start selling IP numbers for thier own profit. To subscribe send email to majordomo at ime.net and put subscribe internic-abuse in the body. You'll be amazed and reassured to find you are not alone. Once we have enough dirt on them we will be able to bring a class action suit against them. Brent ------------------------ Internet Maine ISP -------------------------- info at ime.net 207-780-0416 voice http://www.ime.net 207-879-1416 fax ------------------------ Fixed Rate Access -------------------------- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: The Internic-Abuse mailing list was created to address the issue of all the TLD's (Top Level Domains) such as .com, .net, and .org being controlled by one company. This company is Network Solutions Inc., a subsidary of SAIC. Network Solutions Inc. d/b/a The Internic has been accused of seveal abuses. Most notably over charging, double charging, refusing to issue refunds, and engaging in other 'anti-trust' practices. This list is not about alternatives, or other means to handle DNS and IP issues. It is about the improper actions of Network Solutions Inc. This list is unmoderated however I will request that we keep it on topic. The ultimate aim of this list is two things. 1. To prevent Network Solutions Inc from getting a contract renewal in 1998 after it current contract with the NSF runs out. 2. To obtain proper refunds for parties who have been over charged by Network Solutions Inc. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From mleber at HE.NET Thu Feb 20 14:59:24 1997 From: mleber at HE.NET (Mike Leber) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:59:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970220103956.006ff0f4@mci.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: > I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s > are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a > contiguous block. Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | | mleber at he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From huddle at MCI.NET Thu Feb 20 18:39:22 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:39:22 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970220170556.00b579f0@mci.net> At 11:59 AM 2/20/97 -0800, Mike Leber wrote: > >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a >> contiguous block. > >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy of distribution. Observation 3, $5001. :) -scott From yakov at CISCO.COM Thu Feb 20 18:18:26 1997 From: yakov at CISCO.COM (Yakov Rekhter) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 15:18:26 PST Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Feb 97 17:39:22 CST." <3.0.32.19970220170556.00b579f0@mci.net> Message-ID: <199702202318.PAA27365@puli.cisco.com> Scott, > >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: > >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s > >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a > >> contiguous block. > > > >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. > > Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is > money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your > two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) > > Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes > more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy > of distribution. > > Observation 3, $5001. :) Somewhat controversial: Observation 4: the decision on whether there should be a market for address space should be controlled *neither* by registries, *nor* by various I* organizations (IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG). Yakov. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 20 22:24:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:24:01 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC1F74.650DC580@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 20, 1997 5:18 PM, Yakov Rekhter[SMTP:yakov at CISCO.COM] wrote: @ Scott, @ @ > >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: @ > >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s @ > >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a @ > >> contiguous block. @ > > @ > >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. @ > @ > Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is @ > money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your @ > two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) @ > @ > Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes @ > more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy @ > of distribution. @ > @ > Observation 3, $5001. :) @ @ Somewhat controversial: @ @ Observation 4: the decision on whether there should be a market @ for address space should be controlled *neither* by registries, @ *nor* by various I* organizations (IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG). @ @ Yakov. @ @ I agree... The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government, the large number of Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar) Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the clout for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. The InterNIC was originally made up of three companies, General Atomics, AT&T, and Network Solutions, Inc. These three companies were supposed to work together in various capacities to provide a variety of services including the important clerical duties commonly called "registrations". In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF was supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, many NICs would have been developed through education programs and the Internet Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State of Virginia and the few companies originally contracted to be part of the cooperative agreement. That has not occurred. The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, Network Solutions, Inc. suggested that they should do the entire job. Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds of the IANA, are listed on the original Network Solutions, Inc. bid as subcontractors to Network Solutions, Inc. As history has shown, the IANA, working in conjunction with the "InterNIC" (Network Solutions, Inc.) has helped to continue to promote Network Solutions, Inc. to a point where most people consider NSI to be the InterNIC. Throughout the evolution of the InterNIC from a three-company cooperative to a one company monopoly, the NSF has apparently been caught like a deer in the headlights of a car, frozen in indecision but providing mass when needed to allow a few individuals and companies to leverage themselves into positions of great wealth. The NSF has been skillfully used to provide the U.S. Government seal of approval, while policies are enacted by private parties who openly claim that the NSF is "backing" their agendas. Many companies operating within the United States under Federal and State laws, have been shocked over the past few years at how their tax dollars are used to fund the NSF which in turn funds Internet infrastructure with apparently no control over the outcome. Furthermore, despite repeated efforts by other companies to participate in and make investments in the Internet infrastructure, the NSF has stood by and allowed plans and systems to be developed which lock certain companies out while others are given a free pass and in some cases millions of dollars to jump start their business. The recent IAHC activity is an excellent example of how a private company (ISOC) , with less members than many ISPs, is provided an NSF representative, Dr. George Strawn, for credibility, while they develop a plan to sell what amounts to Internet Domain Registration Franchises to companies willing to pay large fees to fund the private ISOC. Another example is the recently proposed ARIN organization which claims to have strong support from the NSF to charge fees for IP addresses. The proposed Board of Direcors of ARIN are mostly people funded directly, or indirectly, by the National Science Foundation. @@@@@ @@@@@@@@@ "Network Solutions is leading the ARIN proposal based on a mandate from the Internet community reached in rough consensus with strong support from the National Science Foundation and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Fortunately, the U.S. Government had the wisdom to set up an agency within the NSF to provide some of the checks and balances needed to regulate the NSF. That agency is the Office of Inspector General (OIG) . OIG is headed by the Inspector General (IG), who reports directly to the President (via the NSB) and to Congress. ---- Inspector General ------- name: Sundro, Linda G. email: lsundro at nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2100 office_phone: (703) fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 -------------------------------------- In a recent discussion with Ms. Sundro, she indicated that the NSF Office of Inspector General has been investigating the matters surrounding the InterNIC and a Report to the Deputy Director is about to be published. Ms. Sundro indicated that Ms. Clara Kuehn, a physicist AND ATTORNEY, has been assigned to handle the investigations and can provide information on the status of the report. -------------------------------------- name: Kuehn, Clara email: ckuehn at nsf.gov directorate: Office of Inspector General phone: (703)306-2001 office_phone: (703)306-2001 x 1505 fax: (703)306-0649 address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S : Arlington, VA 22230 ------------------------------------------ Ms. Sundro also noted that the e-mail address (oig at nsf.gov) listed on the Office of Inspector General web site as an "Electonic Mail Hotline" is not useful in contacting her office. She indicated that Ms. Kuehn will welcome input from people on all topics related to these matters and that the above e-mail address (ckuehn at nsf.gov) should be used. In summary, I think that U.S. citizens should be proud that their great country developed much of the technology and infrastructure for the Internet. I also think that the world population should be aware that the hundreds of years of government development in the U.S. has resulted in a system that has the proper agencies to not only help to foster increased growth of the Internet but also to help ensure that citizens around the world are able to compete in this marvelous advancement on a playing field that is fair and level. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 20 16:11:15 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:11:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: from "Mike Leber" at Feb 20, 97 11:59:24 am Message-ID: <199702202111.QAA14836@jazz.internic.net> > Gentlemen, Please do not copy the naipr list on this topic. It has nothing to do with the ARIN proposal at this time. Thank you, Kim Hubbard > > On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: > > I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s > > are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a > > contiguous block. > > Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. > > Mike. > > +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ > | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | > | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | > | mleber at he.net http://www.he.net | > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Fri Feb 21 02:50:48 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:50:48 -0500 Subject: TEST - IS THIS LIST S Message-ID: <199702210749.CAA22942@lists.internic.net> This is very true Jeff...I have noticed this fact :-)... - Steve - Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org ---------- > This seems to be the case for folks who disagree with you. Unfortunate. > > Jeff Binkley > ASA Network Computing > > > > PF>*plonk* > > PF>That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. > > PF>- paul From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Fri Feb 21 03:14:48 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:14:48 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <199702210809.DAA26527@info.netsol.com> Welp Paul, I have been sitting here watching and learning....But I must observe that your *plonk* of Dave is an example of the fact that there ARE educated folks out there who also have their heads up their posteriors to the point that they will not listen.... I must apologize for this comment to the list....And I also must state that I speak for myself on this observation..... One other observation I must question and address is the fact if Paul ALSO speaks for Cisco??? - Steve - ---------- > *plonk* > > That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. > > - paul > > At 11:26 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > > > > >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: > > > >> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this > >> list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over? > > > >The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes > >to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco > >last week. > >[Dave McClure] > >Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but > that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to > claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who > elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone > even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of Trudtees?????" > > > >At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about > >ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives > >and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will > >be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have > >questions. > >[Dave McClure] > >And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. BTW, > if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at the way > that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** > collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing > systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the system, > and a real non-profit status. > > > >But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to > >go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still > >written in conditional language. > > > >[Dave McClure] > >Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the Board > of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything else that > **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a proposed budget, any > input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, or the authority under > which these hijackers are operating???? > > > >Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who > support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs > who do not. . .large, and small. > > > >The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined organization > whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP addresses in the > Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon > organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit status. > Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational mission. It > is a simple overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed. > > > >If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as APNIC > and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set forth how the > Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the organization will be > responsible to the industry? Why no open information about accounting, or > what their costs will be. This organization will pull more than $3 million > from the industry in its first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of > how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or what the > accountability will be to the industry. > > > >The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little > interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any > opportunity to do so. > > > >Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a > simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will > become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be transferred > to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in public. > > > >Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a > ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who almost > immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the ARIN Board of > Trustees. . . > > > >Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising law > here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the possibility > of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or its > appointed Advisory Council? > > > >Yes, or no? > > > > > >David P. McClure > >Association of Online Professionals > > > > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Fri Feb 21 03:20:57 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:20:57 -0500 Subject: TEST - IS THIS LIST S Message-ID: <199702210810.DAA23109@lists.internic.net> Then what is the purpose of an open discuswsion listserv??? If we ignore what we consider Flames (which Dave's comments were not) and only listen to what we choose to listen to then why in the world is a 'PUBLIC' Listserv opened??? Hmmm.....Maybe I will task my HillBilly/Uneducated mind to think on this point while I consider what ARIN will do to the Small ISPs such as myself and I attempt to figure how I will converse with these educated folks on an even keel.... ++ The opinions expressed in this message are my PERSONAL' opinions and in no way should reflect any any company or organization which I am involved with ++ - Steve - ---------- > From: Randy Bush > To: Jeff Binkley > Cc: naipr at lists.internic.net > Subject: RE: TEST - IS THIS LIST S > Date: Thursday, February 20, 1997 2:00 PM > > >> That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. > > This seems to be the case for folks who disagree with you. > > No. E.g. Paul Ieither of them) and I disagree on a number of things. > > But more and more of us do dump those who repeatedly flame with no intent to > improve their or anyone else's knowledge level. When it becomes pretty > clear that someone's only effect is to destroy, detract, and distract, those > of us who are old and tired .procmailrc them in the hope that this will give > us more time and bandwidth to deal with those who are constructive and/or > willing to teach or learn. > > randy From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Fri Feb 21 06:16:19 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:16:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: test - is this list still alive? In-Reply-To: <199702210809.DAA26527@info.netsol.com> from "The Innkeeper" at Feb 21, 97 03:14:48 am Message-ID: <199702211116.AA207153781@martigny.ai.mit.edu> The Innkeeper supposedly said: > > One other observation I must question and address is the fact if Paul ALSO > speaks for Cisco??? > I can't believe that anyone would have to ask such a question. I doubt any company or organization even a 10th or a 100th the size of Cisco allows random employees to make official company policy. I would suggest you contact Cisco's press office for any official Cisco position. ---> Phil From pferguso at CISCO.COM Fri Feb 21 07:46:25 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 07:46:25 -0500 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970221074623.006b0570@lint.cisco.com> I can assure you that, in the case of the ARIN proposal, that I do *not* speak for cisco Systems, Inc. I speak only for myself, and as a member of the Internet community at-large. - paul At 06:16 AM 2/21/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >The Innkeeper supposedly said: >> > >> One other observation I must question and address is the fact if Paul ALSO >> speaks for Cisco??? >> > >I can't believe that anyone would have to ask such a question. I doubt any >company or organization even a 10th or a 100th the size of Cisco allows >random employees to make official company policy. I would suggest you >contact Cisco's press office for any official Cisco position. > >---> Phil > > > From huddle at MCI.NET Fri Feb 21 10:54:22 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:54:22 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970221095212.00cc13ac@mci.net> Observation 5, The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates the need for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., the market does the allocation), further with a true market we can now have competing registries for IP space -- similar to the IAHC results, registries do registry work, rather than attempt to regulate market forces. Observation 6, With the removal of allocation policy issues, ARIN becomes a lot less controversial, and the costs of lawyers goes way down :) Observation 7, I'm soliciting bids from any tier-1 provider who will guarantee, through their own routing and by negotiation with their peers, for 100 routing table slots for a period of three years. -scott At 03:18 PM 2/20/97 PST, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >Scott, > >> >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: >> >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s >> >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a >> >> contiguous block. >> > >> >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. >> >> Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is >> money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your >> two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) >> >> Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes >> more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy >> of distribution. >> >> Observation 3, $5001. :) > >Somewhat controversial: > >Observation 4: the decision on whether there should be a market >for address space should be controlled *neither* by registries, >*nor* by various I* organizations (IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG). > >Yakov. > > From jstewart at ISI.EDU Fri Feb 21 10:15:05 1997 From: jstewart at ISI.EDU (John W. Stewart III) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:15:05 EST Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:54:22 CST." <3.0.32.19970221095212.00cc13ac@mci.net> Message-ID: <199702211515.AA24907@metro.isi.edu> > Observation 5, > > The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates > the need for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., > the market does the allocation), further with a true market > we can now have competing registries for IP space -- similar > to the IAHC results, registries do registry work, rather > than attempt to regulate market forces. you might be able to convince me of this for space that is already allocated. but what do we do about currently *un*allocated space? do different registries on the supply-side of the market just pick randomly and hope for uniqueness? > Observation 6, > > With the removal of allocation policy issues, ARIN becomes > a lot less controversial, and the costs of lawyers goes > way down :) as hinted at above, for the sake of uniqueness, it could be argued that having one/few organization(s) allocate *new* addresses is a good thing (or at least less bad than the alternative) > Observation 7, > > I'm soliciting bids from any tier-1 provider who will > guarantee, through their own routing and by negotiation with > their peers, for 100 routing table slots for a period of > three years. this is very significant. scott is pointing out the difference between getting an address and being routed. in the current system i'm not sure how easy it is to separate these issues .. if address assignment isn't [at least] loosely correlated with topology, then a market-driven allocation system in a vacuum with respect to routing could end up destroying the routing system. however, i claim that *if* i knew exactly what "full" meant for a default-free routing table and *if* i had the ability to control what routing announcements i hear win (i.e., get a slot) and which ones loose (i.e., get dropped on the floor), then it might be more possible to separate allocation and routing .. and in fact, in that case the market-driven approach might result in better aggregation (either that or global routing of a /32 could be really, really, really, really expensive) /jws > > -scott > > At 03:18 PM 2/20/97 PST, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > >Scott, > > > >> >On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Scott Huddle wrote: > >> >> I bid $2500 for a /19 anywhere in The Swamp. Those holding /24s > >> >> are encouraged to find their neighbors and put together a > >> >> contiguous block. > >> > > >> >Heck, I'd bid $5000 for the same, and consider it a standing offer. > >> > >> Observation 1, if there were a market for address space, there is > >> money to pay for renumbering. (i.e., I'll pay you $Y for your > >> two discontiguous /18s and give you a /19 in new space.) > >> > >> Observation 2, the job of a registry in a market scheme becomes > >> more one of recording "trusteeship" rather than setting policy > >> of distribution. > >> > >> Observation 3, $5001. :) > > > >Somewhat controversial: > > > >Observation 4: the decision on whether there should be a market > >for address space should be controlled *neither* by registries, > >*nor* by various I* organizations (IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG). > > > >Yakov. > > > > From herrin-a at why.com Fri Feb 21 12:11:32 1997 From: herrin-a at why.com (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:11:32 -0500 Subject: ARIN: Questions & Comments Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970221171132.00674a34@minoc> Howdy, I've been following the list for a couple weeks now, and I have a few questions and comments about the current ARIN proposal. Some of these may be FAQs I missed before joining the list... If so, then I missed it so please fill me in. The questions first: I'm uncertain as to what the disposition of the address space currently registered with Network Solutions will be. Will they be moved under ARIN's dominion, and be subject to the $50/yr for each non-contiguous assignment, or will they remain under network solution's control? For example, we currently have 199.33.224.0/23. How will the authority over that space change, and what fees will be assessed as a result over the next few years? If understand the proposal correctly, then the former is true. This means that ARIN would have a complete lock on IP address allocation in the Americas (you either get your address space from ARIN or from someone who got it from ARIN). Additionally, you must pay for each allocation, and if you potentially want to have any say in how much you pay then you have to pay an additional $1000 for "membership." Fair or not, this sounds remarkably similar to monopoly price-fixing. Has anyone given any thought to how this will interact with the US Anti-trust laws? And the comments: The notion that the initial board of trustees and initial advisory council will determine how their successors are chosen is a crock. This needs to be firmly decided up front, regardless of how trustworthy the initial board may or may not be. ARIN needs to have a core set of directives that cannot be modified by the board of trustees and advisory council alone. Changing these core directives should require the approval of the general membership. Its a law of nature: absolute power corrupts absolutely, and without such checks even a trustworthy board is likely to become preoccupied with dinners, meetings and technical trivia, the results of which would be very expensive for those of us footing the bill. ARIN needs to build and maintain a well defined cash reserve. Daniel Karrenberg mentioned this in passing, but I want to emphasize it. The Internet is unpredictable, and when (not if) budgeting mistakes are made there needs to be a buffer that allows ARIN to continue operating effectively until changes in the fee structure can be made. Ideally the NSF or Network Solutions should contribute the initial reserve, but if not then I think most of us ISPs will understand and support the higher initial fees necessary to build it. Speaking of the fee structure, creating fixed dollar amounts strikes me as a mistake. The fees collected from each activity should be expressed as a percentage of ARIN's budget, and on a particular day each year, an accountet should sit down and combine that percentage with the projected activities and budget in order to determine the next year's fees. Accountants are roughly as intelligible as lawyers, so tying the fees to the costs is really the only way that we can be sure ARIN is really acting like a non-profit organization (i.e. isn't gouging us.) While I've no doubt that the consortium of individuals and organizations who can afford ARIN's $1000 membership fee would have my best interests at heart, I really think it should be handled differently. Restricting the day to day operations to a few people (the board and advisory council) makes practical sense, but the general membership should include everyone that contributes so much as a nickel to the effort. Personally, I'm in favor of a US House/Senate model to the extent that: 1) A quorum of the folks coughing up cash for ARIN would be required to make core changes to ARIN's policies and directives. 2) An affirmative vote would require the majority both of the entities participating in ARIN and of the entity-dollars. Anyway, those are my thoughts as such. Anyone have comments or better yet, answers? -Bill Herrin Why? InterNetworking -- William D. Herrin herrin at why.com herrin at ultima.cms.udel.edu Why? InterNetworking wherrin at gmu.edu herrin at scienza.onr.navy.mil 3005 Crane Dr. Fallible_Dragon at udic.org webmaster at crosslink.net Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 Web: From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Fri Feb 21 11:58:50 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:58:50 -0500 Subject: Source of Authority Message-ID: <330DD44A.47D7@driveway1.com> As I stated in a few earlier letters, it seems to me that a prefix to the IPv4 address which states unambiguously WHICH REGISTRY "issued" the address could remove most of the concerns expressed on this list about hijacking, monopolies, etc. , since then a given address could exist multiple times. Of course a meta-registry would have to exist to prevent two evil dudes from both claiming to be "Joe's IP Registry" ("Aaron's (ARIN's) IP Registry"?) {:> a little levity...perhaps it should be called a mela-registry to denote the allegiance to dark helicopters...) Can routing technology as presently exists in the installed base of boxes (Cisco 7600's primarily, I guess?) handle any longer string than 4 octets without crapping out? Sorry for my profound ignorance of the plumbing, but a reference to the actual techniques would be greatly appreciated. From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Fri Feb 21 12:09:32 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:09:32 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act] Message-ID: <330DD6CC.7267@driveway1.com> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Larry Honig Subject: Re: Renumbering and the '96 Telecom Act Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:27:22 -0500 Size: 2415 URL: From davidk at ISI.EDU Fri Feb 21 14:38:02 1997 From: davidk at ISI.EDU (davidk at ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:38:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970221095212.00cc13ac@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 21, 97 09:54:22 am Message-ID: <9702211938.AA00299@brind.isi.edu> Scott, > Scott Huddle writes : > > Observation 5, > > The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates > the need for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., > the market does the allocation), further with a true market > we can now have competing registries for IP space -- similar > to the IAHC results, registries do registry work, rather > than attempt to regulate market forces. I view this as a possible next step. It is already difficult enough to split off the IP registration services from NSI. It doesn't make sense to split off and do a major change in the way registries work at the same time. The IAHC results are still a proposal and are not implemented yet. I don't think it makes sense to start experimenting with domain and all of the IP space at the same time. What do we do if the competing registrars idea doesn't even work for the much easier (and less critical) task of allocating domain names? Let's wait for doing this until we know how the IAHC system will work in practise *and* realize at the same time that there are also some fundamental differences between IPv4 space (limited) and domain space (virtually unlimited) which might make the two spaces incomparable. The RIPE/APNIC systems are proven solutions which might not be perfect but are proven to work. There is currently a window of opportunity to make the IP registrations an independent (from NSI) non-profit business in a very smooth way instead of difficult situations that will arise when certain contracts run out ... At the same time, members will finally get a say in ARINs policy which was not the case in the past. I feel that it is best to take this oppotunity and talk about changes in registry policies later (at the pagan at apnic.net mail list & in a global context), David K. --- From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 21 14:50:30 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:50:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN: Questions & Comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > independent of activitiy. If you dump ARIN having to maintain > IN-ADDR.ARPA, the need to get heavy-duty computers and connections goes > away -- the only significant net activity would be applications and > database look-ups. No way. The education role of ARIN and the need to have ARIN's information resources easily accessible to the public demands that they have good Internet connections and sufficient computing horsepower to back them up. Mind you, Computing horsepower is pretty cheap these days and you can get a decent workstation for the same cost as one month's salary for a skilled employee. > (By the way, that $117 was assuming that *all* members participated > using traditional paper systems; the cost goes down further if you operate > ARIN the same way as much of the Internet Society operates.) Quite frankly, I would not want to mess with the way ARIN operates until after it is established. We have the opportunity to move the existing operation out of Network Solutions with the employees and procedures intact and to attempt to change any of this at the outset risks disrupting the services that ARIN will provide. Down the road, maybe we can make a lot of improvements and I would expect the Advisory Council to take a close look at this. However, the initial budget should not assume any such changes. > I might add that I'm still waiting to see a strawman budget. Kim has > been a bit gun-shy about presenting it because of what happened when the > first draft of the proposal was posted. I find that interesting, though, > because I don't remember getting a lot of heat when I presented my > alternate budget proposal. Maybe because I'm not "offical", eh? :) Exactly! I think a lot of people on this list have shown that they aren't interested in solving the problem and only want to attack what they perceive as the big bad authority figures. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From huddle at MCI.NET Fri Feb 21 16:11:38 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:11:38 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970221151026.00cc0ed4@mci.net> John Stewart (jstewart at isi.edu) wrote > you might be able to convince me of [market based distribution] > for space that is already allocated. but what do we do about > currently *un*allocated space? In a sence there is no unallocated space. The IANA sits on all of the space, they can delegate this space to their own close personal friends as they see fit, or they can delegate to the registries, who then delegate according to whatever arbitrary policies they see fit to employ. :) The question you ask seems to be "how much space should the IANA hold in reserve?" perhaps for meritorious use or perhaps for deployment to their own close personal friends. :) Note that whatever amount the IANA picks you basically are attempting to control the market supply in such a way that either artificially raises or lowers prices for IP space, this seems to me to be a bad thing, though I see that it might be a social good to reserve some amount of space, but I expect that amount should be "not much". > do different registries on the supply-side of the market just > pick randomly and hope for uniqueness? The role of registries is to record allocations, not make them. Lets have lots and lots and lots of competing registries, similar to the IAHC proposal for domain names. > if address assignment isn't [at least] loosely correlated with > topology, then a market-driven allocation system in a vacuum with > respect to routing could end up destroying the routing > system. Note that the current allocation schemes can destroy the routing system and there are no methods to fix it. For example, say ARIN follows the InterNIC guidelines and dispense addresss space along topological bounds as it has, low and behold later this year we hit The Magic Limit for routing slots and we're full. People can still go ARIN and ask for space but the space can't be used on the global Net. How do we go forward? Clearly, a market based scheme insists on making things work (else why buy the slot or pay for the space) While good intentioned, it's not clear to me if procedural delegation can guarantee this and it fact it is more likely that procedural delegation would destroy the routing system than a market based scheme. > however, i claim that *if* i knew exactly what "full" meant for > a default-free routing table Then you would exactly know the supply curve in a market based allocation :) BTW, how well do the current registries know this? Don't they need to make the same sorts of assessments in making policy on their allocation schemes? I assert that a free market would determine the demand and supply curves and an equilibrium point for a default free routing table. Some Econ 101 attached at the end. Note well, the example about creation of route slots by the introduction of new technology. Further, I assert that any group, however well intentioned, and regardless of the qualifications of it's Board of Directors, that attempts to manage a scarce resource will *not* find the equilibrium point, resulting in either scarcity or waste. > *if* i had the ability to control what routing announcements i > hear win (i.e., get a slot) and which ones loose (i.e., get dropped > on the floor), then it might be more possible to separate > allocation and routing I'm not sure of your point here, but I'll grant that this could require some additional knobs in routers, though I kinda think not. Clarification? In the end, allocation and routing are already seperate, i.e. ARIN allocates IP space, it does't route. ARIN won't guarantee routability and won't guarantee that the routing table will not fall over. Market mechanisms would. best regards, -scott Some casual background, this is Econ 101 The Demand Curve, o changes in price move you along the curve (at a high price, low demand, at low price high demand) o changes in aggregate demand shift the curve $ | |\ \ | \ -> \ | \ \ | \ \ ------------- Q The Supply Curve, o changes in price move you along the curve (at a high price, high supply, at low price low supply) o innovations in technology shift the curve right $| / / | / / | / -> / | / / | / / ------------- Q The Great Truth o The "invisible hand" of a competitive market will find an equilibrium point, where supply *exactly* equals demand at some price, P (at any other point, Evil Greedy Bastards arbitrage to exploit market inequalities and move to the equilibrium) $ | / |\ / | \ / P | * | / \ ------------- Q ------------- From carolann at censored.org Fri Feb 21 16:22:05 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:22:05 -0600 Subject: View from afar.... Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970221152152.34a73a04@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi! I'm Carol Anne Cypherpunk. The story of creating a company to "parcel out IP addresses", finally got to the Cypherpunk Mailing List. I'm kind of interested, because it seems to be a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of thing. I hope all of you will present a good argument, no matter which side it is. I'm listening. If there is a need, then do it. If there isn't then don't. When one of you posts something significant, I will promptly put it back on The Cypherpunk List. Thanks, Carol Anne -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMw4RxYrpjEWs1wBlAQE2jAP/flbXCvK5r8HsGakW/yVg/ao6gNPLXAA7 tTM0MtO1v5I+ncuVjcjmvX0y9fYYng0Rujc9TcUQ78dV35jgEvULaaZ53EV88UUO CwYp/A04sVXLyJabZg4iz3GxhcbxCweTiRRvo+cpyPGkZdIM6x2+5Gt1pWTYUqWo OuTUm3dLhYs= =qAWD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From randy at PSG.COM Fri Feb 21 14:01:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 11:01 PST Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN References: <3.0.32.19970221095212.00cc13ac@mci.net> Message-ID: > The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates the need > for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., the market does the > allocation) There are markets and there are markets. Our culture saw enough radically unfair ones that it chose to make masses of regulation. Not saying that is good or bad, just history. And history is something we seem embarrassingly prone to repeat. I suspect that the smaller players might be wary of a completely 'free' market for address space or routing, as the larger players are the ones who can afford to buy it all. And the larger players might be wary of a purely 'democratic' policy body where the mass of small players would greatly outweigh them. Interesting times. randy From satchell at accutek.com Fri Feb 21 13:10:45 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:10:45 -0800 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970221095212.00cc13ac@mci.net> Message-ID: At 7:54 AM -0800 2/21/97, Scott Huddle wrote: >Observation 5, > >The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates >the need for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., >the market does the allocation), further with a true market >we can now have competing registries for IP space -- similar >to the IAHC results, registries do registry work, rather >than attempt to regulate market forces. At least you see the need for a bookkeeper for IP addresses. I was always under the impression, even from Kim's first version, that ARIN would *not* be a policy body for IP allocation. In one respect, the market has already dictated allocation policy: that many companies would *not* route any prefix longer than a /19. >Observation 6, > >With the removal of allocation policy issues, ARIN becomes >a lot less controversial, and the costs of lawyers goes >way down :) It took a month, but thanks for agreeing with my original position that a registry doesn't need super-high-power talent to dole out numbers. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at accutek.com Fri Feb 21 13:27:46 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:27:46 -0800 Subject: ARIN: Questions & Comments In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970221171132.00674a34@minoc> Message-ID: At 9:11 AM -0800 2/21/97, William Herrin wrote: > ARIN needs to build and maintain a well defined cash reserve. Daniel >Karrenberg mentioned this in passing, but I want to emphasize it. The >Internet is unpredictable, and when (not if) budgeting mistakes are made >there needs to be a buffer that allows ARIN to continue operating >effectively until changes in the fee structure can be made. Ideally the NSF >or Network Solutions should contribute the initial reserve, but if not then >I think most of us ISPs will understand and support the higher initial fees >necessary to build it. The problem with keeping a cash reserve is that existing tax law and IRS regulations frown heavily on a not-for-profit maintaining such a cash reserve. As I understand it, the thinking of the federal policy-makers is that a charity should dole out all it gets during the fiscal year, so there is no "profit" at the end. If money is needed, you go beg for it. This isn't the best thing. I ran into the same problem with my not-for-profit, and ended up *not* getting 501(c)(3) status because of the cash reserve portion of the corporate policy. I *could* operate as a private foundation, but I would pay tax on any cash I had at the end of the year. > Speaking of the fee structure, creating fixed dollar amounts strikes me as >a mistake. The fees collected from each activity should be expressed as a >percentage of ARIN's budget, and on a particular day each year, an accountet >should sit down and combine that percentage with the projected activities >and budget in order to determine the next year's fees. Accountants are >roughly as intelligible as lawyers, so tying the fees to the costs is really >the only way that we can be sure ARIN is really acting like a non-profit >organization (i.e. isn't gouging us.) Frankly, when I did my back-of-the-envelope alternative budget for ARIN, I discovered that the expenses of the Registry are pretty much fixed, or easily tied to specific activity. The cost of supporting a Member was roughly $117, the cost of making (or unmaking) an allocation was around $300, and that was that. The rest of the costs were pretty much independent of activitiy. If you dump ARIN having to maintain IN-ADDR.ARPA, the need to get heavy-duty computers and connections goes away -- the only significant net activity would be applications and database look-ups. (By the way, that $117 was assuming that *all* members participated using traditional paper systems; the cost goes down further if you operate ARIN the same way as much of the Internet Society operates.) So what you have is a large fixed budget and a small task-based budget. Sad but true. I might add that I'm still waiting to see a strawman budget. Kim has been a bit gun-shy about presenting it because of what happened when the first draft of the proposal was posted. I find that interesting, though, because I don't remember getting a lot of heat when I presented my alternate budget proposal. Maybe because I'm not "offical", eh? :) --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From kimh at internic.net Fri Feb 21 14:11:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:11:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN: Questions & Comments In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970221171132.00674a34@minoc> from "William Herrin" at Feb 21, 97 12:11:32 pm Message-ID: <199702211911.OAA15276@jazz.internic.net> > > Howdy, > > I've been following the list for a couple weeks now, and I have a few > questions and comments about the current ARIN proposal. Some of these may be > FAQs I missed before joining the list... If so, then I missed it so please > fill me in. > > The questions first: > > I'm uncertain as to what the disposition of the address space currently > registered with Network Solutions will be. Will they be moved under ARIN's > dominion, and be subject to the $50/yr for each non-contiguous assignment, > or will they remain under network solution's control? For example, we > currently have 199.33.224.0/23. How will the authority over that space > change, and what fees will be assessed as a result over the next few years? > > If understand the proposal correctly, then the former is true. This means > that ARIN would have a complete lock on IP address allocation in the > Americas (you either get your address space from ARIN or from someone who > got it from ARIN). Additionally, you must pay for each allocation, and if > you potentially want to have any say in how much you pay then you have to > pay an additional $1000 for > "membership." Fair or not, this sounds remarkably similar to monopoly > price-fixing. Has anyone given any thought to how this will interact with > the US Anti-trust laws? They will be moved under ARIN's dominion. However, the issue of charging or not charging a maintenance fee for previously allocated space is not raised in the ARIN proposal. Kim From huddle at mci.net Fri Feb 21 17:56:48 1997 From: huddle at mci.net (Scott Huddle) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:56:48 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970221165636.00b8e3b4@mci.net> Huh? smaller players are always more nimble in open competitive markets than large players. As is the subject of this thread suggests, a market creates solutions (i.e. multihoming of small sites) for problems created by policy based allocations. The arguments about "buying it all" are specious. -scott At 11:01 AM 2/21/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >> The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates the need >> for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., the market does the >> allocation) > >There are markets and there are markets. Our culture saw enough radically >unfair ones that it chose to make masses of regulation. Not saying that is >good or bad, just history. And history is something we seem embarrassingly >prone to repeat. > >I suspect that the smaller players might be wary of a completely 'free' >market for address space or routing, as the larger players are the ones who >can afford to buy it all. > >And the larger players might be wary of a purely 'democratic' policy body >where the mass of small players would greatly outweigh them. > >Interesting times. > >randy > > From randy at PSG.COM Fri Feb 21 18:45:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 15:45 PST Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN References: <3.0.32.19970221165636.00b8e3b4@mci.net> Message-ID: > From: Scott Huddle ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The arguments about "buying it all" are specious. I am sooooo reassured. randy From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Fri Feb 21 19:07:10 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:07:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970221151026.00cc0ed4@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 21, 97 03:11:38 pm Message-ID: <199702220007.QAA04680@songbird.com> Scott Huddle allegedly said: [...] > > -scott > > Some casual background, this is Econ 101 > > The Demand Curve, > o changes in price move you along the curve (at a high > price, low demand, at low price high demand) > o changes in aggregate demand shift the curve > > $ | > |\ \ > | \ -> \ > | \ \ > | \ \ > ------------- > Q > > The Supply Curve, > o changes in price move you along the curve (at a high > price, high supply, at low price low supply) > o innovations in technology shift the curve right > > $| / / > | / / > | / -> / > | / / > | / / > ------------- > Q > > The Great Truth > o The "invisible hand" of a competitive market will find > an equilibrium point, where supply *exactly* equals > demand at some price, P > (at any other point, Evil Greedy Bastards arbitrage > to exploit market inequalities and move to > the equilibrium) > > $ | / > |\ / > | \ / > P | * > | / \ > ------------- > Q > > ------------- Yes, this is econ 101, and of course is too simple-minded to be of much use in this discussion. Fundamentally, it makes assumptions about the rate of change of supply/demand that may or may not be warranted in a real-world case. In particular, if exogenous factors have significant effects in the same time frame as the rate of convergence towards equilibrium, there is no convergence, and, mathematically, you have chaos. And in any real-world market, there are exogenous factors. Generalizing from tautologies to reality is a common fallacy: "a=a, therefore capitalism". -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From jstewart at ISI.EDU Fri Feb 21 15:51:49 1997 From: jstewart at ISI.EDU (John W. Stewart III) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:51:49 -0500 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:11:38 CST." <3.0.32.19970221151026.00cc0ed4@mci.net> Message-ID: <199702212051.PAA07438@central-services.east.isi.edu> > > you might be able to convince me of [market based distribution] > > for space that is already allocated. but what do we do about > > currently *un*allocated space? > > In a sence there is no unallocated space. The IANA sits on all > of the space, they can delegate this space to their own close > personal friends as they see fit, or they can delegate to the > registries, who then delegate according to whatever arbitrary > policies they see fit to employ. :) > > The question you ask seems to be "how much space should the IANA > hold in reserve?" perhaps for meritorious use or perhaps for > deployment to their own close personal friends. :) > > Note that whatever amount the IANA picks you basically are attempting > to control the market supply in such a way that either > artificially raises or lowers prices for IP space, this seems to me > to be a bad thing, though I see that it might be a social good to > reserve some amount of space, but I expect that amount should be > "not much". > > > do different registries on the supply-side of the market just > > pick randomly and hope for uniqueness? > > The role of registries is to record allocations, not make them. > Lets have lots and lots and lots of competing registries, similar > to the IAHC proposal for domain names. the point about unallocated space is this. if i have address space that i was given 10 years ago, then it's pretty clear that i can sell it as long as i find a buyer (independant of all of these fun conversations). however, if nobody that already has address space wants to sell, and i want to buy, then someone has to dip into the pool of unallocated space. in what way do competing registries do this? first-come-first- served? that's fine if you divorce concern for the routing from the address allocation, but i claim that that's irresponsible unless you have a strong reason to believe that other forces will ensure stability of the routing infrastructure. and it might even be irresponsible in toto .. whose to stop allocator number one from claiming everything? > > if address assignment isn't [at least] loosely correlated with > > topology, then a market-driven allocation system in a vacuum with > > respect to routing could end up destroying the routing > > system. > > Note that the current allocation schemes can destroy the routing > system and there are no methods to fix it. For example, say > ARIN follows the InterNIC guidelines and dispense addresss space > along topological bounds as it has, low and behold later this year > we hit The Magic Limit for routing slots and we're full. People > can still go ARIN and ask for space but the space can't be > used on the global Net. How do we go forward? > > Clearly, a market based scheme insists on making things work > (else why buy the slot or pay for the space) While good intentioned, > it's not clear to me if procedural delegation can guarantee this > and it fact it is more likely that procedural delegation would > destroy the routing system than a market based scheme. your final statement (starting with "it is more likely...") is *very* strong. and i think it's *very* debatable. given the current router technology and its configuration ability with respect to inter-domain routing, i claim that the current "up" status of the internet routing system is due to provider aggregation .. an allocation policy which depends on the iana and its three subordinate registries allocating space to providers. i don't think i could agree with your statement unless the world were first turned upside down > > however, i claim that *if* i knew exactly what "full" meant for > > a default-free routing table > > Then you would exactly know the supply curve in a market based > allocation :) BTW, how well do the current registries know this? > Don't they need to make the same sorts of assessments in making > policy on their allocation schemes? > > I assert that a free market would determine the demand and supply > curves and an equilibrium point for a default free routing table. > Some Econ 101 attached at the end. Note well, the example about > creation of route slots by the introduction of new technology. > > Further, I assert that any group, however well intentioned, and > regardless of the qualifications of it's Board of Directors, that > attempts to manage a scarce resource will *not* find the > equilibrium point, resulting in either scarcity or waste. yes the registries may be creating an artificial scarcity. numbers are numbers and policies can't change that. but, one could argue that the creation of an artificial scarcity of ip addresses is better than the "true" scarcity in routing table entries that would be created by trying to inject "full + 1" routes into a default-free table. in other words, is artificial scarcity better than total failure? (note: this is from the perspective of the world as it is today and not a model where routing table entries are sold and the implied configuration of inter-domain routing is there) > > *if* i had the ability to control what routing announcements i > > hear win (i.e., get a slot) and which ones loose (i.e., get dropped > > on the floor), then it might be more possible to separate > > allocation and routing > > I'm not sure of your point here, but I'll grant that this could > require some additional knobs in routers, though I kinda think > not. Clarification? right now access to a routing slot is first come first served. fortunately, assuming you have a router with enough memory, *all* get served. however, when/if we start to reach a "full" state (assuming that routers do something more gracefully than roll over and die .. which actually requires some work given the current longest-match routing), then first come first served isn't good enough and, in the case of the selling- routing-table-entries as your model proposes, you need to ensure that the people who bought slots from you (and all of your peers) don't get dropped on the floor > In the end, allocation and routing are already > seperate, i.e. ARIN allocates IP space, it does't route. but they try to allocate in a framework which tries to ensure routability .. they don't allocate in a vacuum > ARIN won't guarantee routability and won't guarantee that the routing > table will not fall over. Market mechanisms would. i don't think that your last two sentences are true in general .. i think that they assume other things (like the selling-routing-table-entries). they at least assume these things in order for your approach to be practical /jws > > best regards, > > -scott > > Some casual background, this is Econ 101 > > The Demand Curve, > o changes in price move you along the curve (at a high > price, low demand, at low price high demand) > o changes in aggregate demand shift the curve > > $ | > |\ \ > | \ -> \ > | \ \ > | \ \ > ------------- > Q > > The Supply Curve, > o changes in price move you along the curve (at a high > price, high supply, at low price low supply) > o innovations in technology shift the curve right > > $| / / > | / / > | / -> / > | / / > | / / > ------------- > Q > > The Great Truth > o The "invisible hand" of a competitive market will find > an equilibrium point, where supply *exactly* equals > demand at some price, P > (at any other point, Evil Greedy Bastards arbitrage > to exploit market inequalities and move to > the equilibrium) > > $ | / > |\ / > | \ / > P | * > | / \ > ------------- > Q > > ------------- > From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Fri Feb 21 20:49:32 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:49:32 -0800 Subject: View from afar.... In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19970221152152.34a73a04@mailhost.primenet.com> Message-ID: At 1:22 PM -0800 2/21/97, Carol Anne Cypherpunk wrote: > >When one of you posts something significant, I will >promptly put it back on The Cypherpunk List. I have a couple of questions: (1) Have you read the information at www.arin.net? (2) Have you investigated what other registries are doing? (Hint: see who parcels out Ethernet addresses and how.) (3) Have you read the archives for this mailing list? You will find virtually all of your answers doing these three things, in my opinion. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From apb at IAFRICA.COM Sat Feb 22 03:27:25 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:27:25 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: ARIN: Questions & Comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stephen Satchell said: > If you dump ARIN having to maintain IN-ADDR.ARPA, the need to get > heavy-duty computers and connections goes away -- the only significant > net activity would be applications and database look-ups. Don't conflate maintaining the master copies of the relevant databases with operating the servers that answer the world's queries against the databases. Maintaining the relevant parts of the in-addr.arpa zone is a highly desirable (I am strongly tempted to say "necessary") part of an IP registry's work, whereas having the bandwidth and computrons to answer the world's DNS lookups can easily be farmed out to nameservers elsewhere. --apb (Alan Barrett) From randy at PSG.COM Sat Feb 22 03:39:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 97 00:39 PST Subject: ARIN: Questions & Comments References: Message-ID: > Maintaining the relevant parts of the in-addr.arpa zone is a highly > desirable (I am strongly tempted to say "necessary") part of an IP > registry's work, whereas having the bandwidth and computrons to answer > the world's DNS lookups can easily be farmed out to nameservers > elsewhere. Indeed. Unfortunately, in the increasingly cra$$ new internet, it is advisable to budget the contingency that one may have to pay for that service. randy From apb at IAFRICA.COM Sat Feb 22 03:39:20 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:39:20 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Invisible Hands In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970221151026.00cc0ed4@mci.net> Message-ID: Scott Huddle said: > Clearly, a market based scheme insists on making things work (else why > buy the slot or pay for the space) While good intentioned, it's not > clear to me if procedural delegation can guarantee this and it fact it > is more likely that procedural delegation would destroy the routing > system than a market based scheme. It seems to me that the address allocation is not quite the same thing as routing. I believe that a market based scheme for allocation of routing table slots would be a good thing. I am not so sure about a market based scheme for allocation of IP addresses. Shifting from what we have now to a market based address allocation scheme would probably be an irreversible operation, so it seems to me that it would be sensible to conduct an (irreversible) experiment in the swamp before we take a big leap with the entire address space. Followup to piara, not naipr, please. --apb (Alan Barrett) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 11:44:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:44:02 -0600 Subject: test - is this list still alive? Message-ID: <01BC20AD.5204AB40@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 21, 1997 12:16 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote: @ The Innkeeper supposedly said: @ > @ @ > One other observation I must question and address is the fact if Paul ALSO @ > speaks for Cisco??? @ > @ @ I can't believe that anyone would have to ask such a question. I doubt any @ company or organization even a 10th or a 100th the size of Cisco allows @ random employees to make official company policy. I would suggest you @ contact Cisco's press office for any official Cisco position. @ @ ---> Phil @ CISCO is liable for any statement made by anyone from a CISCO funded facility. Just wait and see...:-) Other large companies actively encourage their employees to obtain private accounts to spread their private views. Most CISCO employees can probably afford $20 per month. In some cases, organizations such as the IETF could furnish accounts for use by people involved in those activities. This allows the domain system to be used to help the public understand the context of a message. Any mail with CISCO.COM is equivalent to a CISCO letterhead. CISCO employees should ask themselves whether their posting would look good on a CISCO letterhead and whether CISCO's management would approve it. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 12:11:06 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:11:06 -0600 Subject: Internet Taxes Message-ID: <01BC20B1.1A410420@webster.unety.net> @@@@@ http://www.isoc.org/whatsnew/notaxesoti.html Internet Society Cautions White House Against Imposition Of Taxes On Internet Commerce @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The Internet Society is cautioning against taxes while it spends its time inventing taxes and supporting organizations that are essentially taxing the net. See: http://www.isoc.org/whatsnew/iahcreport.html http://www.arin.net It should not be surprising that the Internet Society does not want other organizations to get involved in taxing the net until they have had a chance to develop the legal structures. In the case of the domain system, the Internet Society is attempting to move the tax authority to Switzerland because of the International nature of the net. U.S citizens who helped fund the development of the Internet need to take careful note, and send your own message to the Whitehouse and other places. President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov @@@@@ U.S. Senate e-mail addresses Alabama - Shelby, Richard C. (R) - senator at shelby.senate.gov Alaska - Stevens, Ted (R) - senator_stevens at stevens.senate.gov Arizona - Kyl, Jon (R) - info at kyl.senate.gov Arizona - McCain, John (R) - senator_mccain at mccain.senate.gov Arkansas - Bumpers, Dale (D) - senator at bumpers.senate.gov Arkansas - Hutchinson, Tim (D) - senator.hutchinson at hutchinson.senate.gov California - Boxer, Barbara (D) - senator at boxer.senate.gov California - Feinstein, Dianne (D) - senator at feinstein.senate.gov Connecticut - Dodd, Christopher J. (D) - sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov Connecticut - Lieberman, Joseph I. (D) - senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov Delaware - Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D) - senator at biden.senate.gov Florida - Graham, Bob (D) - bob_graham at graham.senate.gov Georgia - Coverdell, Paul (R) - senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov Hawaii - Inouye, Daniel K. (D) - senator at inouye.senate.gov Idaho - Craig, Larry E. (R) - larry_craig at craig.senate.gov Idaho - Kempthorne, Dirk (R) - dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov Illinois - Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) - senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov Iowa - Grassley, Chuck (R) - chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov Iowa - Harkin, Tom (D) - tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov Kansas - Brownback, Sam (R) - sam_brownback at brownback.senate.gov Kentucky - Ford, Wendell H. (D) - wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov Kentucky - McConnell, Mitch (R) - senator at mcconnell.senate.gov Louisiana - Breaux, John B. (D) - senator at breaux.senate.gov Maine - Collins, Susan (R) - senator at collins.senate.gov Maine - Snowe, Olympia J. (R) - olympia at snowe.senate.gov Maryland - Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) - senator at mikulski.senate.gov Maryland - Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - senator at sarbanes.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - senator at kennedy.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kerry, John F. (D) - john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov Michigan - Abraham, Spencer (R) - michigan at abraham.senate.gov Michigan - Levin, Carl (D) senator at levin.senate.gov Minnesota - Grams, Rod (R) - mail_grams at grams.senate.gov Minnesota - Wellstone, Paul D. (D) - senator at wellstone.senate.gov Mississippi - Cochran, Thad (R) - senator at cochran.senate.gov Missouri - Ashcroft, John (R) - john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov Missouri - Bond, Christopher S. (R) - kit_bond at bond.senate.gov Montana - Baucus, Max (D) - max at baucus.senate.gov Montana - Burns, Conrad R. (R) - conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov Nebraska - Kerrey, J. Robert (D) - bob at kerrey.senate.gov Nevada - Bryan, Richard H. (D) - senator at bryan.senate.gov Nevada - Reid, Harry (D) - senator_reid at reid.senate.gov New Hampshire - Gregg, Judd (R) - mailbox at gregg.senate.gov New Hampshire - Smith, Bob (R) opinion at smith.senate.gov New Jersey - Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) - frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov New Mexico - Bingaman, Jeff (D) - senator_bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov New Mexico - Domenici, Pete V. (R) - senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov New York - D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) - senator_al at damato.senate.gov New York - Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D) - senator at dpm.senate.gov North Carolina - Faircloth, Lauch (R) - senator at faircloth.senate.gov North Carolina - Helms, Jesse (R) - jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov North Dakota - Dorgan, Byron L. (D) - senator at dorgan.senate.gov Ohio - DeWine, Mike (R) - senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov Oklahoma - Nickles, Don (R) - senator at nickles.senate.gov Oregon - Wyden, Ron (D) - senator at wyden.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Santorum, Rick (R) - senator at santorum.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Specter, Arlen (R) - senator_specter at specter.senate.gov Rhode Island - Chafee, John H. (R) - senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov South Carolina - Hollings, Ernest F. (D) - senator at hollings.senate.gov South Carolina - Thurmond, Strom (R) - senator at thurmond.senate.gov South Dakota - Daschle, Thomas A. (D) - tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov Tennessee - Frist, William H. (R) - senator_frist at frist.senate.gov Tennessee - Thompson, Fred (R) - senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov Texas - Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - senator at hutchison.senate.gov Utah - Bennett, Robert F. (R) - senator at bennett.senate.gov Utah - Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov Vermont - Jeffords, James M. (R) - vermont at jeffords.senate.gov Vermont - Leahy, Patrick J. (D) - senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov Virginia - Robb, Charles S. (D) senator at robb.senate.gov Virginia - Warner, John W. (R) - senator at warner.senate.gov Washington - Gorton, Slade (R) - senator_gorton at gorton.senate.gov Washington - Murray, Patty (D) - senator_murray at murray.senate.gov West Virginia - Byrd, Robert C. (D) - senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov West Virginia - Rockefeller, John D., IV (D) - senator at rockefeller.senate.gov Wisconsin - Feingold, Russell D. (D) - senator at feingold.senate.gov Wisconsin - Kohl, Herb (D) - nator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov Wyoming - Enzi, Mike (R) - senator at enzi.senate.gov Wyoming - Thomas, Craig (R) - craig at thomas.senate.gov @@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Sat Feb 22 14:55:05 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:55:05 -0600 Subject: ARIN Fragments the InterNIC In-Reply-To: <01BC1F1C.AB5745A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: >The current ARIN attempts to fragment the InterNIC are not in >the best interest of the Internet. Instead, the InterNIC should >be kept in tact and used as an educational model to help >create additional "NICs" across the United States to spread >the wealth and jobs around and to ensure better stability >via distributed management. > >Folks, please face the facts. The U.S. Government controls >the Internet. This is utter rubbish! The Internet is a collection of inter-operating private computer networks. Period. The word "private" is very important here, because as of several years ago no government money goes into funding or controlling the private backbones. (Yes, the government maintains their own networks, no surprise there). Sprint owns their backbone, MCI owns their backbone, UUnet etc etc and they all exchange traffic - that's the "Inter" part of Internet. >It has always been that way and it will likely always >be that way. It is a resource that many people depend on and >businesses are investing because of the stability, security, and >opportunities that the U.S. Government provides. It used to be a government project. It is a resource that many people are investing in and coming to depend on. The last thing that a government bureaucrat provides is stability and security - what kind of security is the word of a bureaucrat? They're gone in 2 or 4 years and the next batch of rascals is in office, bending your life to his will in the name of "the people". Contracts between individuals or corporations (enforced by the government) however are the most reliable, sturdy social entity in the US. It is exactly private contracts of this kind that have taken the Internet from what it was in 1990, to the vastly larger and rapidly growing thing it is today. In short, what controls the Internet are the companies and people that built it and use it, and pay for it: primarily ISPs. IP allocation is something that needs to be done, this activity needs to be paid for, and the people that pay for it should be the people that use it: ISPs. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business (888) HYPERMALL bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From huddle at MCI.NET Sat Feb 22 17:22:45 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:22:45 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970222160716.00736590@mci.net> David, Thanks for your comments, they were very thoughtful. At 02:22 PM 2/21/97 -0800, davidk at ISI.EDU wrote: >Note that IPv4 space in itself is limited and that alone can distort >market forces. In many situations where supplies are limited, prices get >set artificially high and there is no guarantee that this could not >happen with IPv4 address space. IPv4 space is bounded (though very large), note that technologies such as NAT, V6, and clever use of private space expand the supply, though. Almost everything is limited ("buy land, God ain't makin' any more dirt"). In general, markets are the most efficient mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources. Prices aren't "set" in a market, they are determined by supply and demand. >Ooh, and what does Jon do with the money? Or do you want to give away the >address space for free and then some lucky people can make huge profits >or you divide it very democratically among the current Internet users >which will be even a better recipe for disaster. Use the inital money to fund root name servers, or the IETF, or the fine work at ISI :) What happens with the money from the auction of radio frequencies? >> Note that the current allocation schemes can destroy the routing >> system and there are no methods to fix it. >> >Note that a free market system can do the same. And there are no methods >to fix it ... I disagree. Market demand is shaped by aggregate utility functions for the members in the market, obviously the utility of broken routing is zero, and the price for a routing slot in a broken system is zero. From the supply side, why would an ISP sell a route slot that breaks their systems? The price for that would be infinite. >The current registry system is not perfect but there is no evidence that >current allocation policies are destroying the routing system. In fact, >the policies are defined by consultation with the users of the address >space to avoid just that. Yes, I agreee, but there are examples of market failure (e.g. little sites wanting to multihome) that aren't met by the current procedural scheme. Also, note that not all of the users of address space are consulted -- only certain users get space from the registries. Indeed most of the "heat" on the list has been generated by those that feel have a stake but don't have a voice. In a market model, they all vote. >> Clearly, a market based scheme insists on making things work >> (else why buy the slot or pay for the space) > >And what happens if a free market registry sells one address block too >much? I'm not sure I follow. The routing slot market is controlled by individual ISPs, IP space by a global market. Can you clarify your point? >> I assert that a free market would determine the demand and supply >> curves and an equilibrium point for a default free routing table. > >And what if demand is bigger then supply ? Prices go up. What happens in a procedural based allocation? Do you tighten the allocation and make it harder to get space? This is effictively raising the price as well. >And what if the equilibrium point for the number of route entries is much >higher ? You have an effective damper on route explosion, you have a market to encourage renumbering, and you have a market to encourage deployment of additional technology such as NAT. Sounds like A Good Thing to me. How does the current procedural allocation have *any* direct control on route entries? The current processes are indirect at best. >The free market will certainly solve these problems but it could turn out >to be more expensive then our current system. Why? A free market typically drives costs *down*. I'm interested in your examples here. OPEC controls the supply of oil, how do Evil Greedy Bastards control the supply of new IP space? As a counter example, witness the Bass brothers debacle in trying to control the silver market. >Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of bureacratic solutions over a >free market economy and would prefer any free market solution. However, >there is no proof whatsoever, that a free market will indeed work better >then the current system, and even worse then that, if this turn out to be >the case, we cannot go back anymore. Therefore, it might be the time for >an experiment with a limited amount of address space to test (part of) >the free market theories because a free market solution indeed has a lot >of potential and could indeed turn out to work better, as you claim it >will, then the current approach. But then, this is not the topic of the >ARIN list but , so please reply on that list only, Thanks for these comments. best regards, -scott From huddle at MCI.NET Sat Feb 22 17:22:32 1997 From: huddle at MCI.NET (Scott Huddle) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:22:32 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970222160328.00736590@mci.net> Randy, At 03:45 PM 2/21/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: >> From: Scott Huddle > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> The arguments about "buying it all" are specious. > >I am sooooo reassured. > >randy Cute :) Note the subject of the thread, little guys who want to multihome have problems getting IP space from the NIC. The current procedural mechanism for address allocation leads to a market failure, "little guys" can't "justify" a /19. Under a market mechanism this space would be available to them (for a price), under a market mechanism it would be possible to route this (for a price). Large ISPs would be able to get space and route it under either mechanism (for a price). Now where is my black helicopter :) best regards, -scott From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 17:00:38 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:00:38 -0600 Subject: ARIN Fragments the InterNIC Message-ID: <01BC20D9.8C8A57C0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 1:55 PM, Jawaid Bazyar[SMTP:bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM] wrote: @ >The current ARIN attempts to fragment the InterNIC are not in @ >the best interest of the Internet. Instead, the InterNIC should @ >be kept in tact and used as an educational model to help @ >create additional "NICs" across the United States to spread @ >the wealth and jobs around and to ensure better stability @ >via distributed management. @ > @ >Folks, please face the facts. The U.S. Government controls @ >the Internet. @ @ This is utter rubbish! The Internet is a collection of inter-operating @ private computer networks. Period. The word "private" is very important @ here, because as of several years ago no government money goes into funding @ or controlling the private backbones. (Yes, the government maintains their @ own networks, no surprise there). Sprint owns their backbone, MCI owns @ their backbone, UUnet etc etc and they all exchange traffic - that's the @ "Inter" part of Internet. @ "no government money"...?...here is $1.4 million... > @@@ http://www.nsf.gov/ftp/awards96/awd9615/a9615927.txt > > Title : Testbed Routers for Advanced Internet Lab (TRAIL) > Type : Award > NSF Org : NCR > Latest > Amendment > Date : August 27, 1996 > File : a9615927 > > Award Number: 9615927 > Award Instr.: Standard Grant > Prgm Manager: Darleen L. Fisher > NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR > CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR > Start Date : October 1, 1996 > Expires : September 30, 1999 (Estimated) > Expected > Total Amt. : $1,499,999 (Estimated) > Investigator: Herbert Schorr schorr at isi.edu > Allison Mankin > Sponsor : U of Southern California > University Park > Los Angeles, CA 900074363 213/743-2311 > > NSF Program : 4097 NETWORKING RESEARCH > Fld Science : 31 Computer Science & Engineering > 55 Engineering-Electrical > Fld Applictn: 0206000 Telecommunications > Abstract : > USC/ISI will create and maintain TRAIL, Testbed Routers for Advanced > Internet Labs. The TRAIL software will be a freely available, well > maintained, community research router source, featuring IPv6 in > particular. The work will extend and leverage developments and facilities > of the Collaborative Advanced Interagency Research Network (CAIRN), > organized by ISI under current DARPA funding. CAIRN is a T1, DS-3 and > OC-3 wide area router testbed. The software is for two classes of > hardware: 1) high performance but low-cost personal computers, supporting > small numbers of router interfaces and 2) specialized router hardware, > supporting the large numbers of interfaces that are characteristic of > internet interconnect points, and providing a realistic experimental > model of commercial IP routing technology. For the second class of > hardware, one vendor who supports such numbers of high-speed interfaces > proved interested in donating full source code to be used as the base of > TRAIL. Therefore, the second class of hardware for TRAIL is the > Ascend/Netstar, Gigarouter. It supports 32 OC-3 ATM ports, or > combinations of ATM ports with 16 to 128 fast ethernet ports. The > proposal focuses strongly on support of experimental users. ISI's care > will be devoted to supporting their software, and maintaining and > distributing versions for PC alone, and for PC along with Gigarouter. ISI > will also maintain facilities for IPv6 networking research collaboration, > and coordinate the North American portion of the experimental IPv6 > backbone, the "6bone". > > @@@@@ @ >It has always been that way and it will likely always @ >be that way. It is a resource that many people depend on and @ >businesses are investing because of the stability, security, and @ >opportunities that the U.S. Government provides. @ @ It used to be a government project. It is a resource that many people are @ investing in and coming to depend on. @ @ The last thing that a government bureaucrat provides is stability and @ security - what kind of security is the word of a bureaucrat? They're gone @ in 2 or 4 years and the next batch of rascals is in office, bending your @ life to his will in the name of "the people". Contracts between @ individuals or corporations (enforced by the government) however are the @ most reliable, sturdy social entity in the US. It is exactly private @ contracts of this kind that have taken the Internet from what it was in @ 1990, to the vastly larger and rapidly growing thing it is today. @ @ In short, what controls the Internet are the companies and people that @ built it and use it, and pay for it: primarily ISPs. @ @ IP allocation is something that needs to be done, this activity needs to be @ paid for, and the people that pay for it should be the people that use it: @ ISPs. @ @ I agree IP allocation needs to be done. I have suggested that ARIN take ONE /8 and go do that as a private company, enforced by the government, using your words. Why not have ARIN start small and prove the concept ? It is called the "slow start" program for regional registries... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 17:09:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:09:55 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC20DA.D8716240@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 4:22 PM, Scott Huddle[SMTP:huddle at MCI.NET] wrote: @ Randy, @ @ At 03:45 PM 2/21/97 PST, Randy Bush wrote: @ >> From: Scott Huddle @ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ @ >> The arguments about "buying it all" are specious. @ > @ >I am sooooo reassured. @ > @ >randy @ @ Cute :) Note the subject of the thread, little guys who want to @ multihome have problems getting IP space from the NIC. The current @ procedural mechanism for address allocation leads to a market failure, @ "little guys" can't "justify" a /19. Under a market mechanism this @ space would be available to them (for a price), under a market @ mechanism it would be possible to route this (for a price). @ @ Large ISPs would be able to get space and route it under either @ mechanism (for a price). @ @ Now where is my black helicopter :) @ @ best regards, @ @ -scott @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The Internet is rapidly developing "adult supervision". You may be applying the old rules to the current situation. If you want to obtain a /19, you need to work with your elected representatives and the people they are paying to manage the Internet. I suggest that you start with the NSF. You might be surprised at how quickly the U.S. Government responds to taxpayers and businesses who are in the U.S. to help create jobs which support people who pay taxes. People who live off of taxes, and who attempt to create their own form of taxes, may not be as helpful to you. Again, I suggest you talk to the people YOU are paying. Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov ===== @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/mission.html "The FNC supports the goals of the CIC, particularly those related to building the national information infrastructure (NII). It also seeks to address Federal technology transition goals and allow the operational experiences of FNC agencies to influence future Federal research agendas. It also contributes funds to important Internet infrastructure organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA), and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)." @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html Federal Networking Council George Strawn - Chairman GSTRAWN at NSF.GOV Walter Wiebe - Executive Director WWIEBE at NSF.GOV Bruce Almich ALMICH.BRUCE at EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Bruce Bottomley BBB at ROMULUS.NCSC.MIL Dick desJardins DESJARDI at EOS.NASA.GOV Frank Hartel HARTEL at BOX-H.NIH.GOV Craig Hunt CHUNT at NIST.GOV Pamela G. Kruzic PJK at NRC.GOV Henry Lai HENRY.LAI at GSA.GOV Fred Lee FLEE at NSF.GOV Fred Long FLONG at SUN1.WWB.NOAA.GOV Hilarie Orman HORMAN at DARPA.MIL Camillo J. Pasquariello PASQUARC at NCR.DISA.MIL Alexis Poliakoff ALEX_POLIAKOFF at ED.GOV Ken Roko KROKO at USAID.GOV Elaine Stout ESTOUT at USGS.GOV @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC.html The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) is chartered by the National Science Foundation to provide the FNC with technical, tactical, and strategic advice from the constituencies involved in the NREN Program..." FNCAC Members Dr. Sidney Karin KARIN at SDSC.EDU Dr. George Brandenburg BRANDENBURG at HUHEPL.HARVARD.EDU Dr. Henriette Avram AVRAM at IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU Mr. Jim Beall, Jr. BEALL at VNET.IBM.COM Mr. Alan Blatecky ALANB at MCNC.ORG Mr. Matt Blaze MAB at RESEARCH.ATT.COM Ms. Susan Estrada SESTRADA at ALDEA.COM Dr. Kenneth S. Flamm FLAMM at BROOK.EDU Dr. John Gage JOHN.GAGE at ENG.SUN.COM Ms. Carol Henderson CCH at ALAWASH.ORG Dr. Kenneth J. Klingenstein KJK at SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Mr. Richard Liebhaber 2714743 at MCIMAIL.COM Mr. Stu Loken SCLOKEN at LBL.GOV Dr. Paul Mockapetris PVM at SOFTWARE.COM Mr. Robert G. Moskowitz RGM3 at IS.CHRYSLER.COM Dr. Ike Nassi NASSI at SCRUZNET.COM Mr. Carl Edward Oliver OLIVERCE at ORNL.GOV Dr. Stewart Personick SDP at BELLCORE.COM Mr. Thomas C. Rindfleisch THOMAS_RINDFLEISCH at MEDMAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Mr. Mike Roberts ROBERTS at EDUCOM.EDU Ms. Connie D. Stout CSTOUT at TENET.EDU Brigadier General Harold Thompson THOMPSON at ICN.STATE.IA.US Dr. Stephen Wolff SWOLFF at CISCO.COM @@@@@ U.S. Senate e-mail addresses Alabama - Shelby, Richard C. (R) - senator at shelby.senate.gov Alaska - Stevens, Ted (R) - senator_stevens at stevens.senate.gov Arizona - Kyl, Jon (R) - info at kyl.senate.gov Arizona - McCain, John (R) - senator_mccain at mccain.senate.gov Arkansas - Bumpers, Dale (D) - senator at bumpers.senate.gov Arkansas - Hutchinson, Tim (D) - senator.hutchinson at hutchinson.senate.gov California - Boxer, Barbara (D) - senator at boxer.senate.gov California - Feinstein, Dianne (D) - senator at feinstein.senate.gov Connecticut - Dodd, Christopher J. (D) - sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov Connecticut - Lieberman, Joseph I. (D) - senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov Delaware - Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D) - senator at biden.senate.gov Florida - Graham, Bob (D) - bob_graham at graham.senate.gov Georgia - Coverdell, Paul (R) - senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov Hawaii - Inouye, Daniel K. (D) - senator at inouye.senate.gov Idaho - Craig, Larry E. (R) - larry_craig at craig.senate.gov Idaho - Kempthorne, Dirk (R) - dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov Illinois - Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) - senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov Iowa - Grassley, Chuck (R) - chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov Iowa - Harkin, Tom (D) - tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov Kansas - Brownback, Sam (R) - sam_brownback at brownback.senate.gov Kentucky - Ford, Wendell H. (D) - wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov Kentucky - McConnell, Mitch (R) - senator at mcconnell.senate.gov Louisiana - Breaux, John B. (D) - senator at breaux.senate.gov Maine - Collins, Susan (R) - senator at collins.senate.gov Maine - Snowe, Olympia J. (R) - olympia at snowe.senate.gov Maryland - Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) - senator at mikulski.senate.gov Maryland - Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - senator at sarbanes.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - senator at kennedy.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kerry, John F. (D) - john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov Michigan - Abraham, Spencer (R) - michigan at abraham.senate.gov Michigan - Levin, Carl (D) senator at levin.senate.gov Minnesota - Grams, Rod (R) - mail_grams at grams.senate.gov Minnesota - Wellstone, Paul D. (D) - senator at wellstone.senate.gov Mississippi - Cochran, Thad (R) - senator at cochran.senate.gov Missouri - Ashcroft, John (R) - john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov Missouri - Bond, Christopher S. (R) - kit_bond at bond.senate.gov Montana - Baucus, Max (D) - max at baucus.senate.gov Montana - Burns, Conrad R. (R) - conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov Nebraska - Kerrey, J. Robert (D) - bob at kerrey.senate.gov Nevada - Bryan, Richard H. (D) - senator at bryan.senate.gov Nevada - Reid, Harry (D) - senator_reid at reid.senate.gov New Hampshire - Gregg, Judd (R) - mailbox at gregg.senate.gov New Hampshire - Smith, Bob (R) opinion at smith.senate.gov New Jersey - Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) - frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov New Mexico - Bingaman, Jeff (D) - senator_bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov New Mexico - Domenici, Pete V. (R) - senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov New York - D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) - senator_al at damato.senate.gov New York - Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D) - senator at dpm.senate.gov North Carolina - Faircloth, Lauch (R) - senator at faircloth.senate.gov North Carolina - Helms, Jesse (R) - jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov North Dakota - Dorgan, Byron L. (D) - senator at dorgan.senate.gov Ohio - DeWine, Mike (R) - senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov Oklahoma - Nickles, Don (R) - senator at nickles.senate.gov Oregon - Wyden, Ron (D) - senator at wyden.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Santorum, Rick (R) - senator at santorum.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Specter, Arlen (R) - senator_specter at specter.senate.gov Rhode Island - Chafee, John H. (R) - senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov South Carolina - Hollings, Ernest F. (D) - senator at hollings.senate.gov South Carolina - Thurmond, Strom (R) - senator at thurmond.senate.gov South Dakota - Daschle, Thomas A. (D) - tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov Tennessee - Frist, William H. (R) - senator_frist at frist.senate.gov Tennessee - Thompson, Fred (R) - senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov Texas - Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - senator at hutchison.senate.gov Utah - Bennett, Robert F. (R) - senator at bennett.senate.gov Utah - Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov Vermont - Jeffords, James M. (R) - vermont at jeffords.senate.gov Vermont - Leahy, Patrick J. (D) - senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov Virginia - Robb, Charles S. (D) senator at robb.senate.gov Virginia - Warner, John W. (R) - senator at warner.senate.gov Washington - Gorton, Slade (R) - senator_gorton at gorton.senate.gov Washington - Murray, Patty (D) - senator_murray at murray.senate.gov West Virginia - Byrd, Robert C. (D) - senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov West Virginia - Rockefeller, John D., IV (D) - senator at rockefeller.senate.gov Wisconsin - Feingold, Russell D. (D) - senator at feingold.senate.gov Wisconsin - Kohl, Herb (D) - nator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov Wyoming - Enzi, Mike (R) - senator at enzi.senate.gov Wyoming - Thomas, Craig (R) - craig at thomas.senate.gov @@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 17:22:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:22:26 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC20DC.985DA860@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 4:22 PM, Scott Huddle[SMTP:huddle at MCI.NET] wrote: @ David, @ @ Thanks for your comments, they were very thoughtful. @ @ At 02:22 PM 2/21/97 -0800, davidk at ISI.EDU wrote: @ >Note that IPv4 space in itself is limited and that alone can distort @ >market forces. In many situations where supplies are limited, prices get @ >set artificially high and there is no guarantee that this could not @ >happen with IPv4 address space. @ @ IPv4 space is bounded (though very large), note that technologies @ such as NAT, V6, and clever use of private space expand the supply, @ though. Almost everything is limited ("buy land, God ain't makin' @ any more dirt"). In general, markets are the most efficient mechanism @ for the allocation of scarce resources. Prices aren't "set" in a market, @ they are determined by supply and demand. @ ISPs have been allocated a very small portion of the IPv4 address space. Those ISPs who have developed a gravy train of address allocations defend the system. Of course they do, they pay nothing and get all the benefits. The IPv4 address space is actually quite large. This nonsense about it being exhausted is bogus and promoted largely by people who are sitting on huge allocations. @ >Ooh, and what does Jon do with the money? Or do you want to give away the @ >address space for free and then some lucky people can make huge profits @ >or you divide it very democratically among the current Internet users @ >which will be even a better recipe for disaster. @ @ Use the inital money to fund root name servers, or the IETF, or the @ fine work at ISI :) What happens with the money from the auction of @ radio frequencies? @ I have suggested that the NSF take the $12.6 million they have already collected from the domain name taxes and help launch 49 InterNIC clones across the U.S. ARIN could be one such clone and could manage ONE /8 space. @ >> Note that the current allocation schemes can destroy the routing @ >> system and there are no methods to fix it. @ >> @ >Note that a free market system can do the same. And there are no methods @ >to fix it ... @ @ I disagree. Market demand is shaped by aggregate utility functions @ for the members in the market, obviously the utility of broken @ routing is zero, and the price for a routing slot in a broken system @ is zero. From the supply side, why would an ISP sell a route slot @ that breaks their systems? The price for that would be infinite. @ Yes... @ >The current registry system is not perfect but there is no evidence that @ >current allocation policies are destroying the routing system. In fact, @ >the policies are defined by consultation with the users of the address @ >space to avoid just that. @ @ Yes, I agreee, but there are examples of market failure (e.g. little @ sites wanting to multihome) that aren't met by the current procedural @ scheme. Also, note that not all of the users of address space are @ consulted -- only certain users get space from the registries. Indeed @ most of the "heat" on the list has been generated by those that @ feel have a stake but don't have a voice. In a market model, they @ all vote. @ You have a voice....GO TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS...!!!! @ >> Clearly, a market based scheme insists on making things work @ >> (else why buy the slot or pay for the space) @ > @ >And what happens if a free market registry sells one address block too @ >much? @ @ I'm not sure I follow. The routing slot market is controlled @ by individual ISPs, IP space by a global market. Can you clarify your @ point? @ @ >> I assert that a free market would determine the demand and supply @ >> curves and an equilibrium point for a default free routing table. @ > @ >And what if demand is bigger then supply ? @ @ Prices go up. What happens in a procedural based allocation? Do @ you tighten the allocation and make it harder to get space? This @ is effictively raising the price as well. @ @ >And what if the equilibrium point for the number of route entries is much @ >higher ? @ @ You have an effective damper on route explosion, you have a market to @ encourage renumbering, and you have a market to encourage deployment @ of additional technology such as NAT. Sounds like A Good Thing to me. @ Yes, when routing slots are "marketed", the price of advertising a /24 could become very high. At some point, the cost of renumbering is not so bad. At the moment, the people who are forced to renumber are the people who would normally be helping to clean up the market. They are put behind the eight-ball in the beginning and never become part of the solution. Instead, they get locked into "upstream providers" who then raise their rates and help reduce their profits and their ability to compete. The upstream providers do not have this problem because they have already figured out how to line up for the gravy train of IP addresses. @ How does the current procedural allocation have *any* direct control on @ route entries? The current processes are indirect at best. @ @ >The free market will certainly solve these problems but it could turn out @ >to be more expensive then our current system. @ @ Why? A free market typically drives costs *down*. I'm interested @ in your examples here. OPEC controls the supply of oil, how do @ Evil Greedy Bastards control the supply of new IP space? @ @ As a counter example, witness the Bass brothers debacle in trying to @ control the silver market. @ @ >Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of bureacratic solutions over a @ >free market economy and would prefer any free market solution. However, @ >there is no proof whatsoever, that a free market will indeed work better @ >then the current system, and even worse then that, if this turn out to be @ >the case, we cannot go back anymore. Therefore, it might be the time for @ >an experiment with a limited amount of address space to test (part of) @ >the free market theories because a free market solution indeed has a lot @ >of potential and could indeed turn out to work better, as you claim it @ >will, then the current approach. But then, this is not the topic of the @ >ARIN list but , so please reply on that list only, @ @ Thanks for these comments. @ @ best regards, @ -scott @ @ Again, ARIN could be an experiment with ONE /8 and that /8 could come from space already allocated to a company. I know of one company that might be a likely candidate to donate the space. In fact, they are helping to back ARIN and therefore NSI. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 17:50:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:50:19 -0600 Subject: Scarce IPv4 Resources Message-ID: <01BC20E0.7D670D40@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 4:40 PM, Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] wrote: @ On Saturday, February 22, 1997 9:27 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ @ > Avi, @ @ > @ @ > Do you by any chance know if anyone @ @ > in the State of Pennsylvania has a /8 ? @ @ @ @ I don't think so. @ @ @ @ The State @ @ Hershey @ @ Bethlehem Steel @ @ Prepent @ @ PSU @ @ CMU @ @ The City of Philadelphia (with two /16s) @ @ @ @ None of them seem likely to have an /8. @ @ @ @ > If not, do you have any suggestions on @ @ > who would be a good delegate ? @ @ @ @ I think that my dirty old Blue Jew Canoe (the 1988 Olds Delta 88 that I tool @ @ around town in) would make a good delegate. @ @ @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ @ @ So you seriously think that delegating /8s around to registries and potentially @ @ starting a bidding war for 'easy' address space (which can be obtained with @ @ money rather than demonstrated need and allocation history) is a good thing? @ @ @ @ Good thing the community doesn't trust you to guard our scarce resources. @ @ Can you define the community ? How can you claim the resources are scarce when ISPs have a tiny fraction of the IPv4 space ? As an ISP, can you explain how you obtained your resources ? or, are "your" resources, "our" resources...? Do all ISPs have the resources you have ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 18:15:42 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:15:42 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC20E4.091A92A0@webster.unety.net> Here is a short form 1040/19 EZ that the U.S. Government could be using to allocate /19 CIDR Blocks. @@@@@@@@@ EXAMPLE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 1. Name, address, and State of Incorporation. (Include copy of the Certificate of Incorporation) _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 2. Previously allocated blocks that will be returned 60 days after the new allocation is activated. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ 3. Contact information on the TWO service providers that have agreed to advertise your allocation. Please attach standard routing afidavits from each provider. 1. ________________________________ 2. ________________________________ 4. Business References: 1._____________________________ 2._____________________________ 3._____________________________ 3. Date Submitted and signed by an officer of the company ______________________________________ Please submit the above information along with a $500 application fee drawn on a U.S. bank. Please allow at least 5 days for processing from the date received. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sat Feb 22 18:38:57 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:38:57 -0500 Subject: NAT?? Please explain for us dunces.. References: <3.0.32.19970222160716.00736590@mci.net> Message-ID: <330F8391.273B@driveway1.com> Scott Huddle wrote: > > You have an effective damper on route explosion, you have a market to > encourage renumbering, and you have a market to encourage deployment > of additional technology such as NAT. Sounds like A Good Thing to me. > Could you possibly point to a resource for NAT? Thanx. LM Honig - aspiring Evil Greedy Bastard (like everybody else.. the dirty secret of Econ 101..) From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 22 18:50:05 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:50:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC20DC.985DA860@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > The IPv4 address space is actually quite large. This nonsense > about it being exhausted is bogus and promoted largely by people > who are sitting on huge allocations. Knowing your American-centric attitude, this statement does not surprise me. But since the IPv4 address space is a global public resource and since large parts of the world have only just started to deploy Internet connectivity on the same scale as in the USA, your argument is bogus. If the IPv4 address space was only for use in the USA, then it is probably big enough. But when you look at the projected use of IPv4 addresses in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and South America, it starts to look a LOT more constrained. And the best strategy we have to deal with potential shortages of IPv4 addresses is to allocate frugally right now. > You have a voice....GO TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS...!!!! You don't really want that Jim. Because if *I* go to *MY* elected officials then all of this stuff ends up on the table at GATT negotiations in Geneva. Believe me, neither you nor I want to see it end up like this. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From perry at PIERMONT.COM Sat Feb 22 18:56:37 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:56:37 -0500 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:15:42 CST." <01BC20E4.091A92A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702222356.SAA02534@jekyll.piermont.com> Jim Fleming writes: > Here is a short form 1040/19 EZ that the > U.S. Government could be using to allocate /19 CIDR Blocks. I've figured out why Jim spews junk day and night. Jim is being paid to expand internet traffic levels to create demand for higher bandwidth pipes from ISPs. Perry From rjoffe at GENUITY.NET Sat Feb 22 19:31:15 1997 From: rjoffe at GENUITY.NET (Rodney Joffe) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:31:15 -0700 Subject: NAT?? Please explain for us dunces.. Message-ID: Network Address Translation ref 1 http://www.safety.net ref 2 http://www.oms.co.za/overview/node2.html and lots of others. Rodney Joffe Chief Technology Officer Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net >-----Original Message----- >From: Larry Honig [SMTP:lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM] >Sent: Saturday, February 22, 1997 4:39 PM >To: naipr at netsol.com >Cc: huddle at MCI.NET >Subject: NAT?? Please explain for us dunces.. > >Scott Huddle wrote: >> >> You have an effective damper on route explosion, you have a market to >> encourage renumbering, and you have a market to encourage deployment >> of additional technology such as NAT. Sounds like A Good Thing to me. >> > >Could you possibly point to a resource for NAT? Thanx. > >LM Honig - aspiring Evil Greedy Bastard (like everybody else.. the dirty >secret of Econ 101..) From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 22 19:29:36 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ In-Reply-To: <199702222356.SAA02534@jekyll.piermont.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Jim Fleming writes: > > Here is a short form 1040/19 EZ that the > > U.S. Government could be using to allocate /19 CIDR Blocks. > > I've figured out why Jim spews junk day and night. > > Jim is being paid to expand internet traffic levels to create demand > for higher bandwidth pipes from ISPs. Sounds like he is working for the IRS too... Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 19:55:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:55:26 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC20F1.F7EC58C0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 9:50 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > The IPv4 address space is actually quite large. This nonsense @ > about it being exhausted is bogus and promoted largely by people @ > who are sitting on huge allocations. @ @ Knowing your American-centric attitude, this statement does not surprise @ me. But since the IPv4 address space is a global public resource and since @ large parts of the world have only just started to deploy Internet @ connectivity on the same scale as in the USA, your argument is bogus. @ If the IPv4 address space was only for use in the USA, then it is probably @ big enough. But when you look at the projected use of IPv4 addresses in @ Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and South America, it starts to look a @ LOT more constrained. And the best strategy we have to deal with potential @ shortages of IPv4 addresses is to allocate frugally right now. @ That is why IPv8 (and maybe IPv6) are on the horizon...:-) @ > You have a voice....GO TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS...!!!! @ @ You don't really want that Jim. Because if *I* go to *MY* elected @ officials then all of this stuff ends up on the table at GATT negotiations @ in Geneva. Believe me, neither you nor I want to see it end up like this. @ Michael, As you have pointed out, there is no Government organization in Canada. I believe you have reported several times that they are clueless. If that is the case, then it would take years for the above to occur. By that time the U.S. and any other participants will have moved forward. The address space will be expanded and of course the domain name space will be more diverse. I find it interesting that you would issue cautions against the above after supporting the IAHC with such vigor. What you have described is close to the IAHC direction. I think it is now very clear to ISPs in the U.S. that just because the Internet is "international", international solutions do not always work on a local level. This is especially true when clueless international people try to set the policies. In the U.S. we have a unique, short-term, problem. Many people ASSUME the U.S. Government is watching out for the consumers, taxpayers, businesses, etc. Elected officials ASSUME the citizens know they are on their own. The citizens are the losers. A few selected people who are working these crossed assumptions to their advantage are benefitting. This would be like saying, consumers ASSUME that meat is USDA approved. Elected officials ASSUME consumers know this is not the case and let the buyer beware is at play. As consumers get sick people on both sides are asking questions. Education is the key. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the elected officials in the U.S. are coming up to speed very quickly. I trust they will "do the right thing". The rest of the world may follow their lead, or the lead set by other groups. As I said before, my bets are on the U.S. Government. Think global and act local...for you that would be Canada. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 22 20:13:38 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:13:38 -0500 Subject: NAT?? Please explain for us dunces.. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970222201334.006bd03c@lint.cisco.com> At 06:38 PM 2/22/97 -0500, Larry Honig wrote: > >Could you possibly point to a resource for NAT? Thanx. > The concept is discussed in some amount of detail in RFC1631. See also: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/60.html - paul -- Paul Ferguson || || Consulting Engineering || || Herndon, Virginia USA |||| |||| tel: +1.703.397.5938 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. e-mail: pferguso at cisco.com c i s c o S y s t e m s From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 20:16:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:16:45 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC20F4.F242BBA0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 10:29 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote: @ @ > @ > Jim Fleming writes: @ > > Here is a short form 1040/19 EZ that the @ > > U.S. Government could be using to allocate /19 CIDR Blocks. @ > @ > I've figured out why Jim spews junk day and night. @ > @ > Jim is being paid to expand internet traffic levels to create demand @ > for higher bandwidth pipes from ISPs. @ @ Sounds like he is working for the IRS too... @ @ Maybe we should set April 15, 1997 as a deadline for ISPs in the U.S. to apply for their /19 provider independent space to free them from being tied to upstream providers who raise rates after locking them in... Actually, the ISP/C might want to consider helping to support the "batch" processing of /19 requests. As a Board member, you might want to suggest that... Here is a short form 1040/19 EZ that the U.S. Government could be using to allocate /19 CIDR Blocks. @@@@@@@@@ EXAMPLE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 1. Name, address, and State of Incorporation. (Include copy of the Certificate of Incorporation) _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 2. Previously allocated blocks that will be returned 60 days after the new allocation is activated. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ 3. Contact information on the TWO service providers that have agreed to advertise your allocation. Please attach standard routing afidavits from each provider. 1. ________________________________ 2. ________________________________ 4. Business References: 1._____________________________ 2._____________________________ 3._____________________________ 3. Date Submitted and signed by an officer of the company ______________________________________ Please submit the above information along with a $500 application fee drawn on a U.S. bank. Please allow at least 5 days for processing from the date received. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 20:27:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:27:01 -0600 Subject: ARIN Message-ID: <01BC20F6.619DB3A0@webster.unety.net> Michael, Since you are apparently and advocate of ARIN can you articulate what problem ARIN is trying to solve and why many regional registries would not solve the problem and provide more choices ? Also, does it escape you that the current restrictive policies of the InterNIC in providing IP allocations allow them to preserve as many addresses as possible so that when ARIN is formed they will have as many addresses as possible to lease (or allocate) to make as much money as possible? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 20:54:14 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:54:14 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC20FA.2E8F7E40@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 10:29 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote: @ @ > @ > Jim Fleming writes: @ > > Here is a short form 1040/19 EZ that the @ > > U.S. Government could be using to allocate /19 CIDR Blocks. @ > @ > I've figured out why Jim spews junk day and night. @ > @ > Jim is being paid to expand internet traffic levels to create demand @ > for higher bandwidth pipes from ISPs. @ @ Sounds like he is working for the IRS too... @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ By the way, speaking of "working"... Is it true that some consultants make their living as an advocate for ISPs at the InterNIC ? This is similar to the attorneys who evidently make their living at the U.S. immigration office helping people navigate through the "lines". A friend of mine, who is from Ontario, told me that at first he stood in the long lines. He kept noticing people who looked like attorneys going in an out of the offices on the side. He inquired, and he eventually hired someone to handle the whole thing. He is now a U.S. citizen with a Ph.D. in nucleur physics. It pays to understand the process. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 21:16:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:16:53 -0600 Subject: funded by the US government Message-ID: <01BC20FD.58DCA080@webster.unety.net> Subject: Re: InterNIC sanctions hate-based domain names From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Date: 1997/02/19 Message-Id: Sender: daemon at osiris.wu-Wien.ac.at Organization: WU Mail/News Gateway Reply-To: michael at memra.com Newsgroups: at.mail.com-Priv On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Bradley Dunn wrote: > > The US government doesn't pay the Internic to do anything. Their > > operations are funded by the fees charges for .COM, .NET and .ORG domain > > names. > > If this is true then the web page needs updated. > > http://www.rs.internic.net/about-rs.html > "InterNIC Registration Services is located at Network Solutions, Inc., > Herndon, VA, and is funded by a cooperative agreement from the National > Science Foundation..." It doesn't say "funded by the US government" or "funded by the NSF". If you would read the current cooperative agreement you would see that the funding in question comes from domain name registrations. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Michael, The current operational funding obviously comes from domain name sales. I see that you bought one, rather than obtaining a free Canadian registration. Obviously, you feel that has value. If you are not familiar with the entire history of the InterNIC you might want to read ALL of the documents that go into great detail. Some are easy to find on the InterNIC's web site and some of the links have been moved to more obscur locations. IF the InterNIC were a company, which it is not, the shareholders (owners) would be the U.S. taxpayers represented by the NSF which is like a Board of Directors. The NSF provided several million dollars in "seed capital" to help fund the InterNIC. That investment is now paying off. There is a fund where 30% of the domain name fees are placed for the NSF to use to fund additional infrastructure (like more NICs). There is over $12.6 million in the fund. Not only did the U.S. fund the InterNIC "financially", they funded it intellectually. Without the clout and stability of the U.S. Government the InterNIC would have no standing. The world of investors have beat a path to the door of the Internet and the InterNIC because of U.S. Government backing, funding, what have you. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 22 21:35:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:35:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC20F1.F7EC58C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ You don't really want that Jim. Because if *I* go to *MY* elected > @ officials then all of this stuff ends up on the table at GATT negotiations > @ in Geneva. Believe me, neither you nor I want to see it end up like this. > As you have pointed out, there is no Government organization > in Canada. I believe you have reported several times that they > are clueless. I have never said anything of the sort. > If that is the case, then it would take years for the above to occur. > By that time the U.S. and any other participants will have moved > forward. Don't bet on it. If everyone on this list asked their government to intervene then the possibility that Canada and Mexico and Holland and the UK and Australia and Ghana and South Africa etc. would all drag their feet is slim to none. > I find it interesting that you would issue cautions against the > above after supporting the IAHC with such vigor. The IAHC is a prime example of non-governmental industry self-regulation. So is RIPE and APNIC and ARIN. This is the best way to do things and I think you will discover that there is actually a lot of support for this approach in most Western governments including that of the USA. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 21:38:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:38:02 -0600 Subject: Ellis Island, Herndon, VA Message-ID: <01BC2100.4D47D0C0@webster.unety.net> I recently saw a show about immigration to the U.S. It described in detail what went on at Ellis Island. It was hard to believe that some people came all the way across the ocean only to be rejected because they had some physical disability. It was also surprising to see that families were separated in the processing and some did not make it out the other side. One of the most shocking parts was the fact that people who were able to book passage on the ships in the "staterooms" were allowed to walk down a different gang plank and directly into the U.S. Evidently, some of these people limped the same as the people rejected, but the difference was they had money to pay for their medical care. One has to ask, whether in 50 years the InterNIC will not be the subject of a documentary that shows how some people walk right through and other people never make it. Maybe France or Canada can donate a statue to be placed somewhere in Herndon, Virginia.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 22 21:42:24 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:42:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ In-Reply-To: <01BC20FA.2E8F7E40@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Is it true that some consultants make their living as an advocate > for ISPs at the InterNIC ? I wouldn't know. I have been asked by ISP's to handle their applications for address space with the Internic but I have declined because I feel that it is in their best interests to do this themselves. Partly this is because it isn't very complicated to go through the application process and partly since the process of documenting their downstream networks is a very valuable educational thing for the ISP. They usually find a whole range of things that need fixing in the process and, done right, it can strenghthen their relationship with their customers. > This is similar to the attorneys who evidently make their living > at the U.S. immigration office helping people navigate through > the "lines". A friend of mine, who is from Ontario, told me that > at first he stood in the long lines. He kept noticing people who > looked like attorneys going in an out of the offices on the side. See what happens when you get the politicians and the lawyers involved. No thanks Jim, I'll stick with RIPE, APNIC, the Internic and the soon to be formed ARIN. Industry self-regulation all the way. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 21:54:43 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:54:43 -0600 Subject: Canadian Comments Message-ID: <01BC2102.A1A30D40@webster.unety.net> Subject: IP addresses are no longer free. You must pay a US company to get one. From: richard at interlog.com (Richard Sexton) Date: 1997/02/05 Message-Id: <5d97dq$6gc at gold.interlog.com> Organization: Gryphon Gang North Followup-To: can.infohighway Newsgroups: can.infohighway,can.general,ont.general,tor.general IP addresses in Canada used to be allocated out of the University of Toronto. About a year or so ago, this reverted to the InterNIC when U of T dropped funding for this program. To date, IP addresses are free. This will end shortly. The InterNIC is going to spin off a subsidiary that will handle IP allocations for the US and Caanda. The bottom line here is Canadians will be paying an american company for IP addresses. The figure that has been tossed about is $2500 per Class C. If you want this to happen, do nothing. If you want to have some input into this process, you'd better hurry up and state your feelings. There is a mailing list set up to discuss this impending change: the address is pagan at apnic.net. -- Richard Sexton richard at alter.nic We are all the Alter.NIC richard at vrx.net http://www.alternic.net @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Richard, You might want to check out http://www.arin.net. There is a mailing list as you can see above. Also, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is interested in input. You probably have those addresses from the Top Level Domain discussions which are really about the same topics. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Sat Feb 22 20:49:14 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:49:14 -0600 Subject: ARIN Fragments the InterNIC In-Reply-To: <01BC20D9.8C8A57C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: >"no government money"...?...here is $1.4 million... What's a piddly $1.4M research grant (the gov't gives these away all the time, the fact that it's on routing technology is not special) compared to the $300M that UUnet is spending to upgrade it's dialup pools and backbone? >I agree IP allocation needs to be done. > >I have suggested that ARIN take ONE /8 and go do that >as a private company, enforced by the government, using >your words. >Why not have ARIN start small and prove the concept ? > >It is called the "slow start" program for regional registries... And in the meantime what's done with the rest? Someone ought to spend a little money on an IP protocol with more than 4 bytes of address space. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business (888) HYPERMALL bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 21:58:22 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:58:22 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2103.24750AC0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 8:47 PM, Steven Bellovin[SMTP:smb at research.att.com] wrote: @ If you want to obtain a /19, you need to work with your @ elected representatives and the people they are paying @ to manage the Internet. @ @ I suggest that you start with the NSF. You might be @ surprised at how quickly the U.S. Government responds @ to taxpayers and businesses who are in the U.S. to help @ create jobs which support people who pay taxes. @ @ The major problem with this is that it contradicts reality. By all @ accounts, NSF wants to do less with respect to running the Internet. @ For the last 15+ years, there has been a strong push away from @ governmental action and regulation. This may be bad or good -- and @ as a card-carrying liberal, I have very grave doubts about the wisdom @ of this trend -- but there is little doubt that it exists. @ @ That is true, but there is still one year left on the agreements the NSF set up. Just because some people may want to cash out early does not compel the NSF to make quick decisions. They certainly have not made quick decisions before, why start now. With one year left, I suggest that people work on developing a transition plan. I have suggested that the NSF help to fund 49 NICs with the $12.6 million dollar trust fund. This will help to establish an InterNIC in each State and then the current InterNIC can become the Internet tax collector for Virginia. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 22 22:05:22 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:05:22 -0500 Subject: ARIN Fragments the InterNIC Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970222220519.006c7504@lint.cisco.com> At 07:49 PM 2/22/97 -0600, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >And in the meantime what's done with the rest? Someone ought to spend a >little money on an IP protocol with more than 4 bytes of address space. > Right. It's called IPv6, and we'll just have a bigger mess on our hands. - paul From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 22:04:37 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:04:37 -0600 Subject: Canada NIC on the way... Message-ID: <01BC2104.03F67300@webster.unety.net> Contrary to what some Canadians may say, it appears that Canada is working on RE-establishing their InterNIC.... This is great news. This is the way to expand the Internet. The right people doing the right thing....!!! JF @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: Re: IP addresses are no longer free. You must pay a US company to get one. From: rob at romel.com (Rob Hall) Date: 1997/02/06 Message-Id: <5ddpl0$foj$1 at goblin.uunet.ca> References: <5d97dq$6gc at gold.interlog.com> <32F7F5FC.7272 at memra.com> Organization: Romel Corporation Newsgroups: can.infohighway In article <32F7F5FC.7272 at memra.com>, michael at memra.com says... >Richard Sexton wrote: >> IP addresses in Canada used to be allocated out of the University of Toronto. >And the guy who did it didn't even know what CIDR was... Actually, Herb was VERY knowledgeable and capable. Although overworked, he was very conscientious and cared about misuse etc. > >> About a year or so ago, this reverted to the InterNIC when U of T dropped >> funding for this program. > >Not to mention people like me lobbying to have the InterNIC take over >this job rather than have a secret society do it like CAIP had proposed. actually, I don't remember you contacting either CAIP, or the InterNIC about your objections. Currently CAIP has a committee tasked with bringing the IP registry back to within Canada. Their report and recomendations should be available soon. Shortly after this, you can expect to see the IP registry for Canada back in Canadian hands. -- Rob Hall voice (613) 224-2400 fax (613) 225-7733 Internet Shop.Net Inc. info sales at shop.net rob at shop.net www http://www.shop.net/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 22:31:58 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:31:58 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2107.D5FAC380@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 12:35 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ The IAHC is a prime example of non-governmental industry self-regulation. @ So is RIPE and APNIC and ARIN. This is the best way to do things and I @ think you will discover that there is actually a lot of support for this @ approach in most Western governments including that of the USA. @ "non-govermental" for you appears to be zero government. I find it interesting that many of the people you support are being funded by the U.S. Government. Why don't they give up that funding ? "Industry self-regulation" being done by people who are funded by the government, and who actively exclude the industry members is worse than direct interaction between the industry and the government. There are THREE groups.... 1. 100% Government 2. 100% Commercial 3. the switch-hitters.... I am confident the first two groups can work together and build a stable and reliable system that is responsive to the commercial marketplace and accountable to the people via the refereeing provided by #1. The combination of #1 and #3 is a maze of twisty passages and that maze goes nowhere.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 22:37:41 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:37:41 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC2108.A2BA3AE0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 12:42 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ See what happens when you get the politicians and the lawyers involved. @ No thanks Jim, I'll stick with RIPE, APNIC, the Internic and the soon @ to be formed ARIN. Industry self-regulation all the way. @ @ If ARIN is what you call industry self-regulation, then why doesn't ARIN step out into the industry...? Why does ARIN need to be able to advertise on the U.S. Government's InterNIC web site ? Other companies are not allowed to advertise there.... Why doesn't ARIN advertise on Network Solutions site, and BBN's site...? Why doesn't BBN just back ARIN...? Why is the U.S. Government's InterNIC brought into play ? If Disney wants to build a theme park they obtain land and do it. They do not expect the U.S. Government to deed over Yellowstone to make sure they succeed. The people behind ARIN are not the "industry". They are funded by the U.S. Government. Why are they trying to use U.S. Government intellectual property to launch their private business ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 22:42:31 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:42:31 -0600 Subject: ARIN Fragments the InterNIC Message-ID: <01BC2109.4F6B8500@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 7:49 PM, Jawaid Bazyar[SMTP:bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM] wrote: @ >"no government money"...?...here is $1.4 million... @ @ What's a piddly $1.4M research grant (the gov't gives these away all the @ time, the fact that it's on routing technology is not special) compared to @ the $300M that UUnet is spending to upgrade it's dialup pools and backbone? @ Who was it that said..."a million here, a million there"... pretty soon this adds up to real money... By the way..you originally claimed there was no government funding. Have you looked into the funding the FNC provides to the IANA...? @ >I agree IP allocation needs to be done. @ > @ >I have suggested that ARIN take ONE /8 and go do that @ >as a private company, enforced by the government, using @ >your words. @ @ >Why not have ARIN start small and prove the concept ? @ > @ >It is called the "slow start" program for regional registries... @ @ And in the meantime what's done with the rest? Someone ought to spend a @ little money on an IP protocol with more than 4 bytes of address space. @ IPv8 has 43 bit addresses IPv6 has 128 bit addresses -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 23:33:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:33:30 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2110.6E583880@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 12:35 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ You don't really want that Jim. Because if *I* go to *MY* elected @ > @ officials then all of this stuff ends up on the table at GATT negotiations @ > @ in Geneva. Believe me, neither you nor I want to see it end up like this. @ @ > As you have pointed out, there is no Government organization @ > in Canada. I believe you have reported several times that they @ > are clueless. @ @ I have never said anything of the sort. @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Please see below..... "Right now CAIP strikes me as a bunch of good old boys in an ivory tower planning a secret power grab. They are clearly a clueless bunch" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ > If that is the case, then it would take years for the above to occur. @ > By that time the U.S. and any other participants will have moved @ > forward. @ @ Don't bet on it. If everyone on this list asked their government to @ intervene then the possibility that Canada and Mexico and Holland and the @ UK and Australia and Ghana and South Africa etc. would all drag their feet @ is slim to none. @ @ > I find it interesting that you would issue cautions against the @ > above after supporting the IAHC with such vigor. @ @ The IAHC is a prime example of non-governmental industry self-regulation. @ So is RIPE and APNIC and ARIN. This is the best way to do things and I @ think you will discover that there is actually a lot of support for this @ approach in most Western governments including that of the USA. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ @ Re: IP and Domain Committee looking for members ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .Subject: Re: IP and Domain Committee looking for members .From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) .Date: 29 Mar 1996 23:12:27 -0800 .Newsgroups: can.infohighway .Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting - http://www.memra.com .References: <4htj4u$cr7 at news.ottawa.net> <315097da.14158676 at news.agt.net> <4j6t45$rti at mindy.mcd.on.ca> <4jacr3$j6d at news.nstn.ca> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In article <4jacr3$j6d at news.nstn.ca>, Eric Carroll wrote: >It needs to be kept in mind that IP allocation is not something that one >does as a hobby. IP allocation is fundamentally intertwined with >the daily operation of the public Internet, its topology and routing >infrastructure. While handling individual IP allocations does not require >heavy technical assistance, the job of setting the allocations policies, >and auditing the large applications requires a moderate to >large amount of comprehension of the issues and problems of the Internet >on global basis. IP allocation policy requires heavy lifting. I agree with everything you say here about IP allocation. Domain names are an entirely diffrenet thing however. >I believe you need an advisory group representative of the public involved >in any industry consortium. But, fundamentally, the policies of IP allocation >must be set for technical reasons. And that requires lots of >operational experience. The sort of advisory council you refer to in this paragraph has no need to be anything other than 100% open, public and above-board. I think the most appropriate wat to handle that is with an open mailing list and a WWW site that contains full archives of the list discussions. The people on the advisory council should never have any need to meet in person. The actual IP allocation policies may well be set by a separate group of people but again, there is no need for anonymity and those policies should be fully public if for no other reason than to allow IP address users to make reasonable and rational plans for IP number utilization and to make reasonable and rational requests for IP numbers. >IP allocation is fundamentally a thankless job, because you are the >conservation officer on a big game farm in open season. Even more thankless because so few people, even technical people, understand the issues of CIDRization, global routing table size, flapping, the implications of punching holes in a block, SPRINT's current routing policies and so on. If anything, this cries out for a completely open and public and thoroughly documented policy and process in order to educate people about just what IP numbers are, why you may need (or not need them vix. RFC198), and how to plan ahead for things like the inevitable network renumbering you will do ever year or two (PIER, DHCP, etc.). Right now CAIP strikes me as a bunch of good old boys in an ivory tower planning a secret power grab. They are clearly a clueless bunch as regards their political savvy and this is a HUGE black mark against them considering how much political skill is required to be the conservation officer on the IP game farm in open season. There is no indication that these people have even a basic understanding of the issues at hand. Certainly the existing IP registry can't teach them anything because they didn't know anything either (viz. the NANOG archives). And mixing together two totally unrelated functions (.CA domain registry and the Canadiain IP allocations) does not strike me as a very wise move. When CAIP made their announcements and for several days afterwards the current .CA domain committee people (John Demco) did not even know about CAIP's intentions re the .CA domain (another political faux pas on their part) and he only found out about it on a US mailing list (viz com-priv archives). It astonishes me that CAIP has not yet even suggested that they might reconsider their "secret society" requirements for anonymity even after the outcry from some respected members of Canada's Internet community, most of whose names I recognize which is more than I can say for the CAIP board members. -- Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) 0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 23 00:01:55 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:01:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC2107.D5FAC380@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ The IAHC is a prime example of non-governmental industry self-regulation. > @ So is RIPE and APNIC and ARIN. This is the best way to do things and I > @ think you will discover that there is actually a lot of support for this > @ approach in most Western governments including that of the USA. > "non-govermental" for you appears to be zero government. Precisely! There is no need for any government involvement whatsoever in the management of the Internet infrastructure. > "Industry self-regulation" being done by people who are > funded by the government, and who actively exclude the > industry members is worse than direct interaction between > the industry and the government. I don't understand why you are writing this. In the context of this mailing list the only people funded by the government are the research and education community and since they are big users of IP address space I don't see any good reason to block them from involvement in ARIN. In fact, the massive success and the fast growth of the Internet is due in large measure to the fact that the research community, the network operators and the equipment manufacturers all work closely together to greatly reduce the time it takes for research to become reality. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 23 00:34:06 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:34:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ In-Reply-To: <01BC2108.A2BA3AE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Why does ARIN need to be able to advertise on the > U.S. Government's InterNIC web site ? Other companies > are not allowed to advertise there.... > If Disney wants to build a theme park they obtain land > and do it. They do not expect the U.S. Government to > deed over Yellowstone to make sure they succeed. We had a situation here in British Columbia a few years back when the Social Credit government decided to privatize highway maintenance. The Social Credit party was somewhat further right on the political spectrum than the U.S. Republican party and some of you may be aware of the fact that Vancouver, B.C. is the home of a right wing think tank named the Fraser Institute. So basically we have a strongly free-market party that has decided to privatize an essential government service. Highways in B.C. require more maintenance than in less mountainous areas due to the large amount of snowfall and the common occurence of rocks falling on the roads even though they do attempt to stop rockslides before they occur. How did they proceed? Did they just stop maintaining the roads, fire the employees, sell the equipment and then put it up for bids? NO! They encouraged employees in the various regions to band together, seek financing, buy the existing equipment at fair market value and then bid on contracts. All the infrastructure that was in place was carefully transferred into private hands. Once the contracts were announced there were some strange situations where the contract for the Central Okanagan was won by the company in the North Okanagan and the Central Okanagan company won a contract in the Kootenays. But such is life. The companies made some deals trading their equipment yards and reshuffled things. Winter came, the roads got plowed, the rocks got scaled (scraped off the cliffs beside the highway) there were a few complaints, eventually some companies bought out others, and the service was more or less continued with no disruption. This is a model for privatization that has played out in various other places in the world and it is no surprise to me that ARIN will come into existence in much the same way. An essential service is provided by the Internic's IP allocation department and the service must be transferred to industry oversight with a minimum of disruption. Please do not misinterpret my use of the Social Credit example above to imply that I think there is a right wing political agenda at play here. I don't believe there is and I think that even people with a middle-of-the-road political agenda or a socialist political agenda would rather not see governments in the USA concern themselves with regulating the Internet when there are far more serious social issues that should be getting government attention. Governments have limited resources and it makes no sense for them to rob Peter to pay Paul, when Paul is the wealthy and rapidly growing Internet industry that has expressed a willingness to fairly and openly regulate itself. If you were to compare the Internet industry self-regulation efforts to self-regulation in the medical or legal profession, I think you will see that the Internet industry operates more fairly and more openly than either. Cooperation is second nature to people involved in the Internet because without cooperation and a willingness to communicate fairly with others in the industry, you simply cannot build an internetwork. This includes the fact that most larger companies in the Internet industry are willing to nurture and support their smaller competitors because these same companies are usually their largest customers. This fact of life is the main reason why I do not expect ARIN to have any negative impact on small ISP's at all. This doesn't mean that IP allocation policies don't cause some problems for small ISP's but those are global problems, not just specific to this region or to ARIN. And solutions to those problems are more likely to come about once we have settled the transition of North America's IP allocation services to ARIN because then we have three regional bodies (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC) who are responsible to their ISP members and who must act fairly and must be seen to act fairly. In addition, those who claim that small ISP's can only find relief by changing the IP allocation policies are rather short-sighted. There are free market solutions to their problems that do not require any involvement from ARIN and that do not require any change to policies. The most notable solution is for the small ISP to build a redundant infrastructure with multiple connections to a single upstream provider who provisions their network so that no single-point failures will impact the downstream ISP. This is something that can be done today and some regionals providers already supply their downstream ISP customers with such a service. If it became more widely known that there was a demand for this service then more regional providers would offer the service. Also, please not that even if an ISP does receive portable address space from ARIN and multihomes to two of the large backbone providers, they are not necessarily guaranteed immunity from single point failures. There is one case in which the telco put both T1's through the same fibre bundle under a bridge and a fire melted the cable. In the Northeast a cable break on a railway line broke regional connections for three backbone providers. A gas leak in California shut down a colo center when the fire department shut off power to the area and refused to allow diesel generators to operate. In San Francisco, runoff from the recent rains flooded an underground transformer and knocked out power to a colo center where most participants had neglected to install generators. The list could go on and on. The importnat lesson is that some problems are better solved by the free market and by attention to engineering issues, not by changing policies. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 00:55:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:55:53 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC211B.F12B1F60@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 3:01 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ The IAHC is a prime example of non-governmental industry self-regulation. @ > @ So is RIPE and APNIC and ARIN. This is the best way to do things and I @ > @ think you will discover that there is actually a lot of support for this @ > @ approach in most Western governments including that of the USA. @ @ > "non-govermental" for you appears to be zero government. @ @ Precisely! There is no need for any government involvement whatsoever @ in the management of the Internet infrastructure. @ OK...then can all of the government funding be cut off...? @ > "Industry self-regulation" being done by people who are @ > funded by the government, and who actively exclude the @ > industry members is worse than direct interaction between @ > the industry and the government. @ @ I don't understand why you are writing this. In the context of this @ mailing list the only people funded by the government are the research and @ education community and since they are big users of IP address space @ I don't see any good reason to block them from involvement in ARIN. @ @ In fact, the massive success and the fast growth of the Internet is due @ in large measure to the fact that the research community, the network @ operators and the equipment manufacturers all work closely together @ to greatly reduce the time it takes for research to become reality. @ "reduce the time".....????? Does this mean that IPv6 will be here RSN....? Will ARIN be handling IPv6 addresses...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 23 01:10:39 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:10:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC2110.6E583880@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ > As you have pointed out, there is no Government organization > @ > in Canada. I believe you have reported several times that they > @ > are clueless. > @ > @ I have never said anything of the sort. > Please see below..... > > "Right now CAIP strikes me as a bunch of good old boys in an ivory tower > planning a secret power grab. They are clearly a clueless bunch" CAIP is not the government of Canada, merely a few telcos and large ISP's who have formed an association and whose public announcements clearly proclaim that they are a clueless bunch. [stuff deleted from an old can.infohighway posting I made after reading CAIP's initial public announcements] > Certainly the existing IP registry can't teach them anything because they > didn't know anything either (viz. the NANOG archives). This refers to the existing Canadian IP registry at the time which was basically one guy. The NANOG reference is because of a help message that this fellow posted to the NANOG list that indicated he had been rather lax in his efforts at keeping up with IP registry developments over the years. For example: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9601/msg00074.html http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9601/msg00076.html http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9601/msg00083.html http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9601/msg00084.html http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9601/msg00085.html http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9601/msg00086.html Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 23 08:41:07 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:41:07 -0500 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970223084102.006a92c4@lint.cisco.com> At 09:01 PM 2/22/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >I don't understand why you are writing this. In the context of this >mailing list the only people funded by the government are the research and >education community and since they are big users of IP address space >I don't see any good reason to block them from involvement in ARIN. > I don't understand why you even bothering answering this dreck. It looks like that instead of just placing a 'From:' filter on Fleming, I'm going to have to filter any message that has a reference to him anywhere in the message header, or message body, to get any satisfaction here. - paul From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 12:29:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:29:50 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC217C.E2288960@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 3:34 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ This is a model for privatization that has played out in various other @ places in the world and it is no surprise to me that ARIN will come @ into existence in much the same way. An essential service is provided by @ the Internic's IP allocation department and the service must be @ transferred to industry oversight with a minimum of disruption. @ Why not have at least 50 ARINs in the United States and several in Canada ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 12:36:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:36:32 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC217D.D1E67020@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 3:34 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ This doesn't mean that IP allocation policies don't cause some problems @ for small ISP's but those are global problems, not just specific to this @ region or to ARIN. And solutions to those problems are more likely to come @ about once we have settled the transition of North America's IP allocation @ services to ARIN because then we have three regional bodies (ARIN, RIPE, @ APNIC) who are responsible to their ISP members and who must act fairly @ and must be seen to act fairly. @ "we have settled the transition".... "we have three regional bodies..." Who is we...? Why are there only three...? Is your goal to make things fair or to make your friends rich ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 13:01:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:01:32 -0600 Subject: Short Form 1040/19 EZ Message-ID: <01BC2181.501CE520@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, February 22, 1997 3:34 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ If you were to compare the Internet industry self-regulation efforts to @ self-regulation in the medical or legal profession, I think you will see @ that the Internet industry operates more fairly and more openly than @ either. Cooperation is second nature to people involved in the Internet @ because without cooperation and a willingness to communicate fairly with @ others in the industry, you simply cannot build an internetwork. OK Michael...."cooperation and communication"...;-) Below is the proposed Board of Directors of this proposed "start-up", called ARIN. You propose this for North America. Do you feel this group is "representative" ? Has this group been communicating on this discussion list with each other or the people on this list ? Is this what you call cooperation and communication ? Network Solutions, Inc. Donald N. Telage, Ph.D, President and Chief Operating Officer at Network Solutions Inc. Jon Postel - Director of the IANA and subcontractor to Network Solutions, Inc. Kim Hubbard - manager of IP registration for the InterNIC Internet Society Raymundo Vega Aguilar - CICESE in Ensenada, Mexico Randy Bush - consultant John Curran - Chief Technical Officer, BBN Planet Scott Bradner - Harvard University ISPs ???? Telcos ???? Other registries ???? Industry Groups ???? Average companies and people ???? Canadian Government ???? Mexican Government ???? U.S. Government ???? Now...what was that again...?..."communicate fairly with others in the industry"... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 15:11:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:11:00 -0600 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries Message-ID: <01BC2193.663B4240@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 1:04 PM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at ACCUTEK.COM] wrote: @ ABSTRACT: Instead of building multiple stand-alone registries, or even one @ stand-along registry, let's consider asking an existing organization with @ Registry and Internet experience to take on the ARIN function. This means @ that the overhead to support the Registry is shared with other functions. @ Specific organizations are mentioned as possibilities. @ @ Thanks for a real discussion...maybe you should be on the ARIN "Board"... the rest of the Board members do not seem to be taking an interest in ARIN. I guess they do not have time. That worries me... @ To all: @ I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each @ state of the United States, and infer from some other comments that each @ territorality (state, province, and small country) should have a Registry @ for Internet Numbers. I wish to state my opposition to such a distributed @ registry and present my rationale for that opposition thusly. @ I base my opposition on the Three Laws of Murphy: (1) It's never as @ easy as it looks; (2) It always takes longer than you think; and (3) if @ anything can go wrong, it will. Let's look at how these quixotic laws @ would work in the multiple-Registry environment, using the existing @ automobile registration system in the United States as our parallel model. @ It goes without saying that the existing vehicle tag system can issue @ the same license number to at least 50 different vehicles. I say "at @ least" because some states have issued the same number multiple times to @ different vehicles, and also because some people have committed fraud and @ have a single tag adorning multiple vehicles. Law enforcement *hates* this @ scheme, because it means that an officer has to learn the "colors" of each @ state -- and the problem is compounded by states issuing difference schemes @ of plates. (Nevada has three separate color schemes for its vehicle tags, @ for example.) @ The suggestion has been to allocate an /8 to each registry. I contend @ that you might want to consider allocating blocks of /12 because no every @ registry is going to need the full 16-million-endpoint assignments, not to @ mention the problem of eating numbers so fast that growth of the Internet @ outside of North America would be stifled. @ If you have as few as 60 Registries in North America (notice I'm not @ even looking at Central or South America at this point) you have a *huge* @ fixed overhead expense incurred by each registry. Remember, in my strawman @ back-of-the-envelope budget, about a million dollars went for minimal staff @ and overhead all by itself. So instead of having a two-million aggregate @ budget, you would have AT LEAST SIXTY MILLION aggregate budget. @ I don't think so. @ *** @ I understand your points and respect your opinion. I would point out that the U.S. Government and people in general like to see commerce expand. There are many operations in the U.S. and elsewhere which could be run with 1/100th the staff. This often does not occur because people need jobs and companies like to employ people as long as it helps maximize their bottom line. Also, you are missing the fact that the registries that I proposed are just the tip of the ice-berg of a new industry. That industry can not grow if you do not seed the landscape with people who understand the basics and train themselves to take on the next levels and products that will naturally come to the "registry industry". I consider the 49 new registries to be an investment, an investment in America's future in the registry industry. That industry goes far, far beyond domain names and IP addresses. If the U.S. does not make these investments, using the NSF trust fund established for such a purpose, then the U.S. runs the risk of losing out to "off-shore" registries and traditional banking nations like Switzerland. Please do not judge the ice-berg by the small tip you see... and please do sell your fellow Americans short... @ @ So let's look at another direction. So much of the budget would be @ for office space, basic office services such as payroll, accounts @ receivable, accounts payable, and the ONE PERSON really doing the work we @ need, doling out Internet Numbers. Two million dollars to support ONE @ PERSON. For based on the comments on the list, one person could handle @ easily 300 allocations -- if that's all that is involved. That works out @ to less than two allocations per business day. @ So why do we need a large staff? So why do we need to have this huge @ connectivity? Another entity is responsible for the functionality of the @ DNS, and IN-ADDR.ARPA is a ---DNS--- function, not an allocation function. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ The ARIN person would give out numbers that are guaranteed to be uniquely @ allocated, from ONE place in the Americas. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ This my friend is the heart of the problem....."The ARIN person".... If that person is white...will blacks receive numbers...? If that person is a man...will women receive numbers...? If that person is a woman...will men receive numbers...? If that person is a Catholic...will Protestants receive numbers...? ...are you getting the picture....???...if not, I can provide a few more... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The person obtaining the @ allocation then pays a fee to the DNS maintenance people for the ability to @ have endpoints in that allocation looked up using IN-ADDR.ARPA. @ Co-ordination with the DNS folks? That can be done by allowing the DNS @ authority to access the ARIN assignment database (maybe even have ARIN send @ the database at intervals) so that requests can be authenticated. @ @ @ COUNTER-PROPOSAL: @ @ Have Kim go to work for IEEE in their Registry department, where they @ already have the infrastructure in place: connectivity, support staff, @ office space, and all the rest. Instead of a $3 million a year budget, the @ budget could be as small as $150K a year, fully burdened. @ As for membership, the IEEE already has a full scheme in place. @ Don't like the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers? Then @ talk to the ACM, Association for Computing Machinery. All the comments @ about the IEEE also apply to the ACM. @ Policy would be set by existing organizations and groups. If we don't @ have one already performing the function, we should get the organizations @ who are most concerned about the routing problem under one virtual roof and @ hash out what would be acceptable to them, and ARIN could then use that as @ policy direction. @ @ --- @ Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} @ for contact and other info @ Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. @ I would support your idea that the IEEE, ACM and similar bodies become registries. They could be one of many and using your save money arguement, this would be a low-cost way to start. I guess I do not understand why the world should be concerned about who works where....this is not some employment service is it...?....also, why is it a forgone conclusion who is going to work at ARIN...?...if and when the company is formed, I assume the employment office will be clearly labeled... Will ARIN be an equal opportunity employer...? Will ARIN be an equal opportunity registry...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 15:18:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:18:48 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2194.7CEE4E00@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 8:17 AM, James Smallacombe[SMTP:james at PIL.NET] wrote: @ On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: @ @ Stephen: @ @ It is obvious that you have spent little or no time in inet-access or any @ of the other lists that Fleming completely disrupts with his insane "IPv8" @ and other drivel. Personally, I can't understand why people still respond @ to anything he says. @ @ It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with @ Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. @ @ James Smallacombe Internet Access for Bucks County @ james at pil.net And Philadelphia, PA. @ PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net @ "I'll plant Plantagenet, root him up who dares." 3Henry Vi, I,i @ @ @ Dear Mr. Smallacombe: I think it is an insult to Stephen to try to tell him what he will think in the future. Also, you fail to mention that many of the discussions this part year have resulted in significant progress. Several companies are actively installing more equipment this weekend as a result of those efforts. I am sorry of that frustrates you. I would suggest that you show what progress you have made as a result of your comments in the forums you reference. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 15:25:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:25:32 -0600 Subject: New Registries Message-ID: <01BC2195.6E58FA60@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 8:17 AM, James Smallacombe[SMTP:james at PIL.NET] wrote: @ On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: @ @ @ Stephen: @ @ It is obvious that you have spent little or no time in inet-access or any @ of the other lists that Fleming completely disrupts with his insane "IPv8" @ and other drivel. Personally, I can't understand why people still respond @ to anything he says. @ @ It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with @ Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. @ @ James Smallacombe Internet Access for Bucks County @ james at pil.net And Philadelphia, PA. @ PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net @ "I'll plant Plantagenet, root him up who dares." 3Henry Vi, I,i @ @ @ Dear Mr. Smallacombe: Can you describe how many registries that you have helped to start in the last 12 months ? For that matter, can any of the proposed members of the Board document their track records in starting and efficiently running registries ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 15:46:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:46:55 -0600 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries Message-ID: <01BC2198.6A7C2E00@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 1:04 PM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at ACCUTEK.COM] wrote: @ The suggestion has been to allocate an /8 to each registry. I contend @ that you might want to consider allocating blocks of /12 because no every @ registry is going to need the full 16-million-endpoint assignments, not to @ mention the problem of eating numbers so fast that growth of the Internet @ outside of North America would be stifled. Stephen, I apologize for being distracted in our discussion here. Continuing, I suggest that you review the latest delegation information before you draw too many conclusions.... 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) 2.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-2) 3.0.0.0 General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) 5.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-5) 6.0.0.0 Army Information Systems Center (NET-YPG-NET) 7.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-11) 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 25.0.0.0 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (NET-RSRE-EXP) 26.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) 27.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-10) 28.0.0.0 ARPA DSI JPO (NET-DSI-NORTH) 29.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) 30.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) 31.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-12) 32.0.0.0 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) 33.0.0.0 DLA Systems Automation Center (NET-DCMC) 34.0.0.0 Halliburton Company (NET-HALLIBURTON) 35.0.0.0 Merit Network Inc. (NET-MERIT) 36.0.0.0 Stanford University (NET-SU-NET-TEMP) 37.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-37A) 38.0.0.0 Performance Systems International (NET-PSINETA) 39.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-39A) 40.0.0.0 Eli Lilly and Company (NET-LILLY-NET) 41.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (RESERVED-41A) 42.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-42) 43.0.0.0 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) 44.0.0.0 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) 45.0.0.0 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) 47.0.0.0 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) 48.0.0.0 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49.0.0.0 No match for "49.0.0.0". 50.0.0.0 No match for "50.0.0.0". 51.0.0.0 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) 52.0.0.0 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) 53.0.0.0 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) 54.0.0.0 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) 55.0.0.0 Army National Guard Bureau (NET-RCAS2) 56.0.0.0 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) 57.0.0.0 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (NET-SITA2) 58.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-58) 59.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-59) 60.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-60) 61.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-61) 62.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-62) 63.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-63) 64.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 65.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 66.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 67.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 68.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 69.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 70.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 71.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 72.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 73.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 74.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 75.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 76.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 77.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 78.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 79.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 80.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 81.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 82.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 83.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 84.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 85.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 86.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 87.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 88.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 89.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 90.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 91.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 92.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 93.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 94.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 95.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 96.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 97.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 98.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 99.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 100.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 101.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 102.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 103.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 104.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 105.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 106.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 107.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 108.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 109.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 110.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 111.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 112.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 113.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 114.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 115.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 116.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 117.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 118.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 119.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 120.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 121.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 122.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 123.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 124.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 125.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 126.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 127.0.0.0 IANA (LOOPBACK) 128.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-3) 129.0.0.0 No match for "129.0.0.0". 130.0.0.0 No match for "130.0.0.0". 131.0.0.0 No match for "131.0.0.0". 132.0.0.0 No match for "132.0.0.0". 133.0.0.0 Japan Network Information Center (NETBLK-JAPANB-INET) 134.0.0.0 No match for "134.0.0.0". 135.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT-135-0-0-0-B) 136.0.0.0 No match for "136.0.0.0". 137.0.0.0 No match for "137.0.0.0". 138.0.0.0 No match for "138.0.0.0". 139.0.0.0 No match for "139.0.0.0". 140.0.0.0 No match for "140.0.0.0". 141.0.0.0 No match for "141.0.0.0". 142.0.0.0 No match for "142.0.0.0". 143.0.0.0 No match for "143.0.0.0". 144.0.0.0 No match for "144.0.0.0". 145.0.0.0 No match for "145.0.0.0". 146.0.0.0 No match for "146.0.0.0". 147.0.0.0 No match for "147.0.0.0". 148.0.0.0 No match for "148.0.0.0". 149.0.0.0 No match for "149.0.0.0". 150.0.0.0 No match for "150.0.0.0". 151.0.0.0 No match for "151.0.0.0". 152.0.0.0 No match for "152.0.0.0". 153.0.0.0 No match for "153.0.0.0". 154.0.0.0 No match for "154.0.0.0". 155.0.0.0 No match for "155.0.0.0". 156.0.0.0 No match for "156.0.0.0". 157.0.0.0 No match for "157.0.0.0". 158.0.0.0 No match for "158.0.0.0". 159.0.0.0 No match for "159.0.0.0". 160.0.0.0 No match for "160.0.0.0". 161.0.0.0 No match for "161.0.0.0". 162.0.0.0 No match for "162.0.0.0". 163.0.0.0 No match for "163.0.0.0". 164.0.0.0 No match for "164.0.0.0". 165.0.0.0 No match for "165.0.0.0". 166.0.0.0 No match for "166.0.0.0". 167.0.0.0 No match for "167.0.0.0". 168.0.0.0 No match for "168.0.0.0". 169.0.0.0 No match for "169.0.0.0". 170.0.0.0 No match for "170.0.0.0". 171.0.0.0 No match for "171.0.0.0". 172.0.0.0 No match for "172.0.0.0". 173.0.0.0 No match for "173.0.0.0". 174.0.0.0 No match for "174.0.0.0". 175.0.0.0 No match for "175.0.0.0". 176.0.0.0 No match for "176.0.0.0". 177.0.0.0 No match for "177.0.0.0". 178.0.0.0 No match for "178.0.0.0". 179.0.0.0 No match for "179.0.0.0". 180.0.0.0 No match for "180.0.0.0". 181.0.0.0 No match for "181.0.0.0". 182.0.0.0 No match for "182.0.0.0". 183.0.0.0 No match for "183.0.0.0". 184.0.0.0 No match for "184.0.0.0". 185.0.0.0 No match for "185.0.0.0". 186.0.0.0 No match for "186.0.0.0". 187.0.0.0 No match for "187.0.0.0". 188.0.0.0 No match for "188.0.0.0". 189.0.0.0 No match for "189.0.0.0". 190.0.0.0 No match for "190.0.0.0". 191.0.0.0 No match for "191.0.0.0". 192.0.0.0 IANA (NET-ROOT-NS-LAB) 193.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE) 194.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C2) 195.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C) 196.0.0.0 No match for "196.0.0.0". 197.0.0.0 No match for "197.0.0.0". 198.0.0.0 InterNIC Registration (INTERNIC-BLK) 199.0.0.0 US Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINT-BLKA) 200.0.0.0 HOCOL S.A. (NET-SHELL-1) 201.0.0.0 No match for "201.0.0.0". 202.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) APNIC-CIDR-BLK 203.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) APNIC-CIDR-BLK 204.0.0.0 Rice University-Sesquinet (NETBLK-SESQUI-CIDR-03) 205.0.0.0 SPAWAR (JMCIS-BLOCK) 206.0.0.0 PSINET/Palm Coast Data (NET-NETBLK-PSI-C5-0) 207.0.0.0 MCI Internet Services (NETBLK-MCI-NETBLK08) 208.0.0.0 virtual village (NET-SPRINT-D00000) 209.0.0.0 GeoNet Communications, Inc. (NETBLK-GEO-CIDR-05) 210.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-BLK) 211.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-BLK) 212.0.0.0 No match for "212.0.0.0". 213.0.0.0 No match for "213.0.0.0". 214.0.0.0 No match for "214.0.0.0". 215.0.0.0 No match for "215.0.0.0". 216.0.0.0 No match for "216.0.0.0". 217.0.0.0 No match for "217.0.0.0". 218.0.0.0 No match for "218.0.0.0". 219.0.0.0 No match for "219.0.0.0". 220.0.0.0 No match for "220.0.0.0". 221.0.0.0 No match for "221.0.0.0". 222.0.0.0 No match for "222.0.0.0". 223.0.0.0 No match for "223.0.0.0". 224.0.0.0 University of Southern California (NET-MCAST-NET) 225.0.0.0 No match for "225.0.0.0". 226.0.0.0 No match for "226.0.0.0". 227.0.0.0 No match for "227.0.0.0". 228.0.0.0 No match for "228.0.0.0". 229.0.0.0 No match for "229.0.0.0". 230.0.0.0 No match for "230.0.0.0". 231.0.0.0 No match for "231.0.0.0". 232.0.0.0 No match for "232.0.0.0". 233.0.0.0 No match for "233.0.0.0". 234.0.0.0 No match for "234.0.0.0". 235.0.0.0 No match for "235.0.0.0". 236.0.0.0 No match for "236.0.0.0". 237.0.0.0 No match for "237.0.0.0". 238.0.0.0 No match for "238.0.0.0". 239.0.0.0 No match for "239.0.0.0". 240.0.0.0 No match for "240.0.0.0". 241.0.0.0 No match for "241.0.0.0". 242.0.0.0 No match for "242.0.0.0". 243.0.0.0 No match for "243.0.0.0". 244.0.0.0 No match for "244.0.0.0". 245.0.0.0 No match for "245.0.0.0". 246.0.0.0 No match for "246.0.0.0". 247.0.0.0 No match for "247.0.0.0". 248.0.0.0 No match for "248.0.0.0". 249.0.0.0 No match for "249.0.0.0". 250.0.0.0 No match for "250.0.0.0". 251.0.0.0 No match for "251.0.0.0". 252.0.0.0 No match for "252.0.0.0". 253.0.0.0 No match for "253.0.0.0". 254.0.0.0 No match for "254.0.0.0". 255.0.0.0 No match for "255.0.0.0". @@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 15:59:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:59:00 -0600 Subject: BBN /8s Message-ID: <01BC219A.1AB9DDC0@webster.unety.net> John, As a proposed "Trustee" of ARIN, can you provide utilization information on the following three /8 address spaces ? 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From matt at netmeg.net Sun Feb 23 17:54:00 1997 From: matt at netmeg.net (Matt Magri) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 97 17:54 EST Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In a way I would rather have sent this as e-mail only to Stephen Satchell, since I hate to give offense, even to someone who crufts up my reading list as diligently as Jim Fleming. In the end I figured it should go out to the list, tho I apologize in advance to folks who may wish I had decided differently... Stephen Satchell wrote: > Paul Ferguson wrote: > >I don't understand why you even bothering answering this dreck. It looks > >like that instead of just placing a 'From:' filter on Fleming, I'm going > >to have to filter any message that has a reference to him anywhere in the > >message header, or message body, to get any satisfaction here. > > Hey, why not remove *all* the pain and resign from naipr at arin.net? If you > don't want to see the discussion, then don't. That's the easiest. If you > don't remember how, we can help you find the instructions. Maybe Paul isn't as cynical as you are about the general content of naipr. Of course, you may be right that it consists of little more than the unique spectacle of people taking Jim Fleming posts seriously. > One of the best things that ever happened to me in my career as a > journalist was that I was forced to read *ALL* of the mail generated by my > articles. It taught me a number of things about how to present my views in > a way that could be understood by the widest audience as quickly as > possible. How sad that we didn't all receive copies of your correspondence at that time, as well. If only naipr had been around then. > I also learned that some of the most awful dreck had something to which I > needed to pay attention. It's a little like copper mining today: you have > to go through a lot of tailings to get a little metal, but people *want* > the metal. Then why not read and comment on every newsgroup and mailing list on the net? Think of all the posts that need your attention which are slipping by every moment. What? Not enough time or resources to read and comment on everything? Well, I guess you'll have to be selective. In that vein I might suggest that with very little effort you will soon find posts more worth your attention than Jim Fleming's. > There is a contrary view held by others. I suggest that if you don't want > to see any more contrary views, you better add me to your mail filter as > well. Ooooh... the righteous-crusader-for-free-speech bit. Kewl, dude. Unfortunately, this isn't about the sanctity of free speech or the value in considering "contrary views" (which, in this case, would mean views contrary to reality, I suppose). It's about using our limited time and resources as wisely as possible. Let me point out the obvious: you can "suggest" to be added to people's mail filters all you want. What will actually get you there, though, is a very tenuous acquaintance with How Things Work(TM), a consistent and almost cheerful inability to learn from anyone who replies to you, a propensity for grand schemes and announcements, and an insatiable desire to post as often as possible. Of course, it doesn't hurt to provide a galaxy-based e-mail address, as well... ;-) Matt From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 18:13:16 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:13:16 -0600 Subject: ISOC Candidates Comment on ARIN Message-ID: <01BC21AC.DCC1A120@webster.unety.net> Mr. Donald Heath CEO Internet Society Dear Don: Now that the IAHC is wrapped up, the attention of the world will shift to the critical issues surrounding IP address allocations. As you may know, Network Solutions, Inc. and some of the members of the Internet Society have proposed to launch a private company to charge for IP addresses. http://www.arin.net There is a discussion list where people are using the Internet to discuss the pros and cons of this proposal. As usual, I have been somewhat surprised that the people who are proposing ARIN have not been actively involved in the open forum. One suggestion that one of the ARIN founders made was to get more people involved by inviting them to participate. Based on that suggestion I would like to invite you as well as all of the candidates running for positions on the ISOC Board. The ISOC's position in this important forum will help to set the direction for the Internet for years to come. This forum will be an excellent way for you and the candidates to show the Internet world how you can use the Internet to shape policy. Please invite anyone that you feel can make a contribution. I look forward to everyone's comments on the ARIN proposal. The discussion list is included for an easy reply. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation @@@@@ 1997 ISOC Board Candidates @@@@@@@@@ Ronald J. Fitzherbert - ron at penguin.net Jacek Gajewski - gajewski at fuw.edu.pl John Gilmore - gnu at toad.com Phill Gross - pgross at home.net Saul Hahn - shahn at umd5.umd.edu Joichi Ito - jito at eccosys.com Edward Kozel - kozel at cisco.com Christine Maxwell - maxwell at hyperactive.co.uk Jean-Paul Nadreau - nadreau at qbc.clic.net Kees Neggers - Kees.Neggers at SURFnet.nl Jun Murai - jun at wide.ad.jp Bruno Oudet - Bruno.Oudet at imag.fr Jose Luis Pardos - 104056.110 at compuserve.com Charles E. Perkins - charliep at watson.ibm.com Ben M. Segal - b.segal at cern.ch Florencio I. Utreras - futreras at reuna.cl =================================== =================================== Ronald J. Fitzherbert http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/fitzherbert.html Systems Architect/Domain Manager, Internet Interstate, 1995 - Present ron at penguin.net URL: http://www.yournamehere.com/ron/ Flying Penguin Productions Limited Post Office Box 3785 Arlington, Virginia 22203-0785 (USA) Voice: 703-358-9219 Fax: 703-522-2798 =================================== Jacek Gajewski http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/gajewski.html worked in multinational Particle Physics collaborations since 1971 gajewski at fuw.edu.pl http://www.visioninteractive.com/janet/jacek.html Internet for Schools Warsaw University ul. Hoza 69 00-681 Warsaw, Poland tel: +48-22-6685803 fax: +48-22-6294309 =================================== John Gilmore http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/gilmore.html These days I call myself an entrepreneur... gnu at toad.com http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/ PO Box 170608 San Francisco, California, USA 94117 =================================== Phill Gross http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/gross.html one of the founders of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) For the past three years, Phill was Internet Director at MCI. pgross at home.net @Home Network 425 Broadway Redwood City, CA phone: 415-944-7200 fax: 415-569-5100 =================================== Saul Hahn http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/hahn.html Coordinator of Basic Sciences and Networking at the Organization of American States (OAS), with headquarters in Washington, D.C. shahn at umd5.umd.edu Organization of American States Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs 1889 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: +1 202 458 3340 Fax: +1 202 458 3167 =================================== Joichi Ito http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/ito.html Joichi Ito is an entrepreneur, journalist and researcher jito at eccosys.com http://www.eccosys.com/PEOPLE/jito/ fax: +81-3-5454-7218 / phone: +81-3-5454-7227 pgp: finger jito at garage.co.jp =================================== Edward Kozel http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/kozel.html Cisco Systems, 1989-present: CTO, Sr. VP Business Development kozel at cisco.com 170 W Tasman San Jose, CA 95134 =================================== Christine Maxwell http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/maxwell.html A 25-year veteran of publishing and research industries maxwell at hyperactive.co.uk http://www.insync.demon.co.uk/christine_maxwell.html Christine Maxwell President & Publisher Chiliad =================================== Jean-Paul Nadreau http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/nadreau.html presently working as a consultant, still with NATO nadreau at qbc.clic.net 346, Fraser Quebec, Qc Canada G1S 1R1 tel:1-418-681-8542 fax:1-418-681-030 =================================== Kees Neggers http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/neggers.html Managing Director of SURFnet bv Kees.Neggers at SURFnet.nl http://www.surfnet.nl/surfnet Tel: +31 302 305 305 Fax: +31 302 305 329 =================================== Jun Murai http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/murai.html Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Information, Keio University; jun at wide.ad.jp http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~jun/ =================================== Bruno Oudet http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/oudet.html 1995-Present: Professor at the University Joseph Fourier of Grenoble Founder and chair of the ISOC-French chapter Bruno.Oudet at imag.fr http://www.isoc.asso.fr/ Laboratoire Leibniz 46 avenue Felix Viallet F-38031 Grenoble Cedex FRANCE Tel 33 04 76 57 45 90 Fax 33 4 76 57 46 02 ==================================== Jose Luis Pardos http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/pardos.html FREEDOM is my priority number ONE 104056.110 at compuserve.com http://www.docuweb.ca/~pardos/ ==================================== Charles E. Perkins http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/perkins.html is a research staff member at IBM T.J. Watson Research charliep at watson.ibm.com ==================================== Ben M. Segal http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/segal.html At CERN since 1971, always working in computer communications... b.segal at cern.ch http://wwwcn.cern.ch/~ben CERN Information Technologies Division 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland Telephone: +41 22 767 4941 Fax: +41 22 767 7155 ==================================== Florencio I. Utreras http://www.isoc.org/trustees/election97/utreras.html Director FONDEF Project Enhancement of Chile's National Network, 1992-1996 futreras at reuna.cl Red Universitaria Nacional (REUNA) Canada 239 Santiago. CHILE Tel. (56) 274-0403 Fax (56) 274-0928 ==================================== -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sun Feb 23 18:32:33 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:32:33 -0500 Subject: Filtration and political correctness. Message-ID: <3310D391.638F@driveway1.com> Kewl, dude. I been hearin a lot of stuff about, like, mail filters, ya know, and like, all I have is some lousy Win95/NT stuff, and ,like, I don't know what kinda WAREZ can do the funky thing like filter, so if you could, like, post a URL or something that can point me to get one of these here filter programs, like, it would be truly righteous, dude. Gnarlily yours. And endlessly entertained by this list...(seriously, what does do filtering? Not that I'd *really* ever do such a thing...) And end of . Oh yeah. If you really want to, then send a message "SUBSCRIBE" to flamefest at driveway1.com where these adolescent urges can be properly spent. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.. Steve's novel use of IEEE/extant industry groups seems worth considering. I can't recall much benefit I derive from my dues each year, but their acting as a registry might well avoid shovelling big cash out to needlessly replicate infrastructure. Isn't this the proper 90's way to do business, as a 'virtual corporation', etc..?? Why should ARIN spend a dime on YAAP (yet another accounting program)? From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 18:51:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:51:15 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC21B2.2AFF4900@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 4:54 PM, Matt Magri[SMTP:matt at netmeg.net] wrote: @ @ Of course, it doesn't hurt to provide a galaxy-based e-mail address, @ as well... ;-) @ Matt, You are out of date. S stands for "State" and G for "Government" or "Governance". The Legacy Internet (IPv4) address space is mapped to S0.G0. This is the zero state and zero governance zone. Some people might call it the chaos zone. Rather than spend your time on list dynamics, you might focus on ARIN and important issues such as whether ARIN will be allocating IPv6 addresses. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Feb 23 19:38:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:38:01 -0600 Subject: Filtration and political correctness. Message-ID: <01BC21B8.B3CA2600@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 5:32 PM, Larry Honig[SMTP:lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM] wrote: @ Meanwhile, back at the ranch.. Steve's novel use of IEEE/extant industry @ groups seems worth considering. I can't recall much benefit I derive @ from my dues each year, but their acting as a registry might well avoid @ shovelling big cash out to needlessly replicate infrastructure. Isn't @ this the proper 90's way to do business, as a 'virtual corporation', @ etc..?? Why should ARIN spend a dime on YAAP (yet another accounting @ program)? @ @ Besides the IEEE and the ACM, there are several other companies and organizations that have been developing their "registry" talents. I suspect the biggest problem with the IEEE and the ACM would be education. This will not be a problem with the companies that are already in the process of "cloning" the InterNIC functions. Since the NSF wants to eventually phase out, these companies have about one year to expand to support IP address allocations. One of the main problems is that these companies have been prevented from enjoying some of the same support of the U.S. Government, as the InterNIC. This will certainly end when the proper elected officials and agencies are become better educated about the situation. Education is the key. The more people commuicate, the more people learn. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 01:29:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:29:47 -0600 Subject: ISP/C supports ARIN Message-ID: <01BC21E9.D79516E0@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, February 23, 1997 5:45 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote: @ Jim Fleming supposedly said: @ > @ > @ > @@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/press/19970207.html @ > @ > ISP/C APPLAUDS NETWORK SOLUTIONS' FUNDING OFFER FOR ARIN @ > ... @ > "In the past, IP registry operations in North and South America have @ > been funded by the US government via the National Science Foundation (NSF)." @ > @ > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ > @ > In the past...? @ > @ > Did the NSF release NSI from their contract...? @ > @ @ @ No, but part of the renegotiation to charge for domain names cut off NSF @ > funding for IP address allocation. "renegotiation"....?...the letters appear rather one-sided... @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment3.html "The Foundation is reviewing the fee-for-service concept outlined in Network Solutions letters of June 19, 1995 and June 30, 1995, as well as any modifications of the Cooperative Agreement which may be required to implement the fee-for-service concept." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment4.html NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230 September 13, 1995 ... "1.NSI will provide Registration and information Services as outlined in your approved Year 3 Program Plan." ... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Selected parts of the agreements appear to be ignored. For example, are ISPs able to obtain /16s in 5 days...? @@@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/agreement.html ... "ARTICLE 4. TURNAROUND AND PERFORMANACE MEASURES A. The following describes the required turnaround and availability of Registration data: 1. 3 working days/Class C 2. 5 working days/Class B 3. 22 working days/Class A B. Turnaround is the time from receipt of a completed template, and any information pertaining to network topology and usage of previously assigned address space as may be specifically requested in individual cases, to the assignment of a number. Availa bility is the provision of the registration data to the INTERNIC Database and Directory Services Awardee." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ It appears that with the NSF, all one has to do is write the plan and then get someone to say we approve YOUR plan and then YOU can change the plan because it is YOUR plan... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 01:39:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:39:17 -0600 Subject: who is paying who...? Message-ID: <01BC21EB.2B1D4160@webster.unety.net> Note....who is paying who... Clues.... "The Foundation approves payment"...NSF is the Foundation "authorizes the Awardee to invoice NSF"...the Awardee is NSI @@@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment5.html NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON , VIRGINIA Jan. 6, 1997 ... . The Foundation hereby approves payment of the Awardee's invoice covering litigation costs with Knowledgenet, Inc. in the (reduced) amount of $74,617. This amount includes only the actual cost of the litigation and associated fee amount. . NSF authorizes the Awardee to invoice NSF via the Electronic Fund Transfer process for payment (when due) of registration and renewal fees for the .EDU and .GOV domain names at the rates set forth in this agreement. The Awardee's invoices and NSF payment of these fees will not exceed $253,300 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Has the NSF really "withdrawn funding"...? Is NSI funding ARIN...or is the NSF indirectly funding ARIN...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 03:15:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 02:15:02 -0600 Subject: The InterNIC Timeline Message-ID: <01BC21F8.8BFAB280@webster.unety.net> March 1992 Original NSF Solicitation May 1992 Original NSI Proposal October 1992 Modified NSI Proposal "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to a single contractor." AT&T Proposal January 1, 1993 Cooperative Agreements General Atomics (GA) ??? AT&T ??? Network Solutions, Inc. Estimated Total Amount: $4,219,339 Effective Date: January 1, 1993 Expiration Date: September 30, 1998 December 1994 Midterm Evaluation "The InterNIC awards set the precedent of requiring significant self-coordination among a team of awardees, and requiring outreach to other Network Information Centers. The panel suggests that the NSF critically consider whether it is viable to expect significant self-coordination among a team of awardees in future awards. The panel also notes that the NSF's program management was not able to correct GA's problems early on despite excellent efforts by the NSF staff, primarily because the NSF staff were overextended by monitoring at least two major projects (the InterNIC and the NSFNET backbone) at once. The panel recommends that for future large scale efforts in the rapidly changing Internet environment, the NSF should form an ongoing advisory panel of outside experts or employ some external consultants to help manage such cooperative agreements, rather than waiting two years to call for a review." December 1994 General Atomics Dismissed January 1995 NSF gives NSI more money... Amendment 1 This amendment increases the funds available under Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742 by $1,258,457. NSI changes key personnel... Amendment 2 February-March 1995 (???estimated date???) SAIC purchases NSI http://www.saic.com http://www.netsol.com Circumstances, terms, previous owners....???? not known ???? May 1995 NSF gives NSI more money...AND reviews plan to start charging Amendment 3 "The National Science Foundation (NSF) hereby awards $1,948,632 to Network Solutions, Inc. for additional support..." September 13, 1995 NSF approves NSI's plan to charge for domain name registrations October 1995 Many people and companies debate the issues surrounding the commercialization of domain name registrations. The NSF and the IANA prevent commercial registries from having new Top Level Domains. November 1995 Debates December 1995 Debates January 1996 Debates February 1996 Debates and delays March 1996 Debates and delays April 1996 Debates and promises of plans May 1996 Debates and more promises of plans June 1996 ISOC Board of Trustees - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Montreal, Quebec, Canada "RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society endorse in principle the proposal "New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains", dated June 1996 by Jon Postel, and approve the role assigned to the Internet Society in this proposal. The Board authorises Postel, in his IANA role, to refine the proposal to include a business plan for review and approval by the Board." July 1996 Debates and refinement of plans August 1996 Debates, meetings and claims of an October 1st start September 1996 Operational registries start to appear October 1996 The balance of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund is disclosed... "..through October 31, 1996, $8,542,200.00 has been deposited into the account." The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee advises the NSF "The FNCAC reiterates and underscores the urgency of transferring responsibility for supporting U.S. commercial interests in ITLD administration from the NSF to an appropriate entity." November 1996 "...through November 30, 1996, $9,911,000.00 has been deposited into the account." Commercial TRUE Root Name Servers start to appear... the NSF does not allow commercial registries to have TLD entries in the Root Name Servers they control... The NSF awards USC/ISI $1.5 million December 1996 "...through December 31, 1996: $12,685,450.00 has been desposited into the account." The ISOC's IAHC gets started to provide recommendations to IANA http://www.iahc.org NSI ends 1996 registering about 80,000 names per month which is an approximate gross revenue of $8,000,000 per month at $100 per registration. That covers the first 2 years. On an annual basis, this amounts to approximately $48,000,000 per year. January 1997 IAHC debates continue... Plans are announced by NSI to launch ARIN to charge for IP addresses NSF gives NSI more money... NSI and the IANA announce plans to deploy TRUE Root Name Servers February 1997 IAHC recommendations finalized Commercial registries which are now fully operational are still restricted from having their names entered into the widely used Root Name Servers controlled by the National Science Foundation. Companies are now actively deploying commercial Root Name Servers to replace the NSF supported servers. < YOU ARE HERE> September 1988 Cooperative Agreement Ends... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Mon Feb 24 02:10:03 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:10:03 -0700 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries In-Reply-To: <01BC2193.663B4240@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: At 1:11 PM -0700 2/23/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >This my friend is the heart of the problem....."The ARIN person".... > >If that person is white...will blacks receive numbers...? >If that person is a man...will women receive numbers...? >If that person is a woman...will men receive numbers...? >If that person is a Catholic...will Protestants receive numbers...? > >...are you getting the picture....???...if not, I can provide a few more... The "ARIN person" does not work in a vacuum. If there is discrimination in the United States and Canada, there is legal recourse on the part of the spurned. (Sometimes it's too easy to sue, but that's a discussion for another place.) The IEEE and ACM are known for sponsoring equal opportunity. I mentioned Kim because of a desirable feature already discussed to death in this list: continuity. Kim has been doing this, so she know the ropes. The current proposal has her working for the Registry. I don't have a problem with this, myself. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Mon Feb 24 01:58:55 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:58:55 -0700 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:17 PM -0700 2/23/97, James Smallacombe wrote: >Stephen: > >It is obvious that you have spent little or no time in inet-access or any >of the other lists that Fleming completely disrupts with his insane "IPv8" >and other drivel. Personally, I can't understand why people still respond >to anything he says. > >It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with >Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. Frankly, I *already* empathize with Paul about Mr. Fleming's postings, but I find that I can skim those messages *very* quickly, and the delete key is only a pinky-stretch away. Someday Mr. Fleming may surprise us. My concern is that people who *need* to see all the input may be filtering out messages using automation instead of the quick-scan technique. What is the purpose of a PUBLIC list if members of the public are screened out? (No matter how justified the provocation. Paul is of course free (as an individual) to do as he pleases. He *could* have done it quietly and never get a rise out of me. :) I just hope that KIM and the proposed board of trustees don't follow his avowed example. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Mon Feb 24 02:27:52 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:27:52 -0700 Subject: Filtration and political correctness. In-Reply-To: <01BC21B8.B3CA2600@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: At 5:38 PM -0700 2/23/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >Besides the IEEE and the ACM, there are several other companies >and organizations that have been developing their "registry" talents. >I suspect the biggest problem with the IEEE and the ACM would >be education. > One reason I mentioned the IEEE and the ACM is that both organizations have active journals on telecommunications. Indeed, I usually keep up with router research by perusing SIGCOMM when it makes it to my house. (To help me in my next move, the clay-coat paper goes in the trash, to be replaced with microfiche -- it's that valuable.) Both organizations are into publishing in a BIG way, so educating others shouldn't be all that huge a deal. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the "heavies" are already IEEE and/or ACM members. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 03:49:05 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 02:49:05 -0600 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries Message-ID: <01BC21FD.4D382960@webster.unety.net> On Monday, February 24, 1997 1:10 AM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at accutek.com] wrote: @ At 1:11 PM -0700 2/23/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >This my friend is the heart of the problem....."The ARIN person".... @ > @ >If that person is white...will blacks receive numbers...? @ >If that person is a man...will women receive numbers...? @ >If that person is a woman...will men receive numbers...? @ >If that person is a Catholic...will Protestants receive numbers...? @ > @ >...are you getting the picture....???...if not, I can provide a few more... @ @ The "ARIN person" does not work in a vacuum. If there is discrimination in @ the United States and Canada, there is legal recourse on the part of the @ spurned. (Sometimes it's too easy to sue, but that's a discussion for @ another place.) The IEEE and ACM are known for sponsoring equal @ opportunity. @ @ I mentioned Kim because of a desirable feature already discussed to death @ in this list: continuity. Kim has been doing this, so she know the ropes. @ The current proposal has her working for the Registry. I don't have a @ problem with this, myself. @ In my opinion, no one from Network Solutions, Inc. should be allowed to be involved. They have a contract to complete. The "continuity" that you seek can be achieved via parallel operations. This serves two purposes: 1. The NSF's InterNIC remains stable. 2. Management issues of cooperating NICs within the U.S. will be addressed. On the IEEE and ACM notes. The ISP/C might be another candidate organization. They already are established as a non-profit company. They have many leading industry experts who work well with the InterNIC. They have a Board and Bylaws in place. See: http://www.ispc.org NANOG and CIX would also be possible choices. Actually, I would prefer to see 6 or 8 get started. The large companies that already have a /8 could be part of that group to make sure there is a mix of non-profits and for-profits. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 04:29:52 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 03:29:52 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2203.0387A9C0@webster.unety.net> On Monday, February 24, 1997 12:58 AM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at ACCUTEK.COM] wrote: @ At 12:17 PM -0700 2/23/97, James Smallacombe wrote: @ >Stephen: @ > @ >It is obvious that you have spent little or no time in inet-access or any @ >of the other lists that Fleming completely disrupts with his insane "IPv8" @ >and other drivel. Personally, I can't understand why people still respond @ >to anything he says. @ > @ >It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with @ >Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. @ @ @ Frankly, I *already* empathize with Paul about Mr. Fleming's postings, but @ I find that I can skim those messages *very* quickly, and the delete key is @ only a pinky-stretch away. Someday Mr. Fleming may surprise us. @ @ My concern is that people who *need* to see all the input may be filtering @ out messages using automation instead of the quick-scan technique. What is @ the purpose of a PUBLIC list if members of the public are screened out? @ (No matter how justified the provocation. @ @ Paul is of course free (as an individual) to do as he pleases. He *could* @ have done it quietly and never get a rise out of me. :) I just hope that @ KIM and the proposed board of trustees don't follow his avowed example. @ It is probably easier for Kim to just remove people from the list... after all, the list is hosted by Network Solutions, Inc. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: Re: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) To: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:12:53 -0500 (EST) Cc: michael at MEMRA.COM, naipr at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET In-Reply-To: <01BC0564.C5EDDD60 at webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 18, 97 05:26:42 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-naipr at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET And I suggest you take this off-line. Again, this list is to discuss ARIN - only. If you continue to engage in off-topic discussions, I will have no choice but to remove you from the list. It is imperative that we receive community input on ARIN and I will not risk the possibility that individuals with constructive comments may unsubscribe because they do not have the time or patience to wade through off-topic dialogue. Kim Hubbard > You are doing the same thing that you have done for > the past year or more...I think people have heard this > story before... > > I suggest that the press read the archives...of the > newdom list(s), the inet-access lists, and the IAHC list... > > -- > Jim Fleming > UNETY Systems, Inc. > Naperville, IL > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 24 04:34:34 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:34:34 +0900 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:47:55 EST." <199702230247.VAA27727@raptor.research.att.com> Message-ID: <199702240934.SAA17038@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Folks, Given I use a mail filter, I am often blissfully unaware of Jim Fleming's "posts" ("posts" is probably too dignified a word, perhaps we should coin a new word for large messages that display either complete detachment from reality, consists entirely of irrelevant and/or insinuating questions, and/or includes email addresses for half the known world. I might suggest the term for such messages to be "flems" as in "I've been flemmed!"), I have apparently missed a large deluge. Sure enough, after looking at a couple of archives, it would Fleming has apparently had another break with reality and has decided that everyone needs his "wisdom" sent to them multiple times on various mailing lists. As a plea from someone who maintains mailing list archives and likes to see them bounded in terms of disk space, please ignore Fleming. At times, he may seem to be rational, but it is an illusion. If you respond to his insinuations, irrelevancies, or amusing "solutions", you merely encourage him to continue spouting more of the same. Please, for your own sanity, I recommend you add him to your . procmailrc or whatever (I use Mailagent -- I found the terminal noise configuration files of procmail a bit off-putting :-)). Failing that, just hit 'd' anytime you see anything from 'unety.net' -- while you might miss out on some amusement, your incoming mail queue will thank you. Regards, -drc -------- > If you want to obtain a /19, you need to work with your > elected representatives and the people they are paying > to manage the Internet. > > I suggest that you start with the NSF. You might be > surprised at how quickly the U.S. Government responds > to taxpayers and businesses who are in the U.S. to help > create jobs which support people who pay taxes. > >The major problem with this is that it contradicts reality. By all >accounts, NSF wants to do less with respect to running the Internet. >For the last 15+ years, there has been a strong push away from >governmental action and regulation. This may be bad or good -- and >as a card-carrying liberal, I have very grave doubts about the wisdom >of this trend -- but there is little doubt that it exists. > From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 04:45:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 03:45:15 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2205.265AD880@webster.unety.net> On Monday, February 24, 1997 3:34 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ Folks, @ @ Given I use a mail filter, I am often blissfully unaware of Jim David, Since you are "blissfully unaware" and seem to have some time on your hands, maybe you can help fill in this timeline... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ March 1992 Original NSF Solicitation May 1992 Original NSI Proposal October 1992 Modified NSI Proposal "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to a single contractor." "Network Solutions proposes Mr. Jon Postel as the IANA Manager and Chairman of the Advisory Panel for the NREN NIS Manager project. He will provide services as an employee of USC's Information Sciences Institute (ISI), subcontractor to Network Solutions." AT&T Proposal January 1, 1993 Cooperative Agreements General Atomics (GA) ??? AT&T ??? Network Solutions, Inc. Estimated Total Amount: $4,219,339 Effective Date: January 1, 1993 Expiration Date: September 30, 1998 <1993...period of "cooperation"..1994> General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs and to help coordinate the activities of all three contractors. More NICs were supposed to be formed. December 1994 Midterm Evaluation "The InterNIC awards set the precedent of requiring significant self-coordination among a team of awardees, and requiring outreach to other Network Information Centers. The panel suggests that the NSF critically consider whether it is viable to expect significant self-coordination among a team of awardees in future awards. The panel also notes that the NSF's program management was not able to correct GA's problems early on despite excellent efforts by the NSF staff, primarily because the NSF staff were overextended by monitoring at least two major projects (the InterNIC and the NSFNET backbone) at once. The panel recommends that for future large scale efforts in the rapidly changing Internet environment, the NSF should form an ongoing advisory panel of outside experts or employ some external consultants to help manage such cooperative agreements, rather than waiting two years to call for a review." December 1994 General Atomics Dismissed January 1995 NSF gives NSI more money... Amendment 1 This amendment increases the funds available under Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742 by $1,258,457. NSI changes key personnel... Amendment 2 February-March 1995 (???estimated date???) SAIC purchases NSI http://www.saic.com http://www.netsol.com Circumstances, terms, previous owners....???? not known ???? May 1995 NSF gives NSI more money...AND reviews plan to start charging Amendment 3 "The National Science Foundation (NSF) hereby awards $1,948,632 to Network Solutions, Inc. for additional support..." September 13, 1995 NSF approves NSI's plan to charge for domain name registrations October 1995 Many people and companies debate the issues surrounding the commercialization of domain name registrations. The NSF and the IANA prevent commercial registries from having new Top Level Domains. November 1995 Debates December 1995 Debates January 1996 Debates February 1996 Debates and delays March 1996 Debates and delays April 1996 Debates and promises of plans May 1996 Debates and more promises of plans June 1996 ISOC Board of Trustees - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Montreal, Quebec, Canada "RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society endorse in principle the proposal "New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains", dated June 1996 by Jon Postel, and approve the role assigned to the Internet Society in this proposal. The Board authorises Postel, in his IANA role, to refine the proposal to include a business plan for review and approval by the Board." July 1996 Debates and refinement of plans August 1996 Debates, meetings and claims of an October 1st start September 1996 Operational registries start to appear October 1996 The balance of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund is disclosed... "..through October 31, 1996, $8,542,200.00 has been deposited into the account." The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee advises the NSF "The FNCAC reiterates and underscores the urgency of transferring responsibility for supporting U.S. commercial interests in ITLD administration from the NSF to an appropriate entity." November 1996 "...through November 30, 1996, $9,911,000.00 has been deposited into the account." Commercial TRUE Root Name Servers start to appear... the NSF does not allow commercial registries to have TLD entries in the Root Name Servers they control... The NSF awards USC/ISI $1.5 million December 1996 "...through December 31, 1996: $12,685,450.00 has been desposited into the account." The ISOC's IAHC gets started to provide recommendations to IANA http://www.iahc.org NSI ends 1996 registering about 80,000 names per month which is an approximate gross revenue of $8,000,000 per month at $100 per registration. That covers the first 2 years. On an annual basis, this amounts to approximately $48,000,000 per year. January 1997 IAHC debates continue... Plans are announced by NSI to launch ARIN to charge for IP addresses NSF gives NSI more money... NSI and the IANA announce plans to deploy TRUE Root Name Servers February 1997 IAHC recommendations to the IANA finalized Commercial registries which are now fully operational are still restricted from having their names entered into the widely used Root Name Servers controlled by the National Science Foundation. Companies are now actively deploying commercial Root Name Servers to replace the NSF supported servers. < YOU ARE HERE> September 1988 Cooperative Agreement Ends... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 24 05:21:08 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:21:08 +0900 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:04:14 PST." Message-ID: <199702241021.TAA18380@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Stephen, >I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each >state of the United States, This was a mistake, as you'll likely find out. Now Fleming will probably think you are his friend and you may have the joy of being put onto his personal mailing list. You see, Fleming thinks his ideas are so important that not only does he spew to multiple mailing lists (multiple times), he sends his spew via private email. Really, the best way of dealing with Fleming is to simply (and forcibly via a mail filter) ignore him. >So why do we need a large staff? As has been explained in the past, current allocation policies (as documented in RFC 2050) require the registry staff to vette each request. While you might not agree such policies are appropriate, they do exist and the registries are required to follow those policies. Such vetting takes significant technical knowledge and time. This is why registries have significant staff. Regards, -drc From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon Feb 24 11:02:28 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:02:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC21B2.2AFF4900@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > You are out of date. S stands for "State" and G for "Government" or "Governance". > > The Legacy Internet (IPv4) address space is mapped to S0.G0. > > This is the zero state and zero governance zone. Some people might > call it the chaos zone. Out of date? When did the EDNS/IPv8 "standard" get rewritten? Had some time to kill last week? I distincly remember you being laughed off inet-access (and probably added to dozens of .procmailrc's) while trying to gain support for your Stargate and Galaxy based DNS. Did you change the terms so it would be more easily believed by those who don't already know you better? > Rather than spend your time on list dynamics, you might focus > on ARIN and important issues such as whether ARIN will be > allocating IPv6 addresses. > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) Who cares about IPv6? The real question, obviously on everyone's mind, is will ARIN be allocating IPv8 addresses. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 11:10:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:10:13 -0600 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries Message-ID: <01BC223A.ECCF7E00@webster.unety.net> On Monday, February 24, 1997 4:21 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: @ Stephen, @ @ >I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each @ >state of the United States, @ @ This was a mistake, as you'll likely find out. Now Fleming will @ probably think you are his friend and you may have the joy of being @ put onto his personal mailing list. You see, Fleming thinks his ideas @ are so important that not only does he spew to multiple mailing lists @ (multiple times), he sends his spew via private email. Really, the @ best way of dealing with Fleming is to simply (and forcibly via a mail @ filter) ignore him. @ @ >So why do we need a large staff? @ @ As has been explained in the past, current allocation policies (as @ documented in RFC 2050) require the registry staff to vette each @ request. While you might not agree such policies are appropriate, @ they do exist and the registries are required to follow those @ policies. Such vetting takes significant technical knowledge and @ time. This is why registries have significant staff. @ @ Regards, @ -drc @ @ For the record, I believe that someone stated that ARIN will be modeled after APNIC and this is a benefit. Can someone explain which aspects of APNIC will be copied by ARIN ? Will the attitudes be copied ? Will Mr. Conrad's prior statements about handling matters the way they are handled in Singapore be copied ? P.S. Mr. David Conrad runs APNIC. If MORE registries are created, his market is reduced, and therefore his revenues. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 11:15:46 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:15:46 -0600 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC223B.B3E55FA0@webster.unety.net> On Monday, February 24, 1997 5:02 AM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ Who cares about IPv6? The real question, obviously on everyone's mind, is @ will ARIN be allocating IPv8 addresses. @ @ :) @ I think that will be up to the people running ARIN. The IPv8 address space will be managed differently than the IPv4 address space which is a bit of a mess. Some have suggested that the entire IPv4 address space be declared a TWD (toxic waste dump) and that people should move on. I still believe that the IPv4 is a precious resource and it can be cleaned up. There are days when I have my doubts. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 24 14:05:32 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <199702240934.SAA17038@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > If you > respond to his insinuations, irrelevancies, or amusing "solutions", Unanswered insinuations often grow to have an ugly life of their own especially in any forum where a significant number of less well-informed people are observing. > you merely encourage him to continue spouting more of the same. If you have a filter, this shouldn't bother you, and the continued spouting does serve to educate the masses. The real solution to this kind of problem is to have a moderator who is willing to exercise some control on a mailing list, or even better, some more sophisticated list server software with which list members can use some sort of voting mechanism to stifle idiots down to a dull roar and roughly simulate the way in which people handle face-to-face meetings. I did some design work on such a system but didn't have enough time to pursue it. If anyone knows somebody who does have the time and who could get some grant funding to build such a system, put them in touch with me and I'll share my ideas with them. I think that there are a lot of forums where this would be quite useful and even the people who get stifled will get some valuable feedback in private when the listserver software informs them that the list members have voted to restrict them to one post per day, or one post per month. