ARIN Proposal

[Karl Denninger]

> >NOBODY is arguing for end customers who get assignments in the /32 to /20
> >range NOW being able to "take them with".
> >
> >Including me.
>
> Uh, if people don't have to renumber when business relationships
> change then they must be "taking their networks with them". Allowing
> someone to break up a CIDR block when business relationships change is
> BAD.

Not if they're ISPs and are getting sizeable blocks.

The FIX is to issue portable /19s to ISPs in the FIRST PLACE, instead of
trying to refer them all back to their providers.

Note that *colluding* to create a business practice which penalizes a
company in this fashion can be seriously ugly if someone decides to chase
it.  If you create these situations, you're ASKING to be chased, and if you
do so in a collusive format you're asking for the Government to get involved.

This is an *very ungood* thing.

I WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION.  I don't want to end up
being named in a RICO suit, and that's PRECISELY the concern that I have
in this regard.

This is really orthogonal to ARIN, except that ARIN could be used in this
way, and if it is, then the MEMBERS can end up being assaulted in this
fashion.  It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to make sure that doesn't happen
by having ARIN be completely above question when it comes to policy matters,
board constitution, etc.

> >HOWEVER, you *MUST* recognize past practice, you *MUST* recognize that
> >people relied on representations made to them in the past (which are in
> >fact CODIFIED in RFC2008; there is SPECIFIC language in there reflecting
> >PAST HISTORY AND PRACTICE), and you *MUST NOT* try to abrogate those past
> >policies and practices for *EXISTING* assignments.
>
> Then those ISPs that made those mis-representations are going to have
> to live with the repercussions, aren't they?
>
> The last paragraph of section 5.3 of RFC 2008 states:
>
>     The above shows that the absence of an explicit "address lending"
>     policy from a current provider in no way ensures that renumbering
>     will not be required in the future when changing providers.
>     Organizations should be aware of this fact should they encounter a
>     provider making claims to the contrary.
>
> Seems to me that RFC 2008 recognizes the need for renumbering.

Did you READ all of 2008?  Try this portion of RFC2008:

   "Address ownership" is one possible address allocation and management
   policy. The "address ownership" policy means that part of the address
   space, once allocated to an organization, remains allocated to the
   organization as long as that organization wants it. Further, that
   portion of the address space would not be allocated to any other
   organization.  Often, such addresses are called "portable." It was
   assumed that if an organization acquires its addresses via the



Rekhter & Li             Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 2008                                                    October 1996


   "address ownership" policy, the organization would be able to use
   these addresses to gain access to the Internet routing services,
   regardless of where the organization connects to the Internet.

   While it has never been explicitly stated that various Internet
   Registries use the "address ownership" allocation policy, it has
   always been assumed (and practiced).

------- End

Note that this document EXPLICITLY acknowledges that HISTORICALLY it has
always been ASSUMED AND PRACTICED that address blocks are *OWNED* by those
to whom they are delegated.

You can change things going forward with BCPs and the like.  BUT YOU MUST
RECOGNIZE THE PAST AND THE RELIANCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE PLACED ON THOSE PAST
POLICIES.  If you fail to do so, you WILL run into trouble.  Guaranteed.

> >Again, I am *NOT* arguing that every customer who attaches to the network
> >should be able to walk around with /24s that they get assigned *TODAY*.
> >I *AM* saying that if you're in the ISP business, you should get assigned
> >a /19 initially, and THAT SPACE IS YOURS.  If you need MORE, then justify
> >that you have ACTUALLY USED the /19 (and it should then be provided).
>
> Well, then let each ISP write up a justification, submit it to ARIN,
> and pay their fees. I wouldn't think think that there would be much
> difficulty, especially if they are able explain themselves clearly.

Assuming that ARIN actually uses rational processes, yes.

> New hardware is a LONG term solution. Face it, no one's going to
> unload millions of dollars of Bay or Cisco equipment virtually
> overnight for a relatively untested piece of hardware. And I haven't
> seen anything that will give Bay or Cisco equipment the ability to
> handle orders of magnitude more routes or routing updates.

Bullshit.

How quickly did 7513s show up in PRODUCTION?  Didn't we hear this SAME
argument in 1993 when the AGS+ was falling over, and again in 1995 when the
7000/SSP2 was falling over?

Heh, wait a second.  That was twice in three years that everyone went out,
unloaded and repurchased MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of Bay and CISCO hardware.

How did that happen?  And why don't you think it will happen again?

> So for the short term (on the order of 2-3 years, at least), we are
> stuck with ARIN or something ARIN-like because we need to limit the
> growth of the global routing table.
>
> There will be fees of some sort because the people that work for ARIN
> won't work for free and they need computers and ofice supplies, etc.

Why do you assume I'm opposed to ARIN?  I've not made that statement
anywhere in this discussion.

--
--
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:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal