US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

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.