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From tme at CASA.USNO.NAVY.MIL Mon Feb 24 15:45:34 1997 From: tme at CASA.USNO.NAVY.MIL (marshall eubanks) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:45:34 -0500 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <199702242049.PAA06877@info.netsol.com> RE: List moderation. I think that big lists should be bandwidth limited - i.e., you should only be allowed to submit so many lines per day (say), absent a waiver from the list master. A reasonable first cut might be 60 lines per day (or 4800 characters). This could be done automatically, and would not EXCLUDE anyone, or even really censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if you want people to see your latest ideas in full. Regards Marshall Eubanks tme at cygx3.usno.navy.mil From vancleef at MICROUNITY.COM Mon Feb 24 16:08:22 1997 From: vancleef at MICROUNITY.COM (Bob Van Cleef) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:08:22 -0800 Subject: To those against Jim Fleming Message-ID: <199702242108.NAA02242@leto.microunity.com> Just a note to those of you who keeping harping on Jim Fleming. You are not hurting him one bit, but you're doing a real good job of destroying your credibility in my eyes. If you cannot or will not address the contents of his posts, then you are better off saying nothing. Attacking the person / personality of any one of the forum participants detracts from the forum. The readiness of certain individuals, from certain organizations, to attack anyone who even responses to one of Jim's posts, does not look good from where I sit... ------------------ >It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with >Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. ------------------ >Given I use a mail filter, I am often blissfully unaware of Jim >Fleming's "posts" ("posts" is probably too dignified a word, ------------------ >>I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each >>state of the United States, >This was a mistake, as you'll likely find out. ------------------ Really? Sounds like a bunch of children to me... ------------------ does not -- does too -- does not... ------------------ Bob ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com From blh at NOL.NET Mon Feb 24 16:14:54 1997 From: blh at NOL.NET (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:14:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: To those against Jim Fleming In-Reply-To: <199702242108.NAA02242@leto.microunity.com> Message-ID: You see, the problem here is that there is nothing to address, his posts have 0 content value. On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Bob Van Cleef wrote: > > Just a note to those of you who keeping harping on Jim Fleming. You > are not hurting him one bit, but you're doing a real good job of > destroying your credibility in my eyes. > > If you cannot or will not address the contents of his posts, then you > are better off saying nothing. Attacking the person / personality of > any one of the forum participants detracts from the forum. The > readiness of certain individuals, from certain organizations, to attack > anyone who even responses to one of Jim's posts, does not look good > from where I sit... > > ------------------ > >It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with > >Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. > ------------------ > >Given I use a mail filter, I am often blissfully unaware of Jim > >Fleming's "posts" ("posts" is probably too dignified a word, > ------------------ > >>I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each > >>state of the United States, > >This was a mistake, as you'll likely find out. > ------------------ > > Really? Sounds like a bunch of children to me... > ------------------ > does not -- does too -- does not... > ------------------ > > Bob > ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> > Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 > MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 > 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From denny at RNS.NET Mon Feb 24 17:10:20 1997 From: denny at RNS.NET (Douglas Denny) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0800". Message-ID: <199702242210.RAA12707@admin.rns.net> michael at MEMRA.COM said: > The real solution to this kind of problem is to have a moderator who > is willing to exercise some control on a mailing list, or even > better, some more sophisticated list server software with which list > members can use some sort of voting mechanism to stifle idiots down > to a dull roar and roughly simulate the way in which people handle > face-to-face meetings. Nothing like the mob mentality to get people to shut up. Good ideas or bad ideas say alot about the people who say them. A list like this is an open forum, a soap-box if you will. If you don't like what somebody is saying, ignore them, give an intelligent response to thier posting, ask the list administrator to remove them, or get off the list. Nothing like an intelligent conversation... -Doug -- Douglas A. Denny denny at rns.net Network Operations Specialist DIRECT: +1 416 443 7941 Rogers Network Services TOLL-FREE: +1 800 267 DATA From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Mon Feb 24 22:46:01 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:46:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <199702242219.RAA18022@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> from "Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU" at Feb 24, 97 05:19:39 pm Message-ID: <199702250346.TAA08292@songbird.com> Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU allegedly said: > > --==_Exmh_692846176P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:45:34 EST, marshall eubanks said: > > This could be done automatically, and > > would not EXCLUDE anyone, or even really > > censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if > > you want people to see your latest ideas > > in full. > > This assumes that all people who wish to post lengthy notes on the > mailing list have the ability to put the full text on a system that > you can provide an URL for. Not all people have WWW homepages, not > all people can put the full text on an FTP or Gopher site, some people > live behind firewalls and need to talk to the firewall admin to put a > file on the corporate external Web server so the outside world can get > it, and so on.... > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Engineer > Virginia Tech But by the very fact that they are on a mailing list, they can say "email me for more information", can they not? I think Marshall has a great idea... -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Feb 24 22:52:23 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:52:23 +0900 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:05:32 PST." Message-ID: <199702250352.MAA16946@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> >Unanswered insinuations often grow to have an ugly life of their own >especially in any forum where a significant number of less well-informed >people are observing. This is true, but there is only so much time in a day. On the bright side, I believe Fleming consistently demonstrates he is a loon to anyone who takes the time to actually to try and follow his flems, thus even the people who try take him seriously quickly learn better. >> you merely encourage him to continue spouting more of the same. >If you have a filter, this shouldn't bother you, and the continued >spouting does serve to educate the masses. Unfortunately, since people often respond to Fleming but remove his email address from the to or cc lines, tuning a filter to get rid of all his tripe is a bit difficult. However, as this is completely unrelated to NAIPR and/or PIARA, I'll desist. Apologies for the off-topic rants... Regards, -drc P.S. Hmm... I wonder if scanning for '@' quotation prefixes will work... From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Tue Feb 25 00:10:23 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:10:23 +0000 Subject: To those against Jim Fleming Message-ID: <19970225051013.AAB21197@LOCALNAME> At 09:14 PM 2/24/97 +0000, you wrote: >You see, the problem here is that there is nothing to address, his posts >have 0 content value. > > Brett: Jim Fleming gets a bit wild...but to say there is nothing to address is strictly a matter of opinion. Ignore him if you disagree...or take on his accusations and points and deflate them. But I would have to write off this entire list if he or anyone like him was silenced. --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Tue Feb 25 01:30:39 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:30:39 -0500 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:46:01 PST." <199702250346.TAA08292@songbird.com> References: <199702250346.TAA08292@songbird.com> Message-ID: <199702250630.BAA26832@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:46:01 PST, Kent Crispin said: > Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU allegedly said: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:45:34 EST, marshall eubanks said: > > > This could be done automatically, and > > > would not EXCLUDE anyone, or even really > > > censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if > > > you want people to see your latest ideas > > > in full. > > But by the very fact that they are on a mailing list, they can say > "email me for more information", can they not? I think Marshall has > a great idea... I was specifically addressing "you can always provide a URL". And yes, I was aware of services such as Geocities' "free web pages". This doesn't mean that *everybody* is in a position to utilize them - some people may be either technologically unable to use them. Can you update a Geocities page via e-mail? How do you *check* that you got it right if you don't have a browser handy? I don't have one on the machine here in my basement I'm telnetting from (A Vaxstation 3100, about 5.8M of free disk after loading Ultrix, no Netscape, no Mosaic, the machine is *not* globally routable (don't ask why ;) - bottom line is that if I'm at home, writing E-mail is doable, but posting it to a web site is a major pain in the ass. And although there are probably plenty of people who wish that Jim Fleming just posted a URL for his latest missives, the fact remains that quite often, if a well thought out idea is presented in-line, I'll take the time to read it, but if I have to wait for Netscape to go *get* it, I'll think twice, and if Netscape *cant* get it, I'll almost *certainly* fail to ever come back and try again in an hour or two. Remeber that Fermat's Last Theorem was basically "I have a great idea that's too long to scribble here" - and the lack of a pointer to a good copy started a 400-year flamefest amongst mathematicians that I believe was finally resolved in the last year or 3.. ;') I'm not sure if the resulting work in mathematics is a case for or against including inline though - would it have been as interesting if it *had* fit in the margin, but been obviously wrong? Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 10:03:24 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:03:24 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC22FA.C20F9220@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 1:03 AM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at ACCUTEK.COM] wrote: @ At 2:57 PM -0800 2/24/97, Michael Dillon wrote: @ @ @ Suggestion: could individuals submit white papers to be included on the @ ARIN site? This would be akin to publication of a long letter in a @ scientific journal. I have some ideas to keep this from becoming a major @ mess, but I want comment on the basic idea. @ I would suggest that all of the "proposed" Trustees submit a position paper similar to what people submit before ISOC elections. Many non-profit groups have people do this to make sure that everyone understands people's platform. This also helps to avoid the situation where a Trustee says one thing in these forums and another "off-line". If the Trustees are going to be trusted, people have to know what they are about. Here are the proposed Trustees....I don't think the list has changed in a week...it appears to be a stable group... Raymundo Vega Aguilar Randy Bush John Curran Scott Bradner Donald N. Telage Jon Postel Kim Hubbard -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Feb 24 17:19:39 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:19:39 -0500 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:45:34 EST." <199702242049.PAA06877@info.netsol.com> References: <199702242049.PAA06877@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: <199702242219.RAA18022@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:45:34 EST, marshall eubanks said: > This could be done automatically, and > would not EXCLUDE anyone, or even really > censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if > you want people to see your latest ideas > in full. This assumes that all people who wish to post lengthy notes on the mailing list have the ability to put the full text on a system that you can provide an URL for. Not all people have WWW homepages, not all people can put the full text on an FTP or Gopher site, some people live behind firewalls and need to talk to the firewall admin to put a file on the corporate external Web server so the outside world can get it, and so on.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Mon Feb 24 17:24:41 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:24:41 +0000 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <19970224222427.AAC12839@LOCALNAME> >The real solution to this kind of problem is to have a moderator who is >willing to exercise some control on a mailing list, or even better, some >more sophisticated list server software with which list members can use >some sort of voting mechanism to stifle idiots down to a dull roar and >roughly simulate the way in which people handle face-to-face meetings. > A good moderator is key to any good online discussion. However, I believe ARIN better serves its purpose for this listserver by keeping it open. After all...who would moderate the listserver to keep it above suspicion? It would have to be a neutral party or ARIN would suffer the slings and arrows of potential conflict of interest as soon as anyone was quieted. There are some possible kernals of serious concern in the busy stream being put forth and personally I wouldn't want to see anyone filtered or restricted. Remember -- ARIN is proposing to be set up as a chartered non-profit organization and I know from personal experience that such organizations must be set up and operated so that they are ABOVE suspicion or risk losing that non-profit status. --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Feb 24 17:23:52 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:23:52 -0600 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC226F.2BE25A20@webster.unety.net> On Monday, February 24, 1997 2:45 PM, marshall eubanks[SMTP:tme at CasA.usno.navy.mil] wrote: @ RE: List moderation. @ @ @ This could be done automatically, and @ would not EXCLUDE anyone, or even really @ censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if @ you want people to see your latest ideas @ in full. URLs and web sites are OK....so are FAQs... some lists periodically post their FAQ for people who do not have access to web browsers... Unfortunately, web sites and FAQs are not "collaborative". In an ideal list, you take a collection of information and you pass it around like putty and people add to it and shape it...the list takes on a life of its own... This collaborative process works best when the leaders of a movement sit at the virtual table where the meeting is being held. In the case of ARIN, this would be the people named on the web site as the founders. Lists seem to have problems when the people who create them do not show up for the meetings... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Feb 24 17:57:03 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:57:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <199702242219.RAA18022@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if > > you want people to see your latest ideas > > in full. > > This assumes that all people who wish to post lengthy notes on the > mailing list have the ability to put the full text on a system that > you can provide an URL for. Not all people have WWW homepages, http://www.geocities.com/homestead/ And there are other places that offer free home pages as well. As we all learn to better leverage Internet resources you will see more lists with their own set of web pages where list members can submit lengthy articles for posting. It's all a case of evolution and trying to make things work better, one step at a time. Kind of like ARIN... Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Feb 22 13:47:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:47:23 -0600 Subject: A simple solution for ARIN Message-ID: <01BC20BE.8DB73340@webster.unety.net> In a recent discussion with one of the leaders of ARIN, it occured to me that there is a simple solution for ARIN. Some of the ARIN Board members have control of their own /8 CIDR allocations. I suggest that all of the people interesting in starting the private, non-profit, 501(c), IRS approved, company named ARIN, take ONE of those /8 allocations and have at it. If funding is needed, that group could consider also selecting some new Top Level Domains to use as a "funding source". This proposal parallels the InterNIC model which has been proven to work thanks to the prototype developed by the National Science Foundation and located in Virginia. ARIN of course could be located anywhere and would serve customers who want to deal with the people who run ARIN. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Thu Feb 20 09:38:33 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:38:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: from "Vab Goel" at Feb 19, 97 11:35:37 pm Message-ID: <199702201438.JAA14428@jazz.internic.net> > > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > > > Scott, > > > > While they can buy and sell address space, current registry practices > > disallow update of the registry databases for address space that does > > not change hands via the registries. > > In the InterNic case you can change whois info by sending a swip update ? > Also if you dont care about whois info, routing will work. > > vab.. > Vab, Yes, you can update your previously allocated blocks via SWIP but this is not what we're talking about. If you go out and purchase a Class C you cannot send in a SWIP template to update the network record. Secondly, I would hope that most, if not all, ISPs are checking WHOIS to verify the address space actually belongs to their customer before they route it. Kim From ptripp at EQUINOX.COM Tue Feb 25 14:52:58 1997 From: ptripp at EQUINOX.COM (ptripp at EQUINOX.COM) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 14:52:58 EST Subject: To those against Jim Fleming Message-ID: <9701258569.AA856911214@smtpgtwy.equinox.COM> I agree, if you can't stay on topic, go to a chat room!!! Philip R. Tripp Voice: (954) 746-9000 Ext.236 Equinox Systems Inc. Fax: (954) 746-8378 Technical Support WWW: http://www.equinox.com One Equinox Way FTP: ftp://ftp.equinox.com Sunrise, FL 33351-6709 E-Mail: ptripp at equinox.com _________________________ Reply Separator ___________________________ Subject: To those against Jim Fleming Author: Bob Van Cleef at Internet-Gateway Date: 2/24/97 4:54 PM Just a note to those of you who keeping harping on Jim Fleming. You are not hurting him one bit, but you're doing a real good job of destroying your credibility in my eyes. If you cannot or will not address the contents of his posts, then you are better off saying nothing. Attacking the person / personality of any one of the forum participants detracts from the forum. The readiness of certain individuals, from certain organizations, to attack anyone who even responses to one of Jim's posts, does not look good from where I sit... ------------------ >It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with >Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. ------------------ >Given I use a mail filter, I am often blissfully unaware of Jim >Fleming's "posts" ("posts" is probably too dignified a word, ------------------ >>I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each >>state of the United States, >This was a mistake, as you'll likely find out. ------------------ Really? Sounds like a bunch of children to me... ------------------ does not -- does too -- does not... ------------------ Bob ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> Bob Van Cleef, Systems Administration (408) 734-8100 MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. FAX (408) 734-8177 255 Caspian Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1015 vancleef at microunity.com Received: from equinox.COM by smtpgtwy.equinox.COM (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) ; Mon, 24 Feb 97 16:53:56 EST Return-Path: Received: from [198.41.3.10] by eqxmail.equinox.COM id aa02221; 24 Feb 97 16:52 EST Received: (from majordom at localhost) by info.netsol.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id QAA06995 for naipr-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:08:54 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: info.netsol.com: majordom set sender to owner-naipr at arin.net using -f Received: from muse.microunity.com (muse1.microunity.com [192.216.206.2]) by info.netsol.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA06991 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from gaea.microunity.com by muse.microunity.com (4.1/ericm1.1) id AA19904; Mon, 24 Feb 97 13:08:24 PST Received: from leto.microunity.com by gaea.microunity.com (4.1/muse1.3) id AA27449; Mon, 24 Feb 97 13:08:22 PST Received: by leto.microunity.com (8.6.10/muse-sw.3) id NAA02242; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:08:22 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:08:22 -0800 From: Bob Van Cleef Message-Id: <199702242108.NAA02242 at leto.microunity.com> To: naipr at arin.net Subject: To those against Jim Fleming Sender: owner-naipr at netsol.com Precedence: bulk From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 15:00:51 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:00:51 -0600 Subject: FW: Start ISPs as Registries Message-ID: <01BC2324.504930E0@webster.unety.net> ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 1:55 PM To: 'Avi Freedman'; jgonz at ibernet.es Cc: 'ckuehn at nsf.gov'; 'gstrawn at nsf.gov'; 'lsundro at nsf.gov'; nanog at merit.edu Subject: Start ISPs as Registries On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 2:06 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > But now we are receiving many petitions from much smaller ISP's @ > asking for BGP connections. These small customers are going to announce @ > few networks (a couple of /24, or some /23). We have no problems to @ > configure our routers with more BGP peerings, as our routers can support @ > it, but I'm a little bit concerned about the impact of such small @ > announcements to the whole Internet. @ @ I think the general feeling is that if the customer is multi-homed, there's @ going to be another route announcement for them anyway - whether it's a @ /23, /24, or /16 or /17. @ In my opinion, ISPs start at the wrong end of the business. We should try to encourage future ISPs to start as registries BEFORE they buy a lot of modems, routers and other stuff. If the airlines ran like the Internet, they would encourage pilots to buy their own planes, to transport customers, and after getting enough hours, they would teach them about air traffic control, navigation, weather, radios, etc. Because there has been a lack of emphasis on growing the IP address registries, and domain registries by the InterNIC, people do not get an opportunity to train in those important functions first, before jumping into the cockpit. As a net result of this, it is hard to find ISPs who are growing into the registry business. I suppose some ISPs do not see that there is any money in that end of the business. I also feel that there is a lack of education in this critical area. If NANOG members have any influence on the direction the Internet takes, I suggest that they help new ISPs first learn the registry end of the business. One way to do this is to help establish IP address registries in your area and the training programs needed to allow people to handle allocations as skilled professionals. There is not much capital required to launch someone as a registry, compared to the capital required to be an ISP. The key ingredient needed is education and NANOG seems like a natural group to help people get started. With the various charging models coming out of the ARIN discussions , there should be a lot of food for thought on how a few people in an office with some PCs, paper, pencils and telephones can become registries and support themselves. Once established as a registry, these skilled professionals could grow and branch out to add other services. Who knows, they could even become ISPs, and if they do, then they would have a firm foundation of registry training to support their growth and to better serve the Internet -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 16:16:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:16:23 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC232E.DD949020@webster.unety.net> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Subject: Read in WIRED on-line From: "Russell Bunge" Date: 1997/02/25 Message-Id: <5etopu$qdm$1 at zinger.callamer.com> Organization: Call America Internet Services +1 (800) 563-3271 X-Moderation: Automatically approved Newsgroups: slo.punks Originator: daemon at kosh.punk.net Read in WIRED on-line: - Opponents Strike Back at Domain-Name Change, by John Gilles http://www.wired.com/news/topframe/2210.html "Chris Ambler claims he already owns the .web domain name and is considering filing suit in a Southern California court against the International Ad Hoc Committee's (IAHC) use of the name..." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Tue Feb 25 17:11:47 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:11:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: .WEB Suit In-Reply-To: <01BC232E.DD949020@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Feb 25, 97 03:16:23 pm Message-ID: <199702252211.RAA16545@jazz.internic.net> > This has no relevance to ARIN. Please stop posting off-topic messages to the naipr list. Kim Hubbard > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > Subject: Read in WIRED on-line > From: "Russell Bunge" > Date: 1997/02/25 > Message-Id: <5etopu$qdm$1 at zinger.callamer.com> > Organization: Call America Internet Services +1 (800) 563-3271 > X-Moderation: Automatically approved > Newsgroups: slo.punks > Originator: daemon at kosh.punk.net > > > > Read in WIRED on-line: > > - Opponents Strike Back at Domain-Name Change, by John > Gilles > http://www.wired.com/news/topframe/2210.html > > "Chris Ambler claims he already owns the .web domain name and is > considering filing suit in a Southern California court against the > International Ad Hoc Committee's (IAHC) use of the name..." > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 17:05:31 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:05:31 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC2335.BAA2C6C0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:11 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ This has no relevance to ARIN. Please stop posting off-topic messages @ to the naipr list. @ @ Kim Hubbard @ Have you read the article ? Did you read the parts about YOUR employer Network Solutions, Inc. ? Is Network Solutions, Inc. still funding ARIN ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Tue Feb 25 17:21:34 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:21:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: .WEB Suit In-Reply-To: <01BC2335.BAA2C6C0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Feb 25, 97 04:05:31 pm Message-ID: <199702252221.RAA16587@jazz.internic.net> > > On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:11 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: > @ > > @ This has no relevance to ARIN. Please stop posting off-topic messages > @ to the naipr list. > @ > @ Kim Hubbard > @ > > Have you read the article ? Did you read my message???? I said please stop posting off-topic messages to the naipr list. Kim Hubbard > > Did you read the parts about YOUR employer Network Solutions, Inc. ? > > Is Network Solutions, Inc. still funding ARIN ? > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 17:12:54 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:12:54 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC2336.C2A30140@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:21 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ @ > On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:11 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ > @ > @ This has no relevance to ARIN. Please stop posting off-topic messages @ > @ to the naipr list. @ > @ @ > @ Kim Hubbard @ > @ @ > @ > Have you read the article ? @ @ Did you read my message???? I said please stop posting off-topic messages @ to the naipr list. @ @ Kim Hubbard @ Is this your opinion ? What have you based that decision on ? Since you do not seem to post anything to the list, how do you formulate that opinion ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 17:22:57 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:22:57 -0600 Subject: Off topic...? Message-ID: <01BC2338.2A3B4780@webster.unety.net> For those that are not familiar with the history of ARIN as well as the history of control of the Top Level Domain name space, you should be aware that they are extremely intertwined. The NSF, Network Solutions, Inc., and the IANA are in the center and many other players are on the edges. Now, I understand why some people would like to make everyone think they are not related, and I understand why ARIN was rushed into the public eye last month. Eventually, those topics will probably be discussed. It is unfortunate that most people only have a broad overview of a very complex area. It is easy to be convinced that one topic has nothing to do with another. I find it interesting that some topics get an almost immediate and heated reaction from people close to the situation. If those topics were truly "off-topic" then that reaction would not occur. The supposed off-topic material would drift away unnoticed. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Tue Feb 25 17:38:09 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:38:09 -0500 Subject: Please, no spam. There's enuff to go around already.. Message-ID: <331369D1.28C4@driveway1.com> Lets try to keep this orderly - ad hominem (on *EITHER* side) seems to me to be a waste of time. Sometimes the homina (hominae?) do have some intriguing points, and I vote for the 1st amendment, but really! Grow up and lets talk organization points here! From matt at netmeg.net Tue Feb 25 18:12:00 1997 From: matt at netmeg.net (Matt Magri) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 18:12 EST Subject: To those against Jim Fleming Message-ID: Alan Bechtold > Jim Fleming gets a bit wild...but to say there is nothing to address is > strictly a matter of opinion. Ignore him if you disagree...or take on his > accusations and points and deflate them. But I would have to write off this > entire list if he or anyone like him was silenced. Do you mean removed from this mailing list, or actually silenced? My interest is purely academic, of course, since I would not advocate either action. I just wish that people would stop following onto him when he "gets a bit wild". It's nice that people are so sensitive about free speech and contrary opinions and all, but it does seem a bit odd that people expressing the opinion that folks are wasting everyone's time by following onto someone's posts has become tantamount to "silencing" someone. Even the subject of this thread, "To those against Jim Fleming" is superheated. I'm certainly not against Jim Fleming, any more than I was against the rather unkempt guy I saw on a train who repeated... Boston baked beans are not Boston baked beans, they're Yorkshire baked beans. Yorkshire pudding is not Yorkshire pudding, it's Boston pudding. ...over and over again in a loud monotone. I was actually sorry to see the conductors put him off at the Wilmington, DE station. He seemed very earnest and, who knows, maybe he even had a point. At any rate, it wasn't clear to me how leaving him in Delaware was such a great idea, tho I'm guessing Amtrak doesn't keep professional psychologists onboard. He was easy enough to tune out, so there didn't seem to be any harm in leaving him. Of course, if people had started interrupting him and asking things like, "What do you mean? Why would they have been called Boston baked beans all these years if they were actually Yorkshire baked beans?" or "What basis do you have for your claim about this so-called `Boston pudding'?" then it would have been worse. But, then, people always seem to be a lot more sensible about such things when they are dealing with people in person then when they're dealing with them via computer. Matt From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 18:28:46 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:28:46 -0600 Subject: ARIN questions Message-ID: <01BC2341.5BE03D00@webster.unety.net> Has the proposed budget for ARIN been completed? In the Internet Monthly report, there was reference to a budget. Has that been published ? The NSF agreement with Network Solutions, Inc. clearly encompasses IP address Registration Services. Can someone explain why all of a sudden people do not think it does ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 18:57:29 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:57:29 -0600 Subject: ARIN Trustees Message-ID: <01BC2345.5EB58040@webster.unety.net> In light of the recent article in/on Wired entitled... "DOJ To Brief Companies on Espionage Act". here are some quotes...[1] "Foreign technology companies that want to keep up with US competition had better tread lightly." ... "The obscure new espionage law, passed in October by Congress and signed by President Clinton, attempts to stop companies from obtaining trade secrets..." ... "As long as foreign companies maintain a low profile, they will likely elude prosecution under the act." ... "The law, which passed without fanfare, imposes felony crimes on those found guilty of obtaining trade secrets of US companies - even if some of the data was already publicly available." [1] Can the proposed Trustees or anyone else explain how ARIN is going to be able to deal with company trade secrets and not end up with Canadian or Mexican companies becoming "high profile" ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From woody at ZOCALO.NET Tue Feb 25 20:54:27 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:54:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <199702260154.RAA09050@zocalo.net> > Is this your opinion ? > What have you based that decision on ? > Since you do not seem to post anything to the list, > how do you formulate that opinion ? Jim, she doesn't need to have an opinion on everything you have an opinion on. In fact, if she did, she wouldn't have any time to get her work done. MORE TO THE POINT, if she does have an opinion, SHE'S SMART ENOUGH NOT TO POST IT TO THIS LIST, which is for discussion of INTEGERS. Everyone other than you is REALLY TIRED of talking about NAMES, which ARE ARE CATEGORICALLY UNINTERESTING. PLEASE STOP, or TAKE IT ELSEWHERE. -Bill Woodcock ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 22:12:07 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:12:07 -0600 Subject: First Hand ARIN Experiences Message-ID: <01BC2360.90BBF180@webster.unety.net> Mr. Paul Ferguson CISCO Systems Dear Mr. Ferguson: In your letter below, you make several statements which give people the impression that you have first-hand working knowledge of the people proposing and backing ARIN. For the benefit of people reading the list, can you describe how much experience you have had in applying for IP addresses? I ask this because in many large companies, like CISCO, these tasks are handled by a large IS group and are transparent to their employees. I also ask these questions because I am concerned that people like yourself, speaking from a CISCO sponsored podium, can carry much more weight than the average user. I would like to make sure that that weight is backed up with "first hand experiences" and not some impressions you may have gotten at a trade show or conference. To illustrate the difference, I suggest that you attend a community meeting some time where the local police are providing information about their department and the public services they provide. You will likely find that they project an image of "professionalism" backed with strong "personal commitments". I also suggest that you ride with those same people sometime while they do their duty and enforce law and order. You might see a very different picture. You might see a picture you do not like and others do not like. You will not see it, unless you have "first hand experiences". Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:48:52 -0500 To: Dave McClure From: Paul Ferguson Subject: Re: AOP Notification Cc: "'The Innkeeper'" , "'sob at newdev.harvard.edu'" , "'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET'" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-naipr at netsol.com Precedence: bulk Mr. McClure, Since I did not see the original message from Scott Bradner to this individual come across the list (of course, I may have missed it, since I've been traveling for the past couple of weeks), it would imply that you forwarded a private note to a public forum, which shows a great deal of unprofessionalism. Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. They certainly have more-than-adequate historical, technical and practical experience to do so, and your snide comments below come off as insulting, to say the least. Nonetheless, without calling one another silly names, I believe that your note is a fine example of how you do not completely grasp the complexities of running a registry, the technical significance of the registries' impact, nor the professional and personal commitments these folks have made to the Internet community. One might suggest that your continued persistence to forward messages without significant contributions, to include viable alternatives, would allow others on this list to dismiss you as a troublemaker, not a problem solver. - paul At 10:12 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Feb 25 22:42:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:42:59 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC2364.DF318EC0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:54 AM, Bill Woodcock[SMTP:woody at zocalo.net] wrote: @ @ > Is this your opinion ? @ > What have you based that decision on ? @ > Since you do not seem to post anything to the list, @ > how do you formulate that opinion ? @ @ Jim, she doesn't need to have an opinion on everything you have an @ opinion on. In fact, if she did, she wouldn't have any time to get @ her work done. MORE TO THE POINT, if she does have an opinion, SHE'S @ SMART ENOUGH NOT TO POST IT TO THIS LIST, which is for discussion of @ INTEGERS. @ @ Everyone other than you is REALLY TIRED of talking about NAMES, which @ ARE ARE CATEGORICALLY UNINTERESTING. PLEASE STOP, or TAKE IT @ ELSEWHERE. @ I am sure that many people can debate the technical ins and outs of domain names and IP addresses and how they are or are not related. I will not waste your time debating how IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations have to deal with many of the same domain name issues. Let's agree names are names and integers are integers and both can become "uninteresting". What is interesting is policy and procedure. Private people are talking about being funded by a private company to inherit resources entrusted to that company by the U.S. Government. In my opinion, the public has the right to be heard. If for some reason people do not want the public to be heard then my concerns grow larger. Since most of the domain name issues have now been solved, I am more than happy to focus on integers, but this does not change my concerns. Resources are resources and the public good must be taken into account when making decisions about managing those resources. It is one thing for people to claim they are acting in the interest of the public, it is another to demonstrate that in forums like this. Once again, I suggest that all of the ARIN leaders publish a public platform/policy/position statement for the public to read. If you can not do that then I question how much this ARIN proposal is motivated by concern for the public. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 10:28:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:28:00 -0600 Subject: ARIN Suggestions Message-ID: <01BC23C7.5CB410E0@webster.unety.net> John, Continuing this discussion, I have include more specific suggestions. It is one thing for people to stay, stop doing this or that. I feel it is more productive to also make suggestions... On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:19 AM, Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] wrote: @ On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:01 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ @ At 22:42 2/25/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ @ >Resources are resources and the public good must be taken @ @ >into account when making decisions about managing those @ @ >resources. @ @ @ @ Agreed. The current model of having allocations @ @ performed by a private firm in the absence of public @ @ input is less than ideal. ARIN is a proposed solution @ @ to this problem which has gained significant support @ @ to date. @ @ @ @ I would support several private firms doing it and @ in my opinion, the IPv4 address space is large enough @ to allow that to happen. Other large companies have @ indicated to me they are making plans. Those are @ the bright spots on the horizon. @ The ISP/C might also be a good organization to support IP address registrations. They are already set up as a non-profit. @@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/press/19970207.html ISP/C APPLAUDS NETWORK SOLUTIONS' FUNDING OFFER FOR ARIN @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ Having one private firm do it with the same personnel @ as the existing private firm appears to offer less @ protection for the small players. At least in the @ existing system, the U.S. Government has some @ hand, even though it is clearly handicapped. @ I have suggested before that no Network Solutions, Inc. employees, past, present or future be allowed to be involved until their Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Government ends in September 1998. @ @ >It is one thing for people to claim they are acting @ @ >in the interest of the public, it is another to @ @ >demonstrate that in forums like this. @ @ @ @ I believe that ARIN will better serve the interests of @ @ the public (and the Internet community in particular) @ @ due to ability to actually have public input into the @ @ process. The current process utilizing NSI lacks this @ @ direct input path. @ @ @ @ That sounds good to me. I back you 110.3%. @ You lead the way, and others will march to your drum. @ @ I still suggest that you help fund ARIN with some @ domain name registrations as part of the business plan @ but if you feel you can make a go of it with just IP @ addresses, God love ya... I suggest that ARIN use the following /8s... 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) I have also suggested that other "start-up" IP registries only be given one /8. There are not that many. If you want to play on a level playing field, then maybe only one of the above should be used and the others be returned... @ I started selling 32 bit addresses in 1982 for $50 each. @ People bought them and received a signed, framed, @ certificate to hang on their wall. We certified that those @ numbers would be unique. That was it. People bought them @ and that was 15 years ago...;-) @ @ You might have a better market now... @ @ @ >Once again, I suggest that all of the ARIN leaders publish @ @ >a public platform/policy/position statement for the public to @ @ >read. If you can not do that then I question how much this @ @ >ARIN proposal is motivated by concern for the public. @ @ @ @ Jim, you are seeking a public platform statment on what @ @ issue? @ @ @ @ I am mostly interested in the types of comments @ you have made. I trust that you and your company (BBN Planet) @ will "do the right thing". This entire industry is largely @ built on trust. That is what makes the net "work"... @ @ I hope that you can set the pace and lead ARIN. @ Let me know how I can help. I do have some experience @ in the registry industry, despite what some people might @ say...;-) @ @ P.S. I don't expect to get any special favors in terms @ of address allocations. I just want to see people do the @ right thing...thanks for responding... @ Again, I suggest that the InterNIC, funded by the U.S. Government be largely kept in tact as a unit for people to study and clone. ARIN of course can clone all or parts, just like other companies. I would suggest that the ARIN founders keep an accurate public record of what parts they are cloning, what was involved, etc. This will allow other companies to learn and follow the lead. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 10:35:12 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:35:12 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC23C8.5E308240@webster.unety.net> ARIN Discussion Members Please send your comments to the ARIN discussion list. I find it inconsistent that people send me private comments about how the public ARIN discussion should operate and they do not make those comments in public when they obviously would help move the discussion forward. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 11:33:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:33:59 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC23D0.9434F6C0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, April 26, 1997 10:13 AM, Rob Marlowe[SMTP:rob at marlowe.net] wrote: @ >I find it inconsistent that people send me private comments @ >about how the public ARIN discussion should operate and @ >they do not make those comments in public when they @ >obviously would help move the discussion forward. @ @ Probably because anyone who disagrees with what is being proposed is @ immediately flamed. @ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ @ | Rob Marlowe, System Administrator rob at sanctum.com| @ | Marlowe & Associates (813)845-0893 | @ | P.O. Box 1058 New Port Richey, Fl 34656-1058 http://www.sanctum.com| @ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ @ @ @ Here is the simple solution that I have proposed which encompasses ARIN and other TLD issues. I welcome comments, flames, whatever you call people's postings. I do not think it is appropriate to tell people to shut up...or threaten to remove people from the list... Folks, there is a simple solution to many of these problems. This solution has been refined from months and months of debates. I welcome people's comments on this solution: 1. Keep the InterNIC prototype in place until September 1998 when the U.S. Government's Cooperative Agreement ends with AT&T and NSI who are the remaining two companies that form what is called the InterNIC. 2. Allow companies to clone the InterNIC with the following Internet resources: 1. 3 Top Level Domain Names 2. One /8 IP Address Space 3. Encourage this cloning via forty-nine $250,000 grants from the National Science Foundation which would come from the Internet Infrastructure fund which has over $12,000,000 for this type of purpose. 4. Allocate one grant to each state and direct the U.S. Senators to work with the Governor to select THREE companies in each state to "outsource" a Cooperative Agreement similar to the ORIGINAL InterNIC plan to have IS, DS, and RS functions. As an example, the State of Virginia had... IS - General Atomics DS - AT&T RS - Network Solutions, Inc. an IS company needs to be selected there. 5. The NSF bows out in September 1998, the proud parent of up to 50 InterNICs which serve the U.S. and the world... 6. These 50 InterNICs then help to coordinate a world collection of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide stability to the entire Internet. Thank you for your time.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From perry at PIERMONT.COM Wed Feb 26 11:40:13 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:40:13 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:35:12 CST." <01BC23C8.5E308240@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702261640.LAA05286@jekyll.piermont.com> Jim Fleming writes: > ARIN Discussion Members > > Please send your comments to the ARIN discussion list. Please do not send your comment about Jim's postings to the list. It is bad enough that we have to deal with the extant noise levels. Don't add to them. Perry From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 26 11:57:38 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:57:38 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:13:50 EDT." <16044139401646@marlowe.net> References: <16044139401646@marlowe.net> Message-ID: <199702261657.LAA18890@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:13:50 EDT, Rob Marlowe said: > Probably because anyone who disagrees with what is being proposed is > immediately flamed. Odd.. I've disagreed with the proposal as posted, in depth and in detail, and gotten somewhere (eventually) on everything (even if it wasn't quite the answer I *wanted* - on some things, ARIN is stuck with having to deal with things as they already are (such as the whole multiple-announcement mess)). In any case, you need a thick skin in this business - somebody once complained on the IETF list re: getting flamed, and somebody else (I wish I had a citation) replied "The poster made no aspersion regarding your parentage or dietary preferences, and was thus rather mild by IETF standards". Or did I misread this, and it meant "what is proposed by Fleming"? That would, of course, put a whole different spin on things... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 10:45:49 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:45:49 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23C9.D9A06F20@webster.unety.net> I believe that I have made these suggestions before. Unfortunately, the ARIN mail list archive was fouled up for a week or so, and it was just recently fixed. I am not sure everything made it into the record. ====== One suggestion that I have made to the National Science Foundation is to take the $12.6 million dollar infrastructure fund and divide it 49 ways to help fund a new registry in each state. In September of 1998, the InterNIC would be handed over to the state of Virginia. The NSF could allocate $250,000 to each state and the U.S. Senators for the state in conjunction with the Governor, could help select a company to clone the InterNIC in that state. The selection process would be similar to the way the InterNIC was formed. Since John Curran and Scott Bradner are both in the State of Massachusetts, ARIN could be started there. Maybe ARIN could be used as a "prototype" by the NSF for other states to follow ? Again, I suggest that ARIN also pick up 3 Top Level Domains to help provide a funding source. The business people behind ARIN should try to make sure ARIN is able to survive because customers will seek stability. A $250,000 grant from the NSF could help as "seed capital". Network Solutions, Inc. has evidently made suggestions to the NSF about what should be done with the $12.6 million. I would be interested in seeing those proposals here and to see how thjey compare and what other people's comments are... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 26 12:08:52 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:08:52 -0500 Subject: .WEB Suit In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:16:23 CST." <01BC232E.DD949020@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC232E.DD949020@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702261708.MAA11836@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:16:23 CST, Jim Fleming said: > "Chris Ambler claims he already owns the .web domain name and is > considering filing suit in a Southern California court against the > International Ad Hoc Committee's (IAHC) use of the name..." More Alternic whining. And it must be true - it was reported in WIRED, that paragon of journalistic perfection. And this time Kim is right - it has nothing to do with the NAIPR list. Take the Alternic whining to the alternic-whiners list, the .s0.g0 address to the detached-from-reality-dns list, and leave THIS list for discussion of allocation of integers. I can deal with a *lot* of random babbling and flaming, as long as it's *ON TOPIC* random babbling and flaming. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 26 13:26:11 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:26:11 -0500 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 PST." <2.2.32.19970226172907.0073015c@westcoast.cybertest.com> References: <2.2.32.19970226172907.0073015c@westcoast.cybertest.com> Message-ID: <199702261826.NAA18756@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 PST, you said: > I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't > agree with the process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and > Governor's decide who will Unfortunately, the funding model breaks down here. Just because you can run ONE registry on $3M a year does *NOT* mean that you can run 50 registries on $60,000 a year each. Also, given the fact that we do *NOT* have geographically-based IP address allocations now (nor are we likely to, given the current interconnect structure between the long-haul providers), mandating 50 of them may be worse than counter-productive, causing non-aggregation of addresses that would otherwise have been aggregable. As a (probably not unreasonable case) what happens to a company that has its main corporate offices in Boston, but maintains a POP in Detroit and NYC, but does most of its packet interchange at MAE-East in Maryland? Which state(s) do they ask for allocations, and what happens if they ask in Maryland, and need more allocation due to growth in their Detroit operation? The Maryland registry will probably be upset at having "their" allocation hijacked, much as RIPE propably would be unhappy at giving out address space for a US company to use in the US.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Feb 26 13:28:59 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:28:59 -0500 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: At 12:12 2/26/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >Now, you might not agree that the InterNIC should >be kept in tact to provide stability, etc. You also >might not agree that the InterNIC has been a success. Jim - Since the cooperative agreement exists and specifically tasks the InterNIC to handle this IP registry functions, their ability to not provide such services is quite likely predicated upon ARIN's success. >In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail >why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address >allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their >is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? The costs of IP registry services are currently rolled into the entire InterNIC costs. These costs are offset principally by DNS registration service fees which quite likely will undergo significant changes over the next year with whatever combination of new name registries emerge. Given the operational importance of functional registry services, it's desirable to start the transition of these services to a self-sustaining financial base sooner rather than later. One additional benefit of such a transition is the ability to open up the policy formation process to those actually affected by the IP registry services. Presumably, we could wait until the cooperative agreement nearly expires to create ARIN; that would create serious risk to perform a flash cutover of facilities and authority to whatever structures emerged as successor. /John From davids at WIZNET.NET Wed Feb 26 13:43:28 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:43:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: <199702261826.NAA18756@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: The simplest solution to this is to allow each registry to set its policies as far as whose allocations is will accept. Those registries that can solve these regional problems will get the most business. I'm sure that if, for example, an explosion shut APNIC down, RIPE and InterNIC would start allocating to those who normally deal with APNIC until APNIC could resume operations. Regional registries are a management convenience, not a network convenience. One registry per backbone would be a network convenience. DS On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > As a (probably not unreasonable case) what happens to a company that > has its main corporate offices in Boston, but maintains a POP in > Detroit and NYC, but does most of its packet interchange at MAE-East > in Maryland? Which state(s) do they ask for allocations, and what > happens if they ask in Maryland, and need more allocation due to > growth in their Detroit operation? The Maryland registry will > probably be upset at having "their" allocation hijacked, much as RIPE > propably would be unhappy at giving out address space for a US company > to use in the US.... From karl at MCS.NET Wed Feb 26 13:44:18 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:44:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 26, 97 09:39:19 am Message-ID: <199702261844.MAA07741@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail > > why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address > > allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their > > is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? > > Quite simply, when the coop agreement ends, the Internic no longer > has to supply IP allocation services. Therefore, some arrangements > have to be made in advance of that point to avoid the chaos that > would result if an essential service were to disappear. > > I can't see that any more detailled explanation is required than this. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com I'd like to ask a few questions on all sides... To NSI and Kim Hubbard: 1) I have not seen anything in the bylaws or operational rules that state that the initial BOT (who are appointed) will be required to either stand for election or step down after a short (say, one year) period of time. I think this needs to be addressed. If you want to stagger initial terms, that's fine, but then let's have the NSI folks off the BOT first -- after the first 12 months. 2) I'm still not satisfied with the representation provided to ARIN members. At minimum a recall procedure for the BOT as well as the Advisory committee needs to be in place. Direct election of the Advisory committee would be even better (and yes, I'd like to run for that post :-) 3) If this is a 501(c) organization then IRS forms have to be filed detailing revenue and expenses. I'd like the bylaws to go further and mandate full disclosure and open books for the membership. 4) Utilization requirements for additional space MUST be business-case neutral. There are things in some of the recent RFCs that aren't, and that troubles me. For example, there is a "strong disincentive" towards host-based addressing. Yet I can show good examples of why its needed in many forms of service (like ISDN where the customer has a routing device, as well as customers who need to pierce corporate firewalls). The bottom line is, if you have a /16, have you assigned it efficiently -- not do you follow someone else's idea of a business model. If THOSE kinds of criteria end up being the reason for denial of allocations there will IMHO be lawsuits. That's not a good thing, and I think we can reasonably avoid it. The bigger issue is customers who walk with space and new providers who *ACCEPT* them. The issue isn't the customer who walks -- its the new provider to AGREES TO ROUTE THE OLD ADDRESS RANGE! Stop THAT practice across the board and the CIDR collapse that everyone is shouting about goes away as an issue. I can document more than one customer of ours who has left for one reason or another with /24s and came back with "but xxxxx said they will announce and route it" when we asked for the space back. Not one of those "xxxxx"s are little companies either -- they have ALL been major, Tier 1 backbone or MAJOR regional providers. *I*m not taking the arrows (or lawsuits) from the customer who signed three years ago when I didn't have to make address non-portable when this happens (yes, our policies are very different now, but this is now and that was then.) Better yet, pressure vendors to sell real routers which don't have these problems with flapping and table size within the forseeable future. There is one on the market now, and another due in June of this year. Why do I ask for these things? Because I want ARIN to be "watertight" when it comes to charges (which have already been made) that its biased, violating laws, etc. Let's try to get that codified. PS: Kim, I *DO* like the changes you've made thus far. I just don't think they go quite far enough in terms of representation, and that this can be easily fixed. To the "naysayers": 1) How is this supposed to get done? It HAS TO HAPPEN folks. I don't see anything that makes it horrible for ARIN as a structure to be there. 2) Regarding fees - they aren't free. Yep. But the issue of global routability (which basically means you need a /19 or better today) isn't one which ARIN can really address. Frankly, attempting to address it at ARIN is, in my opinion, even MORE restraining on trade than NOT! ARIN will have expenses. I'd like to ask for all staff position salaries to be public; I believe that is reasonable, and furthermore that reasonable salaries are quite within the realm of what people should support. The members will be professionals; I know what it costs to hire a reasonably-competent sysadmin, for example. If you pay them twice that while working for ARIN I want to know about it and raise hell. If you're hiring people at half of the prevailing wage I want to know ALSO -- because the bottom line there is that I would likely question their experience. 3) IF you think you have a better mousetrap available -- let's see it. Put the pen to paper and document what you think we can do as an alternative, and why its better. BACK IT UP WITH NUMBERS. I can claim anything I want -- but if I can't show some credible documentation then its all just hot air. That's where I sit... and I'm one of those guys who really *IS* a user of these services, and we WILL be joining provided that the organization meets what I believe are the public-policy points involved in making it bulletproof. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 14:11:41 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:11:41 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC23E6.9C45C680@webster.unety.net> Glossary: InterNIC = NSF + (AT&T + NSI) Cooperating NSF = U.S. Government National Science Foundation AT&T = AT&T NSI = Network Solutions, Inc. On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:28 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 12:12 2/26/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >Now, you might not agree that the InterNIC should @ >be kept in tact to provide stability, etc. You also @ >might not agree that the InterNIC has been a success. @ @ Jim - Since the cooperative agreement exists and specifically @ tasks the InterNIC to handle this IP registry functions, their @ ability to not provide such services is quite likely predicated @ upon ARIN's success. @ Both can provide the services in parallel. If the InterNIC wants to stop after ARIN and the other 40 or 50 NICs are rolling, that will save the InterNIC the headaches and the money. @ >In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail @ >why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address @ >allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their @ >is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? @ @ The costs of IP registry services are currently rolled into @ the entire InterNIC costs. These costs are offset principally @ by DNS registration service fees which quite likely will undergo @ significant changes over the next year with whatever combination @ of new name registries emerge. @ Yes...it is interesting that you mention these "changes". There is one significant change that people seem to overlook. Many of the costs of getting the InterNIC to where it is have eaten into the profits of NSI. AT&T has not had much impact. Once the .COM domain becomes stable, NSI's costs will likely drop because more and more functions are automated and renewals will just happen over and over. This is what happens to insurance agents who work for a few years. As NSI's costs drop, their profits may go up. They have to manage their business in a changing climate. You seem to be implying that the InterNIC can no longer "afford" to support IP allocations. If that is the case then the NSF, AT&T and NSI ought to spread the load around. Until NSI's books are available to the general public to review and the NSF audits the books, I am not sure anyone is in a position to comment on the specifics of that situation. @ Given the operational importance of functional registry services, @ it's desirable to start the transition of these services to a @ self-sustaining financial base sooner rather than later. One @ additional benefit of such a transition is the ability to open @ up the policy formation process to those actually affected by @ the IP registry services. @ I agree. I also have proposed that people be educated. This is one of the goals of the NSF. People need to become educated about the good and the bad aspects of the prototype InterNIC the NSF has built. By keeping the InterNIC together for 18 more months, people can study it and make the best transitions. I believe if the original plan of IS, DS, and RS had been followed things would be better. Unfortunately, the NSF dismissed the IS company and with that some of the functions were reorganized to NSI and AT&T took a back seat to everything. NSI has now emerged as what most people think is the InterNIC. This is not the case. @ Presumably, we could wait until the cooperative agreement nearly @ expires to create ARIN; that would create serious risk to perform @ a flash cutover of facilities and authority to whatever structures @ emerged as successor. @ @ /John Yes, that is why I have suggested that you keep the InterNIC together and you clone the entire unit many times. Several companies have been working on this cloning for many months in anticipation of the need to do this. We (the proverbial we) are way ahead of you. As BBN Planet with hundreds of people under your management you should not be insulted nor surprised that small companies are way ahead of you on this one. I am disturbed that the NSF has not recognized the efforts of these smaller companies and worked more closely with them to plan the transition. Instead, we see what appears to be the NSF approach of catering to big companies, big universities, and big names. That is something no one can stop the NSF from doing, but I hope you realize that smaller companies and "Internet nobodys" will eventually see this and head in other directions. In my opinion, that is a net-loss for the Internet which ironically gives these smaller companies unique advantages over large companies who can not quickly make decisions and respond to markets as fast as this net is moving. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 14:16:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:16:13 -0600 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <01BC23E7.3E28A580@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 3:39 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail @ > why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address @ > allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their @ > is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? @ @ Quite simply, when the coop agreement ends, the Internic no longer @ has to supply IP allocation services. Therefore, some arrangements @ have to be made in advance of that point to avoid the chaos that @ would result if an essential service were to disappear. @ @ I can't see that any more detailled explanation is required than this. @ OK...that agreement ends in 18 months...?...September 1998. What is wrong with the plan to clone the InterNIC many times that is well underway ? Here is the short form... 1. Clone the InterNIC 49 times 2. Start each new clone with 3 TLDs and 1 /8 3. Use the Infrastructure fund to provide $250,000 grants 4. Remove rocks from the soil, plant it and let it grow.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 15:31:38 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:31:38 -0600 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <01BC23F1.C78E1800@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 6:44 AM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl at MCS.NET] wrote: @ > @ > On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > @ > > In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail @ > > why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address @ > > allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their @ > > is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? @ > @ > Quite simply, when the coop agreement ends, the Internic no longer @ > has to supply IP allocation services. Therefore, some arrangements @ > have to be made in advance of that point to avoid the chaos that @ > would result if an essential service were to disappear. @ > @ > I can't see that any more detailled explanation is required than this. @ > @ > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ I'd like to ask a few questions on all sides... @ @ @ To NSI and Kim Hubbard: @ @ 1) I have not seen anything in the bylaws or operational rules that @ state that the initial BOT (who are appointed) will be required to @ either stand for election or step down after a short (say, one year) @ period of time. @ @ I think this needs to be addressed. If you want to stagger initial @ terms, that's fine, but then let's have the NSI folks off the BOT @ first -- after the first 12 months. @ I would like to see a position paper from all of the BOT at least describing their platform and long term views. I would like to thank Mr. John Curran of BBN Planet for using this forum to interactively present his position. If people are more comfortable with a "static" published position, that would be great. The ARIN web site could likely host that. To have people on the BOT with no published position makes me wonder. @ 2) I'm still not satisfied with the representation provided to ARIN @ members. At minimum a recall procedure for the BOT as well as the @ Advisory committee needs to be in place. Direct election of the @ Advisory committee would be even better (and yes, I'd like to run @ for that post :-) @ I agree and would vote for Karl and would nominate several members of the ISP/C Board of Directors. @ 3) If this is a 501(c) organization then IRS forms have to be filed @ detailing revenue and expenses. I'd like the bylaws to go further @ and mandate full disclosure and open books for the membership. @ Sounds good... @ 4) Utilization requirements for additional space MUST be business-case @ neutral. There are things in some of the recent RFCs that aren't, @ and that troubles me. For example, there is a "strong disincentive" @ towards host-based addressing. Yet I can show good examples of why @ its needed in many forms of service (like ISDN where the customer @ has a routing device, as well as customers who need to pierce @ corporate firewalls). @ @ The bottom line is, if you have a /16, have you assigned it @ efficiently -- not do you follow someone else's idea of a business @ model. @ @ If THOSE kinds of criteria end up being the reason for denial of @ allocations there will IMHO be lawsuits. That's not a good thing, @ and I think we can reasonably avoid it. @ Yes...this starts to get to the heart of the problem... We need simple objective ways for registries to make or deny allocations.. "objective" is the key word... Also, where is the Registry of Last Resort...? What is the appeals process ? @ The bigger issue is customers who walk with space and new providers @ who *ACCEPT* them. The issue isn't the customer who walks -- its @ the new provider to AGREES TO ROUTE THE OLD ADDRESS RANGE! Stop @ THAT practice across the board and the CIDR collapse that everyone @ is shouting about goes away as an issue. @ @ I can document more than one customer of ours who has left for one @ reason or another with /24s and came back with "but xxxxx said @ they will announce and route it" when we asked for the space back. @ Not one of those "xxxxx"s are little companies either -- they have @ ALL been major, Tier 1 backbone or MAJOR regional providers. *I*m @ not taking the arrows (or lawsuits) from the customer who signed @ three years ago when I didn't have to make address non-portable @ when this happens (yes, our policies are very different now, but @ this is now and that was then.) @ @ Better yet, pressure vendors to sell real routers which don't have @ these problems with flapping and table size within the forseeable @ future. There is one on the market now, and another due in June @ of this year. @ Somehow their has to be an economic penalty to fragment the space... @ Why do I ask for these things? Because I want ARIN to be "watertight" when @ it comes to charges (which have already been made) that its biased, violating @ laws, etc. Let's try to get that codified. @ Yes....why not make the deliberations public...? @ PS: Kim, I *DO* like the changes you've made thus far. I just don't think @ they go quite far enough in terms of representation, and that this can @ be easily fixed. @ @ @ To the "naysayers": @ @ 1) How is this supposed to get done? It HAS TO HAPPEN folks. I don't @ see anything that makes it horrible for ARIN as a structure to be @ there. @ I agree it has to happen. I would like to see the new TLD registries be the natural candidates to help expand the infrastructure. The registry industry shares a lot of the same common infrastructure on the IP address and domain name sides of the house. As someone noted, there may not yet be enough money to fund a bunch of fragmented InterNICs. @ 2) Regarding fees - they aren't free. Yep. But the issue of global @ routability (which basically means you need a /19 or better today) @ isn't one which ARIN can really address. Frankly, attempting to @ address it at ARIN is, in my opinion, even MORE restraining on trade @ than NOT! @ @ ARIN will have expenses. I'd like to ask for all staff position @ salaries to be public; I believe that is reasonable, and furthermore @ that reasonable salaries are quite within the realm of what people @ should support. The members will be professionals; I know what it @ costs to hire a reasonably-competent sysadmin, for example. If you @ pay them twice that while working for ARIN I want to know about it @ and raise hell. If you're hiring people at half of the prevailing @ wage I want to know ALSO -- because the bottom line there is that I @ would likely question their experience. @ I agree... @ 3) IF you think you have a better mousetrap available -- let's see it. @ Put the pen to paper and document what you think we can do as an @ alternative, and why its better. BACK IT UP WITH NUMBERS. I can @ claim anything I want -- but if I can't show some credible @ documentation then its all just hot air. @ @ That's where I sit... and I'm one of those guys who really *IS* a user of @ these services, and we WILL be joining provided that the organization meets @ what I believe are the public-policy points involved in making it bulletproof. @ It would be nice if one of the emerging TLD registries could add some "numbers" and offer input on whether they could pick up some of this role in the near future. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 16:27:12 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:27:12 -0600 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <01BC23F9.8ADB7BC0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 5:19 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: @ @ > 1) I have not seen anything in the bylaws or operational rules that @ > state that the initial BOT (who are appointed) will be required to @ > either stand for election or step down after a short (say, one year) @ > period of time. @ > @ > I think this needs to be addressed. If you want to stagger initial @ > terms, that's fine, but then let's have the NSI folks off the BOT @ > first -- after the first 12 months. @ @ I agree with Karl. This does need to be addressed. It is understandable @ that the BoT does not want to come out with a firm set of bylaws until @ they have had a chance to carefully examine all sides of the issue but I @ think the proposal on the website needs to be turned into more of a @ working document with some incremental updates based upon public @ commentary. It's not that hard to do and it would provide a useful point @ of focus for the discussions on this list. Has the ISP/C considered helping in this area? It seems you folks just went through a lot of these issues and are really getting things organized. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 16:30:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:30:50 -0600 Subject: InterNIC keeps 207.X.X.X Message-ID: <01BC23FA.0CCBA4C0@webster.unety.net> Would anyone object if the InterNIC kept some of the IP address space it has, let's say 207.X.X.X and ARIN takes the rest ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 26 15:54:09 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:54:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? In-Reply-To: <01BC23E7.3E28A580@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > What is wrong with the plan to clone the InterNIC many times > that is well underway ? > > Here is the short form... > 1. Clone the InterNIC 49 times Compare the .US domain name registry with the .CA domain name registry and you will immediately see the problem. Even though the two TLD's seem to be subdivided similarily on the surface, they are not operated the same way and that has made all the difference. entity.city.state.US and entity.city.province.CA are commonly seen in both domains. But in the .US domain, there are 50 main registries operating divided on state boundaries. This has led to coordination problems, policy problems, public relations problems, etc... It's too darn complicated and confusing. But the .CA domain is run by one single national committee with one single national policy. There are representatives from each province on the CA domain committee and it works quite well, is efficient and has a good public image. As network engineers and network operators I think we all understand the scaling problems that arise with a full mesh network. This is something fundamental to the nature of network systems whether they are networks of BGP peers or whether they are human organizations. ARIN is on the right track by setting up a single central wide-area registry that will be directly responsive to the members in its region and will only need to coordinate activities and policies with 4 other regional registries (RIPE, APNIC, AfricNIC and CORAS) as well as IANA. Note: I just made up the names AfricNIC and CORAS (Consejo de Operadores de la Red de America del Sur) and the real NIC's will probably figure out even better names :-) Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 26 15:57:31 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:57:31 -0500 Subject: ARIN Suggestions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:52:45 CST." <01BC23EC.58944FA0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC23EC.58944FA0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702262057.PAA24796@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:52:45 CST, Jim Fleming said: > A great disservice has been done to the Internet by making > people tightly tie IP address allocations to "upstream providers". > IP address allocations should have been tied to REGISTRIES. > > Once someone leases an allocation, then they should have > been instructed how to notify their upstream providers about > announcing their routes. Umm.. go back and read why CIDR was invented in the first place. