Why split IP allocations from the Internic?

[Jim Fleming]

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)