ARIN Suggestions

[John Curran]

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