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 16:01:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:01:13 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23F5.E9743CC0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 1:37 PM, Jerry Scharf[SMTP:scharf at VIX.COM] wrote: @ jims at CYBERPARK.COM said: @ > I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't @ > agree with the process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and @ > Governor's decide who will handle the tasks. The less the government @ > is involved the better. Exactly how the companies are decided, well @ > that could be opened for discussion. The idea of having political @ > figures decide leads me to believe special interest would soon take @ > control of a number states, which in turn could harm the entire @ > process. That is just my opinion. @ @ Ask the people who did the state by state DNS stuff under .us what their @ successes and problems were before you wish that on an IP registry. I don't @ think the state zone management would be considered an unqualified success by @ anyone. I know Bill Manning has some strong opinions born out of running .us. @ Oh...please do not get me started... @ I think is is fair to say that getting people who know how to do the job is @ more important than the number of registries. How would you grade people's @ ability to run a registry to qualify them? @ I would start with the people who have already made significant progress on the other aspects of the InterNIC. That focus has been mostly on domain name registrations. I would look for people with a combination of registry experience in many areas. You might be surprised that when serious plans are made, only serious people survive...one thing I learned in the TLD registry debates was that people would step forward and say, I would like to do that, rather than flame them...it was better to say, OK...and then educate them....some survived and some did not... I know one young person who has survived a lot in California...:-)...and he is still there and growing... I know another one that has survived a lot in Seattle and he is still alive and surviving...:-) I know another, and another, and another... I believe they are all ready to eat the InterNIC's lunch...!!! -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 15:41:28 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:41:28 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23F3.26F75620@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 2:24 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:09:12 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > You have assumed that asking for allocations from Maryland @ > has something to do with routers and packets and services @ > in Maryland. @ @ Well, if it *doesnt* have anything to do with it, why have one for @ each state? Why not on a per-timezone basis, or the way that minor-league @ baseball allocates sites for new teams (there must be two counties @ between each city that gets a team), or per phone system area code, @ or any *other* scheme? @ It is political...have you closely followed the NSF proceedings and meeting notes...?....do you know their interests...? Do you know where the NSF get's their money...? @ And remember - a basic goal here is to get *something* online @ before the coop agreement expires. You want to try to launch *one* @ registry, or *50*, before then? @ I doubt if all 50 will make it by then...September 1998... I have a feeling California will be first... I will not comment further...:-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Feb 26 14:06:59 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:06:59 -0500 Subject: ARIN Suggestions Message-ID: At 10:28 2/26/97, Jim Fleming wrote: > >I have suggested before that no Network Solutions, Inc. >employees, past, present or future be allowed to be >involved until their Cooperative Agreement with >the U.S. Government ends in September 1998. I understand that suggestion, but would prefer to have some folks who understand the existing operational systems and procedures come along to increase the probability of smooth transition. We've seen some very bad transitions in the past when registry functions were handed off to new staff and organizations, and I'd rather reduce that risk as much as possible. >@ I still suggest that you help fund ARIN with some >@ domain name registrations as part of the business plan >@ but if you feel you can make a go of it with just IP >@ addresses, God love ya... The intent is to make it self-sustaining and not dependent on the DNS allocations. I guess one alternative would be something along the lines of a "domain tax" which would be taken from name registry providers for ip registry providers, but that seems rather arbitrary to me since they are going to be significantly different markets. >I suggest that ARIN use the following /8s... > >4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) >8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) >46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) Thanks Jim... it's the thought that counts. ;-) Since we're on the topic (and along the lines of disclosure), I've pretty well extracted myself from BBN's IP assignment processs and will keep that distance for the duration of trustee term (one can hope for a short term, no? :-) BBN does have several class A address allocations, but did agreed last year to free these up as soon as possible for return and to make future allocations to customers from blocks received based on the same criteria as any other ISP. >I have also suggested that other "start-up" IP registries >only be given one /8. There are not that many. If you >want to play on a level playing field, then maybe only >one of the above should be used and the others be >returned... I believe that it's very early to talk about multiple registries (other than ISP-based registries) at the present time. We (I?) do not know how to handle large scale routing of assignments which are not topologically aligned (although I look forward to advice on this topic if someone has a solution to this problem - you have noted some thoughts in this area in the past). I do believe that multiple registries for IPv6 should be considered, but that is a option that should be explored and decided by the Advisory Committee once it's underway. >@ I am mostly interested in the types of comments >@ you have made. I trust that you and your company (BBN Planet) >@ will "do the right thing". This entire industry is largely >@ built on trust. That is what makes the net "work"... BBN is trying to "do the right thing" by making my time available to serve as needed, but they have no other involvement in ARIN, other than one of the ISP's which will use such services. I will try to do the "right thing" as a trustee, but need folks to read the documents and provide input anchored in the realities of the situation. ARIN may not be what we'd create as the ultimate structure for IP registrations if we were working from a clean slate, but I do believe it is a viable solution for moving the IP allocation process to something which is self-funded and self-governed. /John From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Wed Feb 26 20:14:57 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:14:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: InterNIC keeps 207.X.X.X In-Reply-To: <01BC23FA.0CCBA4C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: > Would anyone object if the InterNIC kept some of the > IP address space it has, let's say 207.X.X.X and ARIN > takes the rest ? They should pay like everyone else. --karl-- From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 20:16:27 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:16:27 -0600 Subject: InterNIC keeps 207.X.X.X Message-ID: <01BC2419.912DA000@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 11:14 AM, Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl at CaveBear.com] wrote: @ @ > Would anyone object if the InterNIC kept some of the @ > IP address space it has, let's say 207.X.X.X and ARIN @ > takes the rest ? @ @ They should pay like everyone else. @ Sorry, I meant as a "registry"... They would be a "seller" or not a buyer... Also, did I miss who is proposed to handle IN-ADDR.ARPA ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed Feb 26 22:18:31 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:18:31 +0900 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 PST." <2.2.32.19970226172907.0073015c@westcoast.cybertest.com> Message-ID: <199702270318.MAA20648@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Hi, >I believe in creating a registry for each state. I'm curious. What does US national political geography have to do with IP address allocation? Continental geography is bad enough. Further, if you support a registry for each state, then I assume you would support address allocation registries be created for each province, prefecture, etc. in other countries. But why stop there? Why not go down to cities or communities or how about making every post office on the planet a registry? Oh, and how are these registries supposed to coordinate their policies? Thanks, -drc From karl at MCS.NET Thu Feb 27 10:28:25 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:28:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: <33159FB0.49A3@graphnet.com> from "Mr. Dana Hudes" at Feb 27, 97 09:52:33 am Message-ID: <199702271528.JAA15759@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> > > IP address allocation cannot be done willy-nilly. You cannot discuss > allocation without considering routing . Aggregation is the name of > the game, or we will have monster route tables of 100K routes. Right > now, I am not aware of any vendor capable of handling more than 50K > routes. Really? We have 44,934 network entries in our core right now from external sources. We also have used only about half of our 64M of RAM in our core CISCO hardware. The majority of that hardware can double that if necessary, to 128M. The ASCEND GRF400 can handle 150,000 routes with zero flap considerations. > and disk into the system but regular routers have no virtual memory > and limited slots for physical RAM. The IETF solution to this looming > problem is CIDR as all should well know. See above, then please come back and explain the discrepancy. > By using a hierarchical allocation policy we have some prayer of > aggregating announcements at the various NAPs/MAEs/IXPs. If customers > run around switching providers and not renumbering then holes start > to appear in the CIDR blocks. AT least by considering vague geography > by continent we have the more specific in, e.g., Europe, for European > routes which are aggregable in other continents. > > Dana Hudes > Senior Network Engineer > Graphnet Yep. And by June there will be at least one other major hardware player which we all know and love with an ASCEND GRF400-style device that also can handle much larger tables and flap rates. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 10:43:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:43:00 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC2492.9FB20340@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 9:18 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: @ Hi, @ @ >I believe in creating a registry for each state. @ @ I'm curious. What does US national political geography have to do @ with IP address allocation? Continental geography is bad enough. @ Further, if you support a registry for each state, then I assume you @ would support address allocation registries be created for each @ province, prefecture, etc. in other countries. But why stop there? @ Why not go down to cities or communities or how about making every @ post office on the planet a registry? @ @ Oh, and how are these registries supposed to coordinate their @ policies? @ @ Thanks, @ -drc @ @ Mr. David Conrad Director Asia Pacific NIC (APNIC) Dear David: I am somewhat surprised that a person who makes part of their living allocating IP addresses for a "geographic" region would not understand the geo-political reasons why people like to work with organizations that are in the areas that: speak their language, understand their cultures, and are supportive of their communities. In answer to your question about coordinating policies. The United States of America and its 50 states have had a long history of being able to coordinate policies. I suggest that you study that history for the answer to your question. If these views are not consistent with the views that you have seen as an attendee at meetings here in the U.S. with the people proposing ARIN, please expand on that for this ARIN discussion group. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 10:50:58 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:50:58 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC2493.BC395E40@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 9:03 AM, Mr. Dana Hudes[SMTP:dhudes at graphnet.com] wrote: @ The idea of having 50 registries to deal with for one country is @ a nightmare for smooth operations as an ISP IMHO. I want my staff @ to obtain addresses from one source per continent or at most @ large country. For example, a registry for US and one for Canada @ is ok but Mexico, Guatamala, and Nicarauga and PAnama each with a @ registry? Can you wait for the registry in the Bahamas? Good grief. @ OTOH, one for all of the People's Republic of China may be insufficient. @ @ If we fragment registries we fragment the address space. @ @ Domains being symbolic names are far easier. As long as we have @ authorized TLDs under root name servers we can have as many domain @ registries as there are TLDs -- and then subdomains under that. @ Truly the market can decide where to register a domain name. @ Authorized is required to prevent pirating domain names and disruption @ of service. @ @ Dana Hudes @ Senior Network Engineer @ Graphnet @ @ As an ISP, I imagine that you would end up gravitating to one of the 50 registries that I have proposed. You might make that selection based on price, service, your location, your friends, their inventory of IP addresses, etc. With regard to..."If we fragment registries we fragment the address space". Could you explain this in more detail ? It appears that you are mixing registry issues and routing issues. That is easy to do because ISPs have been trained to, "go to your upstream provider". This makes ISPs think their upstream provider is their registry. Most ISPs do not have a relationship with a registry, they just think they do. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 11:01:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:01:55 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC2495.4410A5C0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 8:52 AM, Mr. Dana Hudes[SMTP:dhudes at graphnet.com] wrote: @ IP address allocation cannot be done willy-nilly. You cannot discuss @ allocation without considering routing . Aggregation is the name of @ the game, or we will have monster route tables of 100K routes. Right @ now, I am not aware of any vendor capable of handling more than 50K @ routes. It may well be that the Routing Arbiter and Route Server, as @ applications running on a Sun, could handle more by throwing more RAM @ and disk into the system but regular routers have no virtual memory @ and limited slots for physical RAM. The IETF solution to this looming @ problem is CIDR as all should well know. @ @ By using a hierarchical allocation policy we have some prayer of @ aggregating announcements at the various NAPs/MAEs/IXPs. If customers @ run around switching providers and not renumbering then holes start @ to appear in the CIDR blocks. AT least by considering vague geography @ by continent we have the more specific in, e.g., Europe, for European @ routes which are aggregable in other continents. @ @ Dana Hudes @ Senior Network Engineer @ Graphnet @ @ I agree, "IP address allocation can not be done "willy-nilly". As the U.S. NSF InterNIC has proven, IP addresses can be allocated and NO GUARANTEES of routing are provided. The registry leases "uniqueness". People who obtain a lease on those addresses then have to take them to the people who run the network. That group can have different policies, costs, etc. It is that group that has to deal with the issue of routing tables, etc. To try to tie all the groups together does not produce a scalable system. Bottlenecks form and allocations are made based on the wrong reasons. You would see this same type of situation if the FAA controlled ticket sales on airplanes as well as the size of gates and ticket counters. You would end up with one or two people sitting in a control tower watching planes going nuts trying to control the entire industry that would bottleneck. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 11:05:28 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:05:28 -0600 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <01BC2495.C2E44C80@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 10:07 PM, Mark Borchers[SMTP:markb at INFI.NET] wrote: @ > I would like to see a position paper from all of the @ > BOT at least describing their platform and long term @ > views. @ > @ You've mentioned this a couple times now. While it's not a bad idea @ on its face, neither does it seem terribly important. @ @ It would appear that the proposed board was selected on the basis of @ their past accomplishments. This is a good thing. Achievement in @ the industry means a lot more than a position paper. Words are @ cheap. @ @ IMHO, demanding a position paper at this stage of the game only @ serves the purpose of forcing candidates to state how they will @ handle future issues before they've had a complete opportunity to @ wrestle with them on the job. While there are pros and cons to this @ approach, I believe it is unnecessary given the stature of the people @ on the proposed board. @ @ Mark Borchers @ InfiNet Network Engineering @ NOC: (757) 624-2295 ext. 3007 @ @ I am not suggesting that we "force" candidates to do anything. The best systems are those that have.... The right people... with the right information... doing the right thing... When that happens...people know recognize it... you apparently feel that this has occurred... I was just suggesting that people be given the right information by the right people so they can do the right thing... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From rvega at cicese.mx Thu Feb 27 13:31:43 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:31:43 -0800 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <199702271831.KAA01007@knuth.cicese.mx> On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > What is wrong with the plan to clone the InterNIC many times > that is well underway ? > > Here is the short form... > 1. Clone the InterNIC 49 times It's scary that people like this is trying to push *very* wrong ideas, it may look like geting a licence plate for your car because there is an office that keeps things under control, but the parallelism ends there, it is not the same problem. raymundo From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 14:19:39 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:19:39 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC24B0.E3601460@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:28 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ At 12:13 PM 4/26/97 -0400, Rob Marlowe wrote: @ >>I find it inconsistent that people send me private comments @ >>about how the public ARIN discussion should operate and @ >>they do not make those comments in public when they @ >>obviously would help move the discussion forward. @ > @ >Probably because anyone who disagrees with what is being proposed is @ >immediately flamed. @ @ I sent very extensive comments about the flaws that I saw in the original @ ARIN proposal, and while people disagreed with me, I don't believe that I @ was ever flamed (or if I was I ignored it as I tend to ignore low content @ posts in general). /I/ haven't seen any high content postings (with high @ content being a personal opinion) ignored by the people who are drafting @ the proposal. The idea here is to make a good proposal, if you have gone @ out and informed yourself of the issues involved (which is a pretty @ extensive reading list), and believe that you have a contribution to make, @ why would you CARE if someone flamed you? If you haven't botheredd reading @ everything and post to the list because you are right and you know it @ goddamnit, well then you deserve to be flamed, and preferably hung from the @ nearest tree. @ @ Justin Newton @ Network Architect @ Erol's Internet Services @ ISP/C Director at Large @ @ I agree with almost everything Justin said....except the part about the "tree"... Also, I think the list participants need to steer the discussions here. If the consensus is to ONLY discuss the ARIN proposal on the ARIN web site (http://www.arin.net) then that may be a more limited scope than people assume. Since only certain people control the web site, it is hard to make contributions other than minor corrections. There are several web sites out which now allow the particpants to collaborate on the content. The wiki-web comes to mind. If the people shaping ARIN want people to participate they could try that approach. Others have told me that the NSF has informed them that they do not intend to support ARIN. I have a letter stating that the NSF has not taken a position on ARIN. It would be good if the ARIN founders would clarify those views. That is related to the content of the web site. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 27 14:28:35 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:28:35 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970227142835.0118981c@justin.erols.com> At 12:13 PM 4/26/97 -0400, Rob Marlowe wrote: >>I find it inconsistent that people send me private comments >>about how the public ARIN discussion should operate and >>they do not make those comments in public when they >>obviously would help move the discussion forward. > >Probably because anyone who disagrees with what is being proposed is >immediately flamed. I sent very extensive comments about the flaws that I saw in the original ARIN proposal, and while people disagreed with me, I don't believe that I was ever flamed (or if I was I ignored it as I tend to ignore low content posts in general). /I/ haven't seen any high content postings (with high content being a personal opinion) ignored by the people who are drafting the proposal. The idea here is to make a good proposal, if you have gone out and informed yourself of the issues involved (which is a pretty extensive reading list), and believe that you have a contribution to make, why would you CARE if someone flamed you? If you haven't botheredd reading everything and post to the list because you are right and you know it goddamnit, well then you deserve to be flamed, and preferably hung from the nearest tree. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 27 14:32:01 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:32:01 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970227143200.0118981c@justin.erols.com> At 09:35 AM 2/26/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > >ARIN Discussion Members > >Please send your comments to the ARIN discussion list. > >I find it inconsistent that people send me private comments >about how the public ARIN discussion should operate and >they do not make those comments in public when they >obviously would help move the discussion forward. Actually we were just trying not to waste any more space than you already have. Since you are the main offender in these space wasting exercises it seemed wrong to waste the time of everyone else on the list with more useless dribble. I suppose it doesn't make any difference since you ignore the content of most posts be they either public or private, and chose instead to try and find minutia in the posts to try and distract from the original content, but what the heck. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 14:25:56 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:25:56 -0600 Subject: FW: Simple Solution - Part 2. Message-ID: <01BC24B1.C40674A0@webster.unety.net> For the ARIN list, note the reference to ARIN below. Hopefully, this will help explain other comments and questions... JF ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:07 PM To: 'iahc-discuss at iahc.org' Subject: Simple Solution - Part 2. People had some good questions regarding the Simple Solution I posted. The simple version of the simple solution is... 1. Keep the InterNIC prototype in place until September 1998 2. Allow companies to clone the InterNIC with: 3 Top Level Domains One /8 IPv4 Space to manage (ala ARIN - http://www.arin.net) 3. Encourage this cloning via forty-nine $250,000 NSF grants 4. Allocate one grant to each state and encourage a three company cooperative arrangement with ALL three companies sharing the revenue. IS - Information Services - Management including PR and education DS - Data Base Services - Servers and Infrastructure RS - Registration Services - Telephone support, billing, etc. 5. The NSF bows out in September 1998, the proud parent of 50 NICs 6. The world can copy, clone, study, any or all of these NICs As for the State of Virginia....their structure is.... IS - Operational - Network Solutions, Inc. DS - Operational - AT&T RS - Operational - Network Solutions, Inc. For States with TLD registries that are already operational I would suggest those states build from that base.... Here are some examples only...by operational, I mean that there are known companies who are already operational in each area and can scale to handle the volume. California - .WEB, .AUTO, ??? IS - Operational DS - ??? RS - Operational Illinois - .BIZ, .CORP, .MALL IS - Operational DS - Operational RS - Operational Michigan - .EARTH, .USA, ??? IS - ??? DS - ??? RS - Operational Washington - .NIC, .XXX, ??? IS - ??? DS - ??? RS - Operational etc., etc., etc. Why the IAHC has not studied the systems that are in place and operational is beyond me. I would have thought that people join a committee the first thing they do is study prior art. This is especially true of lawyers. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 27 14:48:58 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:48:58 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970227144857.0118981c@justin.erols.com> At 10:33 AM 2/26/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: >Here is the simple solution that I have proposed >which encompasses ARIN and other TLD issues. >I welcome comments, flames, whatever you call >people's postings. ARIn and TLD issues ARE spearate issues, whether you want them to be or not. For example, I personally care very little about naming issues and naming schemes. 90% of my work day is spent dealing with IP issues, and the other 10% is using mailing lists and web browsers and the like, using the DNS system. I do not CARE how many TLD's are formed aside from the added complexity that is going to be caused in my life. The number of TLD's formed has very little operational impact on the technical side of an ISP. The way IP's are allocated has a HUGE impact on how technical operations are run at an ISP. The TLD issues are mainly a business issue, and are mainly of interest to the business types. IP allocations are mainly a technical issue, and mainly of interest to technical types. If you want a longer definition of the differences I will mail you privately as most of the people on this list already understand the issues and I don't want to waste their time anymore than we already have. > >I do not think it is appropriate to tell people to >shut up...or threaten to remove people from the list... I believe that it IS appropriate to tell people to shut up or to remove them from the list when the signal to noise ratio of their posts is low. There is some real work that needs to be done on this, and many other lists, muddling the issues with massive crossposts and postings of off topic and often irrelevant material is disruptive. Disruptive peoplle should be removed from the environment so that work can be done. > >Folks, there is a simple solution to many of these >problems. This solution has been refined from months >and months of debates. I welcome people's comments >on this solution: > >1. Keep the InterNIC prototype in place until September 1998 > when the U.S. Government's Cooperative Agreement > ends with AT&T and NSI who are the remaining two > companies that form what is called the InterNIC. Am I to take this to mean that you are against splitting off IP allocation to a non-profit org which has more direct input from the ISPs that it serves? Its a valid opinion, but if that is your opinion, it changes the tone of some of your other postings (There is a difference between being for something in theory, but against the actual implementation, and being against the idea as a whole). > >2. Allow companies to clone the InterNIC with the following > Internet resources: > 1. 3 Top Level Domain Names > 2. One /8 IP Address Space When they allocate that /8 do they get another one, or is it a once and done opportunity? > >3. Encourage this cloning via forty-nine $250,000 grants from the > National Science Foundation which would come > from the Internet Infrastructure fund which has over > $12,000,000 for this type of purpose. Can you submit a list of 49 individuals other than those involved in ARIN who are capable of running such a registry? (From the IETF working groups I have been involved with I do not believe that there is a pool much larger than 49 people in the US who fully understand the issues involved, and most of them would much rather be doing what they are doing now than run a registry). >6. These 50 InterNICs then help to coordinate a world collection > of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide > stability to the entire Internet. Who coordinates this coordination? If these registries are competing, what incentive do they have to spend their time working together? We can go on and on. > >Thank you for your time.... > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation > >e-mail: >JimFleming at unety.net >JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation > >e-mail: >JimFleming at unety.net >JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > > Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 14:42:21 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:42:21 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC24B4.0F5875A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:48 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ > @ >Folks, there is a simple solution to many of these @ >problems. This solution has been refined from months @ >and months of debates. I welcome people's comments @ >on this solution: @ > @ >1. Keep the InterNIC prototype in place until September 1998 @ > when the U.S. Government's Cooperative Agreement @ > ends with AT&T and NSI who are the remaining two @ > companies that form what is called the InterNIC. @ @ Am I to take this to mean that you are against splitting off IP allocation @ to a non-profit org which has more direct input from the ISPs that it @ serves? Its a valid opinion, but if that is your opinion, it changes the @ tone of some of your other postings (There is a difference between being @ for something in theory, but against the actual implementation, and being @ against the idea as a whole). @ I suggest learning from the good and the bad of the InterNIC. The U.S. Government and the NSF have spent an enormous amount of the taxpayers time and money. I want to try to recover some of that investment for the people. That is a business issue and people people who spend all day configuring routers may not be involved in that aspect of this industry. @ > @ >2. Allow companies to clone the InterNIC with the following @ > Internet resources: @ > 1. 3 Top Level Domain Names @ > 2. One /8 IP Address Space @ @ When they allocate that /8 do they get another one, or is it a once and @ done opportunity? @ I would assume the registry would have an active reclamation and reuse program. Something the InterNIC has not yet emphasized. Beyond that, there are only so many /8 spaces in IPv4. Other spaces, such as the IPv8 space or the IPv6 space will expand things. First we have to work with what we have. @ > @ >3. Encourage this cloning via forty-nine $250,000 grants from the @ > National Science Foundation which would come @ > from the Internet Infrastructure fund which has over @ > $12,000,000 for this type of purpose. @ @ Can you submit a list of 49 individuals other than those involved in ARIN @ who are capable of running such a registry? (From the IETF working groups @ I have been involved with I do not believe that there is a pool much larger @ than 49 people in the US who fully understand the issues involved, and most @ of them would much rather be doing what they are doing now than run a @ registry). @ You do not need 49 day one...some states will be fast and some slower. California, Illinois, Washington, Michigan are ready to roll NOW...!!! Others will follow... Oh...I forgot...Virginia is well taken care of...;-) Coincidence I guess... @ @ >6. These 50 InterNICs then help to coordinate a world collection @ > of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide @ > stability to the entire Internet. @ @ Who coordinates this coordination? If these registries are competing, what @ incentive do they have to spend their time working together? We can go on @ and on. @ I have posted many notes on the "Round Table" approach. Yes, you can go on and on...I am not sure who "we" is... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 27 15:09:15 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:09:15 -0500 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970227150914.00a97eb8@justin.erols.com> At 03:27 PM 2/26/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: >Has the ISP/C considered helping in this area? > >It seems you folks just went through a lot of these issues >and are really getting things organized. I am speaking for myself based on other opinions in the ISP/C, and NOT as a BoD member of ISP/C at the moment. I believe that we would be willing to help either as individuals or as a group. We are /very/ interested in following the ARIN proposal, and will be posting more "official" comments on the proposal as time goes on. Actually, Tim Brown and I did most of the bylaw work for ISP/C, basing it on some other non-profits' bylaws. I'll repeat my offer that I would like to provide any assistance I can for ARIN. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Feb 27 15:39:13 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:39:13 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970227153912.011d3240@justin.erols.com> At 01:42 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: >On Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:48 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: > >I suggest learning from the good and the bad of the InterNIC. Who is opposing this? I believe that the entire ARIN proposal is based on learning from what was done properly and improperly at the internic. >That is a business issue and people people who spend >all day configuring routers may not be involved in that >aspect of this industry. You'd be amazed what spending a decade or so of reading the Wall Street Journal will do for you :) >@ When they allocate that /8 do they get another one, or is it a once and >@ done opportunity? >@ > >I would assume the registry would have an active reclamation >and reuse program. Something the InterNIC has not yet emphasized. This would be interesting. Would you only be able to reclaim space from your own /8, or from the /8's of others as well? I.e. registries which allocated IP space to stable, growing organizations would be out of business aside from recurring fees, while those who are allocating to some of the more fly by night businesses will be able to recycle their space more frequently. > >Beyond that, there are only so many /8 spaces in IPv4. Agreed, who is going to reclaim space from registries who are not allocating it properly or who are hoarding it to create a shortage? >You do not need 49 day one...some states will be fast and some slower. >California, Illinois, Washington, Michigan are ready to roll NOW...!!! >Others will follow... I don't seem to remember people from those states who are interested in running a registry who /have/ been involved in the IETF working groups which are trying to find solutions to IP based problems. I must have missed someone. I'll go back over my NANOG and IETF attendee lists and see if I can find them on there somewhere. >@ >6. These 50 InterNICs then help to coordinate a world collection >@ > of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide >@ > stability to the entire Internet. >@ >@ Who coordinates this coordination? If these registries are competing, what >@ incentive do they have to spend their time working together? We can go on >@ and on. >@ > >I have posted many notes on the "Round Table" approach. What is going to be the incentive for the people running these registries to sit down at the round table and be cooperative? I suppose one way we could do so is to have the people running the registries be the same people who are already sitting down at these types of round tables, but one might say that then they were being kept from forming a registry and that the old school is suppressing competition, etc etc. (I know, its hard to believe that his might happen, but there are actually people out there who might profess something like this). >Yes, you can go on and on...I am not sure who "we" is... Sorry, I use the term we very generically and often. Usually I don't have a specific group in mind when I do use it. Apologies for the vagueries. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 15:47:34 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:47:34 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC24BD.2BACE020@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 2:39 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ At 01:42 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >On Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:48 PM, Justin W. @ Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ > @ >I suggest learning from the good and the bad of the InterNIC. @ @ Who is opposing this? I believe that the entire ARIN proposal is based on @ learning from what was done properly and improperly at the internic. @ Great...did you read the following...? @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/feb97/registry.html "What It Means To Be a Registry" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ >That is a business issue and people people who spend @ >all day configuring routers may not be involved in that @ >aspect of this industry. @ @ You'd be amazed what spending a decade or so of reading the Wall Street @ Journal will do for you :) @ Yes...plus several other newspapers and TV and of course the Net... The more people read the more they know... Of course, the trick is to make sense of what you read and to distill it into solutions... @ @ >@ When they allocate that /8 do they get another one, or is it a once and @ >@ done opportunity? @ >@ @ > @ >I would assume the registry would have an active reclamation @ >and reuse program. Something the InterNIC has not yet emphasized. @ @ This would be interesting. Would you only be able to reclaim space from @ your own /8, or from the /8's of others as well? I.e. registries which @ allocated IP space to stable, growing organizations would be out of @ business aside from recurring fees, while those who are allocating to some @ of the more fly by night businesses will be able to recycle their space @ more frequently. @ Think of it as an apartment building...you lease the apartments in your building... @ > @ >Beyond that, there are only so many /8 spaces in IPv4. @ @ Agreed, who is going to reclaim space from registries who are not @ allocating it properly or who are hoarding it to create a shortage? @ You manage your own space...let others worry about theirs... @ >You do not need 49 day one...some states will be fast and some slower. @ >California, Illinois, Washington, Michigan are ready to roll NOW...!!! @ >Others will follow... @ @ I don't seem to remember people from those states who are interested in @ running a registry who /have/ been involved in the IETF working groups @ which are trying to find solutions to IP based problems. I must have @ missed someone. I'll go back over my NANOG and IETF attendee lists and see @ if I can find them on there somewhere. @ You may have missed the IEEE, ACM, CIX, ISP/C, AlterNIC, Root64, eDNS, ACLU, EFF, NSF, DOD, FNC, NRA, ANSI, ISO, WIPO, ITU, INTA, and the BSA...:-) just to name a few of course... @ >@ >6. These 50 InterNICs then help to coordinate a world collection @ >@ > of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide @ >@ > stability to the entire Internet. @ >@ @ >@ Who coordinates this coordination? If these registries are competing, what @ >@ incentive do they have to spend their time working together? We can go on @ >@ and on. @ >@ @ > @ >I have posted many notes on the "Round Table" approach. @ @ What is going to be the incentive for the people running these registries @ to sit down at the round table and be cooperative? I suppose one way we @ could do so is to have the people running the registries be the same people @ who are already sitting down at these types of round tables, but one might @ say that then they were being kept from forming a registry and that the old @ school is suppressing competition, etc etc. (I know, its hard to believe @ that his might happen, but there are actually people out there who might @ profess something like this). @ The same thing that makes people in countries that share common borders to cooperate, the same thing that makes people in different organizations cooperate, the same thing that makes people of different races cooperate... survival and a desire to get along... Plus, it is more fun to communicate with people that have diverse interests. Organizations which recruit only people with pocket protectors get a little dull... @ @ >Yes, you can go on and on...I am not sure who "we" is... @ @ Sorry, I use the term we very generically and often. Usually I don't have @ a specific group in mind when I do use it. Apologies for the vagueries. @ Again, I would be interested in your views on whether ARIN could perform the IS InterNIC role for the State of Virginia... I think that DS and RS are covered... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Feb 27 16:31:01 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:31:01 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:19:39 CST." <01BC24B0.E3601460@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC24B0.E3601460@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702272131.QAA18912@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:19:39 CST, Jim Fleming said: > Since only certain people control the web site, it is hard > to make contributions other than minor corrections. There > are several web sites out which now allow the particpants > to collaborate on the content. The wiki-web comes to mind. > If the people shaping ARIN want people to participate they > could try that approach. OK.. Assuming we *do* go to mass editing of the stuff, what keeps some psycotic person from editing things so it looks like ARIN is a wholly owned subsidiary of Black Helicopters Inc? You either have "only certain people control it", or "everybody can scribble on it". And unless you go to "everybody scribble", with the resulting change control issues, there will always be somebody outside the "certain people" list who will feel oppressed because of it. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 16:30:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:30:50 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC24C3.36E17860@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 3:31 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:19:39 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > Since only certain people control the web site, it is hard @ > to make contributions other than minor corrections. There @ > are several web sites out which now allow the particpants @ > to collaborate on the content. The wiki-web comes to mind. @ > If the people shaping ARIN want people to participate they @ > could try that approach. @ @ OK.. Assuming we *do* go to mass editing of the stuff, what keeps @ some psycotic person from editing things so it looks like ARIN @ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Black Helicopters Inc? @ @ You either have "only certain people control it", or "everybody @ can scribble on it". And unless you go to "everybody scribble", @ with the resulting change control issues, there will always be @ somebody outside the "certain people" list who will feel oppressed @ because of it. @ Yes..."The Internet is in need of adult supervision"... The Internet is also a very large place. Can you estimate how many people know about ARIN, how many people care about it, and furthermore, how many are going to do as you suggest...? Check the wiki-web to see if that happens... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Feb 27 16:49:50 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:49:50 -0500 Subject: Please send comments... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:30:50 CST." <01BC24C3.36E17860@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC24C3.36E17860@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702272149.QAA29680@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:30:50 CST, Jim Fleming said: > The Internet is also a very large place. Can you > estimate how many people know about ARIN, > how many people care about it, and furthermore, > how many are going to do as you suggest...? OK Jim. Put your money where your mouth is. If you *had* the ability to edit anything on the ARIN webserver, what would you do, and what would be the likely opinion of the ARIN organizers of your changes? Remember that much of what is on that server consitututes "official statements of position", and as such, the owners do *not* want anybody (including Jim Fleming, or Valdis Kletnieks, or Scott Bradner, or *anybody*) from editing it before they have a chance to read it over and make sure that what the person is changing is in fact what the owners wanted to say. In fact, I'm willing to bet a large pizza with your choice of 3 toppings that such review is a good portion of why it takes Kim so long to update the server at each iteration. Kim? Care to comment? -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 16:54:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:54:59 -0600 Subject: Please send comments... Message-ID: <01BC24C6.96BE26E0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 3:49 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:30:50 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > The Internet is also a very large place. Can you @ > estimate how many people know about ARIN, @ > how many people care about it, and furthermore, @ > how many are going to do as you suggest...? @ @ OK Jim. Put your money where your mouth is. If you *had* the ability @ to edit anything on the ARIN webserver, what would you do, and what would @ be the likely opinion of the ARIN organizers of your changes? Remember @ that much of what is on that server consitututes "official statements of @ position", and as such, the owners do *not* want anybody (including Jim @ Fleming, or Valdis Kletnieks, or Scott Bradner, or *anybody*) from editing @ it before they have a chance to read it over and make sure that what @ the person is changing is in fact what the owners wanted to say. @ It is one thing to edit what "looks" like a finished web site and another to edit a collaborative document. This mail could be considered a collaborative document, it contains your words and my words. We could have obtained this by requesting a copy from the server to "edit". Then we could check it back in. The wiki-web has a different model. It is obvious to the people reading the document that it is a work in progress. @ In fact, I'm willing to bet a large pizza with your choice of 3 toppings @ that such review is a good portion of why it takes Kim so long to update @ the server at each iteration. Kim? Care to comment? @ I have no idea why ARIN document processing takes so long, including the mail list server. @@@@@@@@@ If you are talking about actually editing the ARIN web site. One thing I would add would be the minutes of the meetings that lead up to ARIN. Also, the budgets that were prepared. I think both of these are mentioned in the Internet Monthly Reports prepared as part of the NSF contracts. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 17:16:34 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:16:34 -0600 Subject: ARIN web site Message-ID: <01BC24C9.9A60E8C0@webster.unety.net> @@@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_intro.html "For more than a year, there have been discussions[1] involving IANA (see IANA Statement), IETF, RIPE, APNIC, NSF and FNC concerning a proposal to manage IP number assignments separate and apart from the registration of Internet domain names. The stability of the Internet relies on the careful management of the IP addresses." "Recommendations[2] have also been made that the management of the IP space should be placed, as it is with RIPE and APNIC, under the control of and administered by those that depend upon and use it - the end users. Those end users include ISPs, corporate entities, universities, and individuals." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 1. Can some links be added to these discussions ? 2. Can some hypertext links be added to substantiate who, where, when, etc. the "Recommendations" have also been made. Are there any references on the ARIN web site to the AlterNIC ? http://www.alternic.net P.S. People might be interested that the InterNIC Scout claims that the reason the AlterNIC has never been mentioned in the Scout Report is because the readers are not interested in network topics. The IAHC of course was mentioned. Was ARIN mentioned? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 17:19:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:19:45 -0600 Subject: Please substantiate Message-ID: <01BC24CA.0C2E83E0@webster.unety.net> @@@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_intro.html "While we recognize that some Internet Service Providers may need to pass on the costs of ARIN's registration services to their end users, the fees have been structured so that they will produce the most minimal impact possible on the individual end user of an IP address." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Please substantiate how the above has been acheived. How does ARIN control what the members do ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 17:22:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:22:26 -0600 Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <01BC24CA.6C43AEE0@webster.unety.net> @@@@@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_intro.html "Above all else, it should be stressed that ARIN will not be "selling" IP numbers. All requests for IP address space must meet pre-determined criteria currently followed by all IP registries [ref: RFC2050]. These criteria will be the basis for all allocations. The fees that ARIN will collect do not represent charges for the IP numbers. The registration fees are for the registration services rendered by ARIN - review and verification of requests and reassignment information, help desk support, allocation guidelines, whois and other information servers, in-addr.arpa service, record upkeep and database maintenance - and will support the administration and operational requirements of running the registry and managing the IP address space for the assigned territories." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Why not just say you are "leasing" the addresses and skip the mumbo jumbo....? What is the point of the above ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 17:25:54 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:25:54 -0600 Subject: Recommended Reading Message-ID: <01BC24CA.E8258CE0@webster.unety.net> @@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_rr.html "Recommended Reading" @@@@@@@@@ Again, the AlterNIC (http://www.alternic.net) is not mentioned. The AlterNIC web site has an extensive Reading List Also....I think the following should be added... Network Solutions, Inc. - http://www.netsol.com SAIC - http://www.saic.com -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 17:32:56 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:32:56 -0600 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <01BC24CB.E3C60DE0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 12:31 PM, Raymundo Vega Aguilar[SMTP:rvega at cicese.mx] wrote: @ On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > What is wrong with the plan to clone the InterNIC many times @ > that is well underway ? @ > @ > Here is the short form... @ > 1. Clone the InterNIC 49 times @ @ It's scary that people like this is trying to push *very* wrong ideas, @ it may look like geting a licence plate for your car because there is @ an office that keeps things under control, but the parallelism ends there, @ it is not the same problem. @ Besides the 49 states, I would think that Canada and Mexico would want to develop a "NIC". Have you given any thought to the posting about the new U.S. laws and the DOJ briefings ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at ACADEM.COM Thu Feb 27 17:41:02 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:41:02 CST Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <199702272241.QAA04594@academ.com> > Why not just say you are "leasing" the addresses and > skip the mumbo jumbo....? Jim, "Leasing" would imply that ARIN owns the addresses for which it is providing registration services. As you have stated in other mail, ARIN (like RIPE and APNIC) is there to help insure that addresses used on the Internet are unique. A registrar is a steward of the resource being managed, not the owner of the resource. This is an important distiction. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From sob at ACADEM.COM Thu Feb 27 17:44:28 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:44:28 CST Subject: Recommended Reading Message-ID: <199702272244.QAA04672@academ.com> Can you give a specific url at AlterNIC that has the reading list that is specifically relevant to IP address registration and allocation procedures that you mentioned in your recent mail? I am not able to locate it on their site, but I may not be looking in the right place. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 18:40:11 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:40:11 -0600 Subject: FCC and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC24D5.491B6F60@webster.unety.net> Evidently, the FCC is considering taking on the IP address management function. Because they understand radio spectrum and other number oriented things the IP address allocation aspects of the InterNIC fit their agency better than the domain name issues which are loaded with trademark issues. Can someone from ARIN confirm whether the reason to split IP management from domain management is to move IPs to the FCC and domains to the PTO or the USPS ? This would allow the NSF to exit... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 20 11:56:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:56:04 -0600 Subject: ARIN Fragments the InterNIC Message-ID: <01BC1F1C.AB5745A0@webster.unety.net> The current ARIN attempts to fragment the InterNIC are not in the best interest of the Internet. Instead, the InterNIC should be kept in tact and used as an educational model to help create additional "NICs" across the United States to spread the wealth and jobs around and to ensure better stability via distributed management. Folks, please face the facts. The U.S. Government controls the Internet. It has always been that way and it will likely always be that way. It is a resource that many people depend on and businesses are investing because of the stability, security, and opportunities that the U.S. Government provides. If you want to assemble a real "Blue Ribbon Panel" that represents the real Internet society, I suggest that you start with some or all of the people below. These are the people who control the popular Root Name Servers and are the people mandated by the people to "do the right thing". They are also some of the people supported by U.S. taxpayers dollars to make sure that federal government resources such as the Root Name Servers are used properly according to the laws in the United States. We are rapidly approaching March 1, 1997. There will be one year left on the InterNIC agreements developed by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Everyone needs to work together to make sure that those agreements remain stable for one more year and that plans are made to ensure that any transitions are smooth and do not impact the stability of the Internet. I have suggested that the NSF use the $12.6 million to help launch 49 additional NICs, one in each state except for Virginia. By March of 1998, hopefully enough NICs will be operational to allow the current InterNIC as we know it to take its place with the others as a state NIC controlled by the people of Virginia. Many people have worked hard over the past couple of years to demonstrate that cooperating and competing regional NICs can coexist. The technology is well understood and with the stewardship of some or all of the people below, I am confident that the original NSF plan to expand the NICs can be accomplished by the time the NSF agreements with AT&T and Network Solutions, Inc. end. In order to get the regional NICs up to speed, I suggest that states follow the NSF InterNIC model and "ousource" the work to regional companies that have demonstrated their expertise in not only Internet technology but also the emerging registry industry. I suggest that these companies work with their state governments to gain support to work with the elected officials below to get things moving. There is only one year left. Time is getting short. Rather than have anyone rush into dismantling the InterNIC why not join together to clone the InterNIC, not once, but at least 49 times to help the Internet grow. Once this is demonstrated, then obviously the lessons learned will help fuel international growth. No one will be left out. If other countries want to join in this effort, I suggest that they follow a similar plan. Think global but start local. It is the only way that you will make any real progress. I am sure that many people in the U.S. will be glad to lend a hand to get things moving. Hopefully, there will be many examples and more educational programs developed as these efforts unfold. There is no reason why anyone should be left out but there is also no reason why people should hold back waiting for people to catch up. With the clock ticking and $12.6 million in the bank, it is time to duplicate the prototype in Virginia in every state and each country. It is not time to dismantle the prototype. If that occurs then much of the knowledge will be lost and the money the U.S. taxpayers spent to build the InterNIC will be wasted. Again, the following people have the mandate of the people to make sure that money and the efforts are not wasted. They work daily to maximize the return on the taxpayer's investment. Let them know that you want to work with them to make sure you also benefit from those efforts in your states and countries. Thank you for your time... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov ===== @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/mission.html "The FNC supports the goals of the CIC, particularly those related to building the national information infrastructure (NII). It also seeks to address Federal technology transition goals and allow the operational experiences of FNC agencies to influence future Federal research agendas. It also contributes funds to important Internet infrastructure organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA), and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)." @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html Federal Networking Council George Strawn - Chairman GSTRAWN at NSF.GOV Walter Wiebe - Executive Director WWIEBE at NSF.GOV Bruce Almich ALMICH.BRUCE at EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Bruce Bottomley BBB at ROMULUS.NCSC.MIL Dick desJardins DESJARDI at EOS.NASA.GOV Frank Hartel HARTEL at BOX-H.NIH.GOV Craig Hunt CHUNT at NIST.GOV Pamela G. Kruzic PJK at NRC.GOV Henry Lai HENRY.LAI at GSA.GOV Fred Lee FLEE at NSF.GOV Fred Long FLONG at SUN1.WWB.NOAA.GOV Hilarie Orman HORMAN at DARPA.MIL Camillo J. Pasquariello PASQUARC at NCR.DISA.MIL Alexis Poliakoff ALEX_POLIAKOFF at ED.GOV Ken Roko KROKO at USAID.GOV Elaine Stout ESTOUT at USGS.GOV @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC.html The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) is chartered by the National Science Foundation to provide the FNC with technical, tactical, and strategic advice from the constituencies involved in the NREN Program..." FNCAC Members Dr. Sidney Karin KARIN at SDSC.EDU Dr. George Brandenburg BRANDENBURG at HUHEPL.HARVARD.EDU Dr. Henriette Avram AVRAM at IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU Mr. Jim Beall, Jr. BEALL at VNET.IBM.COM Mr. Alan Blatecky ALANB at MCNC.ORG Mr. Matt Blaze MAB at RESEARCH.ATT.COM Ms. Susan Estrada SESTRADA at ALDEA.COM Dr. Kenneth S. Flamm FLAMM at BROOK.EDU Dr. John Gage JOHN.GAGE at ENG.SUN.COM Ms. Carol Henderson CCH at ALAWASH.ORG Dr. Kenneth J. Klingenstein KJK at SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Mr. Richard Liebhaber 2714743 at MCIMAIL.COM Mr. Stu Loken SCLOKEN at LBL.GOV Dr. Paul Mockapetris PVM at SOFTWARE.COM Mr. Robert G. Moskowitz RGM3 at IS.CHRYSLER.COM Dr. Ike Nassi NASSI at SCRUZNET.COM Mr. Carl Edward Oliver OLIVERCE at ORNL.GOV Dr. Stewart Personick SDP at BELLCORE.COM Mr. Thomas C. Rindfleisch THOMAS_RINDFLEISCH at MEDMAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Mr. Mike Roberts ROBERTS at EDUCOM.EDU Ms. Connie D. Stout CSTOUT at TENET.EDU Brigadier General Harold Thompson THOMPSON at ICN.STATE.IA.US Dr. Stephen Wolff SWOLFF at CISCO.COM @@@@@ U.S. Senate e-mail addresses Alabama - Shelby, Richard C. (R) - senator at shelby.senate.gov Alaska - Stevens, Ted (R) - senator_stevens at stevens.senate.gov Arizona - Kyl, Jon (R) - info at kyl.senate.gov Arizona - McCain, John (R) - senator_mccain at mccain.senate.gov Arkansas - Bumpers, Dale (D) - senator at bumpers.senate.gov Arkansas - Hutchinson, Tim (D) - senator.hutchinson at hutchinson.senate.gov California - Boxer, Barbara (D) - senator at boxer.senate.gov California - Feinstein, Dianne (D) - senator at feinstein.senate.gov Connecticut - Dodd, Christopher J. (D) - sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov Connecticut - Lieberman, Joseph I. (D) - senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov Delaware - Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D) - senator at biden.senate.gov Florida - Graham, Bob (D) - bob_graham at graham.senate.gov Georgia - Coverdell, Paul (R) - senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov Hawaii - Inouye, Daniel K. (D) - senator at inouye.senate.gov Idaho - Craig, Larry E. (R) - larry_craig at craig.senate.gov Idaho - Kempthorne, Dirk (R) - dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov Illinois - Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) - senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov Iowa - Grassley, Chuck (R) - chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov Iowa - Harkin, Tom (D) - tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov Kansas - Brownback, Sam (R) - sam_brownback at brownback.senate.gov Kentucky - Ford, Wendell H. (D) - wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov Kentucky - McConnell, Mitch (R) - senator at mcconnell.senate.gov Louisiana - Breaux, John B. (D) - senator at breaux.senate.gov Maine - Collins, Susan (R) - senator at collins.senate.gov Maine - Snowe, Olympia J. (R) - olympia at snowe.senate.gov Maryland - Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) - senator at mikulski.senate.gov Maryland - Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - senator at sarbanes.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - senator at kennedy.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kerry, John F. (D) - john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov Michigan - Abraham, Spencer (R) - michigan at abraham.senate.gov Michigan - Levin, Carl (D) senator at levin.senate.gov Minnesota - Grams, Rod (R) - mail_grams at grams.senate.gov Minnesota - Wellstone, Paul D. (D) - senator at wellstone.senate.gov Mississippi - Cochran, Thad (R) - senator at cochran.senate.gov Missouri - Ashcroft, John (R) - john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov Missouri - Bond, Christopher S. (R) - kit_bond at bond.senate.gov Montana - Baucus, Max (D) - max at baucus.senate.gov Montana - Burns, Conrad R. (R) - conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov Nebraska - Kerrey, J. Robert (D) - bob at kerrey.senate.gov Nevada - Bryan, Richard H. (D) - senator at bryan.senate.gov Nevada - Reid, Harry (D) - senator_reid at reid.senate.gov New Hampshire - Gregg, Judd (R) - mailbox at gregg.senate.gov New Hampshire - Smith, Bob (R) opinion at smith.senate.gov New Jersey - Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) - frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov New Mexico - Bingaman, Jeff (D) - senator_bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov New Mexico - Domenici, Pete V. (R) - senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov New York - D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) - senator_al at damato.senate.gov New York - Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D) - senator at dpm.senate.gov North Carolina - Faircloth, Lauch (R) - senator at faircloth.senate.gov North Carolina - Helms, Jesse (R) - jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov North Dakota - Dorgan, Byron L. (D) - senator at dorgan.senate.gov Ohio - DeWine, Mike (R) - senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov Oklahoma - Nickles, Don (R) - senator at nickles.senate.gov Oregon - Wyden, Ron (D) - senator at wyden.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Santorum, Rick (R) - senator at santorum.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Specter, Arlen (R) - senator_specter at specter.senate.gov Rhode Island - Chafee, John H. (R) - senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov South Carolina - Hollings, Ernest F. (D) - senator at hollings.senate.gov South Carolina - Thurmond, Strom (R) - senator at thurmond.senate.gov South Dakota - Daschle, Thomas A. (D) - tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov Tennessee - Frist, William H. (R) - senator_frist at frist.senate.gov Tennessee - Thompson, Fred (R) - senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov Texas - Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - senator at hutchison.senate.gov Utah - Bennett, Robert F. (R) - senator at bennett.senate.gov Utah - Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov Vermont - Jeffords, James M. (R) - vermont at jeffords.senate.gov Vermont - Leahy, Patrick J. (D) - senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov Virginia - Robb, Charles S. (D) senator at robb.senate.gov Virginia - Warner, John W. (R) - senator at warner.senate.gov Washington - Gorton, Slade (R) - senator_gorton at gorton.senate.gov Washington - Murray, Patty (D) - senator_murray at murray.senate.gov West Virginia - Byrd, Robert C. (D) - senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov West Virginia - Rockefeller, John D., IV (D) - senator at rockefeller.senate.gov Wisconsin - Feingold, Russell D. (D) - senator at feingold.senate.gov Wisconsin - Kohl, Herb (D) - nator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov Wyoming - Enzi, Mike (R) - senator at enzi.senate.gov Wyoming - Thomas, Craig (R) - craig at thomas.senate.gov @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ U.S. GOVERNMENT (NSF, etc.) Contact: Dr. George Strawn Division Director Division of Networking and Communication Research and Infrastructure National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1175 Arlington, VA 22230 Phone: (703) 306-1950 Fax: (703) 306-0621 Email: gstrawn at nsf.gov http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ncri/Georgehome.html NS.INTERNIC.NET 198.41.0.4 Network Solutions, Inc. (NS45-HST) AOS.ARL.ARMY.MIL 128.63.2.53 Army Research Laboratory (BRL-AOS) NS.NASA.GOV 192.203.230.10 Moffett Field (NS-NASA) NS.NIC.DDN.MIL 192.112.36.4 GSI (DIIS-NS) STATE UNIVERSITIES NS1.ISI.EDU 128.9.0.107 University of Southern California (ISI2) Contact: Dr. Stephen B. Sample President ADM 110 University of Southern California University Park, mc-0012 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0012 (213) 740-2111 http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/uscinfo/directory-2?STAF+6630 http://www.usc.edu/People/snailmail.html TERP.UMD.EDU 128.8.10.90 University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) Contact: Dr. William E. Kirwan President, University of Maryland at College Park Legal Affairs Dr. J. Terrance Roach U.S. PRIVATE INDUSTRY & INDIVIDUALS C.PSI.NET 192.33.4.12 Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) Contact: PSINet, Inc (PSI-NET-DOM) 510 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 22070 USA NS.ISC.ORG 192.5.5.241 Internet Software Consortium (ISC) Contact: Internet Software Consortium (ISC2-DOM) c/o UUNET Communications Services 3110 Fairview Park Drive Suite 570 Falls Church, VA 22042 Domain Name: ISC.ORG SWEDEN Contact: (See below) NIC.NORDU.NET 192.36.148.17 [No name] (NORDU) @@@@@@ SERVER NS.ISC.ORG 192.5.5.241 Internet Software Consortium (ISC) Hostname: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 192.5.5.241 System: DEC ALPHA running BIND 4.9.5 Host Administrator: Vixie, Paul (PV15) paul at VIX.COM +1 415 747 0204 Domain Server Record last updated on 09-Oct-96. ------- SERVER NS.INTERNIC.NET 198.41.0.4 Network Solutions, Inc. (NS45-HST) 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 22070 Hostname: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 198.41.0.4 System: SUN running SUNOS Host Administrator: Kosters, Mark A. (MAK21) markk at NETSOL.COM (703) 742-4795 (FAX) (703) 742-4811 Record last updated on 31-Aug-95. ------- SERVER NS1.ISI.EDU 128.9.0.107 University of Southern California (ISI2) Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Hostname: B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 128.9.0.107 System: ? running ? Host Administrator: Koda, Jim (JK7) koda at ISI.EDU 310) 822-1511 Record last updated on 12-Aug-95. ------- SERVER TERP.UMD.EDU 128.8.10.90 University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) Computer Science Center College Park, MD 20742 Hostname: D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 128.8.10.90 System: MICROVAX-II running UNIX Coordinator: Sneeringer, Gerry (GS307) sneeri at NI.UMD.EDU (301) 405-2996 domain server Record last updated on 12-Aug-95. ------- SERVER AOS.ARL.ARMY.MIL 128.63.2.53 Army Research Laboratory (BRL-AOS) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 Hostname: H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 128.63.2.53 System: SUN running UNIX Host Administrator: Fielding, James L. (JLF) jamesf at ARL.MIL (410)278-8929 (DSN) 298-8929 (410)278-6664 (FAX) (410)278-5077 domain server Record last updated on 17-Aug-95. ------- SERVER C.PSI.NET 192.33.4.12 Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) Hostname: C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 192.33.4.12 System: SUN running UNIX Coordinator: Administration, PSINet Domain (PDA4) psinet-domain-admin at PSI.COM (703) 904-4100 domain server Record last updated on 17-Apr-96. ------- SERVER NIC.NORDU.NET 192.36.148.17 [No name] (NORDU) Hostname: I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 192.36.148.17 System: SUN-4/60 running UNIX Coordinator: Rendahl, Matti [President] (MR164) matti at COMEDIA.SE +46 8 612 49 26 +46 70 533 13 56 (FAX) +46 8 612 49 36 Record last updated on 24-Aug-95. ------- SERVER NS.NASA.GOV 192.203.230.10 Moffett Field (NS-NASA) NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 233-8 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 USA Hostname: E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 192.203.230.10 System: SUN running SUNOS Host Administrator, Coordinator: Schlapfer, Marcel (MS4039) marcel at NSIPO.NASA.GOV 1-415-604-0955 (FAX) 1-415-604-0036 domain server Record last updated on 25-Oct-96. ------- SERVER NS.NIC.DDN.MIL 192.112.36.4 GSI (DIIS-NS) Suite 200 14200 Park Meadow Dr. Chantilly, VA 22021 Hostname: G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Address: 192.112.36.4 System: SUN running UNIX Coordinator: McCollum, Robert W. (RM584) bobm at NIC.DDN.MIL (703) 802-8476 (FAX) (703) 802-8376 Root Domain Server Record last updated on 18-Aug-95. ------- From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 19:04:49 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:04:49 -0600 Subject: IP addresses and domain names Message-ID: <01BC24D8.B9A27960@webster.unety.net> If IP address registry issues are so different from domain name registry issues, how can people on the following list sponsored by the InterNIC possibly deal with the confusion of having them together ? @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/lwgate/NIC-REGISTRY/ List Description: This email list is a forum for the InterNIC registries concerning IP and DNS registration and allocation issues policies and procedures. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Feb 27 19:16:46 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:16:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: FCC and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC24D5.491B6F60@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Feb 27, 97 05:40:11 pm Message-ID: <199702280016.AA130569007@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > > Evidently, the FCC is considering taking on the > IP address management function. > Jim, Since you are making the statement, I assume that you have been told this or read it. Can you please share with the rest of us? ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 19:16:21 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:16:21 -0600 Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <01BC24DA.56333C00@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 4:41 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at ACADEM.COM] wrote: @ > Why not just say you are "leasing" the addresses and @ > skip the mumbo jumbo....? @ @ Jim, @ @ "Leasing" would imply that ARIN owns the addresses for which it is @ providing registration services. As you have stated in other mail, @ ARIN (like RIPE and APNIC) is there to help insure that addresses used @ on the Internet are unique. A registrar is a steward of the resource @ being managed, not the owner of the resource. This is an important @ distiction. @ Please do not mis-interpret my views. IF there were 50 operational Top Level Domain registries in the U.S., I would be the first to be saying, "Hmmm maybe we need to expand the pie and encourage IP only registries..." Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NSF and the InterNIC has not helped to create any NEW Top Level Domain registries. In fact, they have helped stand in the path of progress and people are being forced to route around the situation. Also, if ARIN were proposing to take the path taken by many of the "AlterNIC Pioneers" and helping to develop a truly distributed, low-barrier-to-entry system, that is emerging in eDNS, then I would be saying great job. This is not what is coming across, if that is what ARIN intended. What is coming across is a defensive group that wants to keep control. Trying to control the Internet is like trying to wrestle a fire-hose with an unlimited supply of water while you have roller-skates on your feet... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 19:21:33 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:21:33 -0600 Subject: FCC and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC24DB.102F3BE0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:16 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: @ Jim Fleming supposedly said: @ > @ > @ > Evidently, the FCC is considering taking on the @ > IP address management function. @ > @ @ Jim, @ @ Since you are making the statement, I assume that you have been told this @ or read it. Can you please share with the rest of us? @ @ ---> Phil @ @ This is evidently common knowledge and from what I understand, the FCC wants to be given a compelling reason....like, the Internet will crash tomorrow if they do not step in to save the day... I suppose they want to be invited rather than take something... Unfortunately, the FNC meeting at the NSF was apparently canceled today. Those people are some of the key stakeholders. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 19:30:34 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:30:34 -0600 Subject: Recommended Reading Message-ID: <01BC24DC.52DAB040@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 4:44 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at ACADEM.COM] wrote: @ Can you give a specific url at AlterNIC that has the reading list @ that is specifically relevant to IP address registration and allocation @ procedures that you mentioned in your recent mail? I am not able to locate it @ on their site, but I may not be looking in the right place. @ @ -- @ Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com @ Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob @ Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. @ @ The AlterNIC has mostly been focused on domain name issues. I consider that Stage 1. Domain names are easier because there was a ready market and more people identify with names. Now that ARIN has helped to establish some $$$$ amounts for IP addresses there is a stake in the ground. The various registries that are developing all over the country now have their operations more worked out so they can start thinking about IP registration issues. In my opinion, it will be easier (and safer) to add IP allocation registry functions to these new viable and healthy businesses than to try to breath life into one activity and to keep trying to make sure it does not fail. The eDNS meeting being planned in Atlanta has an item on the agenda for ARIN. I am sure people involved in the NEW domain registries will express their views there. ===== Not all URLs have to be IP only... Here are a few that ARIN readers should know cold... http://www.alternic.net/domains/resources/ http://www.alternic.net/others.html http://www.alternic.net/press/ Also, the ARIN site should probably reference http://www.wia.org Especially the IANA part... ===== -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 19:49:07 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:49:07 -0600 Subject: Please be aware Message-ID: <01BC24DE.EA2898C0@webster.unety.net> ARIN people need to be aware of the following. http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1815.html Even though it involves primarily domain names, it also involves the IANA and Mr. Jon Postel who is proposed as an ARIN "Trustee". Let's continue... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at ACADEM.COM Thu Feb 27 20:27:25 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:27:25 CST Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <199702280127.TAA06047@academ.com> > @ > BTW - Who does own the addresses ? > @ > @ Probably the same folks that owns the air we breath:-) > @ > @ The IANA is the ultimate steward of the address space. You'd need to query > @ them about the owner. I have been around the Internet for years and in all > @ that time the important thing about addresses is their uniqueness, not the > @ ultimate owner. > @ > > That is where we disagree...:-) > > I would like to see the legal proof... I am not sure what legal proof you are seeking. Is it proof that IANA is the ultimate steward of the address space? Please clarify so I don't misunderstand. > > @ One of the important things about ARIN is that it is possible that the folks > @ who benefit from this registration effort get to be involved in the stewartship > @ role more directly. This has not been the case in the Americas, like it has > @ in other parts of the world. > @ > @ > > Yes...that is also an attribute of the AlterNIC, eDNS, Root 64, etc. As far as I know, none of those efforts can directly trace their roots back to SRI-NIC. The ARIN effort can. Of course, I could be very much in the dark about the history of these other efforts. If there is another list on which such things are discussed or if someone can privately mail me a list of URLs that I can read about it, I'd be grateful. > I am concerned that the people launching ARIN and the > people supporting ARIN have not been directly involved in > the cloning of any NICs. I am not sure what you mean there. The NSI folks were operating a NIC prior to being awarded the InterNIC arrangement. Can you clarify for this claim for me? > Why do they all of a sudden want to clone part of the NIC ? I don't think it was sudden, but what is sudden to one person is slow to others. > Why does that happen to coincide with making NSI look > like a 3 TLD domain registry ? Obviously, I am in no position to speak on behalf of NSI about this. However, I think you are really meaning the registration function of the InterNIC operated by NSI, right? Without the NSF cooperative agreement, NSI could have been operating a registration function. Someone else would have been doing it. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 20:28:25 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:28:25 -0600 Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <01BC24E4.67DE5A20@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 7:27 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: @ > @ > BTW - Who does own the addresses ? @ > @ @ > @ Probably the same folks that owns the air we breath:-) @ > @ @ > @ The IANA is the ultimate steward of the address space. You'd need to query @ > @ them about the owner. I have been around the Internet for years and in all @ > @ that time the important thing about addresses is their uniqueness, not the @ > @ ultimate owner. @ > @ @ > @ > That is where we disagree...:-) @ > @ > I would like to see the legal proof... @ @ I am not sure what legal proof you are seeking. Is it proof that IANA @ is the ultimate steward of the address space? Please clarify so I don't @ misunderstand. @ /**/ // # ; http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1815.html http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html @ > @ > @ One of the important things about ARIN is that it is possible that the folks @ > @ who benefit from this registration effort get to be involved in the stewartship @ > @ role more directly. This has not been the case in the Americas, like it has @ > @ in other parts of the world. @ > @ @ > @ @ > @ > Yes...that is also an attribute of the AlterNIC, eDNS, Root 64, etc. @ @ As far as I know, none of those efforts can directly trace their roots @ back to SRI-NIC. The ARIN effort can. Of course, I could be very much @ in the dark about the history of these other efforts. If there is another @ list on which such things are discussed or if someone can privately mail me @ a list of URLs that I can read about it, I'd be grateful. @ /**/ // # ; http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1815.html http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html @ > I am concerned that the people launching ARIN and the @ > people supporting ARIN have not been directly involved in @ > the cloning of any NICs. @ @ I am not sure what you mean there. The NSI folks were operating a NIC prior @ to being awarded the InterNIC arrangement. Can you clarify for this @ claim for me? @ /**/ // # ; http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1815.html http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html @ > Why do they all of a sudden want to clone part of the NIC ? @ @ I don't think it was sudden, but what is sudden to one person is slow to @ others. @ @ > Why does that happen to coincide with making NSI look @ > like a 3 TLD domain registry ? @ @ Obviously, I am in no position to speak on behalf of NSI about this. @ @ However, I think you are really meaning the registration function of @ the InterNIC operated by NSI, right? Without the NSF cooperative agreement, @ NSI could have been operating a registration function. Someone else would @ have been doing it. @ @ /**/ // # ; http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1815.html http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at ACADEM.COM Thu Feb 27 20:37:28 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:37:28 CST Subject: IP addresses and domain names Message-ID: <199702280137.TAA06567@academ.com> Jim writes: > If IP address registry issues are so different from domain name > registry issues, how can people on the following list sponsored > by the InterNIC possibly deal with the confusion of having them > together ? > > > @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/lwgate/NIC-REGISTRY/ > > List Description: > > This email list is a forum for the InterNIC registries concerning > IP and DNS registration and allocation issues policies and procedures. As your quote says, it has to do with the InterNIC registries, which were created based on the understanding of the NSF in the early part of this decade, an enternity in this evolving cyberspace we live in. The world model that has developed shows domain registries run by wide varieties of organizations (witness the national registries and the US domain registries, for example). And, then there is RIPE and APNIC. They don't do domain registration. As far as I know, even the InterNIC has totally different groups internally managing these functions. I hope someone from InterNIC will correct me if I am wrong about this. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Thu Feb 27 21:58:46 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:58:46 -0800 Subject: the "Internet's Vietnam" Message-ID: <01BC24E0.4327FE60@jfbb.atmnet.net> Jim, You are (intentionally, I believe) disrupting legitimate work people are trying to accomplish on this and other mailing lists by stealing mind-share (processor cycles, if you will) to the extent that no one can do anything but deal with your off-topic posts. I and others have asked politely, both publicly and privately, that you limit your posts to the topic the list was established to address. You refuse to do so. This post can only be considered SPAM, as it is a post that is just as inappropriate to this forum as a commercial solicitation would be. ATMnet will henceforth treat your organization as we would that of any other SPAM spewer, by filtering traffic from addresses you are associated with. -- jfbb ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 1997 6:09 PM To: 'naipr at arin.net' Subject: the "Internet's Vietnam" Once again, it concerns me that some people may be rather new to this process which began to gain momentum in October of 1995, shortly after the InterNIC started charging and people realized that it was not a hoax, or joke. You are all watching over 16 months, of almost full-time work for some people, come to a very peaceful ending. Please try to put that in context as you draw your conclusions. Please try to be nice. If there are any winners in this, they are the people of the Internet that do not know this work is being done, to make their lives better. Some day people might look back and review the documents and the full history. It has been a human drama that should probably not be repeated. As someone said, it is the "Internet's Vietnam". People felt they had to destroy villages to save them. For some it did not make sense, for others it did. The only good that remains, is...it is over. It is both a sad drama and a happy drama because, in the end, people's ability to let common sense triumph over "petty" control issues took too long. Thanks for your time... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at academ.com Thu Feb 27 21:05:37 1997 From: sob at academ.com (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:05:37 CST Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <199702280205.UAA07073@academ.com> Jim: Thanks for the reference. However, you could have just put it in the message once. There was no need to repeat it four times, especially since I don't see how it addresses the other questions or requests for information or clarification. Specifcially, it does not appear to clear up any of the questions about your claims that the folks involved with ARIN have no experience in cloning NICs, or provides any references about the history of the other NICs. Will you be able to address those for me? It does help answer the first question about the legal proof about IANA. Thanks for that. It will be a most interesting case to track. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 21:09:29 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:09:29 -0600 Subject: the "Internet's Vietnam" Message-ID: <01BC24EA.245F3DE0@webster.unety.net> Once again, it concerns me that some people may be rather new to this process which began to gain momentum in October of 1995, shortly after the InterNIC started charging and people realized that it was not a hoax, or joke. You are all watching over 16 months, of almost full-time work for some people, come to a very peaceful ending. Please try to put that in context as you draw your conclusions. Please try to be nice. If there are any winners in this, they are the people of the Internet that do not know this work is being done, to make their lives better. Some day people might look back and review the documents and the full history. It has been a human drama that should probably not be repeated. As someone said, it is the "Internet's Vietnam". People felt they had to destroy villages to save them. For some it did not make sense, for others it did. The only good that remains, is...it is over. It is both a sad drama and a happy drama because, in the end, people's ability to let common sense triumph over "petty" control issues took too long. Thanks for your time... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 21:06:24 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:06:24 -0600 Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <01BC24E9.B61C0200@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 8:05 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: @ Jim: @ @ Thanks for the reference. However, you could have just put it in the message @ once. There was no need to repeat it four times, especially since I don't see @ how it addresses the other questions or requests for information or @ clarification. Specifcially, it does not appear to clear up any of the @ questions about your claims that the folks involved with ARIN have no @ experience in cloning NICs, or provides any references about the history @ of the other NICs. Will you be able to address those for me? @ @ It does help answer the first question about the legal proof about IANA. @ Thanks for that. It will be a most interesting case to track. @ @ -- @ Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com @ Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob @ Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. @ @ /**/ // # ; http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1815.html http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at academ.com Thu Feb 27 20:53:44 1997 From: sob at academ.com (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:53:44 CST Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <199702280153.TAA06662@academ.com> Jim writes: > Please do not mis-interpret my views. I am trying not to. If I do, then your clarifications are most welcome. > IF there were 50 operational Top Level Domain registries > in the U.S., I would be the first to be saying, "Hmmm > maybe we need to expand the pie and encourage IP only > registries..." Are there not a large number of national registries that are at the Top level? Or, are you really referring to the Generic Top Level domain registries, like those recommended by IAHC. Please clarify. > Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NSF and the > InterNIC has not helped to create any NEW Top Level > Domain registries. In fact, they have helped stand in > the path of progress and people are being forced to > route around the situation. I was under the impression that InterNIC was not authorized to create top level domain registries. My understanding is that is part of the IANA. Perhaps I misunderstand your point. Would you restate? > This is not what is coming across, if that is what > ARIN intended. What is coming across is a defensive > group that wants to keep control. Trying to control > the Internet is like trying to wrestle a fire-hose with > an unlimited supply of water while you have > roller-skates on your feet... This is unfortunately. I don't think those involved in ARIN are trying to be defensive, but I can certainly see how others might take the actions they have seen and come to that conclusion. It reminds me of how Republicans and Democrats see the same needs and have completely different ways of viewing a mechanism to met those needs. None of the proposed mechanisms are necessarily wrong, but in most cases, there is just not enough resources to implement more than one or two of them. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From carolann at censored.org Thu Feb 27 21:14:12 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:14:12 -0600 Subject: FCC and ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970227201406.3f7f0e28@mailhost.primenet.com> This makes the most sense since I've started reading this list. Which brings us to this question: What is an IP address really worth? ie: Carol Anne Cypherpunk of censored.org, and censored.web (soon) broadcasting from the mighty 206.165.50.96 (my current number) I can see paying the FCC for this number. I can see paying the Patent and/or Post offices for censored.org (and .web) But is this all an attempt to get the routings to kind of be like zipcodes? And arranged so that you can look at an IP and with 99% accuracy know where the machine is? (I can with 66% accuracy now. and I get better with practice) But will we then have "big market" and "small market" IP addresses. Kinda like sports franchises? Or will it be more like cable TV? I will see how Minnesota reacts to having control of the *.*.mn.us IP adresses. I'd bet my bottom dollar they want 5 million IP's just for the individual citizenry. We have a 2.4 billion state surplus. Maybe we can use some of it to protect ourselves on the "info highway". And will the routing table be sequential or random numbers? Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter. It makes it look more like an accounting chore. Which it really is, anyway. Carol Anne Cypherpunk At 05:40 PM 2/27/97 -0600, you wrote: > >Evidently, the FCC is considering taking on the >IP address management function. > >Can someone from ARIN confirm whether the >reason to split IP management from domain >management is to move IPs to the FCC and >domains to the PTO or the USPS ? > >This would allow the NSF to exit... > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation > >e-mail: >JimFleming at unety.net >JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.165.50.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!! From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 22:51:10 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:51:10 -0600 Subject: FCC and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC24F8.58FE9560@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 8:14 PM, Carol Anne Cypherpunk[SMTP:carolann at censored.org] wrote: @ This makes the most sense since I've started @ reading this list. @ @ Which brings us to this question: @ @ What is an IP address really worth? @ ie: @ I have a feeling the market is going to help determine that in the next few years. Or, maybe I should say I hope it does... @ Carol Anne Cypherpunk @ of censored.org, and censored.web (soon) @ broadcasting from the mighty @ @ 206.165.50.96 (my current number) @ @ I can see paying the FCC for this number. @ I can see paying the Patent and/or @ Post offices for censored.org (and .web) @ I have seen people take both sides of the FCC issue. They appear to have a recent track record in "auctions" so I suppose some people feel they would support market driven allocations. @ But is this all an attempt to get the routings to kind of @ be like zipcodes? And arranged so that you can look at @ an IP and with 99% accuracy know where the machine is? @ (I can with 66% accuracy now. and I get better with practice) @ @ But will we then have "big market" and "small market" IP addresses. @ Kinda like sports franchises? @ Or will it be more like cable TV? @ In my opinion, many people are trying to acheive the same thing, or at least I hope. Here is my short-list. 1. Low-cost, high-capability, world-wide communication system. 2. Support for open collaborative environments 3. Non-discriminatory administration policies other than economics 4. User community directed with government endorsement 5. Support for diversity and competition to improve the infrastructure @ I will see how Minnesota reacts to having control of the *.*.mn.us @ IP adresses. I'd bet my bottom dollar they want 5 million IP's @ just for the individual citizenry. We have a 2.4 billion state surplus. @ Maybe we can use some of it to protect ourselves on the "info highway". @ And will the routing table be sequential or random numbers? @ IP addresses and domains like mn.us are actually decoupled. Phone numbers and people's names are the same way. I have mostly suggested the 50 State approach to try to avoid having all of the Internet resources being piled into mountains in the obvious places. Some states already have mountains of IP addresses allocated. Some have very few. Since the NSF is the "National" Science Foundation it might be good for them to make sure the resources get spread around. @ Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter. It makes it look @ more like an accounting chore. Which it really is, anyway. @ Yes, if the "subjectivity" in the decision making can be removed from the system, then it is very clerical. People seem concerned that if the system is made so simple a clerk can do the job, then the "wrong" people will obtain addresses. I find it somewhat ironic that the current system has huge companies sitting on huge blocks of unused space, and that is "OK". Some famous universities have massive allocations and an ISP across the street gets starved. As a group ISPs have a very small percentage of the IPv4 space. Of course, I have seen some people openly state that ISPs are not the "right people". That seems to be the bottom line... ...who are the "right" people...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at ACADEM.COM Thu Feb 27 18:09:08 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:09:08 CST Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <199702272309.RAA04892@academ.com> > On Thursday, February 27, 1997 4:41 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: > I can be the leasing agent for an apartment building that I do not own. > An insurance company or bank may own it. Absolutely, but the lease would be between the owner and the tenant, not the leasing agent and the tenant, right? I am no lawyer, but in the cases were I have rented something, I was dealing with someone representing the owner's interests. > BTW - Who does own the addresses ? Probably the same folks that owns the air we breath:-) The IANA is the ultimate steward of the address space. You'd need to query them about the owner. I have been around the Internet for years and in all that time the important thing about addresses is their uniqueness, not the ultimate owner. One of the important things about ARIN is that it is possible that the folks who benefit from this registration effort get to be involved in the stewartship role more directly. This has not been the case in the Americas, like it has in other parts of the world. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 23:13:37 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:13:37 -0600 Subject: the "Internet's Vietnam" Message-ID: <01BC24FB.7BDCF240@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 8:58 PM, Jim Browning[SMTP:jfbb at ATMNET.NET] wrote: @ Jim, @ @ You are (intentionally, I believe) disrupting legitimate work people are @ trying to accomplish on this and other mailing lists by stealing mind-share @ (processor cycles, if you will) to the extent that no one can do anything @ but deal with your off-topic posts. I and others have asked politely, both @ publicly and privately, that you limit your posts to the topic the list was @ established to address. You refuse to do so. This post can only be @ considered SPAM, as it is a post that is just as inappropriate to this @ forum as a commercial solicitation would be. @ @ ATMnet will henceforth treat your organization as we would that of any @ other SPAM spewer, by filtering traffic from addresses you are associated @ with. @ -- @ jfbb @ @ Dear Mr. Browing, This list is a discussion about ARIN. If you are not aware, ARIN has a lot to do with shaping Internet Governance. There are other lists that also apply because Internet Governance is a broad topic. The people that have proposed to create ARIN are using U.S. Government resources to promote their cause. As long as they do this, I feel that the U.S. Constitution prevails. Thanks for your comments. Jim Fleming @ ---------- @ From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] @ Sent: Thursday, February 27, 1997 6:09 PM @ To: 'naipr at arin.net' @ Subject: the "Internet's Vietnam" @ @ @ Once again, it concerns me that some people may @ be rather new to this process which began to gain @ momentum in October of 1995, shortly after the @ InterNIC started charging and people realized that @ it was not a hoax, or joke. @ @ You are all watching over 16 months, of almost full-time @ work for some people, come to a very peaceful ending. @ @ Please try to put that in context as you draw your @ conclusions. Please try to be nice. @ @ If there are any winners in this, they are the people @ of the Internet that do not know this work is being @ done, to make their lives better. Some day people @ might look back and review the documents and @ the full history. It has been a human drama that @ should probably not be repeated. @ @ As someone said, it is the "Internet's Vietnam". @ People felt they had to destroy villages to save @ them. For some it did not make sense, for others @ it did. The only good that remains, is...it is over. @ @ It is both a sad drama and a happy drama because, @ in the end, people's ability to let common sense @ triumph over "petty" control issues took too long. @ @ Thanks for your time... @ @ @ -- @ Jim Fleming @ Unir Corporation @ @ e-mail: @ JimFleming at unety.net @ JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) @ @ @ @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 17:45:24 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:45:24 -0600 Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <01BC24CD.A180CE00@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 4:41 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: @ > Why not just say you are "leasing" the addresses and @ > skip the mumbo jumbo....? @ @ Jim, @ @ "Leasing" would imply that ARIN owns the addresses for which it is @ providing registration services. As you have stated in other mail, @ ARIN (like RIPE and APNIC) is there to help insure that addresses used @ on the Internet are unique. A registrar is a steward of the resource @ being managed, not the owner of the resource. This is an important @ distiction. @ I can be the leasing agent for an apartment building that I do not own. An insurance company or bank may own it. It is important to make sure the end user understands the relationship. BTW - Who does own the addresses ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 18:21:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:21:26 -0600 Subject: "leasing" the addresses Message-ID: <01BC24D2.B1E5F0E0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 5:09 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: @ > On Thursday, February 27, 1997 4:41 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: @ > I can be the leasing agent for an apartment building that I do not own. @ > An insurance company or bank may own it. @ @ Absolutely, but the lease would be between the owner and the tenant, not @ the leasing agent and the tenant, right? I am no lawyer, but in the cases @ were I have rented something, I was dealing with someone representing the @ owner's interests. @ Contracts can be made to say almost anything...I have seen both...YMMV @ > BTW - Who does own the addresses ? @ @ Probably the same folks that owns the air we breath:-) @ @ The IANA is the ultimate steward of the address space. You'd need to query @ them about the owner. I have been around the Internet for years and in all @ that time the important thing about addresses is their uniqueness, not the @ ultimate owner. @ That is where we disagree...:-) I would like to see the legal proof... @ One of the important things about ARIN is that it is possible that the folks @ who benefit from this registration effort get to be involved in the stewartship @ role more directly. This has not been the case in the Americas, like it has @ in other parts of the world. @ @ Yes...that is also an attribute of the AlterNIC, eDNS, Root 64, etc. All of those efforts are aimed at developing "NICs" to allow the InterNIC to transition to the commercial market and out of the NSF... I am concerned that the people launching ARIN and the people supporting ARIN have not been directly involved in the cloning of any NICs. Why do they all of a sudden want to clone part of the NIC ? Why does that happen to coincide with making NSI look like a 3 TLD domain registry ? Is the goal of ARIN to help make NSI look like something else for a reason ? Does NSI plan on taking on some work they could not accept, with ARIN close to home ? Is ARIN really aimed at putting some activities at arm's length to allow the NSF to allow NSI to go off and compete with the other domain registrars who would have to be given IP blocks if ARIN was still around ? (And we could not have that...could we..?..God forbid...) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Feb 27 11:30:05 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:30:05 +0900 Subject: FCC and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:14:12 CST." <3.0.16.19970227201406.3f7f0e28@mailhost.primenet.com> Message-ID: <199702271630.BAA04415@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Hi, >This makes the most sense since I've started reading this list. That Fleming says the FCC is considering taking on IP address management? Government intervention is, of course, always an option, although it would likely mean the scope of ARIN would be reduced to only the US. I personally don't think the US government has shown itself to be the best administrator for limited resources, however given the large ISPs are already multi-national, I suspect they could get around any perhaps inappropriate restrictions that might be applied (in the worst case). >What is an IP address really worth? Geoff Huston proposed an answer to this question at the PIARA BOF held in Montreal. The short answer is "what the buyer is willing to pay that the seller is willing to accept". A single /24 is not likely to have much value. I've heard /16s are running between US $30,000 and US $60,000 or so, but of course wouldn't know for sure since the registries do not recognize such transfers. >But is this all an attempt to get the routings to kind of >be like zipcodes? No. I believe the point of ARIN is to create a non-profit industry driven organization which can allocate the resources (IP addresses and AS numbers) without government intervention. The registries do try to promote routability of addresses (although not in the way I think you mean -- you can't tell where a machine is located by just its address -- you need additional information (e.g., what is contained in the routing tables)), but the registry's primary goal is to manage the address space to insure there is sufficient addresses to meet the requirements of the Internet community. >I will see how Minnesota reacts to having control of the *.*.mn.us >IP adresses. These two (*.*.mn.us and IP addresses) are orthogonal concepts. >Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter. It makes it look >more like an accounting chore. Which it really is, anyway. Yup. Fleming keeps going to ridiculous efforts to call this an economic or political excercise. Allocation of addresses is a technical activity and should be done in the most efficient way that best manages the limited resource. To go back to your original statement, I don't believe the US government has demonstrated a high level of efficiency in managing such resources, it could probably be made to work. I would think this would be a last resort however. Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 00:26:42 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:26:42 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2505.B1378040@webster.unety.net> Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ CA 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) CA 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) CA 2.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-2) NJ 3.0.0.0 General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) MA 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) CA 5.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-5) AZ 6.0.0.0 Army Information Systems Center (NET-YPG-NET) CA 7.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-11) MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) NY 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) CA 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) CA 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) MI 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) VA 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) VA 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) DC 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) CA 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) CA 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 UK 25.0.0.0 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (NET-RSRE-EXP) VA 26.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) CA 27.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-10) VA 28.0.0.0 ARPA DSI JPO (NET-DSI-NORTH) DC 29.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) DC 30.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) CA 31.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-12) Norway 32.0.0.0 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) OH 33.0.0.0 DLA Systems Automation Center (NET-DCMC) TX 34.0.0.0 Halliburton Company (NET-HALLIBURTON) MI 35.0.0.0 Merit Network Inc. (NET-MERIT) CA 36.0.0.0 Stanford University (NET-SU-NET-TEMP) CA 37.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-37A) VA 38.0.0.0 Performance Systems International (NET-PSINETA) CA 39.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-39A) IN 40.0.0.0 Eli Lilly and Company (NET-LILLY-NET) CA 41.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (RESERVED-41A) CA 42.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-42) Japan 43.0.0.0 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) CA 44.0.0.0 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) CA 45.0.0.0 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) MA 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) Canada 47.0.0.0 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) NY 48.0.0.0 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49.0.0.0 No match for "49.0.0.0". 50.0.0.0 No match for "50.0.0.0". UK 51.0.0.0 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) DE 52.0.0.0 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) Germany 53.0.0.0 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) NJ 54.0.0.0 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) VA 55.0.0.0 Army National Guard Bureau (NET-RCAS2) NC 56.0.0.0 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) France 57.0.0.0 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (NET-SITA2) CA 58.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-58) CA 59.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-59) CA 60.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-60) CA 61.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-61) CA 62.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-62) CA 63.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-63) CA 64.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 65.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 66.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 67.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 68.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 69.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 70.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 71.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 72.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 73.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 74.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 75.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 76.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 77.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 78.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 79.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 80.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 81.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 82.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 83.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 84.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 85.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 86.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 87.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 88.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 89.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 90.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 91.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 92.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 93.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 94.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 95.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) CA 96.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 97.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 98.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 99.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 100.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 101.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 102.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 103.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 104.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 105.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 106.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 107.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 108.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 109.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 110.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 111.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 112.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 113.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 114.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 115.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 116.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 117.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 118.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 119.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 120.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 121.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 122.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 123.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 124.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 125.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 126.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) CA 127.0.0.0 IANA (LOOPBACK) CA 128.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-3) 129.0.0.0 No match for "129.0.0.0". 130.0.0.0 No match for "130.0.0.0". 131.0.0.0 No match for "131.0.0.0". 132.0.0.0 No match for "132.0.0.0". APNIC 133.0.0.0 Japan Network Information Center (NETBLK-JAPANB-INET) 134.0.0.0 No match for "134.0.0.0". FL 135.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT-135-0-0-0-B) 136.0.0.0 No match for "136.0.0.0". 137.0.0.0 No match for "137.0.0.0". 138.0.0.0 No match for "138.0.0.0". 139.0.0.0 No match for "139.0.0.0". 140.0.0.0 No match for "140.0.0.0". 141.0.0.0 No match for "141.0.0.0". 142.0.0.0 No match for "142.0.0.0". 143.0.0.0 No match for "143.0.0.0". 144.0.0.0 No match for "144.0.0.0". 145.0.0.0 No match for "145.0.0.0". 146.0.0.0 No match for "146.0.0.0". 147.0.0.0 No match for "147.0.0.0". 148.0.0.0 No match for "148.0.0.0". 149.0.0.0 No match for "149.0.0.0". 150.0.0.0 No match for "150.0.0.0". 151.0.0.0 No match for "151.0.0.0". 152.0.0.0 No match for "152.0.0.0". 153.0.0.0 No match for "153.0.0.0". 154.0.0.0 No match for "154.0.0.0". 155.0.0.0 No match for "155.0.0.0". 156.0.0.0 No match for "156.0.0.0". 157.0.0.0 No match for "157.0.0.0". 158.0.0.0 No match for "158.0.0.0". 159.0.0.0 No match for "159.0.0.0". 160.0.0.0 No match for "160.0.0.0". 161.0.0.0 No match for "161.0.0.0". 162.0.0.0 No match for "162.0.0.0". 163.0.0.0 No match for "163.0.0.0". 164.0.0.0 No match for "164.0.0.0". 165.0.0.0 No match for "165.0.0.0". 166.0.0.0 No match for "166.0.0.0". 167.0.0.0 No match for "167.0.0.0". 168.0.0.0 No match for "168.0.0.0". 169.0.0.0 No match for "169.0.0.0". 170.0.0.0 No match for "170.0.0.0". 171.0.0.0 No match for "171.0.0.0". 172.0.0.0 No match for "172.0.0.0". 173.0.0.0 No match for "173.0.0.0". 174.0.0.0 No match for "174.0.0.0". 175.0.0.0 No match for "175.0.0.0". 176.0.0.0 No match for "176.0.0.0". 177.0.0.0 No match for "177.0.0.0". 178.0.0.0 No match for "178.0.0.0". 179.0.0.0 No match for "179.0.0.0". 180.0.0.0 No match for "180.0.0.0". 181.0.0.0 No match for "181.0.0.0". 182.0.0.0 No match for "182.0.0.0". 183.0.0.0 No match for "183.0.0.0". 184.0.0.0 No match for "184.0.0.0". 185.0.0.0 No match for "185.0.0.0". 186.0.0.0 No match for "186.0.0.0". 187.0.0.0 No match for "187.0.0.0". 188.0.0.0 No match for "188.0.0.0". 189.0.0.0 No match for "189.0.0.0". 190.0.0.0 No match for "190.0.0.0". 191.0.0.0 No match for "191.0.0.0". CA 192.0.0.0 IANA (NET-ROOT-NS-LAB) RIPE 193.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE) RIPE 194.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C2) RIPE 195.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C) 196.0.0.0 No match for "196.0.0.0". 197.0.0.0 No match for "197.0.0.0". VA 198.0.0.0 InterNIC Registration (INTERNIC-BLK) VA 199.0.0.0 US Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINT-BLKA) Colombia 200.0.0.0 HOCOL S.A. (NET-SHELL-1) 201.0.0.0 No match for "201.0.0.0". APNIC 202.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) APNIC-CIDR-BLK APNIC 203.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) APNIC-CIDR-BLK TX 204.0.0.0 Rice University-Sesquinet (NETBLK-SESQUI-CIDR-03) DC 205.0.0.0 SPAWAR (JMCIS-BLOCK) FL 206.0.0.0 PSINET/Palm Coast Data (NET-NETBLK-PSI-C5-0) VA 207.0.0.0 MCI Internet Services (NETBLK-MCI-NETBLK08) TX 208.0.0.0 virtual village (NET-SPRINT-D00000) CA 209.0.0.0 GeoNet Communications, Inc. (NETBLK-GEO-CIDR-05) APNIC 210.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-BLK) APNIC 211.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-BLK) 212.0.0.0 No match for "212.0.0.0". 213.0.0.0 No match for "213.0.0.0". 214.0.0.0 No match for "214.0.0.0". 215.0.0.0 No match for "215.0.0.0". 216.0.0.0 No match for "216.0.0.0". 217.0.0.0 No match for "217.0.0.0". 218.0.0.0 No match for "218.0.0.0". 219.0.0.0 No match for "219.0.0.0". 220.0.0.0 No match for "220.0.0.0". 221.0.0.0 No match for "221.0.0.0". 222.0.0.0 No match for "222.0.0.0". 223.0.0.0 No match for "223.0.0.0". CA 224.0.0.0 University of Southern California (NET-MCAST-NET) 225.0.0.0 No match for "225.0.0.0". 226.0.0.0 No match for "226.0.0.0". 227.0.0.0 No match for "227.0.0.0". 228.0.0.0 No match for "228.0.0.0". 229.0.0.0 No match for "229.0.0.0". 230.0.0.0 No match for "230.0.0.0". 231.0.0.0 No match for "231.0.0.0". 232.0.0.0 No match for "232.0.0.0". 233.0.0.0 No match for "233.0.0.0". 234.0.0.0 No match for "234.0.0.0". 235.0.0.0 No match for "235.0.0.0". 236.0.0.0 No match for "236.0.0.0". 237.0.0.0 No match for "237.0.0.0". 238.0.0.0 No match for "238.0.0.0". 239.0.0.0 No match for "239.0.0.0". 240.0.0.0 No match for "240.0.0.0". 241.0.0.0 No match for "241.0.0.0". 242.0.0.0 No match for "242.0.0.0". 243.0.0.0 No match for "243.0.0.0". 244.0.0.0 No match for "244.0.0.0". 245.0.0.0 No match for "245.0.0.0". 246.0.0.0 No match for "246.0.0.0". 247.0.0.0 No match for "247.0.0.0". 248.0.0.0 No match for "248.0.0.0". 249.0.0.0 No match for "249.0.0.0". 250.0.0.0 No match for "250.0.0.0". 251.0.0.0 No match for "251.0.0.0". 252.0.0.0 No match for "252.0.0.0". 253.0.0.0 No match for "253.0.0.0". 254.0.0.0 No match for "254.0.0.0". 255.0.0.0 No match for "255.0.0.0". @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 00:32:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:32:00 -0600 Subject: FCC and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2506.6EC58080@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 10:30 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: @ Hi, @ @ >This makes the most sense since I've started reading this list. @ @ That Fleming says the FCC is considering taking on IP address @ management? Government intervention is, of course, always an option, @ although it would likely mean the scope of ARIN would be reduced to @ only the US. I personally don't think the US government has shown @ itself to be the best administrator for limited resources, however @ given the large ISPs are already multi-national, I suspect they could @ get around any perhaps inappropriate restrictions that might be @ applied (in the worst case). @ @ >What is an IP address really worth? @ @ Geoff Huston proposed an answer to this question at the PIARA BOF held @ in Montreal. The short answer is "what the buyer is willing to pay @ that the seller is willing to accept". A single /24 is not likely to @ have much value. I've heard /16s are running between US $30,000 and @ US $60,000 or so, but of course wouldn't know for sure since the @ registries do not recognize such transfers. @ Can you expand on..."the registries do not recognize such transfers"...? @ >But is this all an attempt to get the routings to kind of @ >be like zipcodes? @ @ No. I believe the point of ARIN is to create a non-profit industry @ driven organization which can allocate the resources (IP addresses and @ AS numbers) without government intervention. The registries do try to @ promote routability of addresses (although not in the way I think you @ mean -- you can't tell where a machine is located by just its address -- @ you need additional information (e.g., what is contained in the @ routing tables)), but the registry's primary goal is to manage the @ address space to insure there is sufficient addresses to meet the @ requirements of the Internet community. @ If the registries "promote" routability, then why does the InterNIC carefully select blocks for ISPs and then make them sign or agree to a statement that the block is not routable ? Sort of like a ticket to a Cubs game...behind a pole in Wrigley.. @ >I will see how Minnesota reacts to having control of the *.*.mn.us @ >IP adresses. @ @ These two (*.*.mn.us and IP addresses) are orthogonal concepts. @ @ >Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter. It makes it look @ >more like an accounting chore. Which it really is, anyway. @ @ Yup. Fleming keeps going to ridiculous efforts to call this an @ economic or political excercise. Allocation of addresses is a @ technical activity and should be done in the most efficient way that @ best manages the limited resource. To go back to your original @ statement, I don't believe the US government has demonstrated a high @ level of efficiency in managing such resources, it could probably be @ made to work. I would think this would be a last resort however. @ Do you think that allocating radio spectrum to AM and FM stations is a technical matter ? Are interstate highways, civil engineering problems ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Feb 27 12:36:20 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 02:36:20 +0900 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:43:00 CST." <01BC2492.9FB20340@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702271736.CAA04782@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [forwarded around my filters by someone who thinks it is worthwhile to try and debunk Fleming, while I don't necessarily agree, I've switched to decaffinated for a while and have regained my sense of humor, so I thought I'd give it a try again] >I am somewhat surprised that a person who makes part of their >living allocating IP addresses for a "geographic" region would >not understand the geo-political reasons why people like to >work with organizations that are in the areas that: speak their >language, understand their cultures, and are supportive of >their communities. This list is discussing the American Reigstry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). You are proposing creating a registry per US state. Can you explain the different languages and cultures these registries would address? As to being supportive of their communities, I'm glad you agree that one of the goals of ARIN, namely providing the community it serves a way of providing input to the operation of the registry, is a good idea. With respect to geographical constraints on registries, I have stated publicly on the PAGAN list that I believe the registries should compete and that geographical monopolies make no sense in today's Internet. However, that is just my personal opinion and does not represent the view of APNIC (of course). >In answer to your question about coordinating policies. The >United States of America and its 50 states have had a long >history of being able to coordinate policies. An arguable point (e.g., see the events called "the civil war" or the "civil rights movement"), but irrelevant. The fact that states can coordinate policies implies nothing with respect to how a registry delegated to states would coordinate among themselves. However, taking your comment at face value, assuming each state in the US was delegated a /8 as you propose, why should not each state in Mexico, each province in Canada, and for that matter, each state/ province/prefecture in every country in the world not also be delegated a /8 (other than the fact that you'd run out of /8s pretty quickly)? Why the astonishingly parochial viewpoint? And why use states as the delinating boundary? Why should (say) Nevada have the same number of registries as (say) California? Why not use a more fair distribution function based on number of service providers or population or number of telephones? But, suppose we follow your recommendation and treat Canada and Mexico as US states (I'm sure this will go over very well) and we have 52 registries in North America (oops! What about the Carribean countries, don't they even get the same rights as US states? Guess not). If these registries are competing, then presumably you would charge for addresses, thereby moving away from the current policy of allocating address based on demonstrated need to allocating based on ability to pay, so Microsoft can get as much address space as they want, and the small service providers you are so vocal in supporting get what? This approach has been suggested *many* times (including the PIARA BOF in Montreal) and yet it has not been implemented. Why do you think that would be? >If these views are not consistent with the views that you have >seen as an attendee at meetings here in the U.S. with >the people proposing ARIN, please expand on that for this >ARIN discussion group. Your views, particularly your proposal about delegating /8s to each US state, are not consistant with the reality of anyone else on the planet I'm aware of. But keep trying (there is a story about an infinite number of monkey typing on an infinite number of typewrites that would likely be appropriate here, but I'll desist). Regards, -drc From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 28 00:39:44 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:39:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: FCC and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19970227201406.3f7f0e28@mailhost.primenet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Carol Anne Cypherpunk wrote: > This makes the most sense since I've started > reading this list. The citizens of Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cuba, Haiti, The Dominican Republic, Barbados, Trinidad, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama, Venezuela, Colombia, Guayana, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Agentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and several others whose names I can't think of offhand, think that FCC involvement in ARIN makes no sense whatsoever. However, citizens of all those countries think that a collaborative effort like ARIN is a very good idea indeed. > What is an IP address really worth? Not much. I manufacture IP addresses any time I need them (see RFC1918 for details). > I can see paying the FCC for this number. > I can see paying the Patent and/or > Post offices for censored.org (and .web) You can pay anybody you want including the panhandler with the large orange cat who can be found sitting on the sidewalk next to the newspaper boxes on Market St. at 4th St. in San Francisco. Next time I'm in San Francisco I will make surte to pay him for my IP addresses if he hasn't retired from the panhandling business already. But none of this is terribly relevant to ARIN. > But is this all an attempt to get the routings to kind of > be like zipcodes? ARIN has nothing to do with Internet routing other than the need to be fully aware of how the network operators do this. If you want to know more about routing then go to http://www.nanog.org and have a look through the many documents on that website. > I will see how Minnesota reacts to having control of the *.*.mn.us > IP adresses. *.*.mn.us are domain names, NOT IP addresses. > Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter. It makes it look > more like an accounting chore. Which it really is, anyway. Precisely. And chores don't get done unless someone accepts the responsibility to get them done. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Feb 27 12:54:45 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 02:54:45 +0900 Subject: FCC and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:32:00 CST." <01BC2506.6EC58080@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702271754.CAA05047@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> >Can you expand on..."the registries do not recognize such transfers"...? Read RFC 2050. Could you expand on why you think Canada and Mexico should be treated like US states? >If the registries "promote" routability, then why does the InterNIC >carefully select blocks for ISPs and then make them sign or >agree to a statement that the block is not routable ? While the registries can in no way guarantee routability, it is plainly obvious to anyone who can rub two braincells together that we do have some impact on the likelihood of routability. For example, if we allocate a /16 to an organization that justifies it, such a prefix is a bit more likely to be routed that 65536 /32s allocated at random over the IPv4 space. If you don't understand this, I'd recommend reading any of the many introductory books on TCP/IP. Now, since the registries cannot guarantee routability, I think it appropriate that we do what we can to inform the people who demand we allocate to them that what they are being allocated may not be useful to them, don't you? >Do you think that allocating radio spectrum to AM and FM >stations is a technical matter ? It should be. This is one reason I don't think having the FCC manage the IP address space would be a good idea. >Are interstate highways, civil engineering problems ? Are vascular systems surgical problems? Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 27 18:30:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:30:50 -0600 Subject: Don't count anyone out... Message-ID: <01BC24D3.FAA75160@webster.unety.net> People seem to think that because the clone "NICs" have not focused on IP addresses they are not interested. This is not true. Prior to last month, there was not a good solid dollar figure placed on leasing IP addresses. ARIN has helped plant a stake in the ground. With that event as well as the time ticking on the NSF contracts, the other NICs can add IP addresses to their business plans. People with spread-sheets can now plug in lease rates and network sizes and develop some projections. In summary, the venture capitalists did not understand the IP address leasing market. ARIN is educating them. That has been a major contribution of ARIN. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Thu Feb 20 12:02:22 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:02:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <199702201438.JAA14428@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: > Secondly, I would hope that most, if not all, ISPs are checking WHOIS to verify > the address space actually belongs to their customer before they route it. This sounds like backtracking on the notion that ARIN is intended to be independent from ISPs and their routing policies. --karl-- From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Feb 20 13:26:08 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:26:08 -0600 Subject: Cloning the InterNic and AlterNIC Message-ID: <01BC1F29.40728B20@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 20, 1997 11:58 AM, Alan Derossett[SMTP:videogram at DigitalStarlight.com] wrote: @ Michael Dillon wrote: @ > @ > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Dennis Oszuscik wrote: @ > @ > I am trying to start a new ISP for Handiecap people and all i get @ > is a BIG RUNAROUND, like goto your upstream provider, you need to @ > check rfcXXXX and so on.. @ > @ > Why is this a big runaround. If you got to your upstream provider and ask @ > for the IP address space that you need then they will give it to you. @ > This is how all ISP's get started. @ @ My upstream provider charges $45.00 for each IP number we need,and they @ will only give you a number once a domain is registered.I am at @ an economic disadvantage.Would love to pay $2500 for a 19/ but the way @ it's set-up only the isp's already useing thousands of IP numbers will @ be allowed to purchase a block.Erols currently charges $75.00 I'am @ told.If the numbers were portable I wouldn't feel so bad about paying @ but I cant ask my customers to pay for me to change providers. @ @ Alan DeRossett @ Digital Starlight Communications Inc. @ @ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ This is the Newdom mailing list, newdom at vrx.net. To subscribe or @ unsubscribe or get help , send the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" or @ "help" in the body (not subject) to newdom-request at vrx.net @ @ Again, I suggest that you obtain your own IP addresses. The National Science Foundation is in charge of the InterNIC. If you can not obtain satisfaction from the InterNIC, you need to talk to the NSF (see below). You might be surprised how fast the U.S. Federal Government can make things happen, compared to the InterNIC. Network Solutions, Inc. needs to figure out that there is a total job to do and they have been granted a monopoly by the NSF to do part of that total job. The IP address allocation situation is a mess. It appears that NSI has spent their time on the $50/year domain name side of the business. You should not suffer because of that. Some people claim that the solution is to fragment the InterNIC. ARIN is one proposal. In my opinion, the solution is to see the last year of the contract through and to do the job that was contracted. According to the following, Network Solutions, Inc. is doing the job.... @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/feb97/registry.html Again...I guarantee the following people are being paid to make sure that NSI does their job. Use them as a resource, if you are a U.S. taxpayer, you are paying for this service either way. Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@ President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov @@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM Thu Feb 20 13:46:00 1997 From: jeff.binkley at ASACOMP.COM (Jeff Binkley) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:46:00 -0500 Subject: TEST - IS THIS LIST S In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970219134928.006f7bac@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <35.266721.7@asacomp.com> This seems to be the case for folks who disagree with you. Unfortunate. Jeff Binkley ASA Network Computing PF>*plonk* PF>That was the sound of Dave McClure going into my kill filter file. PF>- paul PF>At 11:26 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: PF>> PF>>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote: PF>> PF>>> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from PF>>> this list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it PF>over? > PF>>The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some PF>changes >to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in PF>San Francisco >last week. PF>>[Dave McClure] PF>>Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, PF>but that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work PF>trying to claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP PF>addresses. Who elected them? Under whose authority? And why is PF>there only one persone even remotely associated with an actual ISP on PF>this "Board of Trudtees?????" > PF>>At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard PF>>about ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the PF>list archives >and then join the list if they still had concerns. I PF>would expect we will >be hearing from some of those folks this week PF>if they still have >questions. PF>>[Dave McClure] PF>>And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. PF>BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look PF>at the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a PF>**true** collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP PF>addressing systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP PF>control of the system, and a real non-profit status. PF>> PF>>But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's PF>ready to >go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that PF>is still >written in conditional language. PF>> PF>>[Dave McClure] PF>>Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the PF>Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything PF>else that **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a PF>proposed budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for PF>this, or the authority under which these hijackers are operating???? PF>> PF>>Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who PF>support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the PF>ISPs who do not. . .large, and small. PF>> PF>>The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined PF>organization whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP PF>addresses in the Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS PF>looks poorly upon organizations that charge for services but try to PF>claim non-profit status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no PF>collaborative or educational mission. It is a simple PF>overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed. > PF>>If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as PF>APNIC and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set PF>forth how the Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the PF>organization will be responsible to the industry? Why no open PF>information about accounting, or what their costs will be. This PF>organization will pull more than $3 million from the industry in its PF>first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of how those funds PF>will be used, why they are necessary, or what the accountability will PF>be to the industry. > PF>>The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little PF>interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided PF>any opportunity to do so. PF>> PF>>Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer PF>to a simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, PF>Inc., will become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will PF>be transferred to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in PF>public. > PF>>Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a PF>ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who PF>almost immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the PF>ARIN Board of Trustees. . . PF>> PF>>Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in PF>advertising law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with PF>anyone the possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN PF>Board of Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council? PF>> PF>>Yes, or no? PF>> PF>> PF>>David P. McClure PF>>Association of Online Professionals PF>> PF>> CMPQwk 1.42 9999 From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Fri Feb 28 01:33:46 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:33:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC2505.B1378040@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Feb 27, 97 11:26:42 pm Message-ID: <199702280633.AA208041628@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > > Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using > 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC > to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim, Now I am convinced that you have really gone over the deep end. I think that the thousands of companies who have addresses assigned from those blocks would go pretty much go insane if you tried to take their addresses. Try and look at the way classful IP addresses where allocated and hence put in the database. (try doing a whois on 140.X.0.0 {1 Phil From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 28 02:01:53 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:01:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC2505.B1378040@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using > 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC > to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > CA 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) > CA 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) CA-CA, eh? Yeah, that would be my comment all right. Hint to non-Americans: the USA is a bilingual country with Spanish as its second unofficial language. English is the first unofficial language in the USA. Eh is Canadian. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Fri Feb 28 03:04:54 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:04:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 27, 97 11:01:53 pm Message-ID: <199702280804.AAA16432@songbird.com> Michael Dillon allegedly said: > > On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using > > 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC > > to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? > > > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > > CA 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) > > CA 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) > > CA-CA, eh? Yeah, that would be my comment all right. > > Hint to non-Americans: the USA is a bilingual country with Spanish as > its second unofficial language. English is the > first unofficial language in the USA. Eh is > Canadian. I beg to differ Michael. Eh quite clearly belongs to the USA. It is *not* Canadian. I use it at least three times a day, and I have since birth. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Feb 28 03:56:19 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:56:19 +0100 Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:26:42 CST." <01BC2505.B1378040@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2505.B1378040@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <9702280856.AA14140@ncc.ripe.net> Jim Fleming writes: * * Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using * 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC * to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? Jim, I think you mean 50 * /8? Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA. This on top of the addresses already used in the USA. Could you please tell me which section of IPv4 you would then give to each other individual country in the world? I think most countries will be happy with just one /8 instead of 50. I think Russia would need much more, China maybe one /8 per province? Where are they going to come from, which range? Are there less than 206 other countries? My geography isn't that good:-) Are you going to explain to the present users why they must give the addresses they use to a country? Maybe this is possible with IPv8 (IPvJim:-), with IPv4 I think it isn't plausible. Kind regards, John Crain (These opinions are my personal opinions, you want some get your own) RIPE NCC From davidc at APNIC.NET Fri Feb 28 06:54:26 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:54:26 +0900 Subject: "leasing" the addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:22:26 CST." <01BC24CA.6C43AEE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702281154.UAA22413@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> >>"Above all else, it should be stressed that ARIN will not be >>"selling" IP numbers. ... >> The registration fees are for the >>registration services rendered by ARIN ... >Why not just say you are "leasing" the addresses and >skip the mumbo jumbo....? I'm surprised you have such a hard time understanding this, one might get the impression you do but because you don't like the answer, keep asking the same question. Not that you'd ever do that. Simply: because the registries are not leasing (or selling) addresses. Once the allocation is made, no additional payments are necessary (although there has been discussion of having a low maintenance fee to keep the databases up to date). Further, as there is no limit to the amount of (justified) space you can obtain after paying a fee, it should be obvious address space itself isn't being leased (or sold). >What is the point of the above ? To explain to the newbies and the congenitially confused that the registries are not selling (or leasing) address space. Would you explain why you treat Mexico and Canada the same as US states? Oh, and while you're at it, could you explain what Central and Latin America, the Carribean nations, and the southern part of Africa should do for addresses? Thanks, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 09:35:31 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:35:31 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2552.5C744140@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 7:33 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: @ Jim Fleming supposedly said: @ > @ > @ > Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using @ > 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC @ > to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? @ > @ > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ Jim, @ @ Now I am convinced that you have really gone over the deep end. I think @ that the thousands of companies who have addresses assigned from those @ blocks would go pretty much go insane if you tried to take their @ addresses. @ @ Try and look at the way classful IP addresses where allocated and hence put @ in the database. (try doing a whois on 140.X.0.0 {1 Phil @ @ Thanks for your comments. Assigning blocks to a registry for management does NOT give away people's addresses. It places those addresses under the management of that registry. As an example, you or your company could be assigned the 192.X.X.X TWD for "management" and clean-up. That would not immediately change anything. As a REGISTRY doing MANAGEMENT you would not start routing on whatever 192.X.X.X address you desired. Instead, you would start proper record keeping and transfer records, etc. You would MANAGE the block. REGISTRIES manage blocks, they do not route them. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 09:38:46 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:38:46 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2552.D0F081A0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 2:56 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ * @ * Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using @ * 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC @ * to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? @ @ Jim, @ @ I think you mean 50 * /8? @ @ Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA. @ This on top of the addresses already used in the USA. Could you please tell @ me which section of IPv4 you would then give to each other individual @ country in the world? I think most countries will be happy with just one /8 @ instead of 50. I think Russia would need much more, China maybe one /8 per @ province? Where are they going to come from, which range? @ @ Are there less than 206 other countries? My geography isn't that good:-) @ @ Are you going to explain to the present users why they must give the @ addresses they use to a country? @ @ Maybe this is possible with IPv8 (IPvJim:-), with IPv4 I think it isn't @ plausible. @ @ Kind regards, @ @ John Crain @ (These opinions are my personal opinions, you want some get your own) @ RIPE NCC @ @ Could you replace the word "give" with.... "place under management" ???? Registries manage blocks... As people have noted, they do not own them. We will talk about ownership soon. Very soon. I hope people have studied prior art, as opposed to what happened in the IAHC discussions. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 10:05:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:05:35 -0600 Subject: FCC and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2556.8FEFBDC0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 11:54 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ >Can you expand on..."the registries do not recognize such transfers"...? @ @ Read RFC 2050. Could you expand on why you think Canada and Mexico @ should be treated like US states? @ I consider Canada and Mexico to be countries. I refer you to the story I have told in the past about my meeting with the Minister of Communication in Canada in the late 70's when I was working for AT&T. I am sure you have heard it. @ >If the registries "promote" routability, then why does the InterNIC @ >carefully select blocks for ISPs and then make them sign or @ >agree to a statement that the block is not routable ? @ @ While the registries can in no way guarantee routability, it is @ plainly obvious to anyone who can rub two braincells together that we @ do have some impact on the likelihood of routability. For example, if @ we allocate a /16 to an organization that justifies it, such a prefix @ is a bit more likely to be routed that 65536 /32s allocated at random @ over the IPv4 space. If you don't understand this, I'd recommend @ reading any of the many introductory books on TCP/IP. Now, since the @ registries cannot guarantee routability, I think it appropriate that @ we do what we can to inform the people who demand we allocate to them @ that what they are being allocated may not be useful to them, don't @ you? @ Yes, registries are able to mismanage resources. I would hope we are talking about building registries to properly manage the resources, not to make a mess as we have seen. @ >Do you think that allocating radio spectrum to AM and FM @ >stations is a technical matter ? @ @ It should be. This is one reason I don't think having the FCC manage @ the IP address space would be a good idea. @ OK...I have heard they have some very good technical people. @ >Are interstate highways, civil engineering problems ? @ @ Are vascular systems surgical problems? @ David, Before we continue any further. I think that we need to make sure that you define your role in these matters as the owner/director (?) of APNIC, the registry that handles IP address allocations for a fee in the Asia Pacific region. Please expand and also explain where you purchased the 32 bit addresses that you are selling/leasing etc. Thanks -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 10:26:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:26:47 -0600 Subject: ARIN - sell vs. lease vs. ??? Message-ID: <01BC2559.85A918E0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, February 27, 1997 4:41 PM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at ACADEM.COM] wrote: @ @ "Leasing" would imply that ARIN owns the addresses for which it is @ providing registration services. As you have stated in other mail, @ ARIN (like RIPE and APNIC) is there to help insure that addresses used @ on the Internet are unique. A registrar is a steward of the resource @ being managed, not the owner of the resource. This is an important @ distiction. @ Does ARIN agree that they do not "own" the 32 bit addresses ? P.S. Does ARIN plan to "ensure" or "insure" ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From waz at ENTERACT.COM Fri Feb 28 10:32:58 1997 From: waz at ENTERACT.COM (Tracy Snell) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:32:58 GMT Subject: FCC and ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC24DB.102F3BE0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC24DB.102F3BE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3317f9e5.6163767@smtp.enteract.com> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:21:33 -0600, you wrote: >On Thursday, February 27, 1997 1:16 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: >@ Jim Fleming supposedly said: >@ > Evidently, the FCC is considering taking on the >@ > IP address management function. @ >@ Jim, >@ >@ Since you are making the statement, I assume that you have been told this >@ or read it. Can you please share with the rest of us? >@ > >This is evidently common knowledge and from what >I understand, the FCC wants to be given a compelling >reason....like, the Internet will crash tomorrow if they >do not step in to save the day... > >I suppose they want to be invited rather than take something... > >Unfortunately, the FNC meeting at the NSF was apparently >canceled today. Those people are some of the key stakeholders. > So this is just more of you unsubstantiated drivel you feel compelled to spew forth. Thank god you gave up you off topic/out of charter rantings about c@ on comp.lang.c++. It was good to see the respect you had for the charter (none). One can only hope. -- Tracy Snell EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicagoland Internet Connectivity www.enteract.com, tjs at enteract.com (312) 248-8511 From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 10:55:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:55:23 -0600 Subject: eDNS and ARIN Message-ID: <01BC255D.84800560@webster.unety.net> For people not familiar with all of the internal workings of the Domain Name System (DNS). There is a very important place where eDNS and ARIN overlap. That overlap comes in the management of the .ARPA Top Level Domain (TLD). To be more specific, I should say the "psuedo" TLD.... IN-ADDR.ARPA The following section of the IPv4 address space can be used to illustrate. ====================================================== ... MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) NY 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) CA 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) CA 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) ... ====================================================== In the Domain Name System, in order for Hewlett-Packard to operate effectively, they need to be delegated the following zone... 15.IN-ADDR.ARPA >From a registry point of view, this is not much different from delegating a company a name like 15-in-addr.com. While it is true that most companies would not want such a name for marketing purposes, it is very important for the companies and organizations above to be properly register in the IN-ADDR.ARPA psuedo Top Level Domain. There is an item on the agenda for the upcoming eDNS meeting in Atlanta to discuss ARIN and other issues regarding IN-ADDR.ARPA. The Root Name Server owner/operators have to make sure that the delegations made in IN-ADDR.ARPA are handled properly to maintain a stable Internet. A stable Internet requires stable Domain Name and IP management. That management comes via stable, well-managed registries. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 10:58:29 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:29 -0600 Subject: ARIN and IPv8 Address Space Message-ID: <01BC255D.F38CABC0@webster.unety.net> Can one of the founders of ARIN make some comments on ARIN's position on how 32 bit IPv4 addresses relate to 43 bit IPv8 addresses ? Thanks in advance... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 11:08:43 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:08:43 -0600 Subject: ARIN and U.S. Senators Message-ID: <01BC255F.63971DA0@webster.unety.net> As of February 28, 1997 the following U.S. Senators are known to be on the Internet and many have their own web sites. Would people involved in the ARIN planning be opposed to delegating ONE /8 address space to each of these individuals to be placed under Registry Management in their respective State ? California is listed twice below and California has already been delegated a massive portion of the IPv4 address space. If an objective plan is developed, these prior delegations may have to be ignored. If people want to enter the gray area of subjective decision making then, each entry below would have to be debated. For states that do not have TWO Senators on the Internet, I suggest that the people in those states ask why. Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@@@ Alabama - Shelby, Richard C. (R) - senator at shelby.senate.gov Alaska - Stevens, Ted (R) - senator_stevens at stevens.senate.gov Arizona - Kyl, Jon (R) - info at kyl.senate.gov Arizona - McCain, John (R) - senator_mccain at mccain.senate.gov Arkansas - Bumpers, Dale (D) - senator at bumpers.senate.gov Arkansas - Hutchinson, Tim (D) - senator.hutchinson at hutchinson.senate.gov California - Boxer, Barbara (D) - senator at boxer.senate.gov California - Feinstein, Dianne (D) - senator at feinstein.senate.gov Connecticut - Dodd, Christopher J. (D) - sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov Connecticut - Lieberman, Joseph I. (D) - senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov Delaware - Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D) - senator at biden.senate.gov Florida - Graham, Bob (D) - bob_graham at graham.senate.gov Georgia - Coverdell, Paul (R) - senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov Hawaii - Inouye, Daniel K. (D) - senator at inouye.senate.gov Idaho - Craig, Larry E. (R) - larry_craig at craig.senate.gov Idaho - Kempthorne, Dirk (R) - dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov Illinois - Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) - senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov Iowa - Grassley, Chuck (R) - chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov Iowa - Harkin, Tom (D) - tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov Kansas - Brownback, Sam (R) - sam_brownback at brownback.senate.gov Kentucky - Ford, Wendell H. (D) - wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov Kentucky - McConnell, Mitch (R) - senator at mcconnell.senate.gov Louisiana - Breaux, John B. (D) - senator at breaux.senate.gov Maine - Collins, Susan (R) - senator at collins.senate.gov Maine - Snowe, Olympia J. (R) - olympia at snowe.senate.gov Maryland - Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) - senator at mikulski.senate.gov Maryland - Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - senator at sarbanes.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - senator at kennedy.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kerry, John F. (D) - john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov Michigan - Abraham, Spencer (R) - michigan at abraham.senate.gov Michigan - Levin, Carl (D) senator at levin.senate.gov Minnesota - Grams, Rod (R) - mail_grams at grams.senate.gov Minnesota - Wellstone, Paul D. (D) - senator at wellstone.senate.gov Mississippi - Cochran, Thad (R) - senator at cochran.senate.gov Missouri - Ashcroft, John (R) - john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov Missouri - Bond, Christopher S. (R) - kit_bond at bond.senate.gov Montana - Baucus, Max (D) - max at baucus.senate.gov Montana - Burns, Conrad R. (R) - conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov Nebraska - Kerrey, J. Robert (D) - bob at kerrey.senate.gov Nevada - Bryan, Richard H. (D) - senator at bryan.senate.gov Nevada - Reid, Harry (D) - senator_reid at reid.senate.gov New Hampshire - Gregg, Judd (R) - mailbox at gregg.senate.gov New Hampshire - Smith, Bob (R) opinion at smith.senate.gov New Jersey - Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) - frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov New Mexico - Bingaman, Jeff (D) - senator_bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov New Mexico - Domenici, Pete V. (R) - senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov New York - D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) - senator_al at damato.senate.gov New York - Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D) - senator at dpm.senate.gov North Carolina - Faircloth, Lauch (R) - senator at faircloth.senate.gov North Carolina - Helms, Jesse (R) - jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov North Dakota - Dorgan, Byron L. (D) - senator at dorgan.senate.gov Ohio - DeWine, Mike (R) - senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov Oklahoma - Nickles, Don (R) - senator at nickles.senate.gov Oregon - Wyden, Ron (D) - senator at wyden.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Santorum, Rick (R) - senator at santorum.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Specter, Arlen (R) - senator_specter at specter.senate.gov Rhode Island - Chafee, John H. (R) - senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov South Carolina - Hollings, Ernest F. (D) - senator at hollings.senate.gov South Carolina - Thurmond, Strom (R) - senator at thurmond.senate.gov South Dakota - Daschle, Thomas A. (D) - tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov Tennessee - Frist, William H. (R) - senator_frist at frist.senate.gov Tennessee - Thompson, Fred (R) - senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov Texas - Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - senator at hutchison.senate.gov Utah - Bennett, Robert F. (R) - senator at bennett.senate.gov Utah - Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov Vermont - Jeffords, James M. (R) - vermont at jeffords.senate.gov Vermont - Leahy, Patrick J. (D) - senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov Virginia - Robb, Charles S. (D) senator at robb.senate.gov Virginia - Warner, John W. (R) - senator at warner.senate.gov Washington - Gorton, Slade (R) - senator_gorton at gorton.senate.gov Washington - Murray, Patty (D) - senator_murray at murray.senate.gov West Virginia - Byrd, Robert C. (D) - senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov West Virginia - Rockefeller, John D., IV (D) - senator at rockefeller.senate.gov Wisconsin - Feingold, Russell D. (D) - senator at feingold.senate.gov Wisconsin - Kohl, Herb (D) - nator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov Wyoming - Enzi, Mike (R) - senator at enzi.senate.gov Wyoming - Thomas, Craig (R) - craig at thomas.senate.gov @@@@@@@-- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davids at WIZNET.NET Fri Feb 28 11:25:01 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:25:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC2505.B1378040@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using > 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC > to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? 1) Just becuase you're asking a question of "ARIN discussion list members" doesn't mean your question has anything to do with ARIN. This list would be an inappropriate place for me to ask Kim Hubbard what she has for breakfast despite Kim's association with ARIN. 2) That's an incredibly large block of IP address to grant to US registries when there's a big planet out there. Do we next allocate dozens of /8's throughout Europe? And then Asia? 3) IPv4 space is a scarce resource. The Internet's routing table also has too many routes in it. You can trade off one of these to help the other. As I see your plan, we give up a lot of IPv4 address space and get no guarantees (or even reasons to believe) that the routing situation will get any better. In fact, I worry that the registry with the most 'generous' policy will use up its /8 real quick, littering the 'Net with /18's which providers will (initially) not filter. Then when the mess is discovered and filters go in place, we'll have given out lots of address space that will not route. PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW THIS UP TO THE NAIPR LIST unless you can really show some relevance to ARIN, not other mythical registries. Thanks. DS From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 11:32:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:32:01 -0600 Subject: ARIN - Canada and Mexico Message-ID: <01BC2562.A2D7B6C0@webster.unety.net> Several people have asked about Canada and Mexico. >From what I can tell, Canada is not represented on the proposed ARIN Board of Trustees. Is there a reason ? Also, Canada and Mexico are each countries with their own internal structure. How they choose to organize the management of Internet resources in their country is probably best left up to them. I would think that each country would be capable of having the proper officials from their country contact the proper officials in the U.S. to discuss their allocations of Internet resources. This holds for all countries in the world. Please note that just because resources are allocated to a registry operating somewhere in the U.S., this does not preclude that registry from doing business with a company in a foreign country. We have already seen that situation where many Canadian companies register in the .COM domain managed in the State of Virginia. I assume the Canadians pay $50 per year to the U.S. registry. There are two issues that people seem to have trouble separating. One is where is the registry located and the other is where are the IP addresses exported. At the present time, as far as I know, the U.S. DOD has not declared IP addresses to be weapons. IP addresses appear to be exported without control. Here is an interesting example: >@ >Colombia 200.0.0.0 HOCOL S.A. (NET-SHELL-1) When IP addresses are exported ALONG WITH the registry duties then the U.S. loses the potential revenue that comes from being able to lease those IP addresses. People that casually export billions of dollars in potential IP address leasing fees will have to account for their actions. People can criticize me for suggesting that the U.S. Government spread this billion dollar market across the 50 U.S. States. I hope that you people get to testify before the U.S. House and Senate with your views. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davids at WIZNET.NET Fri Feb 28 11:35:43 1997 From: davids at WIZNET.NET (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:35:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: <9702280856.AA14140@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, John LeRoy Crain wrote: > Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA. Actually, that's incorrect. His idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 to REGISTRIES in the USA to allocate to whomever their policies state. Since the majority of the unallocated useful IPv4 space is in IANA's hands right now (212/8-223/8 and 64/8-126/8, I believe), and IANA is in the USA, what is he proposing to change? DS From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 11:37:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:37:55 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2563.759C5160@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 5:35 AM, David Schwartz[SMTP:davids at wiznet.net] wrote: @ On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, John LeRoy Crain wrote: @ @ > Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA. @ @ Actually, that's incorrect. His idea suggests giving a fifth of @ IPv4 to REGISTRIES in the USA to allocate to whomever their policies @ state. Since the majority of the unallocated useful IPv4 space is in @ IANA's hands right now (212/8-223/8 and 64/8-126/8, I believe), and IANA @ is in the USA, what is he proposing to change? @ The change is that each State will be able to lease blocks from the space. This can bring the state tens of millions of dollars each year in "found money". The State does not have to vote in casinos to do this or build a theme park. All they have to do is set up some offices, some servers, and get people working. The InterNIC has been a model they can follow. The original InterNIC plan called for THREE companies to cooperate. The work was divided into IS, DS, and RS. I suggest that everyone in this ARIN discussion study those plans in detail. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 11:46:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:46:48 -0600 Subject: NSF Returning to DNS Management Message-ID: <01BC2564.B387A5A0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 2:45 AM, Bryant Durrell[SMTP:durrell at innocence.com] wrote: @ An article in the San Jose Merc this morning reports that the NSF @ Inspector General, Linda Sundro, may have written a report that @ proposes that the NSF take over administration of Internet domain @ names and return the profits to the US Treasury. The reporter was @ unable to get confirmation from the IG's office. @ @ -- @ Bryant Durrell (sysadmin, cynic, coyote) | "well, it seems doable so we should @ durrell at innocence.com / durrell at bofh.net | do it. if we can't then we should @ http://www.innocence.com/~durrell | get no biscuits." -- tim at meer.net @ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ This is the Newdom mailing list, newdom at vrx.net. To subscribe or @ unsubscribe or get help , send the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" or @ "help" in the body (not subject) to newdom-request at vrx.net @ @ The report is supposedly on the Director Neal Lane's desk. He is required to make a formal response. You have to file an FOIA request to obtain a copy. Here is some background material for people that may have missed this.... ==== The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security, stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government, the large number of Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information Superhighway. Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill). Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains that the U.S. Government backs theFrom owner-naipr at ns.netsol.com Fri Feb 28 12:04:41 1997 Received: from rs1.internic.net (rs1.internic.net [198.41.0.6]) by opsmail.internic.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id MAA13179; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (uucp at localhost) by rs1.internic.net (8.8.5/SLAM-1) id MAA17297; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.netsol.com(198.41.3.10) by rs1.internic.net via smap (V1.3) id sma016890; Fri Feb 28 12:03:50 1997 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by info.netsol.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id MAA11077 for naipr-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:02:32 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: info.netsol.com: majordom set sender to owner-naipr at arin.net using -f Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by info.netsol.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA11073 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:02:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from reif.ripe.net by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA27798 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:01:31 +0100 Message-Id: <9702281701.AA27798 at ncc.ripe.net> To: Jim Fleming Cc: "'naipr at arin.net'" Subject: Re: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:38:46 CST." <01BC2552.D0F081A0 at webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2552.D0F081A0 at webster.unety.net> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:01:30 +0100 From: John LeRoy Crain Sender: owner-naipr at netsol.com Precedence: bulk Jim Fleming writes: * Could you replace the word "give" with.... * * "place under management" O.K. replace the word give with place under management... Now please answer the questions concerning where all the addresses will come from for everybody to "manage". Not just the USA. Kind regards, John Crain From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 12:02:44 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:02:44 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2566.ED45D580@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:01 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ @ * Could you replace the word "give" with.... @ * @ * "place under management" @ @ O.K. replace the word give with place under management... @ @ Now please answer the questions concerning where all the addresses @ will come from for everybody to "manage". Not just the USA. @ @ Kind regards, @ @ John Crain @ @ IPv8 IPv6 Plus, there are many other blocks that can be managed.... Is any country stepping forward to "manage" 192.X.X.X ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at ACADEM.COM Fri Feb 28 12:14:36 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:14:36 CST Subject: ARIN - sell vs. lease vs. ??? Message-ID: <199702281714.LAA13865@academ.com> Jim wites: > P.S. Does ARIN plan to "ensure" or "insure" ? Webster's tells me that ensure means "to be certain of" and that insure means "to be certain of" or "to cover with insurance". In this case, I am using insure to mean "to be certain of", so I guess they are synomyms in this case. [I won't start a discussion about "ensure", the nutritional suppliment:-).] -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From matt at netmeg.net Fri Feb 28 12:17:00 1997 From: matt at netmeg.net (Matt Magri) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 12:17 EST Subject: the "Internet's Vietnam" In-Reply-To: <01BC24E0.4327FE60@jfbb.atmnet.net> Message-ID: Jim Browning (jfbb at ATMNET.NET) wrote, of Jim Fleming: > You are (intentionally, I believe) disrupting legitimate work people are > trying to accomplish on this and other mailing lists by stealing mind-share > (processor cycles, if you will) to the extent that no one can do anything > but deal with your off-topic posts. [ ... ] I don't think it's intentional (in the sense you mean), I think he has a serious problem. At any rate, he has no power to compel people to have to deal with his posts. That's a choice that a number of people on this list have made for reasons which I'm sure are well-intentioned but are, regardless, misguided. I will repeat my suggestion that people spend their time on posts more deserving or their attention. If you are unable to resist the siren's call, please use procmail or some other mail filter program to make those seductive messages disappear. Then maybe we wouldn't be greeted with 50 messages in the morning, all of them off-topic. > [ ... ] I and others have asked politely, both > publicly and privately, that you limit your posts to the topic the list was > established to address. You refuse to do so. [ ... ] I don't think he is able to. I would hope that the last 24 hours of traffic will have convinced even the most diehard repliers that there's no point in "correcting" him. If you feed it, it _will_ grow. > [ ... ] This post can only be > considered SPAM, as it is a post that is just as inappropriate to this > forum as a commercial solicitation would be. Hm, that's a bit of a stretch, tho I sympathize with your frustration. He's not the problem, tho. It's that otherwise reasonable people who feel the need to engage in the illusion of a discussion with him. > ATMnet will henceforth treat your organization as we would that of any > other SPAM spewer, by filtering traffic from addresses you are associated > with. Unfortunately, this mail comes from netsol.com, not unety.net. As I said earlier, tho, a simple mail filter would take care of it without any sweat. Don't treat this as you would SPAM, treat as what it is, a net.hazard. Avoid it like you would any other pothole. As for the people who insist on driving their car right into it, I hope that they'll realize that they're only making the hole larger and, as a result, harder for the rest of us to get around to on our way to work. Matt From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Feb 28 12:18:23 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:18:23 +0100 Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:35:43 EST." References: Message-ID: <9702281718.AA28369@ncc.ripe.net> David Schwartz writes: * On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, John LeRoy Crain wrote: * * > Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA. * * Actually, that's incorrect. His idea suggests giving a fifth of * IPv4 to REGISTRIES in the USA to allocate to whomever their policies * state. Since the majority of the unallocated useful IPv4 space is in * IANA's hands right now (212/8-223/8 and 64/8-126/8, I believe), and IANA * is in the USA, what is he proposing to change? O.K. terminology was maybe incorrect. Which state do organisations in Havana or Vancouver go to? At the moment the registration of IPv4 is in a simple structure, roughly; IANA | InterNIC APNIC RIPE For the western Eastern Europe and surrounding hemisphere areas Underneath this there are some local structures. Also there are some other organisations, apparantly, that issue IPv4. What would allocating a fifth of the address space to registries in the USA accomplish. Why a registry in each state? What not also a registry for each major Canadian region, each Russian province, each country in Europe and each island in the bahamas? Then we get the Asian Pacific region, I don't think there are enough /8's of IPv4 for this system and limiting it to the USA is of course not reasonable. If we were to say a /18 or maybe even a /16 to each state then maybe, maybe, it would be workable. Of course each state would need to be able to supply a forum for registration which could be trusted by the Local IP's. Kind regards, John Crain From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 12:18:08 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:18:08 -0600 Subject: ARIN - sell vs. lease vs. ??? Message-ID: <01BC2569.147C1040@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:14 AM, Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] wrote: @ Jim wites: @ > P.S. Does ARIN plan to "ensure" or "insure" ? @ @ Webster's tells me that ensure means "to be certain of" and that insure @ means "to be certain of" or "to cover with insurance". In this case, I am @ using insure to mean "to be certain of", so I guess they are synomyms in @ this case. @ @ [I won't start a discussion about "ensure", the nutritional suppliment:-).] @ Thanks, I hope you understand some people are beginning to realize that the "Registry Industry" may be the last significant NEW industry formed in this century. Is is similar to.... Banking Insurance Stock Brokerage Trusts Off-Shore ____________ [ fill in the blank ] Some claim it is the SAME as some of the above, especially insurance. I was mostly curious whether you saw ARIN becoming an insurance company. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Feb 28 12:23:45 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:23:45 +0100 Subject: ARIN - Canada and Mexico In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:32:01 CST." <01BC2562.A2D7B6C0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2562.A2D7B6C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <9702281723.AA28504@ncc.ripe.net> Jim Fleming writes: * * Several people have asked about Canada and Mexico. * * >From what I can tell, Canada is not represented on the * proposed ARIN Board of Trustees. Is there a reason ? * * Also, Canada and Mexico are each countries with their * own internal structure. How they choose to organize * the management of Internet resources in their country * is probably best left up to them. * * I would think that each country would be capable of * having the proper officials from their country contact * the proper officials in the U.S. to discuss their * allocations of Internet resources. This holds for all * countries in the world. Why should they need to go to the US? Would it be reasonable to say that the US officials could go to the correct officials in Australia for their Internet resources? We could move all registration services out of the USA and put one in each tax haven. Internet resources are global resources not US resources. They should, IMHO, be divided according to need by registries int he region that they are based. The current system does this. I see much more sense in having an Afrikan or a South American registry to go alongside the present registries than putting 50 registries in the USA. As this is only vaguely related to ARIN, this is my last word on the subject. John Crain From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Feb 28 12:27:13 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:27:13 +0100 Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:02:44 CST." <01BC2566.ED45D580@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2566.ED45D580@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <9702281727.AA28557@ncc.ripe.net> Jim Fleming writes: * On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:01 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe * .net] wrote: * @ * @ Jim Fleming writes: * @ * @ * Could you replace the word "give" with.... * @ * * @ * "place under management" * @ * @ O.K. replace the word give with place under management... * @ * @ Now please answer the questions concerning where all the addresses * @ will come from for everybody to "manage". Not just the USA. * @ * @ Kind regards, * @ * @ John Crain * @ * @ * * IPv8 * IPv6 The ARIN proposal is for IPv4. How IPv6 will look will not be decided by ARIN IPv8 is a myth:-) John Crain From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 12:26:44 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:26:44 -0600 Subject: ARIN - Canada and Mexico Message-ID: <01BC256A.47DDA380@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:23 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ * @ * Several people have asked about Canada and Mexico. @ * @ * >From what I can tell, Canada is not represented on the @ * proposed ARIN Board of Trustees. Is there a reason ? @ * @ * Also, Canada and Mexico are each countries with their @ * own internal structure. How they choose to organize @ * the management of Internet resources in their country @ * is probably best left up to them. @ * @ * I would think that each country would be capable of @ * having the proper officials from their country contact @ * the proper officials in the U.S. to discuss their @ * allocations of Internet resources. This holds for all @ * countries in the world. @ @ Why should they need to go to the US? @ @ Would it be reasonable to say that the US officials could go to @ the correct officials in Australia for their Internet resources? @ @ We could move all registration services out of the USA and put one @ in each tax haven. Internet resources are global resources not @ US resources. They should, IMHO, be divided according to need @ by registries int he region that they are based. The current system @ does this. I see much more sense in having an Afrikan or a South @ American registry to go alongside the present registries than @ putting 50 registries in the USA. @ @ As this is only vaguely related to ARIN, this is my last word on @ the subject. @ @ John Crain @ @ The ARIN discussion is supposed to be about ARIN... @@@ http://www.arin.net American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ As a representative of RIPE[1], your views are very important. You might want to direct people to the lists that serve RIPE. RIPE is the European Registry that earns fees for delegating parts of the IP address space obtained from the U.S. Is that correct ? [1] John LeRoy Crain - John.Crain at ripe.net -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 12:30:39 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:30:39 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC256A.D35D4F00@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:27 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote: @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ * On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:01 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe @ * .net] wrote: @ * @ @ * @ Jim Fleming writes: @ * @ @ * @ * Could you replace the word "give" with.... @ * @ * @ * @ * "place under management" @ * @ @ * @ O.K. replace the word give with place under management... @ * @ @ * @ Now please answer the questions concerning where all the addresses @ * @ will come from for everybody to "manage". Not just the USA. @ * @ @ * @ Kind regards, @ * @ @ * @ John Crain @ * @ @ * @ @ * @ * IPv8 @ * IPv6 @ @ The ARIN proposal is for IPv4. @ @ How IPv6 will look will not be decided by ARIN @ @ IPv8 is a myth:-) @ @ John Crain @ Hmmm....that's funny...this mail just came through via an IPv8 address...;-) On what basis do you claim ARIN will not handle IPv6 addresses ? Again, as a representative of RIPE, I consider you an "expert". -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Feb 28 12:30:56 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:30:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN - Canada and Mexico In-Reply-To: <01BC2562.A2D7B6C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > From what I can tell, Canada is not represented on the > proposed ARIN Board of Trustees. Is there a reason ? Lack of qualified Canadian candidates. 3 years ago Internet deployment and operations in Canada were on a par with the USA. But while the rest of the world forged ahead, most Canadians were satisfied with the status quo and failed to keep up. The notable exception to this was that Canadian entrepreneurs started up small local ISP's at a rate comparable to what happened in the USA even though the government was actively discouraging this by promoting and funding community freenets. There are other factors at play here as well, but the end result is that few Canadians are aware of the technical and operational issues associated with running a modern Internet (modern defined as the way it is done this year). The most notable exception to this state of affairs is a fellow named Sean Doran who lives and works in the United States and had a lot to do with the shape of todays global Internet during his time at Sprint. But I suspect he has more interesting things to do than Internet administration. > When IP addresses are exported ALONG WITH > the registry duties then the U.S. loses the potential > revenue that comes from being able to lease those > IP addresses. You make it sound as if these addresses are objects which can be exported and leased. They are not. ARIN won't be leasing IP addresses and it won't be exporting them and it won't be doing business with ISP's. ARIN is a collaborative effort to give all interested parties a say in managing a portion of a global public resource. ARIN will be a steward of this resource which is why the Board of Trustees is is not called a board of directors. Their job is not to direct but to hold the public trust and see that the resource is properly and fairly administered. Unfortunately your incoherent babbling has led yet another reporter astray as can be seen in the article at c|net regarding the NSF OIG investigation. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Feb 28 12:45:47 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:45:47 +0100 Subject: ARIN - Canada and Mexico In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:26:44 CST." <01BC256A.47DDA380@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC256A.47DDA380@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <9702281745.AA29219@ncc.ripe.net> Jim Fleming writes: * * The ARIN discussion is supposed to be about ARIN... * * @@@ http://www.arin.net * * American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) We know what ARIN stands for Jim;-) I work for the RIPE NCC, not RIPE, I am interested in the ARIN development. However I do not represent RIPE or the RIPE NCC on this list. If I were in the posistion, which I am not, to make official representation I would clearly state that. We register addresses allocated by IANA, which is based in the US. I see this as the organisation that distributes on a global scale, not particularly as a US registry, that is the InterNIC and if the proposal goes through will be ARIN. Anybody who wishes to read about RIPE or the RIPE NCC is welcome to have a look at our website. the URL has been mentioned here many a time but as you seem to have forgotten, it it is; http://www.ripe.net. The website and our document store do not contain material directly concerning ARIN. If you want to know about similar registries though it is a good place to start. John Crain * * @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ * * * As a representative of RIPE[1], your views are very important. * You might want to direct people to the lists that serve RIPE. * * RIPE is the European Registry that earns fees for delegating * parts of the IP address space obtained from the U.S. * Is that correct ? * * [1] John LeRoy Crain - John.Crain at ripe.net * * -- * Jim Fleming * Unir Corporation * * e-mail: * JimFleming at unety.net * JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) * From John.Crain at RIPE.NET Fri Feb 28 12:47:41 1997 From: John.Crain at RIPE.NET (John LeRoy Crain) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:47:41 +0100 Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:30:39 CST." <01BC256A.D35D4F00@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC256A.D35D4F00@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <9702281747.AA29331@ncc.ripe.net> Jim Fleming writes: * On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:27 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe * .net] wrote: * @ * @ The ARIN proposal is for IPv4. * @ * @ How IPv6 will look will not be decided by ARIN * @ * @ IPv8 is a myth:-) * @ * @ John Crain * @ * * Hmmm....that's funny...this mail just came through via an IPv8 address...;-) * * On what basis do you claim ARIN will not handle IPv6 addresses ? I didn't claim anything of the sort, Please reread. John Crain From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 12:46:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:46:30 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC256D.0A5A8A20@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 5:25 AM, David Schwartz[SMTP:davids at WIZNET.NET] wrote: @ @ On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using @ > 140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC @ > to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? @ @ 1) Just becuase you're asking a question of "ARIN discussion list @ members" doesn't mean your question has anything to do with ARIN. This @ list would be an inappropriate place for me to ask Kim Hubbard what she @ has for breakfast despite Kim's association with ARIN. @ @ 2) That's an incredibly large block of IP address to grant to US @ registries when there's a big planet out there. Do we next allocate @ dozens of /8's throughout Europe? And then Asia? @ Again, please separate USAGE from the Registry that manages the space and collects fees for that management. What happened to all this..."the Internet is International" stuff...? Why can't a few people in a small office in Maine manage the space being USED in other places in the world ? If you are a Senator in Maine or a citizen of Maine, and a taxpayer in Maine, wouldn't you want the lease fees to be paid into Maine ? @ 3) IPv4 space is a scarce resource. The Internet's routing table @ also has too many routes in it. You can trade off one of these to help @ the other. As I see your plan, we give up a lot of IPv4 address space and @ get no guarantees (or even reasons to believe) that the routing situation @ will get any better. In fact, I worry that the registry with the most @ 'generous' policy will use up its /8 real quick, littering the 'Net with @ /18's which providers will (initially) not filter. Then when the mess is @ discovered and filters go in place, we'll have given out lots of address @ space that will not route. @ @ PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW THIS UP TO THE NAIPR LIST unless you can @ really show some relevance to ARIN, not other mythical registries. Thanks. @ Please check http://www.arin.net to see what ARIN is about... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 12:55:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:55:02 -0600 Subject: ISI.EDU Message-ID: <01BC256E.3B923880@webster.unety.net> @@@@ http://www.isi.edu/div7/iana/announce.html IANA Announcements Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Internet International Ad Hoc Committee IAHC Plan for New Domain Name Registries New Domain Name Registries Summary New American Registry for Internet Numbers <--------------------- Go back to the IANA home page. Go back to ISI's home page. This page written and maintained by Jon Postel. Please send mail about any problems with or comments on this page. Last modified 5-Feb-97. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Can someone explain what people are supposed to infer from above ? Has ARIN been created ? Incorporated ? What is the current status of ARIN ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 13:37:05 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:37:05 -0600 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <01BC2574.1BEBBF00@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:18 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at RIPE.NET] wrote: @ @ David Schwartz writes: @ * On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, John LeRoy Crain wrote: @ * @ * > Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA. @ * @ * Actually, that's incorrect. His idea suggests giving a fifth of @ * IPv4 to REGISTRIES in the USA to allocate to whomever their policies @ * state. Since the majority of the unallocated useful IPv4 space is in @ * IANA's hands right now (212/8-223/8 and 64/8-126/8, I believe), and IANA @ * is in the USA, what is he proposing to change? @ @ O.K. terminology was maybe incorrect. @ @ Which state do organisations in Havana or Vancouver go to? @ @ At the moment the registration of IPv4 is in a simple structure, roughly; @ @ @ IANA @ | @ InterNIC APNIC RIPE @ @ For the western Eastern Europe and surrounding @ hemisphere areas @ @ @ Underneath this there are some local structures. Also there are some @ other organisations, apparantly, that issue IPv4. @ @ @ What would allocating a fifth of the address space to registries in @ the USA accomplish. Why a registry in each state? What not also a @ registry for each major Canadian region, each Russian province, each @ country in Europe and each island in the bahamas? Then we get the @ Asian Pacific region, I don't think there are enough /8's of IPv4 @ for this system and limiting it to the USA is of course not @ reasonable. If we were to say a /18 or maybe even a /16 to each state @ then maybe, maybe, it would be workable. Of course each state would @ need to be able to supply a forum for registration which could be trusted @ by the Local IP's. @ A /18 or /16 to a "major" registry is not large enough. As you can see if you study the existing allocations. Most of the major registries currently manage several /8 spaces. A registry needs a "critical mass" of resources to make economic sense. Also, it is easier to deal with a few hundred registries around the world at this point in time. Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised about the comments regarding the U.S. and 50 registries out of maybe 200. Everyone has been happy with 8 of the 9 Root Name Servers in the U.S. for years. I have advocated spreading them around the world and people criticized that. Now, I suggest that the U.S. focus on building 50 registries to spread the wealth around and people seem to be complaining that the other 150 registries would not be enough for the rest of the world. Again, keep in mind a U.S. ISP company could still lease an IP block from a registry located in India, if one is developed there. Likewise, an ISP in India could lease a block from a registry located in Montana. The routers do not know who handled the lease. I keep hearing that many countries want to participate in the Internet infrastructure development. That is great. Post your list here of where you propose to open registries to handle a /8 space. If Canada wants to open some great. If Mexico wants to open some great. P.S. Keep in mind that Canada recently CLOSED their IP registry, so I question whether they are going to open one tomorrow. If they do, that would be great. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 14:10:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:10:30 -0600 Subject: In the dark ? Message-ID: <01BC2578.C6B3B2E0@webster.unety.net> Recopied with the permission of the author... @@@@@ http://www.nwfusion.com/ Feds investigate domain-name administration Watchdog agency to release recommendations for reforming controversial system By Todd R. Wallack Network World Fusion The way Internet domain names are doled out has come under the scrutiny of a federal investigative agency. The National Science Foundation's Office of Inspector General recently came up with a 17-page report with proposed changes in the way domain names are administered, but will not release the information until after the NSF formally prepares a response, Network World Fusion has learned. The OIG is a separate department in the NSF that acts as a watchdog, reporting directly to the National Science Board, which oversees the NSF, and to Congress. "They take a look at NSF practices to make sure we are staying in line," said Beth Gaston, a spokeswoman for the NSF. .... [Background on the issue] The OIG reportedly gathered reams of documents from the Internet and from the NSF to prepare the report. OIG officials said they planned to release some of the documents immediately, in response to a FOIA request filed by Network World on Feb. 7, but would not be able to release most of the information until later. Only a handful of people outside the NSF seemed to be aware of the investigation. Even NSI said it was kept in the dark. .... [Quotes from NSI and other members of the Internet community.] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From waz at ENTERACT.COM Fri Feb 28 14:36:18 1997 From: waz at ENTERACT.COM (Tracy Snell) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:36:18 GMT Subject: In the dark ? In-Reply-To: <01BC2578.C6B3B2E0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2578.C6B3B2E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <331f3344.20852732@smtp.enteract.com> On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:10:30 -0600, you wrote: Can this list become moderated? It has now become useless. Jim has chosen to post endlessly off topic. Adding a kill file doesn't help since he spawns many threads. Can we get on topic? Or has Jim ruined yet another list? > >Recopied with the permission of the author... > >@@@@@ http://www.nwfusion.com/ > >Feds investigate domain-name administration > >Watchdog agency to release recommendations for reforming controversial system >By Todd R. Wallack > >Network World Fusion > >The way Internet domain names are doled out has come under >the scrutiny of a federal investigative agency. The National Science Foundation's >Office of Inspector General recently came up with a 17-page report with proposed >changes in the way domain names are administered, but will not release the >information until after the NSF formally prepares a response, Network World Fusion >has learned. > >The OIG is a separate department in the NSF that acts as a watchdog, >reporting directly to the National Science Board, which oversees the NSF, >and to Congress. "They take a look at NSF practices to make sure we >are staying in line," said Beth Gaston, a spokeswoman for the NSF. > >.... [Background on the issue] > >The OIG reportedly gathered reams of documents from the Internet and from >the NSF to prepare the report. OIG officials said they planned to release some >of the documents immediately, in response to a FOIA request filed by >Network World on Feb. 7, but would not be able to release most of the >information until later. > >Only a handful of people outside the NSF seemed to be aware of the >investigation. Even NSI said it was kept in the dark. > >.... [Quotes from NSI and other members of the Internet community.] > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > > -- Tracy Snell EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicagoland Internet Connectivity www.enteract.com, tjs at enteract.com (312) 248-8511 From carolann at censored.org Fri Feb 28 15:32:36 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:32:36 -0600 Subject: The Southern Cal site. Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970228143232.3a4f56f2@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Fleming scambled some electrons to say: Can someone explain what people are supposed to infer from above ? What I got from it was this: Someone with a lotta money, is gonna stomp on somebody who doesn't have a lot of money. This ain't www3, and as sure as folks are discovering domains, someone (like me but only with tons of bucks) is discovering IP numbers. And they will have the game (legal) played in US courts. We are now where we are now, because Josh Quittner broke the story in Wired. I'm sure they will update it soon to include this too. After all that is what they are for. Then the IP address rush will be on too! Frankly I'd like the 9.9.9.9 ip address (cause I'm an old Beatle fan) :) This secondary domain stuff, is interesting, but that's what will cause the lawsuits, and bring everything to it's knees in injunctions. cocacola.com is not a softdrink. And if it weren't for my ISP at the time not providing any support, I'd have gotten it. Coca-Cola did wind up with it, but only because they checked every day to get it. And name recognition alone is not justification for getting domains or numbers. For as IBM slowly becomes dismantled, eventually the only thing of worth they do have will be their big block of addresses. And the lower the address number the easier it is to recognize it. Someday every computer from Apple will have an IP address built in. Just like an operating system. An IP a day keeps the bankruptcy court away. Your 'friends in the business', Gateway 2000 will build them into their boxes. And market just that fact all the way to the bank. (Heck, they might even part with S.D. assigned addresses just for the tax base assets it could bring in.) My PostOffice Mailgirl says the PO could make digital sigs even easier to verify if doled out in a systemic manner like zipcodes. We even went through the zip +4 +4 system. I now understand what it is as a result of this list. Maybe we even need to add another .xxx to the routing tables, we'd sure have enough IP's for every concievable situation. Enough rant for now. but it IS what gleaned from that lovely So. Cal site. Carol Anne -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMxdA0orpjEWs1wBlAQF0ZAP/UXbGdJ01KXMfCMrPQg3R4V/fl7JZ8aGi Wy0bb62uCYRQ3ycZMFHh4Uo/fqB/4mepnBGb1f3AV594o4cuOUSt6sfUgqcTuhhp +jizeEhrcvxBfpZ2g3wjmLjcsLw2U7EypryMDEGMcjryEd6t6E9cxtvN3lqcM4Qp LUQRRxHTNlo= =0u9+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.165.50.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!! From carolann at censored.org Fri Feb 28 16:05:50 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:05:50 -0600 Subject: In the dark ? Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970228150546.422f31d4@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Or have you by your silence and consent, not brought anything relevant to be discussed? What need to be discussed? Then start discussing. If it doesn't help you then sign off. Carol Anne Cypherpunk At 07:36 PM 2/28/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:10:30 -0600, you wrote: >Can we get on topic? Or has Jim ruined yet another list? >-- >Tracy Snell >EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicagoland Internet Connectivity >www.enteract.com, tjs at enteract.com >(312) 248-8511 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMxdIlIrpjEWs1wBlAQHOCAQAuU1UK/8aNZ8f/85aH+hMYGNqn/dDNSPw buhUWLGCJHeIMuU0c/YQZzr5IxAKSQaJhyiROlpZ7rMWY1+Pc51jepo8VS7y5EOI 7FvXfB3Zu9FJudsReuYZMJ5l+L0bE0xVLRyxP8P/QV3IaMg3AFMbaHxEBItoKZo1 wR/NegbYnEo= =MPAl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.165.50.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!! From usdh at mail.ccnet.com Fri Feb 28 16:26:18 1997 From: usdh at mail.ccnet.com (steve) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:26:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: Comments List Members: As a new member to the list, and a non-engineer, it seems like creating more distributed services is in the spirit of what the internet is all about. Hasn't the benefit to society of internet been in the facilitation of communications between individual people who use a computer to access digital energy from some humanly influenced (or created) source? If so, facilitating communications by 'opening up' or changing the paradigm of central-control to decentralized-control seems to follow all of the trends that are occurring technologically (smaller, faster, cheaper, lighter, easier for users), as well as on the organizational levels (empowerment of workers, incentivizing workers etc.) I'd like to see (or hear) the discussion list members comments. If one follows this line of thinking and logic by observing what is and has been occurring in the real world, then the idea of cloning seems to make sense because the more access points, the "richer" the diverse benefits which might accrue to the overall "system" can be. This unpredictabililty is exactly what caused all of the excitement when Netscape entered the picture as a counter-balance to the centrally-controlled "CommerceNet Consortium", whose purpose was to 'manage and control' the evolution of commercial activity on the 'net. As we have seen, CommerceNet has had their relevance taken away by forces which are controllable, Netscape ushered into existence a vibrant industry where lots of companies have been formed, and value created. This seems to be a similar process taking place with IP Numbers. Having witnessed the painful process which CommerceNet had gone through, I would hate to see ARIN make the same mistakes. Unfortunately, after briefly scanning the Proposal, I recognized some of the same flawed tendency to lean toward the 'central control' model, which has been shown NOT to work. I anxiously await comments. Steve (510-227-1650) >Can ARIN discussion list members comment on using >140.0.0.0 to 190.0.0.0 for 50 clones of the InterNIC >to allocate /18 blocks to ISPs in the United States ? > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > >CA 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) >CA 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) >CA 2.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) >(NET-RESERVED-2) >NJ 3.0.0.0 General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) >MA 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) >CA 5.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) >(NET-RESERVED-5) >AZ 6.0.0.0 Army Information Systems Center (NET-YPG-NET) >CA 7.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-11) >MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) >NY 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) >CA 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) >CA 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) >FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) >CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) >CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) >CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) >CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) >CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) >MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) >MI 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) >VA 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) >VA 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) >DC 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) >CA 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) >CA 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - >24.3.255.0 >UK 25.0.0.0 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (NET-RSRE-EXP) >VA 26.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) >CA 27.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED-10) >VA 28.0.0.0 ARPA DSI JPO (NET-DSI-NORTH) >DC 29.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) >DC 30.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) >CA 31.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-12) >Norway 32.0.0.0 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) >OH 33.0.0.0 DLA Systems Automation Center (NET-DCMC) >TX 34.0.0.0 Halliburton Company (NET-HALLIBURTON) >MI 35.0.0.0 Merit Network Inc. (NET-MERIT) >CA 36.0.0.0 Stanford University (NET-SU-NET-TEMP) >CA 37.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED-37A) >VA 38.0.0.0 Performance Systems International (NET-PSINETA) >CA 39.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED-39A) >IN 40.0.0.0 Eli Lilly and Company (NET-LILLY-NET) >CA 41.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (RESERVED-41A) >CA 42.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-42) >Japan 43.0.0.0 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) >CA 44.0.0.0 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) >CA 45.0.0.0 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) >MA 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) >Canada 47.0.0.0 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) >NY 48.0.0.0 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) > 49.0.0.0 No match for "49.0.0.0". > 50.0.0.0 No match for "50.0.0.0". >UK 51.0.0.0 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) >DE 52.0.0.0 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) >Germany 53.0.0.0 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) >NJ 54.0.0.0 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) >VA 55.0.0.0 Army National Guard Bureau (NET-RCAS2) >NC 56.0.0.0 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) >France 57.0.0.0 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications >Aeronautiques (NET-SITA2) >CA 58.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-58) >CA 59.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-59) >CA 60.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-60) >CA 61.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-61) >CA 62.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-62) >CA 63.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >(RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-63) >CA 64.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 65.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 66.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 67.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 68.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 69.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 70.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 71.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 72.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 73.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 74.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 75.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 76.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 77.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 78.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 79.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 80.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 81.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 82.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 83.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 84.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 85.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 86.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 87.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 88.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 89.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 90.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 91.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 92.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 93.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 94.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 95.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) >CA 96.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 97.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 98.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 99.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 100.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 101.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 102.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 103.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 104.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 105.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 106.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 107.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 108.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 109.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 110.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 111.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 112.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 113.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 114.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 115.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 116.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 117.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 118.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 119.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 120.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 121.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 122.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 123.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 124.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 125.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 126.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) >CA 127.0.0.0 IANA (LOOPBACK) >CA 128.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-3) > 129.0.0.0 No match for "129.0.0.0". > 130.0.0.0 No match for "130.0.0.0". > 131.0.0.0 No match for "131.0.0.0". > 132.0.0.0 No match for "132.0.0.0". >APNIC 133.0.0.0 Japan Network Information Center (NETBLK-JAPANB-INET) > 134.0.0.0 No match for "134.0.0.0". >FL 135.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT-135-0-0-0-B) > 136.0.0.0 No match for "136.0.0.0". > 137.0.0.0 No match for "137.0.0.0". > 138.0.0.0 No match for "138.0.0.0". > 139.0.0.0 No match for "139.0.0.0". > 140.0.0.0 No match for "140.0.0.0". > 141.0.0.0 No match for "141.0.0.0". > 142.0.0.0 No match for "142.0.0.0". > 143.0.0.0 No match for "143.0.0.0". > 144.0.0.0 No match for "144.0.0.0". > 145.0.0.0 No match for "145.0.0.0". > 146.0.0.0 No match for "146.0.0.0". > 147.0.0.0 No match for "147.0.0.0". > 148.0.0.0 No match for "148.0.0.0". > 149.0.0.0 No match for "149.0.0.0". > 150.0.0.0 No match for "150.0.0.0". > 151.0.0.0 No match for "151.0.0.0". > 152.0.0.0 No match for "152.0.0.0". > 153.0.0.0 No match for "153.0.0.0". > 154.0.0.0 No match for "154.0.0.0". > 155.0.0.0 No match for "155.0.0.0". > 156.0.0.0 No match for "156.0.0.0". > 157.0.0.0 No match for "157.0.0.0". > 158.0.0.0 No match for "158.0.0.0". > 159.0.0.0 No match for "159.0.0.0". > 160.0.0.0 No match for "160.0.0.0". > 161.0.0.0 No match for "161.0.0.0". > 162.0.0.0 No match for "162.0.0.0". > 163.0.0.0 No match for "163.0.0.0". > 164.0.0.0 No match for "164.0.0.0". > 165.0.0.0 No match for "165.0.0.0". > 166.0.0.0 No match for "166.0.0.0". > 167.0.0.0 No match for "167.0.0.0". > 168.0.0.0 No match for "168.0.0.0". > 169.0.0.0 No match for "169.0.0.0". > 170.0.0.0 No match for "170.0.0.0". > 171.0.0.0 No match for "171.0.0.0". > 172.0.0.0 No match for "172.0.0.0". > 173.0.0.0 No match for "173.0.0.0". > 174.0.0.0 No match for "174.0.0.0". > 175.0.0.0 No match for "175.0.0.0". > 176.0.0.0 No match for "176.0.0.0". > 177.0.0.0 No match for "177.0.0.0". > 178.0.0.0 No match for "178.0.0.0". > 179.0.0.0 No match for "179.0.0.0". > 180.0.0.0 No match for "180.0.0.0". > 181.0.0.0 No match for "181.0.0.0". > 182.0.0.0 No match for "182.0.0.0". > 183.0.0.0 No match for "183.0.0.0". > 184.0.0.0 No match for "184.0.0.0". > 185.0.0.0 No match for "185.0.0.0". > 186.0.0.0 No match for "186.0.0.0". > 187.0.0.0 No match for "187.0.0.0". > 188.0.0.0 No match for "188.0.0.0". > 189.0.0.0 No match for "189.0.0.0". > 190.0.0.0 No match for "190.0.0.0". > 191.0.0.0 No match for "191.0.0.0". >CA 192.0.0.0 IANA (NET-ROOT-NS-LAB) >RIPE 193.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC >(NETBLK-RIPE) >RIPE 194.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC >(NETBLK-RIPE-C2) >RIPE 195.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC >(NETBLK-RIPE-C) > 196.0.0.0 No match for "196.0.0.0". > 197.0.0.0 No match for "197.0.0.0". >VA 198.0.0.0 InterNIC Registration (INTERNIC-BLK) >VA 199.0.0.0 US Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINT-BLKA) >Colombia 200.0.0.0 HOCOL S.A. (NET-SHELL-1) > 201.0.0.0 No match for "201.0.0.0". >APNIC 202.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) >APNIC-CIDR-BLK >APNIC 203.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) >APNIC-CIDR-BLK >TX 204.0.0.0 Rice University-Sesquinet (NETBLK-SESQUI-CIDR-03) >DC 205.0.0.0 SPAWAR (JMCIS-BLOCK) >FL 206.0.0.0 PSINET/Palm Coast Data (NET-NETBLK-PSI-C5-0) >VA 207.0.0.0 MCI Internet Services (NETBLK-MCI-NETBLK08) >TX 208.0.0.0 virtual village (NET-SPRINT-D00000) >CA 209.0.0.0 GeoNet Communications, Inc. (NETBLK-GEO-CIDR-05) >APNIC 210.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center >(NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-BLK) >APNIC 211.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center >(NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-BLK) > 212.0.0.0 No match for "212.0.0.0". > 213.0.0.0 No match for "213.0.0.0". > 214.0.0.0 No match for "214.0.0.0". > 215.0.0.0 No match for "215.0.0.0". > 216.0.0.0 No match for "216.0.0.0". > 217.0.0.0 No match for "217.0.0.0". > 218.0.0.0 No match for "218.0.0.0". > 219.0.0.0 No match for "219.0.0.0". > 220.0.0.0 No match for "220.0.0.0". > 221.0.0.0 No match for "221.0.0.0". > 222.0.0.0 No match for "222.0.0.0". > 223.0.0.0 No match for "223.0.0.0". >CA 224.0.0.0 University of Southern California (NET-MCAST-NET) > 225.0.0.0 No match for "225.0.0.0". > 226.0.0.0 No match for "226.0.0.0". > 227.0.0.0 No match for "227.0.0.0". > 228.0.0.0 No match for "228.0.0.0". > 229.0.0.0 No match for "229.0.0.0". > 230.0.0.0 No match for "230.0.0.0". > 231.0.0.0 No match for "231.0.0.0". > 232.0.0.0 No match for "232.0.0.0". > 233.0.0.0 No match for "233.0.0.0". > 234.0.0.0 No match for "234.0.0.0". > 235.0.0.0 No match for "235.0.0.0". > 236.0.0.0 No match for "236.0.0.0". > 237.0.0.0 No match for "237.0.0.0". > 238.0.0.0 No match for "238.0.0.0". > 239.0.0.0 No match for "239.0.0.0". > 240.0.0.0 No match for "240.0.0.0". > 241.0.0.0 No match for "241.0.0.0". > 242.0.0.0 No match for "242.0.0.0". > 243.0.0.0 No match for "243.0.0.0". > 244.0.0.0 No match for "244.0.0.0". > 245.0.0.0 No match for "245.0.0.0". > 246.0.0.0 No match for "246.0.0.0". > 247.0.0.0 No match for "247.0.0.0". > 248.0.0.0 No match for "248.0.0.0". > 249.0.0.0 No match for "249.0.0.0". > 250.0.0.0 No match for "250.0.0.0". > 251.0.0.0 No match for "251.0.0.0". > 252.0.0.0 No match for "252.0.0.0". > 253.0.0.0 No match for "253.0.0.0". > 254.0.0.0 No match for "254.0.0.0". > 255.0.0.0 No match for "255.0.0.0". > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From carolann at censored.org Fri Feb 28 18:01:40 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:01:40 -0600 Subject: Note from a tiny node. Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970228170107.3a4f6e24@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greetings from 206.165.50.95! It's snowing here. I'm on a 14th floor. In Minneapolis, Minnesota At 1707 3rd Ave to be precise. You can even know my phone #, all you need is a whois. I know how many packets were made, how many lookups were caused, how many different traceroutes needed, to get this message to YOU at your little xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx No IT WASN'T EASY. But I do know it can be made simpler. So the average jill or joe can understand it. They will want it that way. Or they will rout around you, for you are causing a bottleneck. Meanwhile, have a nice weekend, once all the packets are put back together. Carol Anne Cypherpunk from the mighty 206.165.50.96 home of heavily.censored.org!!! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMxdjpIrpjEWs1wBlAQGsFAP/X/i2g/qT49l1GxMQ2ja002LdvKuD7VDy Q5pZc///wUwM376+2wMC2rRf88P/BU8BdS+6kVcIu4uerq2D1SXV0tL9m74d8X5A 4sTgUWjH+TznPW2IjO3pYq0hUBsSyN1BSJm++GoBTK7KWMLpQ5gNfdO+EZ69eWf+ KkeS1XF4aHE= =4JOE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.165.50.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!! From perry at PIERMONT.COM Fri Feb 28 18:36:01 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:36:01 -0500 Subject: 50 States of ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:26:18 PST." Message-ID: <199702282336.SAA12706@jekyll.piermont.com> steve writes: > As a new member to the list, and a non-engineer, it seems like > creating more distributed services is in the spirit of what the internet is > all about. Hasn't the benefit to society of internet been in the > facilitation of communications between individual people who use a computer > to access digital energy from some humanly influenced (or created) source? Oh, god. More dreck. Could someone perhaps moderate the NAIPR list? I've had my doubts about ARIN and concrete suggestions about things that could be changed in the charter, etc., but the loons have made it utterly impossible to have any sort of discussion here. Perry From perry at PIERMONT.COM Fri Feb 28 18:56:37 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:56:37 -0500 Subject: Note from a tiny node. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:01:40 CST." <3.0.16.19970228170107.3a4f6e24@mailhost.primenet.com> Message-ID: <199702282356.SAA12770@jekyll.piermont.com> Will someone please start moderating this mailing list? Pretty please? Perry Carol Anne Cypherpunk writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Greetings from 206.165.50.95! > It's snowing here. > I'm on a 14th floor. > In Minneapolis, Minnesota > At 1707 3rd Ave to be precise. > You can even know my phone #, > all you need is a whois. > > I know how many packets were made, > how many lookups were caused, > how many different traceroutes needed, > > to get this message to YOU at your little xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > > No IT WASN'T EASY. > > But I do know it can be made simpler. > So the average jill or joe can understand it. > They will want it that way. > Or they will rout around you, > for you are causing a bottleneck. > > Meanwhile, have a nice weekend, > once all the packets are put back together. > > Carol Anne Cypherpunk > from the mighty 206.165.50.96 > home of heavily.censored.org!!! > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org > > iQCVAwUBMxdjpIrpjEWs1wBlAQGsFAP/X/i2g/qT49l1GxMQ2ja002LdvKuD7VDy > Q5pZc///wUwM376+2wMC2rRf88P/BU8BdS+6kVcIu4uerq2D1SXV0tL9m74d8X5A > 4sTgUWjH+TznPW2IjO3pYq0hUBsSyN1BSJm++GoBTK7KWMLpQ5gNfdO+EZ69eWf+ > KkeS1XF4aHE= > =4JOE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress > *********************************************************************** > Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.165.50.96 > My Homepage > The Cyberdoc > *********************************************************************** > Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!! From justin at EROLS.COM Fri Feb 28 19:14:29 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:14:29 -0500 Subject: The Southern Cal site. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970228191427.0112aba8@justin.erols.com> Bah, here we go again. At 02:32 PM 2/28/97 -0600, Carol Anne Cypherpunk wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Jim Fleming scambled some electrons to say: >Can someone explain what people are supposed to infer from above ? > >What I got from it was this: > >Someone with a lotta money, is gonna stomp on somebody >who doesn't have a lot of money. Don't forget the helicopters, the helicopters are very important. > >This ain't www3, and as sure as folks are discovering domains, >someone (like me but only with tons of bucks) is discovering IP >numbers. And they will have the game (legal) played in US courts. HINT: WWhile people are trying to make this a business decision, it is not strictly so. Behind a lot of the way that IP's are currently allocated are /technical/ limitations. Wheteher these limitations are here because Big Company X decided to abuse our trust and place false limitations on us, or because God stated it to be so, or because we were all too busy looking at the pretty blinky lights to build the internet better, the limitations remain. There are /possibly/ going to be solutions in 6 months or so, but noone has proven that any of these solutions work in LARGE networks. (Sorry Karl, you aren't large, and neither is Nathan, and neither am I for that matter.) We don't know that these solutions ever /will/ work (although they probably will), and it would be unwise of us to setup registries /assuming/ that a solution is in the works. >Frankly I'd like the 9.9.9.9 ip address (cause I'm an old Beatle fan) :) Well, talk to IBM and see if there is a way that they will either sell you a connection or allow you to tunnel into their network. Having them sell you the address so that your provider could announce it individually would be a VeryBadThing(tm). >Someday every computer from Apple will have an IP address built in. >Just like an operating system. >An IP a day keeps the bankruptcy court away. Cool, does this mean that Apple is going to become a provider for all of their sold computers so that they can announce an aggreaget, or are core routers going to have to carry several billion /32's? (Cool, we could use the entire available bandwidth of the internet for flap updates). >Maybe we even need to add another .xxx to the routing tables, we'd sure >have enough IP's for every concievable situation. What does it cost to add another .xxx to the IP protocol? I would bet that the number would be somewhere betwen $10billion and a trillion, but I could be off. Karl, how unfeasible is it for you to renumber your customers again? Add into that downtime due to trying to coordinate cutover, and you have some interesting economics going on there. This /isn't/ the solution (there are solutions being worked on, but this isn't it). > >Enough rant for now. but it IS what gleaned from that lovely So. Cal site. Ok, my turn to rant. What did you do to educate yourself on how the internet works before deciding that you had the solution? How many large scale networks have you run or talked to the operators of? When did you work with, or speak to, people who have allocated, or had allocated to them at least a /17 of space about IP allocation issues? How's your education level on how routers react in exposure to large numbers of routing table entries, especially with frequently changing entries. (If my IP address is hard coded into my Mac, I should be able to use it at BOTH of my providers right?) Please, please, please folks, don't post until you have spent a lot of time researching the effect that IP registries can have on the net. The domain issues are NOT the same. (For anyone who cares, I was originally against the creation of new TLD's because of the headache it would cause my tech support folks when someone meant to go to www.foo.web and typed in www.foo.com and wondered why it took them to the wrong place. Now, I simply don't care, if people really want a billion TLD's, fine by me, it won't break anything. Some of these ideas on registries /could/ break things. For more information related to competing IP registries, or "buying and selling" IP's, etc etc, please go to either the pagan or piara mailing lists.) Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From jdp at CYBERRAMP.NET Fri Feb 28 19:25:17 1997 From: jdp at CYBERRAMP.NET (Janet Pippin) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:25:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: The Southern Cal site. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970228191427.0112aba8@justin.erols.com> from "Justin W. Newton" at "Feb 28, 97 07:14:29 pm" Message-ID: <199703010025.SAA11847@mailhost.cyberramp.net> Yea, here we go again... and again and again /jdp Justin W. Newton wrote: > > Bah, here we go again. > > At 02:32 PM 2/28/97 -0600, Carol Anne Cypherpunk wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > >Jim Fleming scambled some electrons to say: > >Can someone explain what people are supposed to infer from above ? > > > >What I got from it was this: > > > >Someone with a lotta money, is gonna stomp on somebody > >who doesn't have a lot of money. > > Don't forget the helicopters, the helicopters are very important. > > > > >This ain't www3, and as sure as folks are discovering domains, > >someone (like me but only with tons of bucks) is discovering IP > >numbers. And they will have the game (legal) played in US courts. > > HINT: WWhile people are trying to make this a business decision, it is not > strictly so. Behind a lot of the way that IP's are currently allocated are > /technical/ limitations. Wheteher these limitations are here because Big > Company X decided to abuse our trust and place false limitations on us, or > because God stated it to be so, or because we were all too busy looking at > the pretty blinky lights to build the internet better, the limitations > remain. There are /possibly/ going to be solutions in 6 months or so, but > noone has proven that any of these solutions work in LARGE networks. > (Sorry Karl, you aren't large, and neither is Nathan, and neither am I for > that matter.) We don't know that these solutions ever /will/ work > (although they probably will), and it would be unwise of us to setup > registries /assuming/ that a solution is in the works. > > >Frankly I'd like the 9.9.9.9 ip address (cause I'm an old Beatle fan) :) > > Well, talk to IBM and see if there is a way that they will either sell you > a connection or allow you to tunnel into their network. Having them sell > you the address so that your provider could announce it individually would > be a VeryBadThing(tm). > > > >Someday every computer from Apple will have an IP address built in. > >Just like an operating system. > >An IP a day keeps the bankruptcy court away. > > Cool, does this mean that Apple is going to become a provider for all of > their sold computers so that they can announce an aggreaget, or are core > routers going to have to carry several billion /32's? (Cool, we could use > the entire available bandwidth of the internet for flap updates). > > >Maybe we even need to add another .xxx to the routing tables, we'd sure > >have enough IP's for every concievable situation. > > What does it cost to add another .xxx to the IP protocol? I would bet that > the number would be somewhere betwen $10billion and a trillion, but I could > be off. Karl, how unfeasible is it for you to renumber your customers > again? Add into that downtime due to trying to coordinate cutover, and you > have some interesting economics going on there. This /isn't/ the solution > (there are solutions being worked on, but this isn't it). > > > > >Enough rant for now. but it IS what gleaned from that lovely So. Cal site. > > Ok, my turn to rant. What did you do to educate yourself on how the > internet works before deciding that you had the solution? How many large > scale networks have you run or talked to the operators of? When did you > work with, or speak to, people who have allocated, or had allocated to them > at least a /17 of space about IP allocation issues? How's your education > level on how routers react in exposure to large numbers of routing table > entries, especially with frequently changing entries. (If my IP address is > hard coded into my Mac, I should be able to use it at BOTH of my providers > right?) Please, please, please folks, don't post until you have spent a > lot of time researching the effect that IP registries can have on the net. > The domain issues are NOT the same. > > (For anyone who cares, I was originally against the creation of new TLD's > because of the headache it would cause my tech support folks when someone > meant to go to www.foo.web and typed in www.foo.com and wondered why it > took them to the wrong place. Now, I simply don't care, if people really > want a billion TLD's, fine by me, it won't break anything. Some of these > ideas on registries /could/ break things. For more information related to > competing IP registries, or "buying and selling" IP's, etc etc, please go > to either the pagan or piara mailing lists.) > > > > > Justin Newton > Network Architect > Erol's Internet Services > ISP/C Director at Large -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp at cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020 From jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET Fri Feb 28 20:08:56 1997 From: jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET (Jamie Rishaw) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:08:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Best way to read naipr Message-ID: <199703010108.UAA10637@dilbert.iagnet.net> Here's a screenshot of it in live action. :-) Folder is '~/lists/apnic' with 256 messages [ELM 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] ->N 1 Feb 28 Janet Pippin (131) Re: The Southern Cal site. N 2 Feb 28 Justin W. Newton (118) Re: The Southern Cal site. N 3 Feb 28 Perry E. Metzger (80) Re: Note from a tiny node. N 4 Feb 28 Perry E. Metzger (42) Re: 50 States of ARIN NS 5 Feb 28 Carol Anne Cypherp (79) Note from a tiny node. N 6 Feb 28 Paul Ferguson (71) Re: 50 States of ARIN N 7 Feb 28 steve (342) Re: 50 States of ARIN NS 8 Feb 28 Carol Anne Cypherp (71) Re: In the dark ? NS 9 Feb 28 Carol Anne Cypherp (102) The Southern Cal site. N 10 Feb 28 Tracy Snell (90) Re: In the dark ? N 11 Feb 28 Jim Fleming (122) RE: 50 States of ARIN N 12 Feb 28 Jim Fleming (56) ISI.EDU N 13 Feb 28 John LeRoy Crain (48) Re: 50 States of ARIN N 14 Feb 28 Jim Fleming (75) RE: 50 States of ARIN N 15 Feb 28 John LeRoy Crain (80) Re: ARIN - Canada and Mexico Delete messages that match pattern... Enter pattern: Jim Fleming -- jamie g.k. rishaw Internet Access Group, Inc. [http://www.iagnet.net] Corp: (800) 637 4IAG or (216) 623 3565. DID: (216) 902 5455. From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 21:24:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:24:48 -0600 Subject: Token Posting Message-ID: <01BC25B5.727F87C0@webster.unety.net> Many people have probably heard of token-passing networks. In that scheme there is a token that is passed from station to station. If a station has the token it can use the network. If it does not want to use the network, it can pass it to the next station. Since people have been claiming that they do not get a chance to speak, and since most people probably came to this discussion to hear the ARIN founders speak, I suggest that a "token posting" scheme be used to make things fair and to give everyone a chance to contribute. As shown below, the indicator is placed at the top of the list of founders. After that founder posts, they move the arrow to the next founder. Raymundo Vega Aguilar - ?email? <-------------- Randy Bush - randy at psg.com Scott Bradner - sob at harvard.edu John Curran - jcurran at bbnplanet.com Kim Hubbard - kimh at internic.net Jon Postel - postel at iana.org Donald N. Telage - dont at internic.net -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From woody at ZOCALO.NET Fri Feb 28 22:02:35 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:02:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Token Posting Message-ID: <199703010302.TAA02616@zocalo.net> Jim Fleming writes: > Raymundo Vega Aguilar - ?email? <-------------- > Randy Bush - randy at psg.com > Scott Bradner - sob at harvard.edu > John Curran - jcurran at bbnplanet.com > Kim Hubbard - kimh at internic.net > Jon Postel - postel at iana.org > Donald N. Telage - dont at internic.net And does this mean (hoping against hope here) that you _absolutely promise_ not to post again until after each of these fine folks have said something? You can demonstrate the sincerity of your committment by not responding to this or subsequent messages, for example. :-) -Bill From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Fri Feb 28 22:07:54 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:07:54 -0500 Subject: Token Posting References: <01BC25B5.727F87C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33179D8A.57C4@driveway1.com> >Jim Fleming wrote: > > As shown below, the indicator is placed at the > top of the list of founders. After that founder posts, > they move the arrow to the next founder. > > Raymundo Vega Aguilar - ?email? <-------------- > Randy Bush - randy at psg.com > Scott Bradner - sob at harvard.edu > John Curran - jcurran at bbnplanet.com > Kim Hubbard - kimh at internic.net > Jon Postel - postel at iana.org > Donald N. Telage - dont at internic.net > > -- > Jim Fleming Why does this remind me of the Tower of Hanoi problem? Anyone who wants to set up their own moderated list may by all means do so. In this free economy of ideas subscribers will no doubt migrate in a self-annealing manner to the highest-content-value list. From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Feb 28 22:53:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:53:00 -0600 Subject: Token Posting Message-ID: <01BC25C1.C46C9EE0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, February 28, 1997 1:02 PM, Bill Woodcock[SMTP:woody at zocalo.net] wrote: @ Jim Fleming writes: @ > Raymundo Vega Aguilar - ?email? <-------------- @ > Randy Bush - randy at psg.com @ > Scott Bradner - sob at harvard.edu @ > John Curran - jcurran at bbnplanet.com @ > Kim Hubbard - kimh at internic.net @ > Jon Postel - postel at iana.org @ > Donald N. Telage - dont at internic.net @ @ And does this mean (hoping against hope here) that you _absolutely @ promise_ not to post again until after each of these fine folks have @ said something? You can demonstrate the sincerity of your committment @ by not responding to this or subsequent messages, for example. :-) @ @ -Bill @ @ No, it means that Mr. Aguilar gets to post.... ...then anyone, including the people above get to comment... Then, Mr. Bush gets to post.... ...then anyone, including the people above get to comment... etc., etc. If people prefer to have it be a round table where only the people above post and everyone listens...that is fine with me...just set the list up so only the above people can post... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From pferguso at CISCO.COM Fri Feb 28 16:56:35 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:56:35 -0500 Subject: 50 States of ARIN Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970228165631.006b44f8@lint.cisco.com> I would suggest that you, as a new member to the list, go off for a few hours and read the list archives. Most of us are weary of rehashing the same old issues over and over and over again. Then come back and ask again. :-) - paul ps. Read the recommended reading list, too. At 01:26 PM 2/28/97 -0800, steve wrote: >Comments List Members: > > As a new member to the list, and a non-engineer, it seems like >creating more distributed services is in the spirit of what the internet is >all about. Hasn't the benefit to society of internet been in the >facilitation of communications between individual people who use a computer >to access digital energy from some humanly influenced (or created) source? > > If so, facilitating communications by 'opening up' or changing the >paradigm of central-control to decentralized-control seems to follow all of >the trends that are occurring technologically (smaller, faster, cheaper, >lighter, easier for users), as well as on the organizational levels >(empowerment of workers, incentivizing workers etc.) > I'd like to see (or hear) the discussion list members comments. If >one follows this line of thinking and logic by observing what is and has >been occurring in the real world, then the idea of cloning seems to make >sense because the more access points, the "richer" the diverse benefits >which might accrue to the overall "system" can be. This unpredictabililty >is exactly what caused all of the excitement when Netscape entered the >picture as a counter-balance to the centrally-controlled "CommerceNet >Consortium", whose purpose was to 'manage and control' the evolution of >commercial activity on the 'net. > As we have seen, CommerceNet has had their relevance taken away by >forces which are controllable, Netscape ushered into existence a vibrant >industry where lots of companies have been formed, and value created. This >seems to be a similar process taking place with IP Numbers. Having >witnessed the painful process which CommerceNet had gone through, I would >hate to see ARIN make the same mistakes. Unfortunately, after briefly >scanning the Proposal, I recognized some of the same flawed tendency to >lean toward the 'central control' model, which has been shown NOT to work. > I anxiously await comments. > > Steve (510-227-1650) > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Feb 21 17:25:19 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:25:19 -0500 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:51:49 EST." <199702212051.PAA07438@central-services.east.isi.edu> References: <199702212051.PAA07438@central-services.east.isi.edu> Message-ID: <199702212225.RAA35468@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:51:49 EST, "John W. Stewart III" said: > already has address space wants to sell, and i want to buy, > then someone has to dip into the pool of unallocated space. > in what way do competing registries do this? first-come-first- > served? that's fine if you divorce concern for the routing Umm.. there *is* no "unallocated space". If you go and ask WHOIS about areas that are apparently unallocated, you'll find that they're part of SOME space. For instance, 'WHOIS 125' returns: IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0 I believe that there are 'IANA Reserved-NN' blocks that cover all unallocated space in the 4-octet range. Competing registries go and ask IANA to trim off a section of 'reserved' and give it to them, so they can sub-divide it further. You'd have to ask somebody at IANA what *their* allocation policy is (probably something on the order of "farm out a /7 or /8 to things that have enough political and other support to be actual production registries" but don't quote me on this ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidk at ISI.EDU Fri Feb 21 17:22:06 1997 From: davidk at ISI.EDU (davidk at ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:22:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970221151026.00cc0ed4@mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Feb 21, 97 03:11:38 pm Message-ID: <9702212222.AA00548@brind.isi.edu> Scott, > Scott Huddle writes : > > Note that whatever amount the IANA picks you basically are attempting > to control the market supply in such a way that either > artificially raises or lowers prices for IP space, this seems to me > to be a bad thing, though I see that it might be a social good to > reserve some amount of space, but I expect that amount should be > "not much". Note that IPv4 space in itself is limited and that alone can distort market forces. In many situations where supplies are limited, prices get set artificially high and there is no guarantee that this could not happen with IPv4 address space. Ooh, and what does Jon do with the money? Or do you want to give away the address space for free and then some lucky people can make huge profits or you divide it very democratically among the current Internet users which will be even a better recipe for disaster. > > if address assignment isn't [at least] loosely correlated with > > topology, then a market-driven allocation system in a vacuum with > > respect to routing could end up destroying the routing > > system. > > Note that the current allocation schemes can destroy the routing > system and there are no methods to fix it. Note that a free market system can do the same. And there are no methods to fix it ... The current registry system is not perfect but there is no evidence that current allocation policies are destroying the routing system. In fact, the policies are defined by consultation with the users of the address space to avoid just that. > For example, say > ARIN follows the InterNIC guidelines and dispense addresss space > along topological bounds as it has, low and behold later this year > we hit The Magic Limit for routing slots and we're full. People > can still go ARIN and ask for space but the space can't be > used on the global Net. How do we go forward? > > Clearly, a market based scheme insists on making things work > (else why buy the slot or pay for the space) And what happens if a free market registry sells one address block too much? > I assert that a free market would determine the demand and supply > curves and an equilibrium point for a default free routing table. And what if demand is bigger then supply ? And what if the equilibrium price for an allocation is much higher then the current price ? And what if the equilibrium point for the number of route entries is much higher ? The free market will certainly solve these problems but it could turn out to be more expensive then our current system. > ARIN won't guarantee routability and won't guarantee that the routing > table will not fall over. Market mechanisms would. > The Great Truth > o The "invisible hand" of a competitive market will find > an equilibrium point, where supply *exactly* equals > demand at some price, P > (at any other point, Evil Greedy Bastards arbitrage > to exploit market inequalities and move to > the equilibrium) Yes, and when supply is limited, evil greedy bastards can work together to artificically set a price (talk to OPEC). Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of bureacratic solutions over a free market economy and would prefer any free market solution. However, there is no proof whatsoever, that a free market will indeed work better then the current system, and even worse then that, if this turn out to be the case, we cannot go back anymore. Therefore, it might be the time for an experiment with a limited amount of address space to test (part of) the free market theories because a free market solution indeed has a lot of potential and could indeed turn out to work better, as you claim it will, then the current approach. But then, this is not the topic of the ARIN list but , so please reply on that list only, David K. --- From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 23 14:04:14 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:04:14 -0800 Subject: The argument against multiple Registries Message-ID: ABSTRACT: Instead of building multiple stand-alone registries, or even one stand-along registry, let's consider asking an existing organization with Registry and Internet experience to take on the ARIN function. This means that the overhead to support the Registry is shared with other functions. Specific organizations are mentioned as possibilities. To all: I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each state of the United States, and infer from some other comments that each territorality (state, province, and small country) should have a Registry for Internet Numbers. I wish to state my opposition to such a distributed registry and present my rationale for that opposition thusly. I base my opposition on the Three Laws of Murphy: (1) It's never as easy as it looks; (2) It always takes longer than you think; and (3) if anything can go wrong, it will. Let's look at how these quixotic laws would work in the multiple-Registry environment, using the existing automobile registration system in the United States as our parallel model. It goes without saying that the existing vehicle tag system can issue the same license number to at least 50 different vehicles. I say "at least" because some states have issued the same number multiple times to different vehicles, and also because some people have committed fraud and have a single tag adorning multiple vehicles. Law enforcement *hates* this scheme, because it means that an officer has to learn the "colors" of each state -- and the problem is compounded by states issuing difference schemes of plates. (Nevada has three separate color schemes for its vehicle tags, for example.) The suggestion has been to allocate an /8 to each registry. I contend that you might want to consider allocating blocks of /12 because no every registry is going to need the full 16-million-endpoint assignments, not to mention the problem of eating numbers so fast that growth of the Internet outside of North America would be stifled. If you have as few as 60 Registries in North America (notice I'm not even looking at Central or South America at this point) you have a *huge* fixed overhead expense incurred by each registry. Remember, in my strawman back-of-the-envelope budget, about a million dollars went for minimal staff and overhead all by itself. So instead of having a two-million aggregate budget, you would have AT LEAST SIXTY MILLION aggregate budget. I don't think so. *** So let's look at another direction. So much of the budget would be for office space, basic office services such as payroll, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and the ONE PERSON really doing the work we need, doling out Internet Numbers. Two million dollars to support ONE PERSON. For based on the comments on the list, one person could handle easily 300 allocations -- if that's all that is involved. That works out to less than two allocations per business day. So why do we need a large staff? So why do we need to have this huge connectivity? Another entity is responsible for the functionality of the DNS, and IN-ADDR.ARPA is a ---DNS--- function, not an allocation function. The ARIN person would give out numbers that are guaranteed to be uniquely allocated, from ONE place in the Americas. The person obtaining the allocation then pays a fee to the DNS maintenance people for the ability to have endpoints in that allocation looked up using IN-ADDR.ARPA. Co-ordination with the DNS folks? That can be done by allowing the DNS authority to access the ARIN assignment database (maybe even have ARIN send the database at intervals) so that requests can be authenticated. COUNTER-PROPOSAL: Have Kim go to work for IEEE in their Registry department, where they already have the infrastructure in place: connectivity, support staff, office space, and all the rest. Instead of a $3 million a year budget, the budget could be as small as $150K a year, fully burdened. As for membership, the IEEE already has a full scheme in place. Don't like the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers? Then talk to the ACM, Association for Computing Machinery. All the comments about the IEEE also apply to the ACM. Policy would be set by existing organizations and groups. If we don't have one already performing the function, we should get the organizations who are most concerned about the routing problem under one virtual roof and hash out what would be acceptable to them, and ARIN could then use that as policy direction. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From dhudes at graphnet.com Thu Feb 27 09:52:33 1997 From: dhudes at graphnet.com (Mr. Dana Hudes) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:52:33 -0500 Subject: ARIN Comments References: <01BC23ED.B6F0FFC0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33159FB0.49A3@graphnet.com> IP address allocation cannot be done willy-nilly. You cannot discuss allocation without considering routing . Aggregation is the name of the game, or we will have monster route tables of 100K routes. Right now, I am not aware of any vendor capable of handling more than 50K routes. It may well be that the Routing Arbiter and Route Server, as applications running on a Sun, could handle more by throwing more RAM and disk into the system but regular routers have no virtual memory and limited slots for physical RAM. The IETF solution to this looming problem is CIDR as all should well know. By using a hierarchical allocation policy we have some prayer of aggregating announcements at the various NAPs/MAEs/IXPs. If customers run around switching providers and not renumbering then holes start to appear in the CIDR blocks. AT least by considering vague geography by continent we have the more specific in, e.g., Europe, for European routes which are aggregable in other continents. Dana Hudes Senior Network Engineer Graphnet From dhudes at graphnet.com Thu Feb 27 10:03:36 1997 From: dhudes at graphnet.com (Mr. Dana Hudes) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:03:36 -0500 Subject: ARIN Comments References: <199702262242.OAA12996@skank.jnx.com> Message-ID: <3315A248.4FF7@graphnet.com> The idea of having 50 registries to deal with for one country is a nightmare for smooth operations as an ISP IMHO. I want my staff to obtain addresses from one source per continent or at most large country. For example, a registry for US and one for Canada is ok but Mexico, Guatamala, and Nicarauga and PAnama each with a registry? Can you wait for the registry in the Bahamas? Good grief. OTOH, one for all of the People's Republic of China may be insufficient. If we fragment registries we fragment the address space. Domains being symbolic names are far easier. As long as we have authorized TLDs under root name servers we can have as many domain registries as there are TLDs -- and then subdomains under that. Truly the market can decide where to register a domain name. Authorized is required to prevent pirating domain names and disruption of service. Dana Hudes Senior Network Engineer Graphnet From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Tue Feb 25 02:03:49 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:03:49 -0800 Subject: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: References: <199702242219.RAA18022@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: At 2:57 PM -0800 2/24/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > >> > censor them. After all, you can always provide a URL if >> > you want people to see your latest ideas >> > in full. >> >> This assumes that all people who wish to post lengthy notes on the >> mailing list have the ability to put the full text on a system that >> you can provide an URL for. Not all people have WWW homepages, > >http://www.geocities.com/homestead/ > >And there are other places that offer free home pages as well. As we all >learn to better leverage Internet resources you will see more lists with >their own set of web pages where list members can submit lengthy articles >for posting. It's all a case of evolution and trying to make things work >better, one step at a time. > >Kind of like ARIN... Suggestion: could individuals submit white papers to be included on the ARIN site? This would be akin to publication of a long letter in a scientific journal. I have some ideas to keep this from becoming a major mess, but I want comment on the basic idea. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 01:31:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:31:19 -0600 Subject: BTW: WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC237C.6381D060@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:01 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 22:42 2/25/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >Once again, I suggest that all of the ARIN leaders publish @ >a public platform/policy/position statement for the public to @ >read. If you can not do that then I question how much this @ >ARIN proposal is motivated by concern for the public. @ @ Jim, you are seeking a public platform statment on what @ issue? @ By the way, I would like to see each Trustee be required to take an oath that there will be no "ARIN agents" paid to investigate ISPs and other matters. I would like to see some sort of public process described or arbitration forum where people can freely post ANYTHING regarding IP address allocations. And the Trustees or advisors must at least say, "we looked at it and find no merit". I would like to see some assurances that we will not see the situation where people get jerked around and then enter some forum to complain only to be pulled aside to settle things "quietly". If you can do that John, it would be a big help... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 12:12:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:12:53 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC23D6.03D81E80@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 11:08 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:16:23 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > "Chris Ambler claims he already owns the .web domain name and is @ > considering filing suit in a Southern California court against the @ > International Ad Hoc Committee's (IAHC) use of the name..." @ @ More Alternic whining. And it must be true - it was reported in @ WIRED, that paragon of journalistic perfection. And this time Kim is @ right - it has nothing to do with the NAIPR list. @ @ Take the Alternic whining to the alternic-whiners list, the .s0.g0 @ address to the detached-from-reality-dns list, and leave THIS list for @ discussion of allocation of integers. I can deal with a *lot* of @ random babbling and flaming, as long as it's *ON TOPIC* random babbling @ and flaming. @ This has very little to do with the AlterNIC. Therefore your comments are "off-topic" but that does not make the posting "off-topic". It has everyhthing to do with how registries are emerging to compete with the InterNIC and to allow the NSF to phase out of the business. You probably happen to believe that IP address registries should domain name registries should evolve as separate entities. I happen to disagree. Can we agree to disagree ? Now, you might not agree that the InterNIC should be kept in tact to provide stability, etc. You also might not agree that the InterNIC has been a success. If not, I suggest that you read the following. @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/feb97/registry.html "What It Means To Be a Registry" ... "A willingness to grow and change to meet unpredictable demand" ... "A willingness to face problems and find solutions" ... "A willingness to take risks" ... "A willingness to operate under pressure" ... "A willingness to play an active role in the evolution of the Internet" ... "A willingness to meet the needs of all customers" ... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jims at CYBERPARK.COM Wed Feb 26 12:29:07 1997 From: jims at CYBERPARK.COM (James A. Sumrall) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 -0800 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970226172907.0073015c@westcoast.cybertest.com> I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't agree with the process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and Governor's decide who will handle the tasks. The less the government is involved the better. Exactly how the companies are decided, well that could be opened for discussion. The idea of having political figures decide leads me to believe special interest would soon take control of a number states, which in turn could harm the entire process. That is just my opinion. At 09:45 AM 2/26/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > >I believe that I have made these suggestions before. >Unfortunately, the ARIN mail list archive was fouled >up for a week or so, and it was just recently fixed. >I am not sure everything made it into the record. > >====== > >One suggestion that I have made to the National >Science Foundation is to take the $12.6 million >dollar infrastructure fund and divide it 49 ways >to help fund a new registry in each state. In >September of 1998, the InterNIC would be >handed over to the state of Virginia. > >The NSF could allocate $250,000 to each state >and the U.S. Senators for the state in conjunction >with the Governor, could help select a company >to clone the InterNIC in that state. The selection >process would be similar to the way the InterNIC >was formed. > >Since John Curran and Scott Bradner are both >in the State of Massachusetts, ARIN could be >started there. Maybe ARIN could be used as >a "prototype" by the NSF for other states to >follow ? > >Again, I suggest that ARIN also pick up 3 >Top Level Domains to help provide a funding >source. The business people behind ARIN >should try to make sure ARIN is able to >survive because customers will seek stability. > >A $250,000 grant from the NSF could help >as "seed capital". > >Network Solutions, Inc. has evidently made >suggestions to the NSF about what should >be done with the $12.6 million. I would be >interested in seeing those proposals here >and to see how thjey compare and what >other people's comments are... > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation > >e-mail: >JimFleming at unety.net >JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 26 12:39:19 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:39:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? In-Reply-To: <01BC23D6.03D81E80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail > why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address > allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their > is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ? Quite simply, when the coop agreement ends, the Internic no longer has to supply IP allocation services. Therefore, some arrangements have to be made in advance of that point to avoid the chaos that would result if an essential service were to disappear. I can't see that any more detailled explanation is required than this. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 13:11:37 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:11:37 -0600 Subject: Some Registry History Message-ID: <01BC23DE.3852E5C0@webster.unety.net> Since many people are not familiar with the history of some of the registration activities. I refer you to the following site maintained by Tony Rutkowski, the past Executive Director of the Internet Society (ISOC). @@@@@ http://www.wia.org "A History of the [Internet] Assigned Numbers Authority. The first authoritatively sourced history of this activity undertaken under DARPA contract to the Information Sciences Institute" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ There is still some question about where the people that run the Internet obtained their 32 bit integers. Someone recently posted that this discussion should focus on integers. OK.... Where do 32 bit integers come from ? Who has rights to them ? Do people own them ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Feb 26 14:19:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:19:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? In-Reply-To: <199702261844.MAA07741@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > 1) I have not seen anything in the bylaws or operational rules that > state that the initial BOT (who are appointed) will be required to > either stand for election or step down after a short (say, one year) > period of time. > > I think this needs to be addressed. If you want to stagger initial > terms, that's fine, but then let's have the NSI folks off the BOT > first -- after the first 12 months. I agree with Karl. This does need to be addressed. It is understandable that the BoT does not want to come out with a firm set of bylaws until they have had a chance to carefully examine all sides of the issue but I think the proposal on the website needs to be turned into more of a working document with some incremental updates based upon public commentary. It's not that hard to do and it would provide a useful point of focus for the discussions on this list. > 3) If this is a 501(c) organization then IRS forms have to be filed > detailing revenue and expenses. I'd like the bylaws to go further > and mandate full disclosure and open books for the membership. Can you think of another organization with a similar mandate that we could look at to see just what this implies? In general, I would rather see ARIN based on existing models as much as possible. > 4) Utilization requirements for additional space MUST be business-case > neutral. This sounds like something that should be discussed on PAGAN. I think that it is far more important that utilization requirements be well documented and publicly available on the web. > Why do I ask for these things? Because I want ARIN to be "watertight" when > it comes to charges (which have already been made) that its biased, violating > laws, etc. Let's try to get that codified. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ YES! Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 14:52:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:52:45 -0600 Subject: ARIN Suggestions Message-ID: <01BC23EC.58944FA0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 1:06 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 10:28 2/26/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > @ >I have suggested before that no Network Solutions, Inc. @ >employees, past, present or future be allowed to be @ >involved until their Cooperative Agreement with @ >the U.S. Government ends in September 1998. @ @ I understand that suggestion, but would prefer to have @ some folks who understand the existing operational @ systems and procedures come along to increase the @ probability of smooth transition. We've seen some very @ bad transitions in the past when registry functions were @ handed off to new staff and organizations, and I'd rather @ reduce that risk as much as possible. @ We have to agree to disagree. I prefer that those people stick to the NSF contract they signed. I also think those people have a group to support that may get lost if they jump into the private sector. The FNC is one such group. They are meeting tomorrow. I also prefer to allow the new groups to have a working operation to observe. They have until September 1998 to observe these operations. Keep in mind that nothing that I know of is stopping people from leaving the InterNIC to start ARIN using the model being pioneered by the TLD registries and Root Name Server confederations that are popping up. Just because someone wants to go start their own company is no reason to close the InterNIC. I left AT&T and they did not close their doors...:-) @ >@ I still suggest that you help fund ARIN with some @ >@ domain name registrations as part of the business plan @ >@ but if you feel you can make a go of it with just IP @ >@ addresses, God love ya... @ @ The intent is to make it self-sustaining and not dependent @ on the DNS allocations. I guess one alternative would be @ something along the lines of a "domain tax" which would be @ taken from name registry providers for ip registry providers, @ but that seems rather arbitrary to me since they are going @ to be significantly different markets. @ Many companies serve different markets with the same base of "core competance". The banking industry is a good example. I will not go into detail. In my opinion, the "registry industry" is too new to make decisions at this early stage about what works and does not work. Again, if an independent group wants to take the BBN /8 and start an IP only address registry then have at it. That is different from developing a model or prototype under the claim of NSF and IANA endorsement and with an ad on the InterNIC web site.When people see that ad and read those endorsements they draw very different conclusions than if they read it on the BBN web site. @ >I suggest that ARIN use the following /8s... @ > @ >4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) @ >8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) @ >46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) @ @ Thanks Jim... it's the thought that counts. ;-) @ @ Since we're on the topic (and along the lines of disclosure), @ I've pretty well extracted myself from BBN's IP assignment @ processs and will keep that distance for the duration of @ trustee term (one can hope for a short term, no? :-) BBN @ does have several class A address allocations, but did agreed @ last year to free these up as soon as possible for return and @ to make future allocations to customers from blocks received @ based on the same criteria as any other ISP. @ This sounds good but let's not mix apples and oranges... I was suggesting that BBN use that space to become an IP Address Registry which may have nothing to do with BBNs subscribers. For some reason, people with /8s can not fathom opening a registry and allocating space to a paying (leasing) customer when they do not have that customer on their network. I suspect that is because these companies do not have the registry infrastructure in place and would not know what to do if someone called or wrote to request leasing a /19. A great disservice has been done to the Internet by making people tightly tie IP address allocations to "upstream providers". IP address allocations should have been tied to REGISTRIES. Once someone leases an allocation, then they should have been instructed how to notify their upstream providers about announcing their routes. This whole thing reminds me of software I have seen that should be written with pointers and dynamic memory allocation. Instead, the indirections were removed from the system and now we have a brittle sticky mess. (Peanut Brittle ?) @ >I have also suggested that other "start-up" IP registries @ >only be given one /8. There are not that many. If you @ >want to play on a level playing field, then maybe only @ >one of the above should be used and the others be @ >returned... @ @ I believe that it's very early to talk about multiple @ registries (other than ISP-based registries) at the @ present time. We (I?) do not know how to handle large @ scale routing of assignments which are not topologically @ aligned (although I look forward to advice on this topic @ if someone has a solution to this problem - you have @ noted some thoughts in this area in the past). @ I strongly disagree with the above. I heard this same thing about DNS, TLDs, the US domain, IPv6, etc.,etc.,etc. Rather than early, I would describe the situation as rather late... I find it interesting that the InterNIC is now responding to trends set by others, for example the TRUE Root Name Servers they are deploying which will help distribute load and decouple .COM. I also find it interesting that the timing of ARIN and the rush to announce does not match your "go slow" approach. It appears that you want others to go slow while you folks catch up... Sorry John, I call them as I see them... No one is slowing down over here...we saw that party line for 18 months on the TLD debates and we have seen the result....we might not have the most expensive equipment but we are not stupid... @ I do believe that multiple registries for IPv6 should be @ considered, but that is a option that should be explored @ and decided by the Advisory Committee once it's underway. @ Even though someone from the InterNIC posted that ARIN is about IPv4 only...I assume you can find your way... @ >@ I am mostly interested in the types of comments @ >@ you have made. I trust that you and your company (BBN Planet) @ >@ will "do the right thing". This entire industry is largely @ >@ built on trust. That is what makes the net "work"... @ @ BBN is trying to "do the right thing" by making my time @ available to serve as needed, but they have no other @ involvement in ARIN, other than one of the ISP's which @ will use such services. @ Great...glad to see BBN is helping the new registry industry... @ I will try to do the "right thing" as a trustee, but need @ folks to read the documents and provide input anchored in @ the realities of the situation. ARIN may not be what we'd @ create as the ultimate structure for IP registrations if @ we were working from a clean slate, but I do believe it is @ a viable solution for moving the IP allocation process to @ something which is self-funded and self-governed. @ Again, as I suggested, why don't people go do that....? Why do they need to use the InterNIC as a springboard ? If NSI wants to invest in a private company let them do that... If SAIC wants to capitalize the company they could do it... Look at the history, Michael St. Johns used to be with the U.S. Government and he went to @Home. Paul Mockapetris used to be with USC/ISI and he went to @Home and now is at Software.com. Note the IP addresses Paul obtained for @Home are still @Home the last I looked. Do people think they can take IP address blocks with them? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 15:09:12 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:09:12 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23EE.A5360220@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:26 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: @ On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 PST, you said: @ @ > I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't @ > agree with the process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and @ > Governor's decide who will @ @ Unfortunately, the funding model breaks down here. Just because you @ can run ONE registry on $3M a year does *NOT* mean that you can run 50 @ registries on $60,000 a year each. Also, given the fact that we do @ *NOT* have geographically-based IP address allocations now (nor are we @ likely to, given the current interconnect structure between the @ long-haul providers), mandating 50 of them may be worse than @ counter-productive, causing non-aggregation of addresses that would @ otherwise have been aggregable. @ Spreading the registries out is for politcal and economic reasons. It also allows companies to work with registry people they "like". I expect someone to lease a block from Texas and run their ISP in New York. The lease fees (and taxes) are sent to Texas. The charges for a routing entry and service provider go via New York. The routers may be in New Jersey. @ As a (probably not unreasonable case) what happens to a company that @ has its main corporate offices in Boston, but maintains a POP in @ Detroit and NYC, but does most of its packet interchange at MAE-East @ in Maryland? Which state(s) do they ask for allocations, and what @ happens if they ask in Maryland, and need more allocation due to @ growth in their Detroit operation? The Maryland registry will @ probably be upset at having "their" allocation hijacked, much as RIPE @ propably would be unhappy at giving out address space for a US company @ to use in the US.... @ @ -- @ Valdis Kletnieks @ Computer Systems Engineer @ Virginia Tech @ You have assumed that asking for allocations from Maryland has something to do with routers and packets and services in Maryland. Do you have any idea how many people have formed corporations in Delaware and have never set foot in the State of Delaware ? Delaware knows the "registry business"...they do not need routers...:-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 17:15:25 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:15:25 -0600 Subject: What is a Registry ? Message-ID: <01BC2400.4713A140@webster.unety.net> Based on private e-mail, it appears that people view the registry business with different levels of granularity. To keep things simple... We could define a registry as an organization with at least a /8 space who makes further /19 allocations to ISPs.... I can not imagine this registry allocating a /24 to anyone.... Given the narrow definition above, a registry has 2,.048 /19 spaces to manage. A registry could open up with these 2.048 units to lease, like a major apartment complex. Their customers would be ISPs. Having to manage 2,048 units is a job but it is not an impossible job especially once the ISP population they serve becomes stable. As I have said before, I think that the registry should request a very simple statement (affidavit) from the applicant's two "up-stream" providers that those providers are willing to route the /19. No affidavits....no allocation...that is a simple, objective measurement... a clerk can handle the application... P.S. I really want to hear why this will fail. Please be specific. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From markb at INFI.NET Wed Feb 26 23:07:32 1997 From: markb at INFI.NET (Mark Borchers) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:07:32 +0500 Subject: Why split IP allocations from the Internic? Message-ID: <199702271409.JAA22657@mh004.infi.net> > I would like to see a position paper from all of the > BOT at least describing their platform and long term > views. > You've mentioned this a couple times now. While it's not a bad idea on its face, neither does it seem terribly important. It would appear that the proposed board was selected on the basis of their past accomplishments. This is a good thing. Achievement in the industry means a lot more than a position paper. Words are cheap. IMHO, demanding a position paper at this stage of the game only serves the purpose of forcing candidates to state how they will handle future issues before they've had a complete opportunity to wrestle with them on the job. While there are pros and cons to this approach, I believe it is unnecessary given the stature of the people on the proposed board. Mark Borchers InfiNet Network Engineering NOC: (757) 624-2295 ext. 3007 From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 23 13:40:06 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:40:06 -0800 Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970223084102.006a92c4@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: At 5:41 AM -0800 2/23/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >I don't understand why you even bothering answering this dreck. It looks >like that instead of just placing a 'From:' filter on Fleming, I'm going >to have to filter any message that has a reference to him anywhere in the >message header, or message body, to get any satisfaction here. > >- paul Hey, why not remove *all* the pain and resign from naipr at arin.net? If you don't want to see the discussion, then don't. That's the easiest. If you don't remember how, we can help you find the instructions. One of the best things that ever happened to me in my career as a journalist was that I was forced to read *ALL* of the mail generated by my articles. It taught me a number of things about how to present my views in a way that could be understood by the widest audience as quickly as possible. I also learned that some of the most awful dreck had something to which I needed to pay attention. It's a little like copper mining today: you have to go through a lot of tailings to get a little metal, but people *want* the metal. There is a contrary view held by others. I suggest that if you don't want to see any more contrary views, you better add me to your mail filter as well. --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From JimFleming at UNETY.NET Sun Feb 23 23:05:01 1997 From: JimFleming at UNETY.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:05:01 -0600 Subject: ISP/C supports ARIN Message-ID: <01BC21D5.9E9A6340@webster.unety.net> @@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/press/19970207.html ISP/C APPLAUDS NETWORK SOLUTIONS' FUNDING OFFER FOR ARIN ... "In the past, IP registry operations in North and South America have been funded by the US government via the National Science Foundation (NSF)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ In the past...? Did the NSF release NSI from their contract...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bmanning at ISI.EDU Wed Feb 26 16:54:09 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:54:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: <199702261937.LAA14950@bb.home.vix.com> from "Jerry Scharf" at Feb 26, 97 11:37:02 am Message-ID: <199702262154.AA23989@zed.isi.edu> Jerry's mail-bot sez: > Ask the people who did the state by state DNS stuff under .us what their > successes and problems were before you wish that on an IP registry. I don't > think the state zone management would be considered an unqualified success by > anyone. I know Bill Manning has some strong opinions born out of running .us. > Bill Manning never "ran" .US but did/does have a number of interesting experiences/stories with parts of that domain... -- --bill From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Sun Feb 23 23:45:18 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:45:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: ISP/C supports ARIN In-Reply-To: <01BC21D5.9E9A6340@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Feb 23, 97 10:05:01 pm Message-ID: <199702240445.AA061169519@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > > @@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/press/19970207.html > > ISP/C APPLAUDS NETWORK SOLUTIONS' FUNDING OFFER FOR ARIN > ... > "In the past, IP registry operations in North and South America have > been funded by the US government via the National Science Foundation (NSF)." > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > In the past...? > > Did the NSF release NSI from their contract...? > No, but part of the renegotiation to charge for domain names cut off NSF > funding for IP address allocation. > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 12:41:49 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:41:49 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23DA.0D8CB860@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 11:29 AM, James A. Sumrall[SMTP:jims at cyberpark.com] wrote: @ I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't agree with the @ process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and Governor's decide who will @ handle the tasks. The less the government is involved the better. Exactly @ how the @ companies are decided, well that could be opened for discussion. The idea of @ having @ political figures decide leads me to believe special interest would soon @ take control of @ a number states, which in turn could harm the entire process. That is just @ my opinion. @ Have you considered spearheading an effort in your state ? Can you describe the climate and how things could play out ? Are there any large companies that have a /8 to donate to the cause ? Are there any ISP groups or other groups you would recommend ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 15:02:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:02:32 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23ED.B6F0FFC0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 7:43 AM, David Schwartz[SMTP:davids at WIZNET.NET] wrote: @ much as RIPE @ > propably would be unhappy at giving out address space for a US company @ > to use in the US.... @ @ I have not visited all of the RIPE web site or their associate registries, but in the past some of those registries claimed to serve the U.S. Registries provide uniqueness....not routability... Forcing ISPs to upstream providers did not teach ISPs that the upstream provider is not really a registry....it is about 90% provider 10% registry. ISPs should be getting IP addresses from 100% registries and then getting those routed by 100% providers. Yes, the cost of getting a small block routed could be high, especially on a per-IP address basis. That encourages people to lease a larger block. Somewhere in the equation is a balance point. Let the market decide that point. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Feb 26 01:01:34 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:01:34 -0500 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: At 22:42 2/25/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >Resources are resources and the public good must be taken >into account when making decisions about managing those >resources. Agreed. The current model of having allocations performed by a private firm in the absence of public input is less than ideal. ARIN is a proposed solution to this problem which has gained significant support to date. >It is one thing for people to claim they are acting >in the interest of the public, it is another to >demonstrate that in forums like this. I believe that ARIN will better serve the interests of the public (and the Internet community in particular) due to ability to actually have public input into the process. The current process utilizing NSI lacks this direct input path. >Once again, I suggest that all of the ARIN leaders publish >a public platform/policy/position statement for the public to >read. If you can not do that then I question how much this >ARIN proposal is motivated by concern for the public. Jim, you are seeking a public platform statment on what issue? /John From scharf at vix.com Wed Feb 26 14:37:02 1997 From: scharf at vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:37:02 -0800 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:29:07 PST." <2.2.32.19970226172907.0073015c@westcoast.cybertest.com> Message-ID: <199702261937.LAA14950@bb.home.vix.com> jims at CYBERPARK.COM said: > I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't > agree with the process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and > Governor's decide who will handle the tasks. The less the government > is involved the better. Exactly how the companies are decided, well > that could be opened for discussion. The idea of having political > figures decide leads me to believe special interest would soon take > control of a number states, which in turn could harm the entire > process. That is just my opinion. Ask the people who did the state by state DNS stuff under .us what their successes and problems were before you wish that on an IP registry. I don't think the state zone management would be considered an unqualified success by anyone. I know Bill Manning has some strong opinions born out of running .us. I think is is fair to say that getting people who know how to do the job is more important than the number of registries. How would you grade people's ability to run a registry to qualify them? Jerry From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 12:31:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:31:17 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC23D8.95E12680@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 11:29 AM, James A. Sumrall[SMTP:jims at cyberpark.com] wrote: @ I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't agree with the @ process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and Governor's decide who will @ handle the tasks. The less the government is involved the better. Exactly @ how the @ companies are decided, well that could be opened for discussion. The idea of @ having @ political figures decide leads me to believe special interest would soon @ take control of @ a number states, which in turn could harm the entire process. That is just @ my opinion. @ Thanks for your comment.. Would you agree if the NSF gave the money to three colleges or universities ? Each would handle a different aspect of the InterNIC "task"... IS - Information Services DS - Data Base Services RS - Registration Services If not universities, how about letting companies send proposals to the NSF ? A lottery could be used. A company could propose to handle only one of the above. By having three companies, this helps ensure stability and prevents a disaster in case a company fails. These comments can be related to ARIN because there does not seem to be much concern about failing. What would happen to ARIN's customers ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From dennis at JNX.COM Wed Feb 26 17:42:11 1997 From: dennis at JNX.COM (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:42:11 -0800 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:41:28 CST." <01BC23F3.26F75620@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702262242.OAA12996@skank.jnx.com> >@ Well, if it *doesnt* have anything to do with it, why have one for >@ each state? Why not on a per-timezone basis, or the way that minor-league >@ baseball allocates sites for new teams (there must be two counties >@ between each city that gets a team), or per phone system area code, >@ or any *other* scheme? >@ > > It is political...have you closely followed the NSF proceedings > and meeting notes...?....do you know their interests...? > > Do you know where the NSF get's their money...? Do you know what the law constrains the NSF to spend their money for? I suspect IP address registry services, let alone domain name registrations, no longer qualify. Perhaps it would be better to be asking the ISPs who would be the primary customers of an IP address registry whether they see an advantage in having (and paying for) a choice of 50 of them instead of just one? It seems to me that letting IP address registry customers choose what they pay for is a better idea then trying to get the government to force an outcome which the government (or the NSF, certainly) is not allowed to pay for. Dennis Ferguson From james at PIL.NET Sun Feb 23 14:17:40 1997 From: james at PIL.NET (James Smallacombe) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:17:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Invisible Hands, was Re: Multihoming sites and ARIN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > At 5:41 AM -0800 2/23/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > >I don't understand why you even bothering answering this dreck. It looks > >like that instead of just placing a 'From:' filter on Fleming, I'm going > >to have to filter any message that has a reference to him anywhere in the > >message header, or message body, to get any satisfaction here. > > > >- paul > > Hey, why not remove *all* the pain and resign from naipr at arin.net? If you > don't want to see the discussion, then don't. That's the easiest. If you > don't remember how, we can help you find the instructions. > > One of the best things that ever happened to me in my career as a > journalist was that I was forced to read *ALL* of the mail generated by my > articles. It taught me a number of things about how to present my views in > a way that could be understood by the widest audience as quickly as Stephen: It is obvious that you have spent little or no time in inet-access or any of the other lists that Fleming completely disrupts with his insane "IPv8" and other drivel. Personally, I can't understand why people still respond to anything he says. It is only a matter of time before you will completely empathise with Paul. Fleming is not part of a wide audience, he's just far, far wide. James Smallacombe Internet Access for Bucks County james at pil.net And Philadelphia, PA. PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net "I'll plant Plantagenet, root him up who dares." 3Henry Vi, I,i From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Wed Feb 26 15:24:34 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:24:34 -0500 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:09:12 CST." <01BC23EE.A5360220@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC23EE.A5360220@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199702262024.PAA30404@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:09:12 CST, Jim Fleming said: > You have assumed that asking for allocations from Maryland > has something to do with routers and packets and services > in Maryland. Well, if it *doesnt* have anything to do with it, why have one for each state? Why not on a per-timezone basis, or the way that minor-league baseball allocates sites for new teams (there must be two counties between each city that gets a team), or per phone system area code, or any *other* scheme? And remember - a basic goal here is to get *something* online before the coop agreement expires. You want to try to launch *one* registry, or *50*, before then? -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 12:15:08 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:15:08 -0600 Subject: FW: eDNS Atlanta - Meeting Agenda Message-ID: <01BC23D6.53C193E0@webster.unety.net> For ARIN Discussion List Members...please note...there is an ARIN item on the "agenda"... I hope this is "on topic"... ---------- From: iquest at mindspring.com[SMTP:iquest at mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 11:14 AM To: newdom at vrx.net; iahc-discuss at iahc.org Cc: iquest1 at mindspring.com Subject: eDNS Atlanta - Meeting Agenda The NEWDOM / eDNS meeting is scheduled for March 3rd, 10:00 a.m. at: I.Q. Associates, Inc. 1150 Lake Hearn Drive, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30342 (404) 250-3264 We are located in the "Perimeter Area" of Atlanta, about a half-hour north of the Airport. Major intersection is I285 and the Georga 400. The stated purpose of the meeting is to: To work together to make eDNS a great success, and to set the ground rules for a brand new industry. The agenda for this meeting is: Introduction, Jay Fenello AlterNIC.NET, Eugene Kashpureff Status of AlterNIC network Registry Policies TLD Services eDNS Network, Karl Denninger Definition of eDNS root servers Status of eDNS network Review of and Approval for eDNS Memorandum TLD Marketing, Jay Fenello Iperdome's Marketing Plan - Concerns all attendee's. Discussion of Marketing Options Roundtable Discussion Registry Evolution ARIN and IP allocations. Press Release(s) Anyone wishing to attend the NEWDOM / eDNS meeting should RSVP by replying to this posting. Please include your name, title, company, and your company's interest in eDNS. NOTE: Since space is not unlimited, priority admission will be given to those who have RSVP'd. Please help us ensure that we can accommodate all attendee's by letting us know if you are coming. P.S. Electronic attendance options are being discussed. Stay tuned for another announcement on this topic. Looking forward to seeing you all in Atlanta, Jay Fenello, I.Q. Associates, Inc. ==================================== eDNS - Bringing you the world . . . and MORE! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Newdom mailing list, newdom at vrx.net. To subscribe or unsubscribe or get help , send the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" or "help" in the body (not subject) to newdom-request at vrx.net From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 17:50:08 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:50:08 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC2405.2082A300@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 4:42 PM, Dennis Ferguson[SMTP:dennis at jnx.com] wrote: @ >@ Well, if it *doesnt* have anything to do with it, why have one for @ >@ each state? Why not on a per-timezone basis, or the way that minor-league @ >@ baseball allocates sites for new teams (there must be two counties @ >@ between each city that gets a team), or per phone system area code, @ >@ or any *other* scheme? @ >@ @ > @ > It is political...have you closely followed the NSF proceedings @ > and meeting notes...?....do you know their interests...? @ > @ > Do you know where the NSF get's their money...? @ @ Do you know what the law constrains the NSF to spend their money for? I @ suspect IP address registry services, let alone domain name registrations, @ no longer qualify. @ @ Perhaps it would be better to be asking the ISPs who would be the primary @ customers of an IP address registry whether they see an advantage in @ having (and paying for) a choice of 50 of them instead of just one? @ It seems to me that letting IP address registry customers choose what @ they pay for is a better idea then trying to get the government to @ force an outcome which the government (or the NSF, certainly) is not @ allowed to pay for. @ Thanks for your comments.... some would argue that the fund is not really the NSF's but they are the trustee.... The fund was set up for a specific purpose... When the InterNIC was formed with IS, DS, and RS the idea was to expand to more NICs. This quote from the mid-term evaluation is very kind to the NSF. "The InterNIC awards set the precedent of requiring significant self-coordination among a team of awardees, and requiring outreach to other Network Information Centers. The panel suggests that the NSF critically consider whether it is viable to expect significant self-coordination among a team of awardees in future awards. The panel also notes that the NSF's program management was not able to correct GA's problems early on despite excellent efforts by the NSF staff, primarily because the NSF staff were overextended by monitoring at least two major projects (the InterNIC and the NSFNET backbone) at once. The panel recommends that for future large scale efforts in the rapidly changing Internet environment, the NSF should form an ongoing advisory panel of outside experts or employ some external consultants to help manage such cooperative agreements, rather than waiting two years to call for a review." The NSF now has a debt to pay and a fund to do it... This is a matter of ethics not law... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Feb 26 01:19:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:19:23 -0600 Subject: .WEB Suit Message-ID: <01BC237A.B8709720@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:01 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 22:42 2/25/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >Resources are resources and the public good must be taken @ >into account when making decisions about managing those @ >resources. @ @ Agreed. The current model of having allocations @ performed by a private firm in the absence of public @ input is less than ideal. ARIN is a proposed solution @ to this problem which has gained significant support @ to date. @ I would support several private firms doing it and in my opinion, the IPv4 address space is large enough to allow that to happen. Other large companies have indicated to me they are making plans. Those are the bright spots on the horizon. Having one private firm do it with the same personnel as the existing private firm appears to offer less protection for the small players. At least in the existing system, the U.S. Government has some hand, even though it is clearly handicapped. @ >It is one thing for people to claim they are acting @ >in the interest of the public, it is another to @ >demonstrate that in forums like this. @ @ I believe that ARIN will better serve the interests of @ the public (and the Internet community in particular) @ due to ability to actually have public input into the @ process. The current process utilizing NSI lacks this @ direct input path. @ That sounds good to me. I back you 110.3%. You lead the way, and others will march to your drum. I still suggest that you help fund ARIN with some domain name registrations as part of the business plan but if you feel you can make a go of it with just IP addresses, God love ya... I started selling 32 bit addresses in 1982 for $50 each. People bought them and received a signed, framed, certificate to hang on their wall. We certified that those numbers would be unique. That was it. People bought them and that was 15 years ago...;-) You might have a better market now... @ >Once again, I suggest that all of the ARIN leaders publish @ >a public platform/policy/position statement for the public to @ >read. If you can not do that then I question how much this @ >ARIN proposal is motivated by concern for the public. @ @ Jim, you are seeking a public platform statment on what @ issue? @ I am mostly interested in the types of comments you have made. I trust that you and your company (BBN Planet) will "do the right thing". This entire industry is largely built on trust. That is what makes the net "work"... I hope that you can set the pace and lead ARIN. Let me know how I can help. I do have some experience in the registry industry, despite what some people might say...;-) P.S. I don't expect to get any special favors in terms of address allocations. I just want to see people do the right thing...thanks for responding... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)