From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Jun 2 22:51:51 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 21:51:51 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Ripe and APNIC Rescue IANA - a quick heads up] Message-ID: <01BC6F9F.2E5D9760@webster.unety.net> What is "proto-ARIN" ? On Monday, June 02, 1997 8:14 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ Ken, @ @ >Is this article right? @ @ More or less. The IANA really is more than just Jon... @ @ >Just curious but how much money is APNIC planning to contribute to fund @ >IANA? @ @ APNIC obtains Internet registry services from the IANA for which we @ pay a yearly fee of US $50,000 -- a situation that is not @ coincidentally very similar to the way APNIC derives its @ funding. @ @ APNIC is working with RIPE and proto-ARIN to formalize this structure. @ It is possible this fee will increase or decrease depending on just @ how things get structured (e.g., the number of organizations that are @ paying for the IANA to continue operation), however as it is critical @ for just about everyone that the IANA continues to operate, APNIC, in @ conjunction with the other regional registries will do whatever is @ necessary to insure just that. @ @ Regards, @ -drc @ ------ @ Communications Week International reports in the edition Monday, 2 @ June 1997, page one: @ @ Plan to Protect Net's Key Central Authority Underway @ @ Bottom-Up Structure to Make Net Less U.S.-Centric @ @ By Kenneth Neil Cukier @ @ DUBLIN -- Internet leaders around the world are quietly orchestrating @ a daring plan to assure the stability of the Net's fragile central @ authority, and make it less U.S.-centric. @ @ IP address registries in Asia and Europe have taken over the funding @ of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) from the United @ States Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency @ (DARPA), which halted its funding on 1 April. California-based IANA @ oversees IP number allocations used for global routing and controls @ the Internet domain name system data. DARPA funded much of the @ Internet's early development. @ @ The heads of the regional IP registries in Europe and Asia, which @ allocate the Internet Protocol numbers under IANA's authority, @ signaled that funding is the first step towards a more ambitious goal @ of creating a bottom-up structure that will include regional @ registries in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. @ @ Daniel Karrenberg, the managing director of the European IP number @ registry RIPE NCC in Amsterdam and David Conrad, the director of the @ Asia-Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) in Tokyo, stunned @ senior Internet executives at the trimestrial meeting of RIPE in @ Dublin in late May, where they announced the move. @ @ But executives at the meeting were unanimously in favor of the move, @ and officially declared that IANA's stability must be ensured. Asian @ industry executives are expected to be briefed on the matter at a June @ meeting in Kuala Lumpur. CThe heads of the regional IP registries in @ Europe and Asia, which allocate the Internet Protocol numbers under @ IANA's authority, signaled that funding is the first step towards a @ more ambitious goal of creating a bottom-up structure that will @ include regional registries in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. @ @ Daniel Karrenberg, the managing director of the European IP number @ registry RIPE NCC in Amsterdam and David Conrad, the director of the @ Asia-Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) in Tokyo, stunned @ senior Internet executives at the trimestrial meeting of RIPE in @ Dublin in late May, where they announced the move. @ @ But executives at the meeting were unanimously in favor of the move, @ and officially declared that IANA's stability must be ensured. Asian @ industry executives are expected to be briefed on the matter at a June @ meeting in Kuala Lumpur. @ @ IANA issued an emergency request for funds in late March, and APNIC @ contributed $50,000 for a full year's operation, combined with RIPE @ NCC's contribution of $25,000 for an initial six months. @ @ IANA currently lacks formal authority because it developed during the @ early days of the Internet, when such legal foundations were @ ignored. Yet now that the Internet has become the world's information @ infrastructure, this critical piece of the Internet, and Internet @ governance, must be stabilized, said Christopher Wilkinson, an @ official at the European Commission Directorate General XIII, which is @ responsible for telecommunication matters, who learned of IANA's @ situation at the RIPE meeting. @ @ Wilkinson warned with "any change [to the Internet] from the point of @ view of public policy, [the Internet] has got to work, it's got to be @ stable, it's got to be really global and international," and concluded @ that "disputes in the U.S. could jeopardize the Internet in Europe." @ @ Jon Postel, the head of IANA, said: "The regional IP registries have @ been supportive both with funding and with input on possible @ organizational structures." IANA and the registries are currently @ "considering several options and timelines," he added. @ @ If the project is successful, IANA will be insulated from @ U.S. domestic political intrusion that has shaken up the Internet @ recently (CWI, 10 March and 7 April). This has severely thwarted @ Internet self-governance and generated mistrust of government among @ influential members of the Internet community. @ @ Indeed, RIPE NCC's Karrenberg described the cut in funding as offering @ "a unique opportunity" to build a lasting structure for IANA and gave @ the international registries "influence." Conrad emphasized that "the @ people who depend on the existence of IANA are funding IANA." Both @ highlighted that the plan would wean IANA away from its U.S. nature @ and create a truly international body. @ @ The plan will likely make IANA more effective and responsible to the @ Internet community because -- like the Net itself -- power is @ distributed. And for users and ISPs, especially those outside the @ United States, an IANA founded on regional representation may be @ easier to hold to account. @ @ But if the bid fails, and IANA's authority is lost, say Internet @ experts, the Net may become fragmented, new sites unable to be created @ and coordinated, accurate routing jeopardized, and certain standards @ such as "port numbers" thrown into doubt. @ @ "We're at a juncture here," said Karrenberg. @ @ A DARPA offical said IANA's funding was stopped since the Internet is @ no longer a research project, and that IANA was well aware of the cut @ beforehand. "DARPA is watching with interest and providing advice @ when called upon as the U.S. and world Internet community works @ together to shape its [IANA's] future," the official said. @ @ High-level Internet leaders, who requested anonymity, contend the lack @ of funding represents tacit approval for IANA's plans from DARPA, @ which is aware of the body's crucial global importance and wants to @ protect it from national U.S. politics. @ @ A senior Clinton administration official, who also requested anonymity @ due to the controversial nature of the topic, was unaware of the @ changes taking place at IANA. "We're not dropping IANA," he stated, @ referring to the U.S. government. He said he expected "some other @ research agencies" would "step into the breach" and fund IANA. @ @ Although the plan is not held secret, the speed and hushed nature of @ the project suggests the Internet community is exploiting the chaos @ surrounding the most visible Internet controversy -- the creation of @ new top level domain names -- to push through IANA reforms while the @ attention of government bureaucrats is diverted. A RIPE official said @ it is hoped IANA1s new structure will be solidified before the end of @ the year. Indeed, the registries will likely act quickly this summer, @ when many government officials around the world take vacations. @ @ The Asian and European registries plan to work closely with people in @ the U.S. slated to operate an IP registry for the Americas, called @ American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). Once ARIN is @ functioning, it too will partially fund IANA. And the model allows for @ the future creation of registries in Latin America and Africa to also @ buttress IANA. @ @ Yet the key obstacle facing the IANA's new structure is the U.S. @ government. ARIN, for example, missed its initial start date of 1 @ April due to hesitations by a White House taskforce studying the @ issues surrounding IP numbers (CWI, 19 May). @ @ And IANA's stability was called into question earlier this year when a @ law suit was filed against individuals working at IANA concerning the @ organization's authority to enter new domain name routing data into @ the "root" servers they maintain. The suit was dropped in May. @ @ The issues of IANA, ARIN and domain names (alongside a reform of the @ system by the International Ad Hoc Committee) are intertwined because @ the separate functions are all based on a convoluted series of @ cooperative agreements by the U.S. National Science Foundation with a @ private company, Network Solutions Inc. in Herndon, Virginia. @ @ IP addresses are the globally unique routing numbers that "map" to the @ user-friendly domain name system. IANA and the regional registries are @ imperative for the Net's operation because IP numbers are scarce, must @ be handed out sparingly, and could create havic if accidentally @ duplicated. @ @ Currently, IANA is based at the Information Sciences Institute at the @ University of Southern California in Marina del Rey. It is run by @ essentially one man, Jon Postel, who helped create the Internet and is @ widely trusted in the Internet community. He is expected to remain in @ his position after the new structure is in place. @ @ ### @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp From davidc at APNIC.NET Tue Jun 3 01:00:15 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:00:15 +0900 Subject: [Fwd: Ripe and APNIC Rescue IANA - a quick heads up] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:51:51 EST." <01BC6F9F.2E5D9760@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199706030500.OAA01994@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> >What is "proto-ARIN" ? Guess. Regards, -drc From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Tue Jun 3 02:15:43 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 02:15:43 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: Ripe and APNIC Rescue IANA - a quick heads up] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:51:51 CDT." <01BC6F9F.2E5D9760@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC6F9F.2E5D9760@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199706030615.CAA23626@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:51:51 CDT, Jim Fleming said: > What is "proto-ARIN" ? Isn't this in the FAQ or the archives already? I mean, there's been *enough* discussion of the fact that unlike Greek mythical figures that spring from a diety's forehead, there's a lot of up-front work needed to jump-start things. From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Tue Jun 3 15:13:15 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: Ripe and APNIC Rescue IANA - a quick heads up] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jun 1997 11:26:05 PDT." <199706031826.LAA19222@oneworld.owt.com> References: <199706031826.LAA19222@oneworld.owt.com> Message-ID: <199706031913.PAA26906@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 11:26:05 PDT, "E. Bryan Hoover" said: > Why do you not answer the question? Because Mr Fleming has been a participant in it all along, and *should* know the answer to his question, since he's posted quite enough about his own question in the past. > Or direct the person specifically to the answer in the proper > archieve or FAQ? If you had asked the same question, I would have pointed you to chapter and verse. > I represent an end user U.S. corporation which uses class C blocks > and I should not have to care to much about this. That is correct. You buy connectivity from your ISP, and *THEY* have to worry about it. > However the defensive (and sarcastic ) tone of those defending the > new proposed organization - and the apparent attempt to obscure the impact > of the fee structure and control of this new organization concerns me. I wasn't defending the fee structure. If you search through the archives, I posted quite a bit asking why the fee structure was the way it was. > I hope I find my impressions are wrong. They are. Perusal of the archives will show that there has been two basically disjoint threads on this list.. one about ARIN itself, and one about everything else. Unfortunately, it may be difficult for newcomers to tell which is which. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior 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 ptripp at EQUINOX.COM Fri Jun 6 11:01:52 1997 From: ptripp at EQUINOX.COM (ptripp at EQUINOX.COM) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 97 10:01:52 -0500 Subject: PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE Message-ID: <9706068656.AA865605713@misnt351.equinox.com> Friends No comedy here. It's about a seven year old girl with cancer. Read it and pass it on to as many people as you can. Occasionally we get to use this medium for some actual good, rather than sending bunk across the waves. And once in a while things like this bring us back to reality, allowing us to count ourselves lucky in life. Let's put our real network to work here! Sorry to forward such a long message. This email only requires you to read the message and pass it along. It won't take long and it is for a really good cause. Thanks ==Buddy >******************************************************************* > >JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND >VERY RARE CASE OF CEREBRAL CARCINOMA. THIS CONDITION CAUSES SEVERE >MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS AND IS TERMINAL. THE DOCTORS HAVE GIVEN HER >SIX MONTHS TO LIVE. > >AS PART OF HER DYING WISH, SHE WANTED TO START A CHAIN LETTER TO >INFORM PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION AND TO SEND PEOPLE THE MESSAGE TO >LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT, A CHANCE THAT SHE >WILL NEVER HAVE. > >FURTHERMORE, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND SEVERAL CORPORATE SPONSORS >HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THREE CENTS TOWARD CONTINUING CANCER RESEARCH FOR >EVERY NEW PERSON THAT GETS FORWARDED THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE GIVE JESSICA >AND ALL CANCER VICTIMS A CHANCE. ADD ACS at AOL.COM TO THE LIST OF PEOPLE >THAT YOU SEND THIS TO SO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY WILL BE ABLE TO >CALCULATE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN THIS. > >IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, SEND THEM TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AT >ACS at AOL.COM > >******************************************** ehogan at mathsoft.com Network Manager MathSoft, Inc. Desk 617.577.1017 ext 866 Cell 603.490.2649 http://www.mathsoft.com -------------- next part -------------- Received: from equinox.COM by misnt351.equinox.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.00.02) ; Fri, 06 Jun 97 08:57:15 -0500 Return-Path: <@callisto.mathsoft.com:ehogan at mathsoft.com> Received: from callisto.mathsoft.com by ns1.equinox.COM id aa05631; 6 Jun 97 8:58 EDT Received: from bozo ([206.34.7.167]) by callisto.mathsoft.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 95-12111) with SMTP id AAA39; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 08:56:42 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970606085732.00997280 at popmail.mathsoft.com> X-Sender: ehogan at popmail.mathsoft.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 08:57:32 -0400 To: "Craig A. Bryant" , Dave Higgins , Paul D'Antilio , Steve Dzwonek , Teri Temple From: Eugene Hogan Subject: PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE Cc: ACS at AOL.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From silverton at edcom.org Fri Jun 6 14:31:19 1997 From: silverton at edcom.org (Michael Silverton) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 11:31:19 -0700 Subject: Fraudulent: Jessica Mydek Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970606113119.006b5678@pobox1.stanford.edu> For the benefit of compassionate readers: http://www.cancer.org/chain.html Fraudulent Chain Letter This statement may be copied or reprinted by online users The American Cancer Society is greatly disturbed by reports of a fraudulent chain letter circulating on the internet which lists the American Cancer Society as a "corporate sponsor" but which has in no way been endorsed by the American Cancer Society. This letter appears to have started on America Online but has now spread well beyond the online service. There are several variations of this letter in circulation, including one which has a picture of "Tickle Me Elmo" and one that is essentially a paraphrase of the letter below. The text of the original message reads as follows: LITTLE JESSICA MYDEK IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND VERY RARE CASE OF CEREBRAL CARCINOMA. THIS CONDITION CAUSES SEVERE MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS AND IS A TERMINAL ILLNESS. THE DOCTORS HAVE GIVEN HER SIX MONTHS TO LIVE. AS PART OF HER DYING WISH, SHE WANTED TO START A CHAIN LETTER TO INFORM PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION AND TO SEND PEOPLE THE MESSAGE TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT, A CHANCE THAT SHE WILL NEVER HAVE. FURTHERMORE, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND SEVERAL CORPORATE SPONSORS HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THREE CENTS TOWARD CONTINUING CANCER RESEARCH FOR EVERY NEW PERSON THAT GETS FORWARDED THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE GIVE JESSICA AND ALL CANCER VICTIMS A CHANCE. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, SEND THEM TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AT ACS at AOL.COM As far as the American Cancer Society can determine, the story of Jessica Mydek is completely unsubstantiated. No fundraising efforts are being made by the American Cancer Society using chain letters of any kind. Furthermore, the email address ACS at AOL.COM is inactive. Any messages to the American Cancer Society should be instead sent through the American Cancer Society website at http://www.cancer.org. This particular chain letter with its heartbreaking story appears to have struck an emotional chord with online users. Although we are very concerned that the American Cancer Society's name has been used to manipulate the online public, we applaud the good intentions of all who participated in this letter. We are pleased to note that there are so many caring individuals out there and hope that they will find another way to support cancer research. Jessica Mydek's story, whether true or false, is representative of that of many cancer patients who benefit daily from the efforts of legitimate cancer organizations nationwide. Sincerely, Michael Silverton From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Jun 9 17:40:58 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 16:40:58 -0500 Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues Message-ID: <01BC74F3.E9049D80@webster.unety.net> The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just announced that it will be starting a process to resolve the domain name issues. Evidently, they plan to start with a clean slate and of course their charters will guide their actions. Here are some excerpts... @@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/history1.htm "The Federal Trade Commission enforces a variety of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Commission seeks to ensure that the nation's markets function competitively, and are vigorous, efficient, and free of undue restrictions." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/bc/mission.htm "The FTC's antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition, seeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition. As a result, purchasers benefit from lower prices and greater availability of products and services." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Evidently, the FTC's actions are being applauded (literally) by many commercial Internet companies that realize that these actions are now necessary in light of the actions of some of the so-called, Internet leaders, during the past few years. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp From karl at MCS.NET Mon Jun 9 17:46:35 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 16:46:35 -0500 Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues In-Reply-To: <01BC74F3.E9049D80@webster.unety.net>; from Jim Fleming on Mon, Jun 09, 1997 at 04:40:58PM -0500 References: <01BC74F3.E9049D80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <19970609164635.03322@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Mon, Jun 09, 1997 at 04:40:58PM -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: > The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just announced > that it will be starting a process to resolve the domain > name issues. Evidently, they plan to start with a clean > slate and of course their charters will guide their actions. > > Here are some excerpts... > > @@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/history1.htm > > "The Federal Trade Commission enforces a variety of > federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. The > Commission seeks to ensure that the nation's markets > function competitively, and are vigorous, efficient, and > free of undue restrictions." > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > @@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/bc/mission.htm > > "The FTC's antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition, seeks > to prevent business practices that restrain competition. > As a result, purchasers benefit from lower prices and > greater availability of products and services." > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > Evidently, the FTC's actions are being applauded (literally) > by many commercial Internet companies that realize that > these actions are now necessary in light of the actions of > some of the so-called, Internet leaders, during the past few > years. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > http://www.Unir.Corp Well I'll be damned. Its about time. -- -- 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, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Jun 9 22:49:13 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:49:13 -0400 Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Jun 1997 16:40:58 CDT." <01BC74F3.E9049D80@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC74F3.E9049D80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199706100249.WAA16834@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 09 Jun 1997 16:40:58 CDT, Jim Fleming said: > > The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just announced > that it will be starting a process to resolve the domain > name issues. Evidently, they plan to start with a clean > slate and of course their charters will guide their actions. 1) Government agencies start processes all the time. Sometimes they even get someplace. However, the quotes you make have nothing specific to say regarding the FTC and domain names (to begin with, the question of whether the FTC even has the right or authority to meddle in an international issue). 2) What the does this have to do with the NAIPR list? Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Jun 9 23:33:31 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:33:31 -0500 Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues Message-ID: <01BC7525.29A8CF60@webster.unety.net> On Monday, June 09, 1997 9:49 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Mon, 09 Jun 1997 16:40:58 CDT, Jim Fleming said: @ > @ > The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just announced @ > that it will be starting a process to resolve the domain @ > name issues. Evidently, they plan to start with a clean @ > slate and of course their charters will guide their actions. @ @ 1) Government agencies start processes all the time. Sometimes @ they even get someplace. However, the quotes you make have @ nothing specific to say regarding the FTC and domain names @ (to begin with, the question of whether the FTC even has the @ right or authority to meddle in an international issue). @ @ 2) What the does this have to do with the NAIPR list? @ @ Valdis Kletnieks @ Computer Systems Senior Engineer @ Virginia Tech @ @ Actually, from what I have now been told, many government agencies will be involved and the White House is helping to support the activities, because the buck stops there. The FTC will be one of many agencies helping to get to the bottom of these issues. The allocation of "Internet Resources" is the real issue that has to be fully investigated. Solutions which are fair and impartial need to be worked out by people that have been elected to handle such tasks. Internet resources include Top Level Domain names and IP allocations. ARIN (and NAIPR) are covered under IP allocations. One solution might be to turn IP allocations over to the FCC. Another possibility might be the Office of Spectrum Management. Others think the DOD is the organization that should step forward. At the moment, the FNC has the most to say about all of these issues and the FNCAC. References: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/osmhome.html http://www.fnc.gov @@@@ http://aska.glocom.ac.jp/resa/APPLe/DC_APNIC.html David Conrad, Asian-Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC), APPLe Workshop, Montreal, 28 June 1996 "Traditionally the U.S. Department of Defense is seen as owning everything. They delegate it to the organization called the Federal Networking Counsel, which delegated it to the IANA (Internet Assigned Number Authority), the assigned numbers authority, who also delegated -- no one wants to handle this stuff, so they keep delegating it downward. (laughter) They delegate it to the InterNIC, and then, I guess, in '90 there was a RFC issued that actually created a concept of regional NICs. In that RFC, it defined RIPE NCC, and APNIC. And InterNIC also would handle local Internet registries, like ISPs and also end users directly." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp From cook at NETAXS.COM Tue Jun 10 07:13:39 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues In-Reply-To: <01BC7525.29A8CF60@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: oh horseshit fleming!!!!! yes FTC has a seat on brian kahin's idiotic DNS interagency working group, but show me something specific from the FTC that says they are doing something on their own. you have not done this so far. you are a raving lunatic who understand little about the problems of thge net and the unfortunate problem seems to be that you rave so incesantly that some bureaucrats of marginal intelligence appear to be on the verge of believing the poisonous vaqpor that you spew forth..... yes the feds are involved and their involvement may well screw up the net for everyone...their ignorance and your is appaling. return flames will not be answered ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jun 10 11:22:20 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:22:20 -0500 Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues Message-ID: <01BC7588.2ECE3800@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, June 10, 1997 2:13 AM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ oh horseshit fleming!!!!! @ @ @ @ yes FTC has a seat on brian kahin's idiotic DNS interagency working group, @ but show me something specific from the FTC that says they are doing @ something on their own. you have not done this so far. @ @ you are a raving lunatic who understand little about the problems of thge @ net and the unfortunate problem seems to be that you rave so incesantly @ that some bureaucrats of marginal intelligence appear to be on the verge @ of believing the poisonous vaqpor that you spew forth..... @ @ yes the feds are involved and their involvement may well screw up the net @ for everyone...their ignorance and your is appaling. @ @ @ @ return flames will not be answered @ @ ************************************************************************ @ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than @ 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material @ (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ @ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under @ attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml @ ************************************************************************ @ @ @ @ Gordon, I am not familiar with any Registries that you have built. Can you point to any ? Also, have you built any Root Name Server Confederations ? Will you be participating in the open process that other companies investing the the Registry Industry are supporting ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Tue Jun 10 13:41:49 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:41:49 -0600 Subject: FTC to Resolve Domain Issues In-Reply-To: <01BC74F3.E9049D80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970610114149.00b61380@hypermall.com> At 04:40 PM 6/9/97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: > >The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just announced >that it will be starting a process to resolve the domain >name issues. Evidently, they plan to start with a clean >slate and of course their charters will guide their actions. Oh, great! Now you and Karl Denninger should be happy. Federal Bureaucrats who don't know bind from their asses and whose sole concern is keeping their funding, are going to run the Internet for us! Oh happy happy joy joy. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business 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 Wed Jun 11 22:23:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:23:17 -0500 Subject: What is the status of ARIN? Message-ID: <01BC76AD.AE3A3000@webster.unety.net> @@@@ http://www.academ.com/nanog/june1997/arin.html "What is the status of ARIN? ARIN is on hold. The US Government has decided to look into the issue of how to issue IP address. The FNC and the Interim Inter-Agency Task Force has meeting with the ARIN board. They want ARIN to solve the portability issue. ARIN said that it can't solve that. There will be a Federal Register of Notice so anyone can comment. This will delay the start of ARIN until September (assuming there is no issues from the Notice responses that can't be addressed effectively)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu Jun 12 08:30:21 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R Conrad) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:30:21 +0900 Subject: What is the status of ARIN? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:23:17 EST." <01BC76AD.AE3A3000@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199706121230.VAA03088@nostromo.apnic.net> >"What is the status of ARIN? > >ARIN is on hold. The US Government has decided to look >into the issue of how to issue IP address. The FNC and the >Interim Inter-Agency Task Force has meeting with the ARIN >board. They want ARIN to solve the portability issue. And while they're add it, can they speed up light a bit -- this C value is really annoying. >ARIN said that it can't solve that. Anybody got email addresses for the FNC, Kahin, and the Inter-Agency Task Force? I'd like to have a few "words" with them. Thanks, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 12 10:07:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:07:30 -0500 Subject: RFC 2050 Message-ID: <01BC7710.0F8CD080@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 12, 1997 12:29 PM, David R Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ @ >This will especially be true once ARIN gets going and is able to take @ >direction from its membership. @ @ You make the assumption ARIN will exist. Will it? @ I can not imagine that ARIN will make it with Network Solutions, Inc. and USC/ISI personnel driving the process. Surely the U.S. Government investigations will uncover the problems in that solution. The NSF may not be capable of managing the situation but other government agencies have more experience in these areas. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jun 12 11:50:57 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:50:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What is the status of ARIN? In-Reply-To: <199706121230.VAA03088@nostromo.apnic.net> Message-ID: yeah i have such addresses and have been using them to no avail. kahin and his ilk are doing "private sector" bidding because the internet old boy community doesn't have the innate "business" intelligence to run the Internet as a profit making BUSINESS and tried to deliver inyternet governace to the ITU. They have been blocked and are now irrelevant. This is the point I have been hearing multiple times at a meeting in london that I am attending. only to these people kahin is not ilk but hero...... the whole thing has a logic about it that leaves me dreadfully depressed. that crap about wanting the ip numbers portable came from the white house to me in private mail on may 12. key peole weighed into educate within 24 hours, the next roadblock was federal register. the dispute is as much about personalities and turf as it is about anything approaching the public interest. anyd you guessed it....NO ONE is in charge. very depressing more in my july issue in about 15 days.... I fly to back US tomorrow. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, David R Conrad wrote: > >"What is the status of ARIN? > > > >ARIN is on hold. The US Government has decided to look > >into the issue of how to issue IP address. The FNC and the > >Interim Inter-Agency Task Force has meeting with the ARIN > >board. They want ARIN to solve the portability issue. > > And while they're add it, can they speed up light a bit -- this > C value is really annoying. > > >ARIN said that it can't solve that. > > Anybody got email addresses for the FNC, Kahin, and the Inter-Agency Task > Force? > > I'd like to have a few "words" with them. > > Thanks, > -drc > From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Thu Jun 12 13:45:35 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:45:35 -0600 Subject: What is the status of ARIN? In-Reply-To: <199706121230.VAA03088@nostromo.apnic.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970612114535.00cc0da0@hypermall.com> At 09:30 PM 6/12/97 +0900, David R Conrad wrote: >>"What is the status of ARIN? >> >>ARIN is on hold. The US Government has decided to look >>into the issue of how to issue IP address. The FNC and the >>Interim Inter-Agency Task Force has meeting with the ARIN >>board. They want ARIN to solve the portability issue. > >And while they're add it, can they speed up light a bit -- this >C value is really annoying. > >>ARIN said that it can't solve that. > >Anybody got email addresses for the FNC, Kahin, and the Inter-Agency Task >Force? > >I'd like to have a few "words" with them. Words have no effect on bureaucrats. Bureaucrats deal with favors, behind-closed-door deals, and political backstabbing. Congress isn't much better, but at least they're accountable at election time. Bureaucrats are accountable to no-one. The bureaucrats are showing their ignorance by demanding that ARIN "Solve the portability problem". This issue is just as important as the Communications Decency Act. In both cases, the government is attempting to wrest control of private property (the Internet) away from its owners. They're losing control over the telephone companies, and they're looking to the Internet to regain lost power. It doesn't help that there are some ISPs who likely stand to benefit with ill-gotten gains, due to "alliances" or friendships with government lackeys. These ISPs are of course lobbying the government, encouraging them to take over - in the hopes that they'll be handed some special privileges. Who do you want allocating IP addresses? Bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to maintain power over your business - or a group of engineers who live Internet issues and who are dedicated not to power, but to the continued growth of the Internet? -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From randy at PSG.COM Sun Jun 15 13:38:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 97 10:38 PDT Subject: What is the status of ARIN? References: <199706121230.VAA03088@nostromo.apnic.net> Message-ID: > kahin and his ilk are doing "private sector" bidding because the internet > old boy community doesn't have the innate "business" intelligence to run > the Internet as a profit making BUSINESS and tried to deliver inyternet > governace to the ITU. Hypothesis: There is a large body of internet old folk who know very well how to run profit making internet businesses. And they are doing so quite avidly. Who do you think is running MCI, cisco, UUNET, Ascend, ..., Mother Goose? This leaves a body of old (and new wannabe) internet folk with no business clue (they may lack some other clues as well). Thus they have a lot of time on their hands. Because they can not do anything really useful, they think that they can become experts in internet governance. If this continue to happen, and grownups are foolish enough to take them seriously, the result will be appalling. randy From cook at NETAXS.COM Tue Jun 24 11:09:39 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN LIVES!!! Message-ID: June 24: The National Science Foundation has just announced the formation of ARIN, (The American Registry for Internet Numbers). NSF has approved a Network Solutions plan to set up the independent IP registry. All necessary documents are signed and in place. Steps to establish ARIN begin immediately. The enabling breakthrough came in negotiations between the parties last week in Washington. >From the July - August COOK Report on Internet - published today. Administration Approves Formation of ARIN, pp. 1-10 In an eleventh hour decision last week, the Clinton Administration dropped its opposition to an American Registry for Internet Numbers. Ira Magaziner finally grasped what was at stake and, to his credit, acted forcefully to end foot dragging by other agencies. We applaud these events. For the approval for NSF to set up ARIN actually takes the first important and coherent step towards the Administration's announced goal of industry driven self- regulation. Nevertheless, the road to last week's decision was marked by a remarkable amount of bungling and lack of both coordination and leadership among federal agencies that, in the feelings of some, were more interested in protecting their turf and in not making "wrong" decisions than in really trying to understand the key reasons behind the crisis in Internet governance. Several issues compounded the problem. First, OMB, because of its role in coordinating implementation of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, took a major role in deciding what should be done. Unfortunately the players at OMB had no understanding of the complicated historical, political and legal linkages that they were dealing with when, having been called on to fix Domain Name Service, they decided also to meddle in IP numbers. Second, while the policy makers felt there were issues of control over business critical elements of DNS as well as uncertainties about the role of the ITU and viability of the IAHC process, the Inter Agency Task Force set up to deal with the issue had no leadership worthy of the name. Many of the stake holders had no grasp of the technical complexity and legal linkages between what undoubtedly first appeared to them as nothing more complicated than intellectual property aspects of obtaining business addresses in Cyberspace. One person directly involved expressed dismay to us at the enormous gulf he saw between the concerns of the network engineers and the non technical policy wonks - something that he simply did not understand but intuited to be serious. Finally, in such a context, the only way to avoid disaster, was for those interested to lobby the top policy makers such as Magaziner and do whatever it took to educate them. We report with considerable relief that this seems to be what was finally accomplished last week. What we have seen however is only Act One. There is still much that remains to be decided about DNS policy. Some court cases are underway that will likely force rapid decisions. Some are also asserting that the "old boys network" of Internet governance is dead and that the commercial Internet industry must now throw out the consensual processes that have been the foundation of the Internet's growth and prosperity. These people we have little respect for. Therefore, in order to spread awareness of what has happened, we present a detailed summary of the behind the scenes maneuvering of the past two months. In April ARIN was back on track and headed for a September 1 opening, when, suddenly at the beginning of May, we received word that ARIN was once again on hold. Why? Because OMB had decided to fix the problems of IP. The only problem was that the underlying problems, which are technical, are not administratively "fixable?, and the people sitting around the Inter Agency DNS Task Force table either didn't know it or would not admit it. After sending scathing private mail to an administration official, we received a reply on May 11 that told us worlds about the problem. "As far as I know -- the only outstanding objection to ARIN is whether they are dealing with number portability.? Certainly -- number portability is critical in the telephony context to promoting competition - so people are asking -- why not portability for Internet? If you have any recommendations for people on the technical side - I'd appreciate it." We passed this data along to the appropriate technical leadership of the net, went to Russia and waited for more news. When it came it was that a succession of technical folk had done the educating called for but that amazingly ARIN had been thrown a new curve. The feds were now insisting it be announced in the Federal Registry before it was formed. We were told that this new delay would kill ARIN, and that worse, it was doing nothing to solve the authority problems of the IANA. On June 2 Ken Cukier published an extremely important article in Communications Week International. It detailed the Dublin meeting of RIPE the European Registry that had occurred a few days earlier. There it was announced that both RIPE and APNIC had made monetary contributions to take up the slack in IANA funding in view of ARPA's non renewal of the contract with ISI that had paid for many of Jon Postel's functions. For the more knowledgeable here was a clear implication that, if the US government didn't do something to stabilize IANA's problems, Postel could simply move this critical piece of Internet governance outside of the US. We sent the article to our electronic subscribers as an "extra" and later heard that the contents had found their way to the June 3rd meeting of the Interagency DNS Task Force where they had had a significant impact in raising the level of consciousness of what was at stake. In the meantime, on the way home, a visit to London (June 9 -13) enabled us to discuss matters with Tony Rutkowski, some key US regulators, and the CIX President and Executive Director. These meetings gave us a more balanced view of the position of the "other side". The CIX in particular indicated a feeling that ARIN was not urgent and that it was time for commercial providers working through a US Government "process" to reshape the way the net was run. Discussion with others after our return from Russia and London has left us viewing the CIX position with considerable dismay. With ARIN on hold, needed fundamental changes in IP policy could not be made. But with dues of $1000 a year, we'd estimate that 4 out of every 5 ISPs in the ARIN service area could afford to join. Since the member ISPs will elect the ARIN Policy Council, it seems to us that on sheer numbers alone, ARIN can be an effective mechanism against unwarranted industry consolidation. We have had serious doubts about the Clinton Administration's Internet policy. In this instance the Administration did the "right thing." We hope that it will continue to do so on heels of challenges that will follow. USISPA Lawyer Fails to Understand Needs of ISPs, pp. 11 - 13 On April 28, in some critical discussions on the NAIPR mail list, USISPA lawyer Rudolph Geist painted ARIN as device hatched by a monopoly in order to become another monopoly and perpetuate the interests of Network Solutions and the big service providers. To the response of Philip Nesser "I don't believe that the process should be completely open to the public (the finances yes, but not technical applications) because the information requested may be considered proprietary by many organizations;" Geist replied: "It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of another monopoly (Internic)." It developed that at least in one instance his way of trying to get an address block for his clients was by threatening to sue InterNic or force it to break the procedures set forth in RFC 2050. We believe that neither Mr. Geist nor his organization deserves respect. Seven New gTLDs Make No Business Sense, p. 14 A short cogent critique by Vanderbilt Professor Donna Hoffman UUNET and Sprint Charging for Peering, pp. 15 - 23 At the very end of April, in an explosion that rocked the Well and its ISP Whole Earth Networks (WeNet), David Holub, WeNet's founder refused an order from Well owner Bruce Katz to capitulate to UUNET's demand for paid peering. Holub was fired for taking what we view as a courageous stand against UUNET's insidious policy (since modified) of insisting that anyone who wished to even talk about remaining a UUNET peer would have to sign a non disclosure agreement that would presumably keep the fact that paid peering was under discussion and the price paid for peering a secret. UUNET actually had bought about three months of silence with this policy before Holub's courageous action blew the whistle. In the meantime Sprint began a policy by which its peers would have to pay in declining amounts, according to the number of exchange points where they conducted peering. Sprint's prices represent an average cost increase of $200,000 a year for each peer. If we look at the big five privately peered providers, we can see that, should all of them start doing what Sprint and UUNET have done, the average increase in operating expenses for the peers would be a million dollars a year per backbone. While Sprint and UUNET offered technical justifications for their charges, the cost benefit assessment of who should settle with whom in a connectionless network is still no more clear than it has been in the many many discussions of these kinds of issues that have cropped up on NANOG and elsewhere over the last couple of years. What does seem obvious is that there may be strong anti-competitive elements lurking in these new policies. Roughly two years ago the big five established criteria for free peering. Since then between 15 and 20 national high speed backbones have appeared that meet the criteria - far more than many ever imagined possible. Now that this has happened, at least some of the big five are changing the rules in such a way as to put a financial squeeze on their own would be competitors. We present our own analysis of these events and a summary of mail list discussion from early May through mid June. Holub's Model of Open Peering Open Interconnect Internet, pp. 24 - 26 David Holub went to the California PUC and managed to have WeNet declared a common carrier. In a NANOG discussion with Kent England, he presents his strategy for open peering. Choosing an Upstream Provider and the Cost Equation for Dial Up Service, pp. 27-29, 48 On inet-access Sean Donelan provides valuable advice on the variable to consider when shopping for backbone service. Also welcome news is ANS's recent serious entry into providing backbone service for ISPs. In a second discussion, several ISPs respond to Avi Freedman's query on the costs of providing their dial up service. NSF Inspector General's Defunct Plan to Tax Domain Names, pp. 30 -35 This absurd plan was officially rejected on April 17. We publish our analysis of it and the plan itself in full as a monument to the kind of thinking that real policy makers should in future avoid. State of Russian Internet, p. 36 Brief reflections on internet developments in Russia. Book Reviews, pp. 37 - 40 Reviews of recent O'Reilly books on Java and the Web by Russian programmers in St Petersburg. K - 12 Technology Debate, pp. 41 - 46 Part 2 of a debate between Ferdi Serim and Jeff Michka. Part 1 appeared in the Feb 97 COOK Report. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Jun 24 12:40:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:40:35 -0500 Subject: ARIN LIVES!!! Message-ID: <01BC8093.6F1C3A40@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, June 24, 1997 6:09 AM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ June 24: The National Science Foundation has just announced the formation @ of ARIN, (The American Registry for Internet Numbers). NSF has approved a @ Network Solutions plan to set up the independent IP registry. All @ necessary documents are signed and in place. Steps to establish ARIN begin @ immediately. The enabling breakthrough came in negotiations between the @ parties last week in Washington. @ It appears that you agree that the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation are trying to manage the Internet after all. Will the NSF be managing ARIN ? Is the 30% fund being used to finance ARIN ? It has over $20,000,000 now.... http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From tme at CASA.USNO.NAVY.MIL Tue Jun 24 21:59:41 1997 From: tme at CASA.USNO.NAVY.MIL (marshall eubanks) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:59:41 -0400 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <199706250202.WAA26128@info.netsol.com> This just came in from the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry Plan By Elizabeth Weise AP Cyberspace Writer Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 4:22 p.m. EDT Moving to privatize the Internet, the National Science Foundation says the assigning of numbers for Internet addresses will be turned over to a non-profit organization. The NSF on Tuesday approved a plan that will establish the American Registry for Internet Numbers. It will keep track of which numbers are assigned to what computers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Responsibility for registering and tracking numbers and names is currently handled by the private firm Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., under contract with the NSF. Every computer on the Internet has a numerical address, an Internet Protocol address. To make it easier to remember, it's also assigned a "domain name." Thus, 192.220.250.1 becomes nike.com. The NSF plan will separate the assignment of names and numbers, as is already done in Asia and Europe. One reason to separate names and numbers is the legal controversy over who has the right to assign and create Internet domain names. Regards Marshall Eubanks tme at casa.usno.navy.mil From internet at idt.net Tue Jun 24 23:27:38 1997 From: internet at idt.net (Rey Blanco) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:27:38 -0500 Subject: The latest References: <199706250202.WAA26128@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: <33B0902A.3977@village.ios.com> marshall eubanks wrote: > > This just came in from the Washington Post > > ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) > > NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry > Plan > > By Elizabeth Weise > AP Cyberspace Writer > Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 4:22 p.m. EDT > > Moving to privatize the Internet, the National Science Foundation says the > assigning of numbers for Internet addresses will be turned over to a non-profit > organization. > > The NSF on Tuesday approved a plan that will establish the American Registry > for Internet Numbers. It will keep track of which numbers are assigned to what > computers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. > > Responsibility for registering and tracking numbers and names is currently > handled by the private firm Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., under > contract with the NSF. > > Every computer on the Internet has a numerical address, an Internet Protocol > address. To make it easier to remember, it's also assigned a "domain name." > Thus, 192.220.250.1 becomes nike.com. > > The NSF plan will separate the assignment of names and numbers, as is already > done in Asia and Europe. > > One reason to separate names and numbers is the legal controversy over who > has the right to assign and create Internet domain names. > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > tme at casa.usno.navy.mil Marshall: Does this mean that all the people who have been praying that internet works will lose the domain names they have? Right now if one taps into the computer a "dot com" address the "internet" is programmed to go out and search for the long goobledygook address: http://www.somedomain.com if one simply types somedomain into the "go to" box. Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? Sincerely, Rey Blanco From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 04:07:38 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:07:38 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706250202.WAA26128@info.netsol.com> <33B0902A.3977@village.ios.com> Message-ID: <33B0D1CA.4CFC@ix.netcom.com> Rey, Rey Blanco wrote: > > marshall eubanks wrote: > > > > This just came in from the Washington Post > > > > ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) > > > > NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry > > Plan > > > > By Elizabeth Weise > > AP Cyberspace Writer > > Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 4:22 p.m. EDT > > > > Moving to privatize the Internet, the National Science Foundation says the > > assigning of numbers for Internet addresses will be turned over to a non-profit > > organization. > > > > The NSF on Tuesday approved a plan that will establish the American Registry > > for Internet Numbers. It will keep track of which numbers are assigned to what > > computers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. > > > > Responsibility for registering and tracking numbers and names is currently > > handled by the private firm Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., under > > contract with the NSF. > > > > Every computer on the Internet has a numerical address, an Internet Protocol > > address. To make it easier to remember, it's also assigned a "domain name." > > Thus, 192.220.250.1 becomes nike.com. > > > > The NSF plan will separate the assignment of names and numbers, as is already > > done in Asia and Europe. > > > > One reason to separate names and numbers is the legal controversy over who > > has the right to assign and create Internet domain names. > > > > Regards > > Marshall Eubanks > > tme at casa.usno.navy.mil > Marshall: > > Does this mean that all the people who have been praying that > internet works will lose the domain names they have? No it doesn't at all. But the managment of who controls those domains will be substancialy diffrent. In addition there will be 7 new TLD's. (See www.iahc.org for further details. > > Right now if one taps into the computer a "dot com" address > the "internet" is programmed to go out and search for the long > goobledygook address: http://www.somedomain.com > if one simply types somedomain into the "go to" box. > > Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? No the programing does not dissappear. But a new SHARED registry Domain Network system will be implimented. The operating systems have little or no effect. > > Sincerely, > > Rey Blanco Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 04:03:36 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:03:36 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706250202.WAA26128@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: <33B0D0D8.254C@ix.netcom.com> Marshall, Yes, I have seen this artical. There is a ongoing debate reguarding weather the US Gov should still play an active role in managing the Name Space (DNS) through NSF and the InterNic or a new group headed or commisioned by the IANA called IAHC (www.iahc.org) with a new perposal for 7 new gTLD's and a quasi-managment scheam under consideration. If you would like more details, let me know, I will try to provide. marshall eubanks wrote: > > This just came in from the Washington Post > > ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) > > NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry > Plan > > By Elizabeth Weise > AP Cyberspace Writer > Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 4:22 p.m. EDT > > Moving to privatize the Internet, the National Science Foundation says the > assigning of numbers for Internet addresses will be turned over to a non-profit > organization. > > The NSF on Tuesday approved a plan that will establish the American Registry > for Internet Numbers. It will keep track of which numbers are assigned to what > computers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. > > Responsibility for registering and tracking numbers and names is currently > handled by the private firm Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., under > contract with the NSF. > > Every computer on the Internet has a numerical address, an Internet Protocol > address. To make it easier to remember, it's also assigned a "domain name." > Thus, 192.220.250.1 becomes nike.com. > > The NSF plan will separate the assignment of names and numbers, as is already > done in Asia and Europe. > > One reason to separate names and numbers is the legal controversy over who > has the right to assign and create Internet domain names. > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > tme at casa.usno.navy.mil Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jerry at fc.net Wed Jun 25 11:32:45 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:32:45 -0500 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:27:38 CDT." <33B0902A.3977@village.ios.com> Message-ID: <199706251532.KAA15548@freeside.fc.net> In message <33B0902A.3977 at village.ios.com>, Rey Blanco writes: >marshall eubanks wrote: >> >> This just came in from the Washington Post >> >> ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) >> >> NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry >> Plan ... >> Regards >> Marshall Eubanks >> tme at casa.usno.navy.mil >Marshall: > >Does this mean that all the people who have been praying that >internet works will lose the domain names they have? > >Right now if one taps into the computer a "dot com" address >the "internet" is programmed to go out and search for the long >goobledygook address: http://www.somedomain.com >if one simply types somedomain into the "go to" box. > >Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? It has nothing to do with domain names, it has to do with IP addresses. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jun 25 11:30:19 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:30:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B0D1CA.4CFC@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Jeff, I find your reply confusing. The announcement yesterday had very little to do with DNS. The announcement is for an independent IP registry operated as a 501(c)6 by the ISP members who own and control it. ARIN has nothing DIRECTLY to do with DNS which your replies seem to be focused on. I was part of the same telephone press conference with elizabeth weiss yesterday where about 8 of us were briefed by george Strawn of NSF. i also have published my own lengthy analysis of why ARIN is important...... I believe that I sent a copy to this list. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > Rey, > > Rey Blanco wrote: > > > > marshall eubanks wrote: > > > > > > This just came in from the Washington Post > > > > > > ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) > > > > > > NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry > > > Plan > > > > > > By Elizabeth Weise > > > AP Cyberspace Writer > > > Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 4:22 p.m. EDT > > > > > > Moving to privatize the Internet, the National Science Foundation says the > > > assigning of numbers for Internet addresses will be turned over to a non-profit > > > organization. > > > > > > The NSF on Tuesday approved a plan that will establish the American Registry > > > for Internet Numbers. It will keep track of which numbers are assigned to what > > > computers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. > > > > > > Responsibility for registering and tracking numbers and names is currently > > > handled by the private firm Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., under > > > contract with the NSF. > > > > > > Every computer on the Internet has a numerical address, an Internet Protocol > > > address. To make it easier to remember, it's also assigned a "domain name." > > > Thus, 192.220.250.1 becomes nike.com. > > > > > > The NSF plan will separate the assignment of names and numbers, as is already > > > done in Asia and Europe. > > > > > > One reason to separate names and numbers is the legal controversy over who > > > has the right to assign and create Internet domain names. > > > > > > Regards > > > Marshall Eubanks > > > tme at casa.usno.navy.mil > > Marshall: > > > > Does this mean that all the people who have been praying that > > internet works will lose the domain names they have? > > No it doesn't at all. But the managment of who controls those > domains will be substancialy diffrent. In addition there will be > 7 new TLD's. (See www.iahc.org for further details. > > > > Right now if one taps into the computer a "dot com" address > > the "internet" is programmed to go out and search for the long > > goobledygook address: http://www.somedomain.com > > if one simply types somedomain into the "go to" box. > > > > Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? > > No the programing does not dissappear. But a new SHARED registry > Domain Network system will be implimented. The operating systems > have little or no effect. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Rey Blanco > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. > Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. > Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > From nlj at BELLCORE.COM Wed Jun 25 12:08:50 1997 From: nlj at BELLCORE.COM (Nicholas Lordi Jr) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:08:50 -0400 Subject: NSF press release regarding ARIN is at www.nsf.gov Message-ID: <199706251608.MAA05574@cutlass17.bellcore.com> Text follows, the original source is at: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/pr9746.htm ============================================================= June 24, 1997 NSF PR 97-46 Media contact: Beth Gaston (703) 306-1070/egaston at nsf.gov ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNET MOVES TOWARD PRIVATIZATION IP NUMBERS HANDLED BY NON-PROFIT The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced today an action that moves the Internet toward privatization. Internet Protocol number assignments will soon be handled by a non-profit organization. The NSF has approved a plan from Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) which establishes the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). Under the plan, ARIN would assume full responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) number assignments and related administrative tasks previously handled by NSI. The shift, expected to be fully implemented before March 1998, separates the assignment of Internet numbers (addresses) used for Internet routing from domain name registration activities (which will continue to be handled by Network Solutions). The move will affect only a relatively small number of Internet service providers and very large institutional users -- around 300 last year -- who obtain their IP assignments directly from NSI. Most Internet users will be unaffected by the change and most Internet service providers will continue to obtain their IP assignments from their providers. The creation of ARIN is consistent with the recommendations received from the Internet community at workshops over the past eighteen months, and with concurrence from a federal interagency working group. "This move is another step by the federal government in the continuing privatization and commercialization of the Internet," said George Strawn, director of the Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure division at NSF. "The Internet is no longer in its infancy. It is growing up into a commercially based, self-regulating entity. NSI should be lauded for aiding this transition." The establishment of ARIN is important for the continued growth and the global stability of the Internet, Strawn said. ARIN is patterned after the successful RIPENIC and APNIC registration activities in Europe and Asia. Regional registries are also being created by providers in Latin America and Africa to assume responsibility for IP number assignment in those areas. It is anticipated that before long, a global council of the regional registries may work together to determine consistent and equitable global policies for IP allocation and management. The creation of ARIN will not change any current policies or procedures for obtaining Internet numbers. Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region. ARIN is intended to provide Internet service providers in North America an opportunity to help develop Internet management policies within the region and, through ARIN's collaboration with other regional registries, globally. -NSF- Editors: More information about ARIN, see: http://www.arin.net NSF is making a transition to new forms of electronic distribution of news materials. We will eventually replace the current "listserve" with a new Custom News Service. From the NSF home page, (URL: http://www.nsf.gov), you will be able to automatically sign up for and receive electronic transmissions of all materials (or those of your own choosing). NSF is an independent federal agency responsible for fundamental research in all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of about $3.3 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states, through grants to more than 2,000 universities and institutions nationwide. NSF receives more than 50,000 requests for funding annually, including at least 30,000 new proposals. Also see NSF news products at: http://www.nsf.gov:80/od/lpa/start.htm, http://www.eurekalert.org, and http://www.ari.net/newswise. From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 06:48:01 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:48:01 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706251532.KAA15548@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <33B0F761.5B55@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy //Jeremy Porter wrote: > > In message <33B0902A.3977 at village.ios.com>, Rey Blanco writes: > >marshall eubanks wrote: > >> > >> This just came in from the Washington Post > >> > >> ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) > >> > >> NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry > >> Plan > ... > >> Regards > >> Marshall Eubanks > >> tme at casa.usno.navy.mil > >Marshall: > > > >Does this mean that all the people who have been praying that > >internet works will lose the domain names they have? > > > >Right now if one taps into the computer a "dot com" address > >the "internet" is programmed to go out and search for the long > >goobledygook address: http://www.somedomain.com > >if one simply types somedomain into the "go to" box. > > > >Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? > > It has nothing to do with domain names, it has to do with IP addresses. This not wholey a accurate statment. > > --- > Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net > PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 > http://www.fc.net Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 06:43:56 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:43:56 +0100 Subject: The latest References: Message-ID: <33B0F66C.4B73@ix.netcom.com> Gordon, Gordon Cook wrote: > > Jeff, I find your reply confusing. The announcement yesterday had very > little to do with DNS. The announcement is for an independent IP registry > operated as a 501(c)6 by the ISP members who own and control it. ARIN has > nothing DIRECTLY to do with DNS which your replies seem to be focused on. Respectively, I disagree with you statment that ARIN has nothing DIRECTLY to do with DNS. This is a common misunderstanding I believe that needs correcting terribly. They are irrevacably related. > > I was part of the same telephone press conference with elizabeth weiss > yesterday where about 8 of us were briefed by george Strawn of NSF. i > also have published my own lengthy analysis of why ARIN is important...... > I believe that I sent a copy to this list. No comment here. I leave that statment to your own evalustion. > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml > ************************************************************************ > > On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Rey, > > > > Rey Blanco wrote: > > > > > > marshall eubanks wrote: > > > > > > > > This just came in from the Washington Post > > > > > > > > ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/tech1.htm ) > > > > > > > > NSF Approves Non-Profit Internet Registry > > > > Plan > > > > > > > > By Elizabeth Weise > > > > AP Cyberspace Writer > > > > Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 4:22 p.m. EDT > > > > > > > > Moving to privatize the Internet, the National Science Foundation says the > > > > assigning of numbers for Internet addresses will be turned over to a non-profit > > > > organization. > > > > > > > > The NSF on Tuesday approved a plan that will establish the American Registry > > > > for Internet Numbers. It will keep track of which numbers are assigned to what > > > > computers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. > > > > > > > > Responsibility for registering and tracking numbers and names is currently > > > > handled by the private firm Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., under > > > > contract with the NSF. > > > > > > > > Every computer on the Internet has a numerical address, an Internet Protocol > > > > address. To make it easier to remember, it's also assigned a "domain name." > > > > Thus, 192.220.250.1 becomes nike.com. > > > > > > > > The NSF plan will separate the assignment of names and numbers, as is already > > > > done in Asia and Europe. > > > > > > > > One reason to separate names and numbers is the legal controversy over who > > > > has the right to assign and create Internet domain names. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Marshall Eubanks > > > > tme at casa.usno.navy.mil > > > Marshall: > > > > > > Does this mean that all the people who have been praying that > > > internet works will lose the domain names they have? > > > > No it doesn't at all. But the managment of who controls those > > domains will be substancialy diffrent. In addition there will be > > 7 new TLD's. (See www.iahc.org for further details. > > > > > > Right now if one taps into the computer a "dot com" address > > > the "internet" is programmed to go out and search for the long > > > goobledygook address: http://www.somedomain.com > > > if one simply types somedomain into the "go to" box. > > > > > > Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? > > > > No the programing does not dissappear. But a new SHARED registry > > Domain Network system will be implimented. The operating systems > > have little or no effect. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Rey Blanco > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. > > Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. > > Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) > > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jun 25 13:04:45 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B0F66C.4B73@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Jeff Williams takes issue as to whether DNS and IP are related. Yes of course they are related..... Note that I used the word DIRECTLY to qualify my statement that ARIN did not have a helluva a lot to do with DNS...... BUT WHAT IS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT ANYWAY THEN??? WHATS THE POINT???? WILL THE DNS issues change one iota because of ARIN's formation? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! The major linkage between the two sets of issues is that if we screw up IP numbers and IANA, you can forget DNS because in such a case the internet will no longer function. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Wed Jun 25 14:02:09 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B0F66C.4B73@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > Respectively, I disagree with you statment that ARIN has nothing > DIRECTLY to do with DNS. This is a common misunderstanding I believe > that needs correcting terribly. They are irrevacably related. How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? > > also have published my own lengthy analysis of why ARIN is important...... > > I believe that I sent a copy to this list. > > No comment here. I leave that statment to your own evalustion. Excessive quoting, and mangled grammar and spelling just make you look like a fool...or have you recently started learning this language? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From michael at priori.net Wed Jun 25 14:05:24 1997 From: michael at priori.net (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Where do we send our membership check? (was: ARIN LIVES!!!) Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > June 24: The National Science Foundation has just announced the formation > of ARIN, (The American Registry for Internet Numbers). NSF has approved a > Network Solutions plan to set up the independent IP registry. All > necessary documents are signed and in place. Steps to establish ARIN begin > immediately. When can we join ARIN and where do we send our check for the membership fee? ********************************************************* Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 08:10:26 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:10:26 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706251532.KAA15548@freeside.fc.net> <3.0.2.32.19970625110832.00bc5b6c@kurgan.hilander.com> Message-ID: <33B10AB1.4B32@ix.netcom.com> Justin, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > Jeff, > > At 11:48 AM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Jeremy > > > >//Jeremy Porter wrote: > >> It has nothing to do with domain names, it has to do with IP addresses. > > > > This not wholey a accurate statment. > > Yes it is, please trust us, we do these things day in and day out, really. Hummmmm? Ok I have no problem with that at all. I do as well. This does not change my argument in any fassion that I can see. >;) > > ********************************************************* > Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ********************************************************* Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 08:08:31 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:08:31 +0100 Subject: The latest References: Message-ID: <33B10A3F.132@ix.netcom.com> Jon, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Respectively, I disagree with you statment that ARIN has nothing > > DIRECTLY to do with DNS. This is a common misunderstanding I believe > > that needs correcting terribly. They are irrevacably related. > > How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? The relationship is obvious. > > > > also have published my own lengthy analysis of why ARIN is important...... > > > I believe that I sent a copy to this list. > > > > No comment here. I leave that statment to your own evalustion. > > Excessive quoting, and mangled grammar and spelling just make you look > like a fool...or have you recently started learning this language? In a word, no. I also believe it would be unworthy of me to respond to you insult. :| > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 09:30:57 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:30:57 +0100 Subject: The latest References: Message-ID: <33B11D91.6220@ix.netcom.com> Jon, Ok. I posted this to Justin privatly, but for you and the rest of this list I am happy to post it to all. In addition it will save me alot of typing at any rate! >;) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = These "off the top of the head" history incantations are getting pretty wild, and it is very distressing to see so much inaccurate stuff broadcast as fact... Let me try to quickly summarize a few things from my own observations and understandings from long experience. I have been involved in the center of these developments since 1975, in one strategic role or another. ARPANET was simply built to interconnect ARPA Contractors for the purpose of sharing whatever resources could be shared by being Network Connected. Though I do realize this is not DIRECTLY related to this thread or the ARIN. Let me be very clear on this point... Originally, the entire ARPANET was owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by ARPA, and anyone connecting to it or using a computer account on an ARPANET connected host, was required to have ARPA Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) approval, either direct or indirect. In the berginning, there was a central authority. Thus, all names and numbers were assigned by ARPA Contracted Administrators. Up to and for a while after the time that the Internet began to arise after ARPANET converted to TCP/IP in 1983, this admin function was provided by the SRI NIC, until IANA established at ISI. Then ISI and SRI shared responsibility for assignment of various names and numbers. I am cloudy on the dates and facts of this NIC/IANA transition and relationship, but the basic point is that all of it was done under the understanding that ARPA owned control the entire ARPANET. Thus, the ARPANET inhabitants tended to be genuine academics, though I would hesitate to call BBN "academic", considering how they took serious proprietary entrepreneurial interests in all the technology that they developed. So did some others in the community. My point here is to debunk this notion that academics had some kind of stranglehold on the ARPNET to assure that it would not work for business purposes. What a quaint idea;-)... Actaully, a lot of people made very good livings out of working on the Internet, and many of them were not academics. Over that early time period, lots of business was transacted among the ARPA Contractors, and among various other US Government agencies and contractors. Some business was also transacted across international boundaries among ARPA approved contractors outside the US. I clearly recall sending some of my Consulting Invoices over the ARPANET to Government Contractors, and negotiating Government Contracts with Government Agencies. All of this was clearly in an experimental mode, but we were doing it. I even had clauses in my contracts that required me to use the ARPANET in performance and administration of the contracts. HERE WE GET TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. Now, after TCP/IP was deployed by ARPA on the ARPANET, it became possible to create what became the Internet because it was no longer necessary for ARPA to control everything in all IP connected networks, so autonomous systems were born and most of us knew that we were embarking on a very new kind of infrastructure development, where-in a Whole Internet would not be Wholly Owned by a Single Administration. This was a truly major paradigm shift, in that no such beast had ever existed on the earth before. But, all the existing administrative functions and responsibilities of the nascent Internet were formed around ARPA's original Singular Sole Ownership infrastructure, so nothing was ever changed until it became obvious that change was needed. Among these changes were conversion from a Government Provided Backbone, to our current multi-competitor Open Commercial Internet Backbone. As the Internet took shape, the original admin functions and operations began to change to accommodate distributed ownership and distributed responsibility. In part, DNS was created to solve the problem of naming hosts with distributed authority while maintaining network-wide integrity for name-to-address resolution. But, of course, the TLD space needed someone to administer the root, and that job automatically defaulted to IANA as the obvious administrator. Some of you might remember back to the fight over control that occurred during this paradigm shift in the Infrastructure;-)... It was a proper prelude to the current DNS War. Go read the COM-PRIV archives if you want to see a really good fight. Really big bucks were at stake there, along with the whole future of the Internet. Over time, IANA did a sufficiently good (some say excellent) job of administration to hold almost total respect from the whole Internet community, and until the mid 1990's, no one thought much about whether the root should be administered by a czar, or whether it should be more open, or totally open, or whatever... This would also include the ARIN. In my view, the authority of IANA derived simply from the fact that IANA properly provided TLD ROOT server administration, to the satisfaction of all concerned. No one questioned the apparent IANA authority as long as things went along smoothly. But, long before the community became aware of the need, Jon Postel and IANA were working on the idea of expanding the TLD namespace, just because the long term future need was obvious. This thinking naturally lead to other people becoming interested, in terms of both the community benefits of enlargement and the potential for earning revenue. This brings us up to the present mess where suddenly it becomes clear that there is no clear line of authority for IANA, ARIN, or anyone else to Czar the DNS TLD ROOT, and we are in a big fight about whether there must or must not be a clear line of authority for deciding what names can be used in the DNS TLD ROOT. Some of us say YES, and some of us say NO! And there is no obvious source of authority to decide the question for us. The IANA autority was derived from community acceptance of administrative actions taken, but that community consensus authority did not extend to an IANA hand over of it this same community consensus authority to someone else. To take it over from IANA, the new authority must earn the respect and the trust of the Internet community at large, just as IANA earned it by providing satisfactory administration over many years. This is because the Internet is like the Economy... No one owns the whole thing, while different parties own each separate part. We have in this century killed millions of people over the great question of who should "own" the various economies of the world, and the answer is "No One Should Own An Economy!" Furthermore, almost everyone who ever owned an economy has come to wish they didn't. I predict that in due course, we will all come to the same conclusion about the Internet and the great question of who should own the DNS TLD ROOT. At least we are not actually killing anyone in this DNS/IP address war, yet, though we are assasinating characters all over the place, and regularly pitting old friends and colleagues against each other in vicious arguments where there appear to be no holds barred. Some of my old relationships have been torn asunder. None the less, I predict that in the end we will discover that the DNS ROOT does not need a Czar to select TLD names for the DNS any more than other parts of the Internet need a Czar. It only needs to avoid naming collisions and maintain resolution coherency. Neither of these are really hard problems;-)... Just need some common sense. I note that some new TLDs have somehow been snookered into the official root servers, and I must say that I see lots of distraught complaints about the impropriety, but I see absolutely no indication that any aspect of root service was diminished in any way, so I am convinced that it is indeed harmless to add new TLDs to the root. If it can be done without permission without damage, then it should be safe to do it with permission;-)... So, all these social theories about a class war between academia, the military, and business are just so much foolishness. What is really happening is just that the DNS ROOT is the last of the original ARPANET vestigial tails to fall off the Internet skeleton. What seems to be missed by everyone so far in this DNS Control War is that the real controlling power in the system lies with the NAME Resolvers, not the Name Servers;-)... It is in the resolvers that operational software under distributed control of myriad router and host administrators decide what root servers to point to. The fact that BIND is delivered with defaults selected by Paul Vixie does not mean that Paul is the Czar, and his statements that he gets his instructions from IANA does not make IANA the Czar either. The fact that lots of administrators defaults is the critical key, and when administrators stop accepting those defaults and choosing others, we will all see that the servers do not have the ability to control anything about what TLD names are "in the ROOT" The fact is that all name resolver administrators have the power to point at whatever root servers that want to point to, no matter who says otherwise, since they are the people who know the passwords, and who know their own personal needs, and know the needs of their customers. So, their personal needs and the needs of their customers will take control in due course. Someday it will become easy to reset those defaults, and then the router administrators will take back control of the DNS ROOT, and that will be that;-)... Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Respectively, I disagree with you statment that ARIN has nothing > > DIRECTLY to do with DNS. This is a common misunderstanding I believe > > that needs correcting terribly. They are irrevacably related. > > How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? > > > > also have published my own lengthy analysis of why ARIN is important...... > > > I believe that I sent a copy to this list. > > > > No comment here. I leave that statment to your own evalustion. > > Excessive quoting, and mangled grammar and spelling just make you look > like a fool...or have you recently started learning this language? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Wed Jun 25 15:14:19 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:14:19 -0600 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B10A3F.132@ix.netcom.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> >Jon wrote: >> How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? At 01:08 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > The relationship is obvious. Other than the fact that a domain name is mapped to an IP address (but could just as easily be mapped to something else..), how are they "irrevocably related"? If this is all you're talking about, please explain how the allocation of IP addresses affects how the DNS system works. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 09:25:44 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:25:44 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> Message-ID: <33B11C58.17FD@ix.netcom.com> Jawaid, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > > >Jon wrote: > >> How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? > > At 01:08 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > The relationship is obvious. > > Other than the fact that a domain name is mapped to an IP address (but > could just as easily be mapped to something else..), how are they > "irrevocably related"? If this is all you're talking about, please explain > how the allocation of IP addresses affects how the DNS system works. First of all, let me say this is not a place for me to give a class. I am not trying to be evasive by answering your question by that comment, it is just not feasible to do so in any meaningful manner on an E-Mail forum. I think you can understand that. In addition I give classes all over the world on these matters as part of my living, so as you might immagine, I am not really highly motivated to do so here at any rate on pro bono basis. You also half answered your own question. Becouse Domains names are mapped in the current structure to IP addresses. No you also say that they could also be mapped to something else. True enough, they could. But that infrastructure is not in place and would require at least quite a bit of development and R&D to put some other structure of this diversity into place. My question to doing this would be simply, WHY? Is this really worth the effort? I think not at this time. But possibly at some future date. So, otherwise you have, as I said half answered your own question. NEXT! > > -- > Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions > Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business > bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 > --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From scharf at VIX.COM Wed Jun 25 16:05:11 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:05:11 -0700 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:25:44 BST." <33B11C58.17FD@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199706252005.NAA13167@gw.home.vix.com> Jeff, I don't think anyone doubts that you have to put IP adddresses in A records for DNS forward zones. What everyone doubts is that there is any linkage between ARIN's MANAGEMENT of ALLOCATION of IP addresses and anything related to forward zone management, IAHC or the rest. It doesn't matter to any debate on DNS names whethter you get new addresses from ARIN, RIPE, APNIC or already have them in hand. For the in-addr.arpa zone, there is the necessary installation and management of NS records for delegation. This has worked successfully for years and no one that I know sees any problem with how it works. So now that it is said, what linkage do you want to see between how ARIN does business and issues/changes to DNS. Jerry From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Wed Jun 25 16:11:47 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:11:47 -0600 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B11C58.17FD@ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970625141147.00c0be30@hypermall.com> At 02:25 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >Jawaid, > >Jawaid Bazyar wrote: >> >> >Jon wrote: >> >> How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? >> >> At 01:08 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >> > The relationship is obvious. >> >> Other than the fact that a domain name is mapped to an IP address (but >> could just as easily be mapped to something else..), how are they >> "irrevocably related"? If this is all you're talking about, please explain >> how the allocation of IP addresses affects how the DNS system works. > > First of all, let me say this is not a place for me to give a class. >I am not trying to be evasive by answering your question by that >comment, it is just not feasible to do so in any meaningful manner on an >E-Mail forum. I think you can understand that. In addition I give classes >all over the world on these matters as part of my living, so as you might >immagine, I am not really highly motivated to do so here at any rate >on pro bono basis. The point is that you're the only person I've ever heard claim that IP assignment policy has any effect whatsoever on the Domain Name System. I am by no means technically illiterate, and understand the technical underpinnings of most Internet technologies better than even most ISPs, and I still don't see the sort of relationship you're talking about. As to the feasibility of discussing such topics in an e-mail forum, I believe you are underestimating the power of such forums. DNS is a convenience, it's a naming system. It happens that DNS provides Name->IP and IP->Name mappings, but the manner in which IP addresses are assigned is irrelevant to DNS. That's why there are .COMs in Europe and .de's in the United States. IP addresses are a naming system, but they're also fundamental to routing policy and other core technical Internet systems, due to CIDR, aggregation, etc etc. IP addresses have no similar fundamental relationship to DNS. So, you'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical that you won't even say what relationship exists that neither I nor any other ISP have seen... and couch your reluctance to discuss it in a reference to the fact that you sell training and seminars. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From handler at SUB-ROSA.COM Wed Jun 25 16:35:34 1997 From: handler at SUB-ROSA.COM (Michael Handler) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:35:34 -0400 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B11D91.6220@ix.netcom.com> References: <33B11D91.6220@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <19970625163534.38226@sub-rosa.com> In <33B11D91.6220 at ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Williams wrote: > Ok. I posted this to Justin privatly, but for you and the rest of > this list I am happy to post it to all. In addition it will save me > alot of typing at any rate! >;) > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > These "off the top of the head" history incantations are getting > pretty wild, and it is very distressing to see so much inaccurate > stuff broadcast as fact... > > Let me try to quickly summarize a few things from my own observations > and understandings from long experience. I have been involved in the > center of these developments since 1975, in one strategic role or > another. What the hell do you think you're trying to do here? The text you've included here was *not* written by you; it's a moderately edited copy of something that Einar Stefferud posted to the list earlier today. If you had just forwarded it here verbatim without the headers, I could possibly chalk that up to user error in the MTA; but the obvious editing of the text without retaining the original attribution or clearly delimiting your editing leads me to believe you're attempting to pass off Einar's writing as your own. I think you have some explaining to do, Mr. Williams. -- handler at sub-rosa.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 11:17:53 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:17:53 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706252005.NAA13167@gw.home.vix.com> Message-ID: <33B136A1.5D@ix.netcom.com> Jerry, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > Jeff, > > I don't think anyone doubts that you have to put IP adddresses in A records > for DNS forward zones. What everyone doubts is that there is any linkage > between ARIN's MANAGEMENT of ALLOCATION of IP addresses and anything related > to forward zone management, IAHC or the rest. It doesn't matter to any debate > on DNS names whethter you get new addresses from ARIN, RIPE, APNIC or already > have them in hand. I do not argue the point here that you make in putting IP records in "A" records for DNS forward zones. That is of course a givin. and i have in my previous post already acknowledged that. If you read my post closely. So now I have repeated myself one more time for clarity. You are correct that itdoesn't matter where get new addresses. Afain No argument > > For the in-addr.arpa zone, there is the necessary installation and management > of NS records for delegation. This has worked successfully for years and no > one that I know sees any problem with how it works. How this works currently is correct. How it will work in the near future is a hourse of a diffrent breed. One of the points I made previously in my post. And this is one of the points that I think is critical. > > So now that it is said, what linkage do you want to see between how ARIN does > business and issues/changes to DNS. Now your floor. >;) > > Jerry Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 11:31:31 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:31:31 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> <3.0.1.32.19970625141147.00c0be30@hypermall.com> Message-ID: <33B139D3.2E84@ix.netcom.com> Jawaid, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > > At 02:25 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Jawaid, > > > >Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> > >> >Jon wrote: > >> >> How are they "irrevacably" related? How are they related at all? > >> > >> At 01:08 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >> > The relationship is obvious. > >> > >> Other than the fact that a domain name is mapped to an IP address (but > >> could just as easily be mapped to something else..), how are they > >> "irrevocably related"? If this is all you're talking about, please explain > >> how the allocation of IP addresses affects how the DNS system works. > > > > First of all, let me say this is not a place for me to give a class. > >I am not trying to be evasive by answering your question by that > >comment, it is just not feasible to do so in any meaningful manner on an > >E-Mail forum. I think you can understand that. In addition I give classes > >all over the world on these matters as part of my living, so as you might > >immagine, I am not really highly motivated to do so here at any rate > >on pro bono basis. > > The point is that you're the only person I've ever heard claim that IP > assignment policy has any effect whatsoever on the Domain Name System. > Well, fine I am very suprised that your information on this subject is so limited to me as the ONLY person that claimes IP assingment policy has ANY effect on the Domain Name System. As writted just above by Jon Lewis, he sees one such relationship. So maybe you didn't read his post and my response very closely. > I am > by no means technically illiterate, and understand the technical > underpinnings of most Internet technologies better than even most ISPs, and > I still don't see the sort of relationship you're talking about. Well for starters, read what Jon Lewis wrote just above. Maybe that will help you. Not trying to be reduddant or egotistical here, but for the sake of brevity I think that is one example for you. > > As to the feasibility of discussing such topics in an e-mail forum, I > believe you are underestimating the power of such forums. I don't argue that discussing such topics is not a powerful tool for learning and sharing understanding an knowledge, it is. But for the perposes of giving a class, it is not. That would be an entirely diffrent situation entirely ans I stated I thought very clearly above. >;) > > DNS is a convenience, it's a naming system. It happens that DNS provides > Name->IP and IP->Name mappings, but the manner in which IP addresses are > assigned is irrelevant to DNS. That's why there are .COMs in Europe and > .de's in the United States. This is an obvious over simplification. You as a very technicaly adept individual should know that. And really proves to an extent that my point reguarding using E-Mail for the perposes of teaching classes. For simple points or copying some code, ect, it is great. > > IP addresses are a naming system, but they're also fundamental to routing > policy and other core technical Internet systems, due to CIDR, aggregation, > etc etc. IP addresses have no similar fundamental relationship to DNS. > > So, you'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical that you won't even say what > relationship exists that neither I nor any other ISP have seen... and couch > your reluctance to discuss it in a reference to the fact that you sell > training and seminars. Well two of the ISP's that we are part owners in sure do. Hummmmm? > > -- > Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions > Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business > bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 > --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 11:39:38 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:39:38 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706252124.QAA18592@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <33B13BBA.4546@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy, Jeremy Porter wrote: > > In message <33B0F761.5B55 at ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Williams writes: > >Jeremy > > > >//Jeremy Porter wrote: > >> > >> In message <33B0902A.3977 at village.ios.com>, Rey Blanco writes: > >> >Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? > >> > >> It has nothing to do with domain names, it has to do with IP addresses. > > > > This not wholey a accurate statment. > At first I thought you were misguided, now you have made it know to > one and all that you are deliberately ignorate and or stupid. Well if that is wat you choos to believe that is of course your own chioce. I obviously don't agree. >;) > This issue has been fully covered on this list and others. To claim > that DNS and IP allocations are linked is clearly false. And since you > don't bother to provide any new information to back this one line > claim that my statement was not "wholey" accurate, it is clear that > your intent was to muck rake the lists you CCed this to. Well you are drawing to conclusions that are not proven in the first place and no, I have no such intrest in the second. As I stated in my first post on this thread will suffice. > > I won't reply to further messages from you, since A. the issue is > moot. B. We won. I didn't know this was a game. Maybe it is! If so, I hope you are happy with what you say, " We won". Otherwise, let us continue forward. >;) > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From handler at SUB-ROSA.COM Wed Jun 25 18:37:34 1997 From: handler at SUB-ROSA.COM (Michael Handler) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:37:34 -0400 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B14229.38FF@ix.netcom.com> References: <33B11D91.6220@ix.netcom.com> <19970625163534.38226@sub-rosa.com> <33B14229.38FF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <19970625183734.35721@sub-rosa.com> In <33B14229.38FF at ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Williams wrote: > Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly > exactly parallel to mine. Hence for the sake of keystrokes i used some > of his wording amd made edits that were not related to me or my > background. Bullshit, pure and simple. I can show you exactly which parts you changed. You deleted a few sentences, added a couple of words, and changed it so it appeared to have tangential relevance to ARIN. You're a thief. You stole the entirety of Einar's text, made a few piddling changes to it, and passed it off as your own. You're no different than a lazy college student stealing his older sibling's term paper. I'd call what you did plagarism, but that usually implies making discernable levels of change to the text while stealing the research. "Some of it" isn't from Einar Stefferud, it's *all* from Einar. The proof is below for anyone who cares to read it. You didn't mean to share his ideas, you meant to take credit for them. Here's a unified diff. If anyone wants, I'll be glad to put up the original articles from the mailing lists on my anonymous FTP site, so you can verify this for yourself. -- BEGIN DIFF -- --- EINAR Wed Jun 25 18:21:22 1997 +++ WILLIAMS Wed Jun 25 18:23:34 1997 @@ -5,12 +5,12 @@ Let me try to quickly summarize a few things from my own observations and understandings from long experience. I have been involved in the center of these developments since 1975, in one strategic role or -another. And, I was hanging around with people who were directly -involved for many years before that (i.e., since 1962). +another. -The ARPANET was not built to survive Nuclear Bombs, or equivalent. It -was simply built to interconnect ARPA Contractors for the purpose of -sharing whatever resources could be shared by being Network Connected. +ARPANET was simply built to interconnect ARPA Contractors for the purpose +of sharing whatever resources could be shared by being Network Connected. +Though I do realize this is not DIRECTLY related to this thread or +the ARIN. Let me be very clear on this point... Originally, the entire ARPANET was owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by ARPA, and anyone connecting to it or using a computer account on an @@ -49,8 +49,7 @@ required me to use the ARPANET in performance and administration of the contracts. -So, I fear that Simon's basic premises (see below) are off the mark, -and we all know that A False Premise can be used to Prove Anything. + HERE WE GET TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. Now, after TCP/IP was deployed by ARPA on the ARPANET, it became possible to create what became the Internet because it was no longer @@ -86,7 +85,8 @@ administration to hold almost total respect from the whole Internet community, and until the mid 1990's, no one thought much about whether the root should be administered by a czar, or whether it should be -more open, or totally open, or whatever... +more open, or totally open, or whatever... This would also include +the ARIN. In my view, the authority of IANA derived simply from the fact that IANA properly provided TLD ROOT server administration, to the @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ revenue. This brings us up to the present mess where suddenly it becomes clear -that there is no clear line of authority for IANA or anyone else to +that there is no clear line of authority for IANA, ARIN, or anyone else to Czar the DNS TLD ROOT, and we are in a big fight about whether there must or must not be a clear line of authority for deciding what names can be used in the DNS TLD ROOT. @@ -125,10 +125,11 @@ wish they didn't. I predict that in due course, we will all come to the same conclusion about the Internet and the great question of who should own the DNS TLD ROOT. At least we are not actually killing -anyone in this DNS war, yet, though we are assasinating characters all -over the place, and regularly pitting old friends and colleagues -against each other in vicious arguments where there appear to be no -holds barred. Many old relationships have been torn asunder. +anyone in this DNS/IP address war, yet, though we are assasinating +characters all over the place, and regularly pitting old friends and +colleagues against each other in vicious arguments where there appear +to be no holds barred. Some of my old relationships have been torn +asunder. None the less, I predict that in the end we will discover that the DNS ROOT does not need a Czar to select TLD names for the DNS any more @@ -157,7 +158,7 @@ that BIND is delivered with defaults selected by Paul Vixie does not mean that Paul is the Czar, and his statements that he gets his instructions from IANA does not make IANA the Czar either. The fact -that lots of administrators accept Paul's defaults is the critical +that lots of administrators defaults is the critical key, and when administrators stop accepting those defaults and choosing others, we will all see that the servers do not have the ability to control anything about what TLD names are "in the ROOT" -- END DIFF -- -- handler at sub-rosa.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 12:07:05 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:07:05 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <33B11D91.6220@ix.netcom.com> <19970625163534.38226@sub-rosa.com> Message-ID: <33B14229.38FF@ix.netcom.com> Micheal, Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly exactly parallel to mine. Hence for the sake of keystrokes i used some of his wording amd made edits that were not related to me or my background. Michael Handler wrote: -snip- > What the hell do you think you're trying to do here? > > The text you've included here was *not* written by you; it's a moderately > edited copy of something that Einar Stefferud posted to > the list earlier today. If you had just forwarded it > here verbatim without the headers, I could possibly chalk that up to user > error in the MTA; but the obvious editing of the text without retaining > the original attribution or clearly delimiting your editing leads me to > believe you're attempting to pass off Einar's writing as your own. > > I think you have some explaining to do, Mr. Williams. > > -- > handler at sub-rosa.com Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From scharf at VIX.COM Wed Jun 25 18:43:30 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:43:30 -0700 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:17:53 BST." <33B136A1.5D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199706252243.PAA25772@gw.home.vix.com> > > > > For the in-addr.arpa zone, there is the necessary installation and management > > of NS records for delegation. This has worked successfully for years and no > > one that I know sees any problem with how it works. > > How this works currently is correct. How it will work in the near > future is a hourse of a diffrent breed. One of the points I made > previously in my post. And this is one of the points that I think > is critical. > There is no sign whatsoever that this will change. I ask you to show one piece of documentation from anyone responsible for the current or proposed management of in-addr.arpa saying that it will change. I have no interest in comments that are not authoritative, we know there are quacks out there. Kim, Daniel, David Randy: Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will not change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this nonsense. thanks, jerry From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Jun 25 19:47:18 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:47:18 -0500 Subject: Where do we send our membership check? (was: ARIN LIVES!!!) Message-ID: <01BC8198.354BBF60@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, June 25, 1997 6:05 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] wrote: @ @ On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: @ @ > June 24: The National Science Foundation has just announced the formation @ > of ARIN, (The American Registry for Internet Numbers). NSF has approved a @ > Network Solutions plan to set up the independent IP registry. All @ > necessary documents are signed and in place. Steps to establish ARIN begin @ > immediately. @ @ When can we join ARIN and where do we send our check for the membership @ fee? @ @ ********************************************************* @ Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 @ Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 @ PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net @ @ "The People You Know. The People You Trust." @ ********************************************************* @ @@@ http://www.canic.net/ "CAnic plans to enhance the Canadian infastruction by actively persuing the repaitriation of the Canadian IP Registry. This will be done using a model similar to ARIN, but with a Canadian sense of fairness in delegation of IP network addresses, administrative responsiveness and cost effectiveness." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From perry at PIERMONT.COM Wed Jun 25 19:00:32 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:00:32 -0400 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:07:05 BST." <33B14229.38FF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199706252300.TAA27446@jekyll.piermont.com> Jeff Williams writes: > Micheal, > > Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly > exactly > parallel to mine. Stef's been a networking guy for the last 30 years. You're a guy no one knows living in a residential hotel in Texas who pretends to be an executive of a company that doesn't even exist. You can't even spell or format your text. Could you explain what is parallel between your backgrounds? From cook at NETAXS.COM Wed Jun 25 18:58:26 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <33B14229.38FF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Earlier this evening I received in private mail from someone well known to all here...... someone who does rank as a respected memebr of the internet community the following: Williams is a lunatic living in a residential hotel in Texas. LITERALLY. Then a few minutes ago I received the following from someone equally respected: To: Gordon Cook Subject: You should know that the long note that Jeff Williams sent to NAIPR representing it as his own was actually posted by Einar Sterrerud to newdom at ar.net earlier today. Not only is he a jerk, he's a thief. Below is steff's post followed by Williams. Do you see a similarity? ============= Gordon Cook speaking: jeff you are wasting my time....and that of a lot of others. And your excuse below is rank bullshit. Some of it from Steff? How about maybe 85 to 95%? Go away. take your delusional grandeur elsewhere. Certifiable or not you are not worth dealing with....even jimmy flemming doesn't pass the writing of others off as his own. jeff williams = ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > Micheal, > > Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly > exactly > parallel to mine. Hence for the sake of keystrokes i used some > of his wording amd made edits that were not related to me or my > background. > > Michael Handler wrote: > -snip- > > > What the hell do you think you're trying to do here? > > > > The text you've included here was *not* written by you; it's a moderately > > edited copy of something that Einar Stefferud posted to > > the list earlier today. If you had just forwarded it > > here verbatim without the headers, I could possibly chalk that up to user > > error in the MTA; but the obvious editing of the text without retaining > > the original attribution or clearly delimiting your editing leads me to > > believe you're attempting to pass off Einar's writing as your own. > > > > I think you have some explaining to do, Mr. Williams. > > > > -- > > handler at sub-rosa.com > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. > Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. > Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 14:07:59 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:07:59 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <33B11D91.6220@ix.netcom.com> <19970625163534.38226@sub-rosa.com> <33B14229.38FF@ix.netcom.com> <19970625183734.35721@sub-rosa.com> Message-ID: <33B15E7F.2071@ix.netcom.com> Michael, I am not sure why you seem to wish to maintain a antagonistic attitude, but that is your affair and problem. And YES it was very suprising to me how exacting Enir's background was to mine. But that is the case, for the most part anyway. Sorry you seem to be in this mode. Maybe you need a vacation? >;) Michael Handler wrote: > > In <33B14229.38FF at ix.netcom.com>, > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly > > exactly parallel to mine. Hence for the sake of keystrokes i used some > > of his wording amd made edits that were not related to me or my > > background. > > Bullshit, pure and simple. I can show you exactly which parts you > changed. You deleted a few sentences, added a couple of words, and > changed it so it appeared to have tangential relevance to ARIN. > > You're a thief. You stole the entirety of Einar's text, made a few > piddling changes to it, and passed it off as your own. You're no > different than a lazy college student stealing his older sibling's > term paper. I'd call what you did plagarism, but that usually > implies making discernable levels of change to the text while > stealing the research. I amd not a thief my friend. But your assertions have been logged for my records. I feel that his wording for the most part was essentialy accurate and I don't think I could have stated my background any better than he did. As iintresting as it was to me to read it. SOme parts which I deleted were not even close, and as I said I deleated them. We seemed to have been in simialr places at nearly the same times. > > "Some of it" isn't from Einar Stefferud, it's *all* from Einar. > The proof is below for anyone who cares to read it. You didn't > mean to share his ideas, you meant to take credit for them. Again, you know that not *All* of it was from Einar. You as much as stated so in your previous post here on this list. Make up your mind! > Regards, > > -- > handler at sub-rosa.com -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 14:15:44 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:15:44 +0100 Subject: The latest References: Message-ID: <33B1604F.427C@ix.netcom.com> Gordon, Gordon Cook wrote: > > Earlier this evening I received in private mail from someone well known to > all here...... someone who does rank as a respected memebr of the internet > community the following: > > Williams is a lunatic living in a residential hotel in Texas. LITERALLY. Yes, I live in Texas. But in my house, thank you very much. If you have a recent map look up Gunter Texas, I an one mile East north east of there. > -snip superfolous HS - > On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Micheal, > > > > Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly > > exactly > > parallel to mine. Hence for the sake of keystrokes i used some > > of his wording amd made edits that were not related to me or my > > background. > > > > Michael Handler wrote: > > -snip- > > > > > What the hell do you think you're trying to do here? > > > > > > The text you've included here was *not* written by you; it's a moderately > > > edited copy of something that Einar Stefferud posted to > > > the list earlier today. If you had just forwarded it > > > here verbatim without the headers, I could possibly chalk that up to user > > > error in the MTA; but the obvious editing of the text without retaining > > > the original attribution or clearly delimiting your editing leads me to > > > believe you're attempting to pass off Einar's writing as your own. > > > > > > I think you have some explaining to do, Mr. Williams. > > > > > > -- > > > handler at sub-rosa.com > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. > > Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. > > Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) > > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 14:18:57 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:18:57 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706252300.TAA27446@jekyll.piermont.com> Message-ID: <33B16111.5478@ix.netcom.com> Perry, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Jeff Williams writes: > > Micheal, > > > > Yes some of it is from Einar Stefferud, whos background is nearly > > exactly > > parallel to mine. > > Stef's been a networking guy for the last 30 years. That's fine. He has about 5 years on me. > > You're a guy no one knows living in a residential hotel in Texas who > pretends to be an executive of a company that doesn't even exist. You > can't even spell or format your text. Well if you have checked the public corp registry which I had at one time been informed some member of the IAHC had, than you know that IEG. INC. does indeed exist. And comming form someone who claimes he is from another planet I find your accusations a bit wierd to say the least. > > Could you explain what is parallel between your backgrounds? If you read the post, you already hve them. Reread it. regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jerry at fc.net Wed Jun 25 17:24:57 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:24:57 -0500 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:48:01 BST." <33B0F761.5B55@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199706252124.QAA18592@freeside.fc.net> In message <33B0F761.5B55 at ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Williams writes: >Jeremy > >//Jeremy Porter wrote: >> >> In message <33B0902A.3977 at village.ios.com>, Rey Blanco writes: >> >Does that programming dissappear? Is there another operating system? >> >> It has nothing to do with domain names, it has to do with IP addresses. > > This not wholey a accurate statment. At first I thought you were misguided, now you have made it know to one and all that you are deliberately ignorate and or stupid. This issue has been fully covered on this list and others. To claim that DNS and IP allocations are linked is clearly false. And since you don't bother to provide any new information to back this one line claim that my statement was not "wholey" accurate, it is clear that your intent was to muck rake the lists you CCed this to. I won't reply to further messages from you, since A. the issue is moot. B. We won. > >Regards, >-- >Jeffrey A. Williams >DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. >Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. >Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 25 14:12:45 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:12:45 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706252243.PAA25772@gw.home.vix.com> Message-ID: <33B15F9D.C6D@ix.netcom.com> Jerry, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > > > > > For the in-addr.arpa zone, there is the necessary installation and management > > > of NS records for delegation. This has worked successfully for years and no > > > one that I know sees any problem with how it works. > > > > How this works currently is correct. How it will work in the near > > future is a hourse of a diffrent breed. One of the points I made > > previously in my post. And this is one of the points that I think > > is critical. > > > > There is no sign whatsoever that this will change. I ask you to show one piece > of documentation from anyone responsible for the current or proposed > management of in-addr.arpa saying that it will change. I would say in a very GENERAL sense that volume alone will force some change in NS/ip address managment alone. > I have no interest in > comments that are not authoritative, we know there are quacks out there. Do you? Hummmmm? Well your postings are beginning to sound much like one. > > Kim, Daniel, David Randy: > > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will not > change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this nonsense. Who are these guys? Authoritative? Says whom? By whos and what authority? > > thanks, > jerry Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jerry at fc.net Wed Jun 25 22:58:13 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:58:13 -0500 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:12:45 BST." <33B15F9D.C6D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199706260258.VAA06181@freeside.fc.net> In message <33B15F9D.C6D at ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Williams writes: >> Kim, Daniel, David Randy: >> >> Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will not >> change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this nonsense. > > Who are these guys? Authoritative? Says whom? By whos and what >authority? My favorite line yet. Well I guess there are two solutions, A. Someone email me this guy's address, I'll load up my truck and pay him a texas style visit. B. .procmailrc: :0 * ^From:.*Jeff Williams /dev/null Sigh. Oh well, at least I won't have to see any more messages from this person. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From markk at internic.net Thu Jun 26 01:18:00 1997 From: markk at internic.net (Mark Kosters) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <199706252243.PAA25772@gw.home.vix.com> from "Jerry Scharf" at Jun 25, 97 03:43:30 pm Message-ID: <199706260518.BAA10275@slam.internic.net> > There is no sign whatsoever that this will change. I ask you to show one piece > of documentation from anyone responsible for the current or proposed > management of in-addr.arpa saying that it will change. I have no interest in > comments that are not authoritative, we know there are quacks out there. > > Kim, Daniel, David Randy: > > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will not > change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this nonsense. It will not change from its current basic form. Is that short enough? :^). ARIN will do in-addrs (as RIPE and APNIC do as part of their registry functions). 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 dcrocker at BRANDENBURG.COM Wed Jun 25 23:29:55 1997 From: dcrocker at BRANDENBURG.COM (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:29:55 +0800 Subject: Efficient use of bandwidth (was: Re: The latest) In-Reply-To: <199706252300.TAA27446@jekyll.piermont.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970626112955.006a1b44@ng.netgate.net> >Jeff Williams writes: Folks, Please note the number of messages, time, bandwidth and energy consumed by this lates silliness, initiated by Jeff. The burden of truly open communications is that we cannot prevent such people from posting such mail. The burden of filtering is moved to each of us, individually. We need to use extreme care in choosing what mail to respond to. We need to evaluate whether original messages are worth responding to and we need to evaluate whether other people's responses are sufficient. In other words, we need to consider whether our own messages are REALLY necessary or whether they will end up just adding traffic to the list but not really being all that important or helpful. Typically that means that such notes are just redundant. This is a very difficult job for each of us. None of us is perfect, but I entreat us all to consider the need. Some people are not worth responding to. Some responses from others are sufficient and our own responses aren't really necessary. To make the global, open lists have reasonabel load, we need to stop responding to silly people and we need to avoid posting notes of small or little incremental benefit. For example, there is no need to respond to this note from me. Instead, there is a need to stop responding to people like Jeff. d/ From randy at PSG.COM Thu Jun 26 02:02:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 23:02 PDT Subject: The latest References: <33B136A1.5D@ix.netcom.com> <199706252243.PAA25772@gw.home.vix.com> Message-ID: > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will > not change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this > nonsense. I am not aware of anything worth changing. If you see improvements that could be made, I am sure folk are open to discussion. I am also not as optimistic as you in thinking that we can dispense with such nonsense, as there is one born every minute. This new one is cute though, the usual psychosis plus radical plagarism and copyright infringement. Bet he makes everyone's .procmailrc in record time. randy From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 11:42:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:42:04 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC821D.97161300@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:02 AM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] wrote: @ > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will @ > not change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this @ > nonsense. @ @ I am not aware of anything worth changing. If you see improvements that @ could be made, I am sure folk are open to discussion. @ How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? How about an ARIN for Canada ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Jun 26 12:58:34 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:58:34 -0400 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:14:19 MDT." <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> Message-ID: <199706261658.MAA35018@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:14:19 MDT, Jawaid Bazyar said: > At 01:08 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > The relationship is obvious. > > Other than the fact that a domain name is mapped to an IP address (but > could just as easily be mapped to something else..), how are they > "irrevocably related"? If this is all you're talking about, please explain You almost, but not quite, hit the crux of the matter here. There's a LOT of domains that consist of essentially just an SOA record, some NS entries pointing at an ISP's nameservers, and a wildcard MX pointing at the ISP's mail hub. So, as you put it, they're "mapped to something else". Given the existence of these, the "relationship is obvious" is not quite as obviousas Mr Williams would have us believe. There's machines with more than one logical hostname. There's machines with IP addresses and no hostname (consider a PC on a subnet, using an IP address that is not in the nameserver, and has no PTR record). Noel Chiappa was pushing for the addition of *another* level of indirection between DNS names and IP addresses, to be called "endpoints". I'm almost afraid to think what this discussion would look like if he had suceeded... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior 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 Jun 26 12:06:20 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:06:20 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC8220.FB01E120@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, June 25, 1997 8:18 PM, Mark Kosters[SMTP:markk at INTERNIC.NET] wrote: @ > There is no sign whatsoever that this will change. I ask you to show one piece @ > of documentation from anyone responsible for the current or proposed @ > management of in-addr.arpa saying that it will change. I have no interest in @ > comments that are not authoritative, we know there are quacks out there. @ > @ > Kim, Daniel, David Randy: @ > @ > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will not @ > change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this nonsense. @ @ It will not change from its current basic form. Is that short enough? :^). @ ARIN will do in-addrs (as RIPE and APNIC do as part of their registry @ functions). @ It is all quite simple, ARPA can be viewed as a Top Level Domain just like any other TLD. The one difference is that delegations under IN-ADDR.ARPA are very valuable and will not cost $50 per year. Also, people claim that it is a difficult job making the arbitrary decisions about who gets delegations in the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone. In the past, the the U.S. Government was there to look over the shoulder of the people making those delegations as contractors. Now, instead of the government being there to review that decision making on the front-end, the government will be there to review the decisions after they are made. This is common in many industries. The whole thing is very similar to the end of prohibition. Bootleggers and mobsters can now become "business people". Other business people will pay for their IP addresses and the government can make sure that the money flows and is taxed. This system will be much better than the old system where we had the worst of both worlds. We had the government (NSF) claiming they were managing things when they were not, and we had a private company making decisions as if they were the government when they were not. Now we will have a private company selling products and services and their actions will clearly not be on behalf of the U.S. Government. It will be easier for business people to deal with this arrangement. I hope that a dozen more private companies start up to serve the public in this important role. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 05:26:43 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:26:43 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706260518.BAA10275@slam.internic.net> Message-ID: <33B235D3.1A87@ix.netcom.com> Mark, Mark Kosters wrote: > > > There is no sign whatsoever that this will change. I ask you to show one piece > > of documentation from anyone responsible for the current or proposed > > management of in-addr.arpa saying that it will change. I have no interest in > > comments that are not authoritative, we know there are quacks out there. > > > > Kim, Daniel, David Randy: > > > > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will not > > change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this nonsense. > > It will not change from its current basic form. Is that short enough? :^). > ARIN will do in-addrs (as RIPE and APNIC do as part of their registry > functions). Short enough for me Mark! >;) > > 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 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 09:40:55 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:40:55 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <3.0.1.32.19970625131419.00afd7f0@hypermall.com> <199706261658.MAA35018@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <33B27167.517@ix.netcom.com> Valdis and all, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:14:19 MDT, Jawaid Bazyar said: > > At 01:08 PM 6/25/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > The relationship is obvious. > > > > Other than the fact that a domain name is mapped to an IP address (but > > could just as easily be mapped to something else..), how are they > > "irrevocably related"? If this is all you're talking about, please explain > > You almost, but not quite, hit the crux of the matter here. There's a > LOT of domains that consist of essentially just an SOA record, some NS > entries pointing at an ISP's nameservers, and a wildcard MX pointing > at the ISP's mail hub. So, as you put it, they're "mapped to > something else". Good point. > > Given the existence of these, the "relationship is obvious" is not quite > as obviousas Mr Williams would have us believe. There's machines with > more than one logical hostname. There's machines with IP addresses and > no hostname (consider a PC on a subnet, using an IP address that is not > in the nameserver, and has no PTR record). True. However this is not a "Normal occurance in this context". > > Noel Chiappa was pushing for the addition of *another* level of indirection > between DNS names and IP addresses, to be called "endpoints". I'm almost > afraid to think what this discussion would look like if he had suceeded... Hummmm? Possibly. But notnecessarly a "BAD" direction but almost certianly a diffrent one in some aspects. > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Senior Engineer > Virginia Tech > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Part 1.2 Type: application/pgp-signature Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 17:05:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:05:30 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC824A.C6183FC0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:39 PM, J.D. Falk[SMTP:jdfalk at cybernothing.org] wrote: @ On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? @ > @ > How about an ARIN for Canada ? @ @ I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. @ @ Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will @ probably do okay with the /real/ one. @ How do you define "real"....? IANA sanctioned ? Located in Virginia ? NSF approved ? Well funded with your tax dollars ? Formed by the "right" people ? Mentioned in Wired magazine ? Discussed at the NANOG meeting ? Known to your circle of friends ? Is APNIC "real" ? Is RIPE "real" ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jun 26 17:36:54 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use Message-ID: Someone has complained to me that they were turned down by internic for a prefix 19/ allocation because they could not show effective PAST use of their allocations. They maintained that RFC 2050 only demands assurance of FUTURE effective use.... Not past. I have done some looking at 2050 to ascertain, if I can, what the disagreement is about. When someone comes to internic asking for a direction address asignment. How can they demonstrate effective past use if the have never gotten address space from internic before or is the criteria meant to be their PAST use of space from their upstream provider? The following two sections seem to get as close to these areas as anything that I could find. 2.1.3 ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient manner. To this end, ISPs should have documented justification available for each assignment. The regional registry may, at any time, ask for this information. If the information is not available, future allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted. 2.1. 4. IP addresses are allocated to ISPs using a slow-start procedure. New ISPs will receive a minimal amount based on immediate requirement. Thereafter, allocated blocks may be increased based on utilization verification supplied to the regional registry. Can someone who is directly involved with the registry process clarify what is going on here? responses from flemming and williAms will be deleted unread.....others welcome. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 18:21:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:21:48 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC8255.6EEA2140@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 9:23 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ J.D. Falk, @ @ J.D. Falk wrote: @ > @ > On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > @ > > How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? @ > > @ > > How about an ARIN for Canada ? @ > @ > I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. @ > @ > Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will @ > probably do okay with the /real/ one. @ @ Seems like alot was edited or deleted out of Jims commets. hummmmm? @ In any event, I hope this is a joke posting? Comment J.D.? If not, @ seems WAY out of context at the very least. @ > @ > > Jim Fleming @ > > Unir Corporation @ > @ > ---------========== J.D. Falk =========--------- @ > | Can't find your sysadmin? REBOOT! | @ > | Try http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/sysadmin.html REBOOT! | @ > | Or ftp.cybernothing.org /pub/cno/sysadmin.txt OK! | @ > ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========---- @ @ Regards, @ -- @ Jeffrey A. Williams @ DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. @ Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. @ Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) @ E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com @ @ Jeff, You have to put all of this in a package to understand what is going on. J.D. Falk is now[1] with Priori Networks. They are a new ISP. Priori is like most new ISPs, they need IP addresses to be able to offer their customers something more than connections and IP addresses from their "upstream provider". They understand very well how much it costs to renumber. I am sure their potential customers also do. Michael Dillon[2] is also with Priori. Michael was one of the supporters of the IAHC and one of the people that helped to convince everyone how bad monopolies are and that registries should be "shared". I guess he is not concerned that ARIN appears to want to have a monopoly on North America. Michael Dillon is also one of the people that spent an enormous amount of time telling new ISPs that they should NOT expect IP address allocations from the InterNIC and should "go to their upstream provider". Michael Dillon was also one of the people that helped develop the material on the ARIN web site. See....http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html NOW...things have changed...Michael, J.D. and Justin Newton have a new company and THEY need IP addresses. As you can see below, Michael can't wait until he can pay to get his ARIN membership. In theory, the formation of ARIN should not change the rules about how ISPs obtain IP addresses. Justin Newton has recently suggested that the rules be rewritten. Justin used to be with Erols and they were located in the Virginia area and had an ample supply of IP addresses. Now Justin finds himself in a new company without IP addresses. This situation will be interesting to watch. I have argued that companies should be given a "short-form" application to obtain a /18 allocation with the understanding that they can not fragment it. With this approach, blocks are kept together and if a new company goes under a large block is reclaimed. At the present time there does not seem to be much effort to reclaim blocks. For example, an ISP in the Chicago area with a /16 (old Class B) recently went under, their block will probably be lost in the shuffle. This is a waste of resources and it is a shame that companies have to spend all of their time and energy jumping through hoops to obtain IP addresses when blocks are wasting away... Hopefully, Michael, J.D. and Justin will now change all of this...they have a reason to...their business depends on these changes... ====== References ======= [1] @@@@@ http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html "currently my time is split between working nights at Erol's Internet, preparing for my move to San Jose, California to work for Priori Networks, Inc.," @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >From NANOG *********************************************************************** J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************************** [2] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 6:05 AM To: ARIN go bragh! Subject: Where do we send our membership check? (was: ARIN LIVES!!!) On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > June 24: The National Science Foundation has just announced the formation > of ARIN, (The American Registry for Internet Numbers). NSF has approved a > Network Solutions plan to set up the independent IP registry. All > necessary documents are signed and in place. Steps to establish ARIN begin > immediately. When can we join ARIN and where do we send our check for the membership fee? ********************************************************* Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 12:06:20 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:06:20 +0100 Subject: An intresting related post on Domain p list Message-ID: <33B2937C.422D@ix.netcom.com> All, Thought that this micht be worth sharing with this list. I had ask Jim Fleming for his permission to cross post here. ======================================== Subject: Re: Privatization Works! -Reply & Flame Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:47:49 -0500 From: Jim Fleming To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET On Thursday, June 26, 1997 11:39 AM, Christopher Ambler[SMTP:chris at kosh.ambler.net] wrote: @ Now and again, Jim Flemming points out very good points. @ @ mainly, if the IAHC crowd are so concerned with public resources @ and their monopolistic detractions, how do they allow ARIN to @ exist? It's a monopoly by their definition. If ARIN decides to @ increase fees for IP allocations, there's noplace else to go. @ @ Where's the shared mentality now? @ One thing that has not been pointed out clearly is that ARIN only has a small part of the IPv4 address space. At least that was the impression people were given. I asked several times on the ARIN discussion list for the ARIN founders to point out the exact IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations they will be managing and never received a straight answer. Since the ARPA Top Level Domain is an important TLD, clearly ARIN should not be managing ALL of .ARPA. The InterNIC currently controls that and it is not clear who will be the TLD registrar for .ARPA. People keep trying to claim that IP addresses and domain names are not the same. That was a ploy to fool the NSF and it clearly worked because the NSF did not have a clue how any of this works. Now that ARIN has gotten the NSF to cave in, the sticky issues of who runs .ARPA have to be worked out. Those issues are basically the same as any other Top Level Domain. I wonder if the ISOC/ITU plan to take over .ARPA ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 10:23:07 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:23:07 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC821D.97161300@webster.unety.net> <19970626113951.61189@cybernothing.org> Message-ID: <33B27B4B.2A78@ix.netcom.com> J.D. Falk, J.D. Falk wrote: > > On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? > > > > How about an ARIN for Canada ? > > I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. > > Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will > probably do okay with the /real/ one. Seems like alot was edited or deleted out of Jims commets. hummmmm? In any event, I hope this is a joke posting? Comment J.D.? If not, seems WAY out of context at the very least. > > > Jim Fleming > > Unir Corporation > > ---------========== J.D. Falk =========--------- > | Can't find your sysadmin? REBOOT! | > | Try http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/sysadmin.html REBOOT! | > | Or ftp.cybernothing.org /pub/cno/sysadmin.txt OK! | > ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========---- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 19:27:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:27:23 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC825E.97D22680@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 6:11 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:sprunk at csi.net] wrote: @ At 16:05 26-06-97 -0500, you wrote: @ >On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:39 PM, J.D. @ Falk[SMTP:jdfalk at cybernothing.org] wrote: @ >@ I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. @ >@ @ >@ Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will @ >@ probably do okay with the /real/ one. @ > @ >How do you define "real"....? @ > @ >IANA sanctioned ? @ @ Exactly. @ Will ARIN be presenting the items David McClure suggests are missing from a "real" proposal...? @@@ http://www.webweek.com/current/infrastructure/19970623-ip.html "ARIN's not a real proposal. It's a half-baked document with a price list," said David McClure, executive director of the Association of Online Professionals, a group of more than 1,000 network operators. "We haven't seen a business plan, a budget, bylaws, or a mission statement. Fundamentally, it's got to be accountable to the people who foot the bill." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 13:30:36 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:30:36 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC8255.6EEA2140@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B2A73C.5465@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Thursday, June 26, 1997 9:23 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: > @ J.D. Falk, > @ > @ J.D. Falk wrote: > @ > > @ > On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ > > @ > > How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? > @ > > > @ > > How about an ARIN for Canada ? > @ > > @ > I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. > @ > > @ > Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will > @ > probably do okay with the /real/ one. > @ > @ Seems like alot was edited or deleted out of Jims commets. hummmmm? > @ In any event, I hope this is a joke posting? Comment J.D.? If not, > @ seems WAY out of context at the very least. > @ > > @ > > Jim Fleming > @ > > Unir Corporation > @ > > @ > ---------========== J.D. Falk =========--------- > @ > | Can't find your sysadmin? REBOOT! | > @ > | Try http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/sysadmin.html REBOOT! | > @ > | Or ftp.cybernothing.org /pub/cno/sysadmin.txt OK! | > @ > ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========---- > @ > @ Regards, > @ -- > @ Jeffrey A. Williams > @ DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. > @ Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. > @ Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) > @ E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > @ > @ > > Jeff, > > You have to put all of this in a package to understand > what is going on. Ok. > > J.D. Falk is now[1] with Priori Networks. They are a > new ISP. Priori is like most new ISPs, they need IP > addresses to be able to offer their customers something > more than connections and IP addresses from their "upstream > provider". They understand very well how much it costs > to renumber. I am sure their potential customers also do. Hummmm? I was not aware of J.D. Falks involvment with Priori networks. No was he very forthcomming with that info and his potential intrest here. This could be viewed as a possible conflict of intrest in respect to the discussion here. > > Michael Dillon[2] is also with Priori. Michael was one of > the supporters of the IAHC and one of the people that > helped to convince everyone how bad monopolies are > and that registries should be "shared". I guess he is not > concerned that ARIN appears to want to have a monopoly > on North America. I do remember Michaels strong possition in favor of the IAHC perposal, which is withering away nearly as we speek here. Not only is the ARIN getting a monopoly in North america, but South america and canada as well If I am not mistakin? But I am not sure that this is necessarly a bad thing short term. I do believe that within the Trade zones is where currently this managment of IP addresses should fall, but as the need increases for IP numbers, this may not hold. Michael Dillons sudden change of hart however is a curious matter. But understood in this context that you discribe here. Michael, any comments? > > Michael Dillon is also one of the people that spent an > enormous amount of time telling new ISPs that they > should NOT expect IP address allocations from the > InterNIC and should "go to their upstream provider". Hummmm? Yes, I do remember. > > Michael Dillon was also one of the people that > helped develop the material on the ARIN web site. > See....http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html I was not aware of this! Very intresting! > > NOW...things have changed...Michael, J.D. and Justin > Newton have a new company and THEY need IP > addresses. As you can see below, Michael can't > wait until he can pay to get his ARIN membership. I see where there is a potential conflict of intrest from these fellows here as to their real motives, possibly. > > In theory, the formation of ARIN should not change the > rules about how ISPs obtain IP addresses. Justin > Newton has recently suggested that the rules be > rewritten. Justin used to be with Erols and they were > located in the Virginia area and had an ample supply > of IP addresses. Now Justin finds himself in a new > company without IP addresses. Ahhhh! I see. Well to tell the truth, I am about to find myself in the very same possition with a new regional ISP we are putting together. Maybe is should look at IPv8, huh? Your thoughts on that Jim? Privately if you prefer? But again it is intresting that Justin would make the comments that he does in this light. VERY intresting! > > This situation will be interesting to watch. I have > argued that companies should be given a "short-form" > application to obtain a /18 allocation with the > understanding that they can not fragment it. With > this approach, blocks are kept together and if a new > company goes under a large block is reclaimed. Yes, I do remember you mentioning this befor. I agree. > > At the present time there does not seem to be much > effort to reclaim blocks. For example, an ISP in the > Chicago area with a /16 (old Class B) recently went > under, their block will probably be lost in the shuffle. > This is a waste of resources and it is a shame that > companies have to spend all of their time and energy > jumping through hoops to obtain IP addresses when > blocks are wasting away... Yep. > > Hopefully, Michael, J.D. and Justin will now change > all of this...they have a reason to...their business > depends on these changes... I see more clearly now! Thanks! > > ====== References ======= > > [1] @@@@@ http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html > > "currently my time is split between working > nights at Erol's Internet, preparing for my move to San Jose, > California to work for Priori Networks, Inc.," > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > >From NANOG > > *********************************************************************** > J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > *********************************************************************** > > [2] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > ---------- > From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at priori.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 6:05 AM > To: ARIN go bragh! > Subject: Where do we send our membership check? (was: ARIN LIVES!!!) > > On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > June 24: The National Science Foundation has just announced the formation > > of ARIN, (The American Registry for Internet Numbers). NSF has approved a > > Network Solutions plan to set up the independent IP registry. All > > necessary documents are signed and in place. Steps to establish ARIN begin > > immediately. > > When can we join ARIN and where do we send our check for the membership > fee? > > ********************************************************* > Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ********************************************************* > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jdfalk at cybernothing.org Thu Jun 26 14:39:51 1997 From: jdfalk at cybernothing.org (J.D. Falk) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:39:51 -0700 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <01BC821D.97161300@webster.unety.net> [9706.26] References: <01BC821D.97161300@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <19970626113951.61189@cybernothing.org> On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: > How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? > > How about an ARIN for Canada ? I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will probably do okay with the /real/ one. > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation ---------========== J.D. Falk =========--------- | Can't find your sysadmin? REBOOT! | | Try http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/sysadmin.html REBOOT! | | Or ftp.cybernothing.org /pub/cno/sysadmin.txt OK! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========---- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 14:07:16 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:07:16 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC8263.08A78220@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B2AFD3.4DC8@ix.netcom.com> Jim, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Thursday, June 26, 1997 12:30 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: > > @ > > @ > In theory, the formation of ARIN should not change the > @ > rules about how ISPs obtain IP addresses. Justin > @ > Newton has recently suggested that the rules be > @ > rewritten. Justin used to be with Erols and they were > @ > located in the Virginia area and had an ample supply > @ > of IP addresses. Now Justin finds himself in a new > @ > company without IP addresses. > @ > @ Ahhhh! I see. Well to tell the truth, I am about > @ to find myself in the very same possition with a new > @ regional ISP we are putting together. Maybe is should > @ look at IPv8, huh? Your thoughts on that Jim? Privately > @ if you prefer? > @ > > IPv8 will not help you...yet. Besides, IF (a big IF) you > are able to obtain some IPv4 addresses, you will be > able to upgrade those to IPv8 addresses when the time > comes. Well I had already figured that IPv4 addresses would be upgradable. It seems to me that maybe IPV6 space should not be a problem to get. Comments? > > Unlike the socialist IPv4 model, IPv8 will feature true > private ownership of parts of the address space. I started > selling address space back in 1983 before most people > thought it would have value. > > In some cases, people may not care to own their address > space. This will not be a problem because they can lease > it from someone that does want to carry the deed. This is > like renting office space vs. buying a building. > > The more addresses that ARIN allocates, the more potential > customers there will be to upgrade to IPv8 addresses. I > hope that ARIN gets started soon as well as another dozen > ARINs in the U.S. alone. I agree. I hope so as well. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Thu Jun 26 20:25:43 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:25:43 -0500 Subject: oops! previous assignment history In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970626192543.00d2bb6c@texoma.net> At 06:38 PM 6/26/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >looks like I missed section 3.3 previous assignment history > >The rfc says: To promote increased usage of address space, the registries >will > require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the > enterprise, if any. > >Cook: i do detect some ambiguity here. assigned by the upstream provider >or assigned directly by internic? Aren't all the requirements for ISPs stated in section 2.1 alone of RFC2050? >From , Table of Contents, 2.1 Guidelines for Internet Service Providers.........4 The word ISP is not mentioned elsewhere in the document (authority: MSIE find function), save in the introduction and section 2.2 regarding reassignment information. --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 Member of TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571 From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 19:59:10 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:59:10 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC8263.08A78220@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 12:30 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ > @ > In theory, the formation of ARIN should not change the @ > rules about how ISPs obtain IP addresses. Justin @ > Newton has recently suggested that the rules be @ > rewritten. Justin used to be with Erols and they were @ > located in the Virginia area and had an ample supply @ > of IP addresses. Now Justin finds himself in a new @ > company without IP addresses. @ @ Ahhhh! I see. Well to tell the truth, I am about @ to find myself in the very same possition with a new @ regional ISP we are putting together. Maybe is should @ look at IPv8, huh? Your thoughts on that Jim? Privately @ if you prefer? @ IPv8 will not help you...yet. Besides, IF (a big IF) you are able to obtain some IPv4 addresses, you will be able to upgrade those to IPv8 addresses when the time comes. Unlike the socialist IPv4 model, IPv8 will feature true private ownership of parts of the address space. I started selling address space back in 1983 before most people thought it would have value. In some cases, people may not care to own their address space. This will not be a problem because they can lease it from someone that does want to carry the deed. This is like renting office space vs. buying a building. The more addresses that ARIN allocates, the more potential customers there will be to upgrade to IPv8 addresses. I hope that ARIN gets started soon as well as another dozen ARINs in the U.S. alone. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jun 26 20:46:11 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: oops! previous assignment history In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970626192543.00d2bb6c@texoma.net> Message-ID: larry vaden asks: Aren't all the requirements for ISPs stated in section 2.1 alone of RFC2050? Cook: no Larry I think you are wrong. section three refers to 'enterprises' wich might be a LARGE corporation or gov't agency wanting its own block of IP numbers from internic AS WELL AS might be an ISP. in my opinion enterprise was designed to refer to ISPs and other types of organizations. I think you are doing some serious misreading. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 19:32:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:32:13 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC825F.45008FE0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 6:32 PM, J.D. Falk[SMTP:jdfalk at cybernothing.org] wrote: @ On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > How do you define "real"....? @ @ Recognized by at least 90% of the hosts on the various @ private networks that make up the Internet. @ How do these hosts recognize ARIN ? Can the DNS be used to verify this 90% acceptance ? Are you saying that 90% of the ISPs are ARIN members ? I bet most of them have never heard of it. Also, what about the other companies that are copying the ARIN plan and preparing proposals ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 19:45:40 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:45:40 -0500 Subject: oops! previous assignment history Message-ID: <01BC8261.26060AA0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:38 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ looks like I missed section 3.3 previous assignment history @ @ The rfc says: To promote increased usage of address space, the registries @ will @ require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the @ enterprise, if any. @ @ Cook: i do detect some ambiguity here. assigned by the upstream provider @ or assigned directly by internic? @ The RFC you are reading was written to match the arbitrary actions that were used to allocate IP addresses. It is like drawing the blueprint of a house that is already built. You can not expect things to match. The RFC was written to provide justification to people that questioned the arbitrary policies. ISPs that casually asked for addresses or who did not have 20 years of networking could be easily blown off by being told to read that RFC, which as you point out has ambiguities. As a student of Russian History, I am sure that you have seen such tools used in the old Soviet Union. When people asked why they were still waiting for an apartment they could be told to read some obscur rule, as others passed by and moved to the head of the line. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 18:50:36 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:50:36 -0500 Subject: past vs future use Message-ID: <01BC8259.74773180@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 12:36 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ Someone has complained to me that they were turned down by internic for a @ prefix 19/ allocation because they could not show effective PAST use of @ their allocations. They maintained that RFC 2050 only demands assurance of @ FUTURE effective use.... Not past. @ @ I have done some looking at 2050 to ascertain, if I can, what the @ disagreement is about. When someone comes to internic asking for a @ direction address asignment. How can they demonstrate effective past use @ if the have never gotten address space from internic before or is the @ criteria meant to be their PAST use of space from their upstream provider? @ @ The following two sections seem to get as close to these areas as anything @ that I could find. @ @ @ 2.1.3 ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient @ manner. To this end, ISPs should have documented @ justification available for each assignment. The regional @ registry may, at any time, ask for this information. If the @ information is not available, future allocations may be impacted. @ In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted. @ @ 2.1. 4. IP addresses are allocated to ISPs using a slow-start @ procedure. New ISPs will receive a minimal amount based @ on immediate requirement. Thereafter, allocated blocks may be @ increased based on utilization verification supplied to the @ regional registry. @ @ Can someone who is directly involved with the registry process clarify @ what is going on here? @ @ responses from flemming and williAms will be deleted unread.....others @ welcome. @ ************************************************************************ @ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than @ 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material @ (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ @ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under @ attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml @ ************************************************************************ @ @ @ @ Gordon, It is good to see that you are asking questions about how things really work. It is surprising that you are asking these questions AFTER you gave everyone the impression that you were in the middle of the ARIN planning. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jun 26 20:00:53 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: who elected Brian kahin king of the internet? Message-ID: from spangler's web week article: "There were concerns about the structure of the organization, that it was not sufficiently open," said Brian Kahin, a consultant in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the interagency working group overseeing the inquiry. "We're not sure right now how public the review process will be. If [the working group] is satisfied that it will be open enough, ARIN may not be up for public review." Flame on: so here we have an attorney who organizes harvard conferences called down to sit in judgement on NSF, scott bradner, randy bush, john curran and the IETF process. beg your pardon white house but next time you decide to meddle get someone with knowldge of the subject and the respect of the community. but if you look at the assinity that came from the president's press secretary this evening saying that in order to protect our children from the smut and pornography of the internet the administration would get the equivalent of a "v-chip" created, you will see that these politicians are far more interested in 'appearances" than in reality. and yes jimmy....your raving asshole.... I made the mistake of looking at your comment. get one thing clear, bradner, bush and curran and kim have more than adequate ability to plan arin without an y help from me. flame off. *********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From jdfalk at cybernothing.org Thu Jun 26 19:32:35 1997 From: jdfalk at cybernothing.org (J.D. Falk) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:32:35 -0700 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <01BC824A.C6183FC0@webster.unety.net> [9706.26] References: <01BC824A.C6183FC0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <19970626163235.51692@cybernothing.org> On Jun 26, Jim Fleming wrote: > How do you define "real"....? Recognized by at least 90% of the hosts on the various private networks that make up the Internet. ---------========== J.D. Falk =========--------- | "Don't be stupid, Beavis. There's always been the Internet! | | There's just more lusers now." | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========---- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 09:24:02 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:24:02 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC821D.97161300@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B26D72.7D29@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:02 AM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] wrote: > @ > Can we have a very short response saying that in-addr management will > @ > not change in basic ways from how it is done now an dispense with this > @ > nonsense. > @ > @ I am not aware of anything worth changing. If you see improvements that > @ could be made, I am sure folk are open to discussion. > @ > > How about 10 more ARINs in the U.S. ? > > How about an ARIN for Canada ? Good questions, Jim. And a point I indicated earlier in a diffrent fassion However. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 16:32:39 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:32:39 +0100 Subject: oops! previous assignment history References: <3.0.2.32.19970626192543.00d2bb6c@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33B2D1E7.2655@ix.netcom.com> Larry, Larry Vaden wrote: > > At 06:38 PM 6/26/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >looks like I missed section 3.3 previous assignment history > > > >The rfc says: To promote increased usage of address space, the registries > >will > > require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the > > enterprise, if any. > > > >Cook: i do detect some ambiguity here. assigned by the upstream provider > >or assigned directly by internic? > > Aren't all the requirements for ISPs stated in section 2.1 alone of RFC2050? This i my understanding! Oh, glad to meet a fellow Texan BTW! >;) > > >From , Table of Contents, > > 2.1 Guidelines for Internet Service Providers.........4 > > The word ISP is not mentioned elsewhere in the document (authority: MSIE > find function), save in the introduction and section 2.2 regarding > reassignment information. > > --- > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 > Member of TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 16:25:59 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:25:59 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC8266.F9ABEB40@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B2D057.68D6@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:07 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: > > @ > > @ > IPv8 will not help you...yet. Besides, IF (a big IF) you > @ > are able to obtain some IPv4 addresses, you will be > @ > able to upgrade those to IPv8 addresses when the time > @ > comes. > @ > @ Well I had already figured that IPv4 addresses would > @ be upgradable. It seems to me that maybe IPV6 space > @ should not be a problem to get. Comments? > > IPv6 has 128 bit addresses. They are overkill. Hummmm? I am not sure that I believe they are overkill, but I see your point. > > There is already a mess, because an address space > that large encourages people to be wasteful and makes > it attractive to overload addresses with service attributes > much like the multicasting mess. This could however be managed is done properly. But yes, there is always this possibility. > > IPv8 addresses only have 43 bits, but those bits were > carefully engineered and they fit into the same size and > shape header as IPv4, unlike IPv6 which has a totally > different header design. I know. > > The 43 bit IPv8 addresses will of course fit inside > the 128 bit IPv6 addresses if that is ever useful. I think it will eventualy. > The 43 bits also fit into 64 bit computer architectures > and with object-oriented systems based on platforms > and not protocols, this becomes important. Very important indeed! > > Balance is important in all design... True. But sometimes Overdesign is important also. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 16:50:16 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:50:16 +0100 Subject: oops! previous assignment history References: Message-ID: <33B2D608.91B@ix.netcom.com> Gordon, Larry and all, Gordon Cook wrote: > > larry vaden asks: > > Aren't all the requirements for ISPs stated in section 2.1 alone of > RFC2050? > > Cook: no Larry I think you are wrong. section three refers to > 'enterprises' wich might be a LARGE corporation or gov't agency wanting > its own block of IP numbers from internic AS WELL AS might be an ISP. > > in my opinion enterprise was designed to refer to ISPs and other types of > organizations. I think you are doing some serious misreading. You may be right here. I found 27 refrences to "ISP" or ISP's". > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml > ************************************************************************ regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 26 16:19:54 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:19:54 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC825E.97D22680@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B2CEEA.1FFA@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Thursday, June 26, 1997 6:11 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:sprunk at csi.net] wrote: > @ At 16:05 26-06-97 -0500, you wrote: > @ >On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:39 PM, J.D. > @ Falk[SMTP:jdfalk at cybernothing.org] wrote: > @ >@ I'd like my own ARIN, please. Jim should have his own, too. > @ >@ > @ >@ Actually, as long as Jim has his own, the rest of us will > @ >@ probably do okay with the /real/ one. > @ > > @ >How do you define "real"....? > @ > > @ >IANA sanctioned ? > @ > @ Exactly. > @ > > Will ARIN be presenting the items David McClure > suggests are missing from a "real" proposal...? > > @@@ http://www.webweek.com/current/infrastructure/19970623-ip.html > > "ARIN's not a real proposal. It's a half-baked document > with a price list," said David McClure, executive director > of the Association of Online Professionals, a group of > more than 1,000 network operators. "We haven't seen a > business plan, a budget, bylaws, or a mission statement. > Fundamentally, it's got to be accountable to the people > who foot the bill." I must say that this is one of the points that I have been making in a somewhat softer manner. I couldn't agree more with what David is suggesting. >;) There must be open accountability here, if this method is going to have any chance of working over the long haul. It seems that mayn are only intrested in the short term. This cannot and will not prevail I believe. But it is only My humble opinion... And I guess Davids as well. > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From cook at NETAXS.COM Thu Jun 26 18:38:18 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: oops! previous assignment history Message-ID: looks like I missed section 3.3 previous assignment history The rfc says: To promote increased usage of address space, the registries will require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the enterprise, if any. Cook: i do detect some ambiguity here. assigned by the upstream provider or assigned directly by internic? ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 21:12:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:12:59 -0500 Subject: who elected Brian kahin king of the internet? Message-ID: <01BC826D.584B3060@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 3:00 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ your comment. get one thing clear, bradner, bush and curran and kim have @ more than adequate ability to plan arin without an y help from me. flame @ off. You failed to mention the most important person, Don Telage, the former President of Network Solutions, Inc. Don was in charge of Network Solutions, Inc. when the $50 domain charging was pushed past the NSF in 1995. Don is also the author of the NSI plan that has derailed the IAHC plan. Don was replaced by Gabe Battista at Network Solutions, Inc. in November 1996. Since that time the necessity for ARIN has increased even though the shape of IP addresses have not changed. It is unclear what roll the Network Solutions, Inc. employees will have in ARIN. I have heard both views, that they will be on the Board and eventually replaced, while others claim the NSI people will run ARIN. This has never been made clear. Another point that has never been made clear is whether the NSI employees will remain as NSI employees and have their cake and eat it too. If NSI makes an IPO as some claim will occur as soon as ARIN is put at arms length, then ARIN people may want to remain at NSI to cash in on that opportunity. It is sort of too bad that ARIN does not have a Board that does not tie it to NSI. Then it would be easier for the Board to make independent decisions. Of course, if ARIN is a device designed to provide jobs for NSI people that are not into the .COM, .NET, and .ORG battle then obviously ARIN will be largely with NSI people and will be located at the old space just vacated by NSI domain registration people. The ARIN Board will eventually have to address these issues. I suppose they have until March of 1998 and maybe are hoping that the domain name chaos will cloud all of the issues. @@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_board.html "Donald N. Telage, Ph.D, Senior Vice President at Network Solutions Inc.since January 1995 following its acquisition by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). He has grown NSI into a key Internet company and the world technology leader in Internet Registration services. His prior experience with SAIC, from 1986 to 1995, involved a progression in executive management culminating with the position of Senior Vice President managing the Telecommunications Technology Operating Group, which he started. While at GTE from 1980 to 1985, he held a variety of systems engineering positions, both technical and management, involving data communications systems design. Prior to 1980, Dr. Telage was a faculty member in mathematics and computer science at several universities, and conducted parallel research programs. He has become active in the governance community of the Internet, and he is a frequent speaker on matters of governance and administration of Internet infrastructure." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Jun 26 20:27:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:27:23 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC8266.F9ABEB40@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:07 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ > @ > IPv8 will not help you...yet. Besides, IF (a big IF) you @ > are able to obtain some IPv4 addresses, you will be @ > able to upgrade those to IPv8 addresses when the time @ > comes. @ @ Well I had already figured that IPv4 addresses would @ be upgradable. It seems to me that maybe IPV6 space @ should not be a problem to get. Comments? IPv6 has 128 bit addresses. They are overkill. There is already a mess, because an address space that large encourages people to be wasteful and makes it attractive to overload addresses with service attributes much like the multicasting mess. IPv8 addresses only have 43 bits, but those bits were carefully engineered and they fit into the same size and shape header as IPv4, unlike IPv6 which has a totally different header design. The 43 bit IPv8 addresses will of course fit inside the 128 bit IPv6 addresses if that is ever useful. The 43 bits also fit into 64 bit computer architectures and with object-oriented systems based on platforms and not protocols, this becomes important. Balance is important in all design... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From markb at INFI.NET Thu Jun 26 23:28:19 1997 From: markb at INFI.NET (Mark Borchers) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:28:19 +0500 Subject: past vs future use Message-ID: <199706271229.IAA19385@mh004.infi.net> Gordon, In my opinion it seems self-evident that an ISP's ability to manage an IP allocation wisely, regardless of where it came from, is a valid indicator of how well they would manage a future InterNIC allocation. > Someone has complained to me that they were turned down by internic for a > prefix 19/ allocation because they could not show effective PAST use of > their allocations. They maintained that RFC 2050 only demands assurance of > FUTURE effective use.... Not past. > > I have done some looking at 2050 to ascertain, if I can, what the > disagreement is about. When someone comes to internic asking for a > direction address asignment. How can they demonstrate effective past use > if the have never gotten address space from internic before or is the > criteria meant to be their PAST use of space from their upstream provider? From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jun 27 09:46:16 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:46:16 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC82D6.94621780@webster.unety.net> On Friday, June 27, 1997 2:58 AM, Tim Gibson[SMTP:tim at fastlane.ca] wrote: @ @ > I do remember Michaels strong possition in favor of @ > the IAHC perposal, which is withering away nearly as @ > we speek here. Not only is the ARIN getting a monopoly @ > in North america, but South america and canada as well @ > If I am not mistakin? But I am not sure that this @ > is necessarly a bad thing short term. I do believe @ > that within the Trade zones is where currently this @ > managment of IP addresses should fall, but as the @ > need increases for IP numbers, this may not hold. @ @ Sure this isn't a bad thing for Canada... I still can't get a full class C @ up here and I have a customer with 2000 PCs on a LAN. Now instead of @ telling the customer that Kim says it can't be justified, I can tell them @ they have to pay some U.S. non-profit (my bloody ass!) organization to @ get the numbers. @ @ Tim Gibson @ Skyscape Communications @ @ Here is the actual Press Release from the NSF. You might want to contact Beth Gaston to get more of the details of what is going on. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Title : INTERNET Moves Toward Privatization--IP Numbers Handled by Non-Profit Type : Press Release NSF Org: OD / LPA Date : June 24, 1997 File : pr9746 Media contact: June 24, 1997 Beth Gaston NSF PR 97-46 (703) 306-1070/egaston at nsf.gov INTERNET MOVES TOWARD PRIVATIZATION IP Numbers Handled by Non-Profit The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced today an action that moves the Internet toward privatization. Internet Protocol number assignments will soon be handled by a non-profit organization. The NSF has approved a plan from Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) which establishes the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). Under the plan, ARIN would assume full responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) number assignments and related administrative tasks previously handled by NSI. The shift, expected to be fully implemented before March 1998, separates the assignment of Internet numbers (addresses) used for Internet routing from domain name registration activities (which will continue to be handled by Network Solutions). The move will affect only a relatively small number of Internet service providers and very large institutional users -- around 300 last year -- who obtain their IP assignments directly from NSI. Most Internet users will be unaffected by the change and most Internet service providers will continue to obtain their IP assignments from their providers. The creation of ARIN is consistent with the recommendations received from the Internet community at workshops over the past eighteen months, and with concurrence from a federal interagency working group. "This move is another step by the federal government in the continuing privatization and commercialization of the Internet," said George Strawn, director of the Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure division at NSF. "The Internet is no longer in its infancy. It is growing up into a commercially based, self-regulating entity. NSI should be lauded for aiding this transition." The establishment of ARIN is important for the continued growth and the global stability of the Internet, Strawn said. ARIN is patterned after the successful RIPENIC and APNIC registration activities in Europe and Asia. Regional registries are also being created by providers in Latin America and Africa to assume responsibility for IP number assignment in those areas. It is anticipated that before long, a global council of the regional registries may work together to determine consistant and equitable global policies for IP allocation and management. The creation of ARIN will not change any current policies or procedures for obtaining Internet numbers. Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region. ARIN is intended to provide Internet service providers in North America an opportunity to help develop Internet management policies within the region and, through ARIN's collaboration with other regional registries, globally. -NSF- Editors: More information about ARIN, see: http://www.arin.net NSF is making a transition to new forms of electronic distribution of news materials. We will eventually replace the current "listserve" with a new Custom News Service. From the NSF home page, (URL: http://www.nsf.gov), you will be able to automatically sign up for and receive electronic transmissions of all materials (or those of your own choosing). NSF is an independent federal agency responsible for fundamental research in all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of about $3.3 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states, through grants to more than 2,000 universities and institutions nationwide. NSF receives more than 50,000 requests for funding annually, including at least 30,000 new proposals. Also see NSF news products at: http://www.nsf.gov:80/od/lpa/start.htm, http://www.eurekalert.org/, and http://www.ari.net/newswise @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jun 27 09:58:22 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:58:22 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC82D8.44A14DE0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:40 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ Kim has stated that her primary function at ARIN will be IP space @ reclaimation. I'm not sure how many large contiguous blocks she will find @ at first, but there's no doubt it will do some good and hopefully loosen up @ allocations once enough small networks have been reclaimed to form aggregates. @ /**/ // # @ If you'll remember, I argued for atomic netblocks in NANOG a while back and @ received no support, even from you, who claim to support the idea. @ I am sorry I did not see that and generally post very little to the NANOG list because the people there claim they are only interested in day to day operational integrity topics. They only discuss other topics when the "right" people are involved. Again...I have suggested a very simple plan... 3,000 new /18 allocations for ISPs. An easy application form with NO "subjective" decisions. I can dig out the details if you missed the original postings. One thing that is odd is that ARIN is not needed to make any of these plans happen. They could have been done within the InterNIC structure. No one has ever explained why the creation of ARIN is going to magically change any of the decision making process. I predict that it will not. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From spsprunk at paranet.com Fri Jun 27 09:40:54 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:40:54 -0500 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <01BC8255.6EEA2140@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970627084054.006c0e88@pop.srv.paranet.com> Kim has stated that her primary function at ARIN will be IP space reclaimation. I'm not sure how many large contiguous blocks she will find at first, but there's no doubt it will do some good and hopefully loosen up allocations once enough small networks have been reclaimed to form aggregates. If you'll remember, I argued for atomic netblocks in NANOG a while back and received no support, even from you, who claim to support the idea. Stephen At 17:21 26-06-97 -0500, you wrote: >This situation will be interesting to watch. I have >argued that companies should be given a "short-form" >application to obtain a /18 allocation with the >understanding that they can not fragment it. With >this approach, blocks are kept together and if a new >company goes under a large block is reclaimed. > >At the present time there does not seem to be much >effort to reclaim blocks. For example, an ISP in the >Chicago area with a /16 (old Class B) recently went >under, their block will probably be lost in the shuffle. >This is a waste of resources and it is a shame that >companies have to spend all of their time and energy >jumping through hoops to obtain IP addresses when >blocks are wasting away... -- Unsolicited commercial/propaganda email subject to legal action. Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C), and Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a State may impose a fine of not less than $500 per message. Read the full text of Title 47 Sec 227 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 06:18:32 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:18:32 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC82D8.44A14DE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B39378.70C1@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:40 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: > @ Kim has stated that her primary function at ARIN will be IP space > @ reclaimation. I'm not sure how many large contiguous blocks she will find > @ at first, but there's no doubt it will do some good and hopefully loosen up > @ allocations once enough small networks have been reclaimed to form aggregates. > @ > > /**/ > // > # > > @ If you'll remember, I argued for atomic netblocks in NANOG a while back and > @ received no support, even from you, who claim to support the idea. > @ > > I am sorry I did not see that and generally post very little > to the NANOG list because the people there claim they > are only interested in day to day operational integrity topics. > They only discuss other topics when the "right" people > are involved. > > Again...I have suggested a very simple plan... > > 3,000 new /18 allocations for ISPs. > An easy application form with NO "subjective" decisions. Good suggestion! > I can dig out the details if you missed the original postings. > > One thing that is odd is that ARIN is not needed to > make any of these plans happen. They could have been > done within the InterNIC structure. No one has ever explained > why the creation of ARIN is going to magically change any > of the decision making process. I predict that it will not. The process may indeed not change. But the decisions and timing I would think will. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Fri Jun 27 14:04:32 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <01BC82D8.44A14DE0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jun 27, 97 08:58:22 am Message-ID: <199706271804.AA071694674@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > No one has ever explained > why the creation of ARIN is going to magically change any > of the decision making process. I predict that it will not. > No one has ever said that the allocation decision process will change with the formation of ARIN. However, since ARIN will be goverened by its members there is greater opportunity for change. ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jun 27 16:08:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:08:15 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC830B.F0DE2320@webster.unety.net> On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:21 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ > No one has ever said that the allocation decision process will change with @ > the formation of ARIN. However, since ARIN will be goverened by its @ > members there is greater opportunity for change. @ @ How true. But doesn't this just about amount to the same thing? @ Sience ARIN will be governed by it's members, that it will be @ THEIR dicision if there is need for change in procedures, right? @ Hence there is a liklyhood that there will be some change. @ > Judging from the lack of participation in these open forums by the proposed ARIN Board and other people that are supposedly organizing ARIN, I would say there is little chance for change. All of the decisions appear to be made behind closed doors.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 09:21:25 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:21:25 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <199706271804.AA071694674@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <33B3BE55.1268@ix.netcom.com> Phillip, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > > Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > > No one has ever explained > > why the creation of ARIN is going to magically change any > > of the decision making process. I predict that it will not. > > > > No one has ever said that the allocation decision process will change with > the formation of ARIN. However, since ARIN will be goverened by its > members there is greater opportunity for change. How true. But doesn't this just about amount to the same thing? Sience ARIN will be governed by it's members, that it will be THEIR dicision if there is need for change in procedures, right? Hence there is a liklyhood that there will be some change. > > ---> Phil Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 27 10:21:54 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:21:54 +0100 Subject: The latest References: <01BC830B.F0DE2320@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <33B3CC82.2390@ix.netcom.com> Jim and all, Jim Fleming wrote: > > On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:21 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: > > @ > No one has ever said that the allocation decision process will change with > @ > the formation of ARIN. However, since ARIN will be goverened by its > @ > members there is greater opportunity for change. > @ > @ How true. But doesn't this just about amount to the same thing? > @ Sience ARIN will be governed by it's members, that it will be > @ THEIR dicision if there is need for change in procedures, right? > @ Hence there is a liklyhood that there will be some change. > @ > > > Judging from the lack of participation in these open > forums by the proposed ARIN Board and other people > that are supposedly organizing ARIN, I would say there > is little chance for change. > > All of the decisions appear to be made behind closed > doors.... Hence my comment. >;) I hope they find it prudent to have an open format of decisions they are considering however. This would give them an opertunity to be better accepted and possibly offer some suggestions that they may find useful. Never want to make decisions in a vacum... Right? But I am for givingthem a chance to get orginized befor making any hard and fast judgments one way or the other at this point... Food for thought? > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From spsprunk at paranet.com Fri Jun 27 15:29:35 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:29:35 -0500 Subject: The latest In-Reply-To: <01BC82D8.44A14DE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970627142935.00751678@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 08:58 27-06-97 -0500, you wrote: >On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:40 AM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: ... >@ If you'll remember, I argued for atomic netblocks in NANOG a while back and >@ received no support, even from you, who claim to support the idea. ... >Again...I have suggested a very simple plan... > >3,000 new /18 allocations for ISPs. >An easy application form with NO "subjective" decisions. >I can dig out the details if you missed the original postings. What is your reasoning for the allocations to be /18s, and for there to be exactly 3,000 of them? I'd have suggested 4096x /20s (exactly 1x /8), except for the problem with Sprint (and others) filtering things longer than /19. I would have serious reservations about allocating 48 million IPs with absolutely no review policy. Everyone and their dog (and their cats and goldfish too) would be getting blocks, even if they didn't need anything more than a single PA-C. I'd also like to hear specific guidelines for reclamation of addresses, since no NIC (that I know of) has ever made any attempt at reclaiming IPs en masse. >One thing that is odd is that ARIN is not needed to >make any of these plans happen. They could have been >done within the InterNIC structure. No one has ever explained >why the creation of ARIN is going to magically change any >of the decision making process. I predict that it will not. ARIN's stated purpose is to divide the allocation of IPs and SLDs, not to change any policies. ARIN should be following the policy outlined in RFC 2050, which also governs RIPE and APNIC. Since ARIN will actually have member involvement in the process (as with RIPE and APNIC), it is likely things will become more user-friendly. Stephen From justin at priori.net Fri Jun 27 02:01:01 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:01:01 -0700 Subject: oops! previous assignment history In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970626230101.006f8a0c@priori.net> At 06:38 PM 6/26/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >looks like I missed section 3.3 previous assignment history > >The rfc says: To promote increased usage of address space, the registries >will > require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the > enterprise, if any. > >Cook: i do detect some ambiguity here. assigned by the upstream provider >or assigned directly by internic? Either, or both, depending on your circumstances. I.e. either one is fine, unless you received assignments from both, in which case both will be taken into account. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jun 27 15:44:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:44:17 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC8308.977D9CA0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, June 27, 1997 2:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ At 08:58 27-06-97 -0500, you wrote: @ >On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:40 AM, Stephen @ Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ ... @ >@ If you'll remember, I argued for atomic netblocks in NANOG a while back and @ >@ received no support, even from you, who claim to support the idea. @ ... @ >Again...I have suggested a very simple plan... @ > @ >3,000 new /18 allocations for ISPs. @ >An easy application form with NO "subjective" decisions. @ >I can dig out the details if you missed the original postings. @ @ What is your reasoning for the allocations to be /18s, and for there to be @ exactly 3,000 of them? I'd have suggested 4096x /20s (exactly 1x /8), @ except for the problem with Sprint (and others) filtering things longer @ than /19. @ 3,000 was a number someone threw out on a list in a similar discussion. I think that it was based on some estimate of the number of U.S. ISPs that would apply the first day. The short form approach would require that the ISP prove (via signed affidavits) that they have contracted for two distinct "upstream" providers each with at least a T1 connection. As for reclamation, maybe these affidavits would have to be "renewed" each year (like insurance certificates) and if they are not provided then the IP addresses are reclaimed in some period of time (30, 60, or 90) days. Another option would be to use the DNS system to set up some dummy zones which contain delegations to companies that then record their connectivity in TXT records. With that approach, software could be used to detect when connections are pulled or changed. In general, if the allocations are large then the reclaimed blocks will be large. If the blocks are the same size then the management tasks are reduced. I think a /20 is a little small. A /19 is OK, but a /18 should hold many ISPs for some time. If they go belly up, then a /18 is returned. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jun 27 16:33:58 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:33:58 -0500 Subject: The latest Message-ID: <01BC830F.886B1B00@webster.unety.net> On Friday, June 27, 1997 9:21 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote: @ @ But I am for givingthem a chance to get orginized befor @ making any hard and fast judgments one way or the other @ at this point... Food for thought? @ > They have been actively organizing since January. They have been organizing long before that prior to the January annoucements. May 1st was supposed to be the start date. You will note that silence on the Internet is now interpreted as consensus. I call it apathy. In general, I do not really think people care until it directly impacts their pocket book and then it is too late. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From kimh at internic.net Fri Jun 27 22:53:44 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: oops! previous assignment history In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Cook" at Jun 26, 97 06:38:18 pm Message-ID: <199706280253.WAA06706@ops1.internic.net> > Gordon, Sorry not to respond sooner, I've been in KL. The answer to your question is that ISPs and end-users alike must account for all previously assigned address space regardless of where they got it. BTW, this is not the forum for discussing IP policies. If you would like to continue the discussion, please post to the pagan mailing list. Kim > looks like I missed section 3.3 previous assignment history > > The rfc says: To promote increased usage of address space, the registries > will > require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the > enterprise, if any. > > Cook: i do detect some ambiguity here. assigned by the upstream provider > or assigned directly by internic? > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml > ************************************************************************ > > From justin at priori.net Fri Jun 27 02:06:44 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:06:44 -0700 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970626230644.006f8a0c@priori.net> At 05:36 PM 6/26/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >Can someone who is directly involved with the registry process clarify >what is going on here? Kim would likely be the best person to answer this, but as she is at INET '97 this week, I will give you my best guess as to their current interpretation of policy. Please note that I have no current or past relationship with ARIN, the Internic, RIPE or APNIC, aside from using the services of the Internic, so anything I say is in no way authoritative of anything. (I am getting really tired of people insinuating that things I say are when it is obvious that they couldn't possibly be.) Oh yeah, one more disclaimer, I am simply stating things as I see them, and am not commenting one way or another as to whether or not I believe that this is the way that things should be. The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the smallest allocation size that everyone that we know of will carry in their routing tables, this seems to be the smallest size allocation that anyone would ask for. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 13:02:04 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970626230644.006f8a0c@priori.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to > utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will > assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the That's not the impression I get from rfc2050. [direct quote from the rfc] --- 3.1 Common Registry Requirements Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates. Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed below: 25% immediate utilization rate 50% utilization rate within 1 year --- Based on this, I would think an ISP that is, or is about to be, multihomed and is currently completley (and efficiently) using at least a /21 worth of IP's and expects to fully utilize a /20 in about 1 year _should_ be able to apply for and receive their very own /19. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From cook at NETAXS.COM Sat Jun 28 13:17:30 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sigh! relevant points. evidently allocation and assignment of ip numbers are different. evidently sect 3.1 is not intended to apply to isps. now that I have begun to look a little more closely at this stuff, it is NOT at all as clear as I would have hoped. I hope that we will begin to have a discussion of some of these issues over the next few days. what's the address of pagn kim? I am very interested in your and the arin board and jon postels views on a range of procedural issues. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to > > utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will > > assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the > > That's not the impression I get from rfc2050. > > [direct quote from the rfc] > --- > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor > in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the > Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern > the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates. > > Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic > criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed > below: > > 25% immediate utilization rate > 50% utilization rate within 1 year > > > --- > > Based on this, I would think an ISP that is, or is about to be, multihomed > and is currently completley (and efficiently) using at least a /21 worth > of IP's and expects to fully utilize a /20 in about 1 year _should_ be > able to apply for and receive their very own /19. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sat Jun 28 14:04:26 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > [direct quote from the rfc] > --- > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > limited, It's interesting that RFC2050 is premised on a limitation of addresses. The real issue that started all off this is not that we are running out of addressing space (Frank Solenski's projections show we have about 20 years before we hit the wall -- ask me sometime about how and where the original calculation was made, it's an interesting story.) Rather, the real issue is the routing table expansion. While efficient utilization of addresses is important, it is not the only concern. Perhaps an additional metric is whether an allocation/delegation/assignment can be made that doesn't add additional routing table entries. For example an ISP that needs an additional /19 to add to their existing /19 might need to trade in their old /19 in order to get a /18. That way the number of routing table entries remains constant. That would change the system to one in which the registry (ARIN or an intermediate level ISP) might have to withdraw previously delegated address blocks and assign replacements in order to aggregate assignments. So perhaps an additional metric is whether one who desires an additioanl block of addresses is willing to give up existing blocks in order to obtain a larger, aggregated allocation. --karl-- From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 14:09:24 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > Sigh! relevant points. > > evidently allocation and assignment of ip numbers are different. > evidently sect 3.1 is not intended to apply to isps. > > now that I have begun to look a little more closely at this stuff, it is > NOT at all as clear as I would have hoped. It appears I'd skimmed over 3.0 too fast and should have been looking at 2.x instead. Why are ISP's treated as second class citizens in RFC 2050? An end user enterprise can qualify for a /19 if they will use 1/4 of it immediately, and 50% in the next year or so. According to guideline 4 for ISP's, it looks as if an ISP must prove they will fully use an allocation in 3 months, and 2.2 suggests that they must swip at least 80% of the first allocation to be considered for further ones. Should I submit swip's for the blocks I use for virtual servers and dynamic dialup IP's? > I hope that we will begin to have a discussion of some of these issues > over the next few days. what's the address of pagn kim? I am very > interested in your and the arin board and jon postels views on a range of > procedural issues. Same here. Also, when will the ARIN issues (like fees and membership) be ironed out now that ARIN has been "approved". I still think it's ridiculous to not give a membership (at no extra cost) to any entity that has paid for an allocation. i.e. After FDT pays for an allocation, assuming we can qualify, I think FDT should be an ARIN member (at no additional charge) for as long as it uses ARIN assigned space. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, I'd like to know why. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 09:44:35 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:44:35 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B51543.322D@ix.netcom.com> Jon and all, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to > > utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will > > assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the > > That's not the impression I get from rfc2050. > > [direct quote from the rfc] > --- > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor > in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the > Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern > the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates. > > Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic > criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed > below: > > 25% immediate utilization rate > 50% utilization rate within 1 year > > --- > > Based on this, I would think an ISP that is, or is about to be, multihomed > and is currently completley (and efficiently) using at least a /21 worth > of IP's and expects to fully utilize a /20 in about 1 year _should_ be > able to apply for and receive their very own /19. I have to agree with Jon's assesment here. It would seeme exactly so that if an ISP is multihomed and completley using at least a /21 worth of IP's and is expecting to use a /20 in about a year should have no problem with justifying and being granted their very own /19. I would make a small proviso here, that being that as to what is consittuted as "Efficiently Using". This may have several interpratations. so I would leave this part out, for the perposes of definition. SOme guidelines need to be clarified on this point IMHO. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 09:53:09 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:53:09 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B51745.29D5@ix.netcom.com> Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > [direct quote from the rfc] > > --- > > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > > limited, > > It's interesting that RFC2050 is premised on a limitation of addresses. > > The real issue that started all off this is not that we are running out of > addressing space (Frank Solenski's projections show we have about 20 years > before we hit the wall -- ask me sometime about how and where the original > calculation was made, it's an interesting story.) Rather, the real issue > is the routing table expansion. Exactly! Whew! Finaly someone sees the light! >;) > > While efficient utilization of addresses is important, it is not the only > concern. > > Perhaps an additional metric is whether an > allocation/delegation/assignment can be made that doesn't add additional > routing table entries. Good suggestion, and possible. I believe this suggestion has been mentioned not to long ago. Not sure where or who mad it however. It has been a thought on my mind for some time... > > For example an ISP that needs an additional /19 to add to their existing > /19 might need to trade in their old /19 in order to get a /18. That way > the number of routing table entries remains constant. Yes sir. Could work this way. I think however that some flexibility will need to be built in. > > That would change the system to one in which the registry (ARIN or an > intermediate level ISP) might have to withdraw previously delegated > address blocks and assign replacements in order to aggregate assignments. > > So perhaps an additional metric is whether one who desires an additioanl > block of addresses is willing to give up existing blocks in order to > obtain a larger, aggregated allocation. This is where the rub is going to be Karl. Maybe it could be finnessed a bit by allowing some change over time. > > --karl-- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jerry at fc.net Sat Jun 28 16:01:53 1997 From: jerry at fc.net (Jeremy Porter) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:01:53 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:09:24 EDT." Message-ID: <199706282001.PAA18651@freeside.fc.net> In message , Jon L ewis writes: >Same here. Also, when will the ARIN issues (like fees and membership) be >ironed out now that ARIN has been "approved". I still think it's >ridiculous to not give a membership (at no extra cost) to any entity that >has paid for an allocation. > >i.e. After FDT pays for an allocation, assuming we can qualify, I think >FDT should be an ARIN member (at no additional charge) for as long as it >uses ARIN assigned space. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, I'd >like to know why. > ARIN has two functions: Allocate address to organizations that need them, and set policy. You pay for you allocations in such a way that your fees are designed to recover the cost of the people running the allocations. It is not a good thing to require people to be members of ARIN to receive allocations (within its gegraphic scope.). The policy functions of ARIN need to be funded also. Since we only want interested parties to particpate in policy making, one dollar one vote. You might could argue that the membership fee is too high, but that is a different story. A large majority of people out there aren't interested in mucking with policy as long as things are working. Thus there is no need for them to follow the mailling lists, attend meetings, and pay fees. There has to exist a fundemental separation between membership and allocation. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 09:55:59 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:55:59 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B517EF.6A28@ix.netcom.com> Jon, No disagreement here. >;) Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > Sigh! relevant points. > > > > evidently allocation and assignment of ip numbers are different. > > evidently sect 3.1 is not intended to apply to isps. > > > > now that I have begun to look a little more closely at this stuff, it is > > NOT at all as clear as I would have hoped. > > It appears I'd skimmed over 3.0 too fast and should have been looking at > 2.x instead. Why are ISP's treated as second class citizens in RFC 2050? > An end user enterprise can qualify for a /19 if they will use 1/4 of it > immediately, and 50% in the next year or so. According to guideline 4 for > ISP's, it looks as if an ISP must prove they will fully use an allocation > in 3 months, and 2.2 suggests that they must swip at least 80% of the > first allocation to be considered for further ones. Should I submit > swip's for the blocks I use for virtual servers and dynamic dialup IP's? > > > I hope that we will begin to have a discussion of some of these issues > > over the next few days. what's the address of pagn kim? I am very > > interested in your and the arin board and jon postels views on a range of > > procedural issues. > > Same here. Also, when will the ARIN issues (like fees and membership) be > ironed out now that ARIN has been "approved". I still think it's > ridiculous to not give a membership (at no extra cost) to any entity that > has paid for an allocation. > > i.e. After FDT pays for an allocation, assuming we can qualify, I think > FDT should be an ARIN member (at no additional charge) for as long as it > uses ARIN assigned space. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, I'd > like to know why. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jun 28 16:42:10 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:42:10 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? Message-ID: <01BC83D9.D80FFE80@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, June 28, 1997 3:01 PM, Jeremy Porter[SMTP:jerry at fc.net] wrote: @ @ @ ARIN has two functions: Allocate address to organizations that need them, @ and set policy. Just a reminder...it also has to handle or help handle the maintenance of the delegations under IN-ADDR.ARPA for the /8s that ARIN will be delegated. Does anyone have a list of which /8s those will be ? Has the IRS determined what the value of those /8 delegations are ? Will those delegations be transferred as assets from Network Solutions, Inc. to ARIN which was supposed to be an IRS 501(c) 6 ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 15:49:40 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B51543.322D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > I have to agree with Jon's assesment here. It would seeme exactly > so that if an ISP is multihomed and completley using at least a Unfortunately, if you read a little more carefully (I missed it when skimming the rfc before, but Mr. Cook pointed it out) section 3 doesn't seem to apply to ISPs at all. We get shafted in section 2. Section 3 is for large organizations not giving IP's out to others...not a fitting description of most ISPs. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 15:58:44 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <199706282001.PAA18651@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jeremy Porter wrote: > ARIN has two functions: Allocate address to organizations that need them, > and set policy. You pay for you allocations in such a way that your > fees are designed to recover the cost of the people running the > allocations. It is not a good thing to require people to be members of > ARIN to receive allocations (within its gegraphic scope.). The I'm not saying entities that receive an allocation must be members. What I meant to get across was that an entity that pays for an allocation probably has a very real interest in how ARIN is run and in how ARIN policy is shaped. As such, after paying for an allocation, an entity should be given membership at no additional cost if they desire it. > policy functions of ARIN need to be funded also. Since we only > want interested parties to particpate in policy making, > one dollar one vote. See above. The fact that CompanyA pays for an allocation and probably will pay for future allocations will in most cases mean that they are very interested in participating in policy making. i.e. If I have to pay yearly fees for allocations, I'm going to be against raising the fees without darn good reasons, and in favor of lowering them when possible. This is sort of like the government taxing everyone, but saying only the rich can vote in elections for government officials. > A large majority of people out there aren't interested in mucking with policy > as long as things are working. Thus there is no need for them to > follow the mailling lists, attend meetings, and pay fees. I think you'll find this to not be the case once people have to start shelling out big bucks for their portable allocations. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 10:54:54 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:54:54 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <199706282001.PAA18651@freeside.fc.net> Message-ID: <33B525BE.571B@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy, Jeremy Porter wrote: > > In message , Jon L > ewis writes: > >Same here. Also, when will the ARIN issues (like fees and membership) be > >ironed out now that ARIN has been "approved". I still think it's > >ridiculous to not give a membership (at no extra cost) to any entity that > >has paid for an allocation. > > > >i.e. After FDT pays for an allocation, assuming we can qualify, I think > >FDT should be an ARIN member (at no additional charge) for as long as it > >uses ARIN assigned space. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, I'd > >like to know why. > > > > ARIN has two functions: Allocate address to organizations that need them, > and set policy. You pay for you allocations in such a way that your > fees are designed to recover the cost of the people running the > allocations. It is not a good thing to require people to be members of > ARIN to receive allocations (within its gegraphic scope.). The > policy functions of ARIN need to be funded also. Since we only > want interested parties to particpate in policy making, > one dollar one vote. You might could argue that the > membership fee is too high, but that is a different story. > A large majority of people out there aren't interested in mucking with policy > as long as things are working. Thus there is no need for them to > follow the mailling lists, attend meetings, and pay fees. Good point here. What is the amount of these fees, and are there any qualifications? Is this posted? If so Where? ARIN's site maybe? I will check. Please advise if you know the answers to any of these questions. > > There has to exist a fundemental separation between membership > and allocation. I can see the advantages of seperating membership and those with allocations. There is a reb here that I think Jon was trying to get to. That being that if you have already paid for allocations, it would seem that there could be a vested intrest in how policy is set by those whom have paid for allocations. The "Money where your mouth is" sort of thing. Maybe it would be of intrest to charge an additional nominal fee for those who have allocations for the membership in addition to their allocation fees as an option? > > --- > Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry at fc.net > PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 > http://www.fc.net Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From kimh at internic.net Sat Jun 28 17:02:53 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B51543.322D@ix.netcom.com> from "Jeff Williams" at Jun 28, 97 02:44:35 pm Message-ID: <199706282102.RAA06892@ops1.internic.net> > Jeff, The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently globally routable. One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. Kim > Jon and all, > > Jon Lewis wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > > > The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to > > > utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will > > > assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the > > > > That's not the impression I get from rfc2050. > > > > [direct quote from the rfc] > > --- > > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > > limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor > > in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the > > Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern > > the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates. > > > > Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic > > criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed > > below: > > > > 25% immediate utilization rate > > 50% utilization rate within 1 year > > > > --- > > > > Based on this, I would think an ISP that is, or is about to be, multihomed > > and is currently completley (and efficiently) using at least a /21 worth > > of IP's and expects to fully utilize a /20 in about 1 year _should_ be > > able to apply for and receive their very own /19. > > I have to agree with Jon's assesment here. It would seeme exactly > so that if an ISP is multihomed and completley using at least a > /21 worth of IP's and is expecting to use a /20 in about a year > should have no problem with justifying and being granted their very > own /19. I would make a small proviso here, that being that as to > what is consittuted as "Efficiently Using". This may have several > interpratations. so I would leave this part out, for the perposes > of definition. SOme guidelines need to be clarified on this point > IMHO. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > > Florida Digital Turnpike | > > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. > Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. > Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) > E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 16:09:32 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B525BE.571B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > Good point here. What is the amount of these fees, and are there > any qualifications? Is this posted? If so Where? ARIN's site maybe? > I will check. Please advise if you know the answers to any of these > questions. http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html > allocations. There is a reb here that I think Jon was trying to get > to. That being that if you have already paid for allocations, it would > seem that there could be a vested intrest in how policy is set by those > whom have paid for allocations. The "Money where your mouth is" sort of Actually, its more like "mouth where your money is". If my company has to pay for an allocation, I think I should have some input into the shaping of ARIN policy. > thing. Maybe it would be of intrest to charge an additional nominal fee > for those who have allocations for the membership in addition to > their allocation fees as an option? I suppose that would be better than no change at all. Deep discounts in ARIN membership fees for anyone who has paid for an allocation. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From kimh at internic.net Sat Jun 28 17:17:33 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Cook" at Jun 28, 97 01:17:30 pm Message-ID: <199706282117.RAA06925@ops1.internic.net> > > Sigh! relevant points. > > evidently allocation and assignment of ip numbers are different. > evidently sect 3.1 is not intended to apply to isps. Gordon, the document clearly states there is a difference between allocations and assignments and that allocations are for ISPs and assignments are for end-users. Kim > now that I have begun to look a little more closely at this stuff, it is > NOT at all as clear as I would have hoped. > > I hope that we will begin to have a discussion of some of these issues > over the next few days. what's the address of pagn kim? I am very > interested in your and the arin board and jon postels views on a range of > procedural issues. > > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ > Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml > ************************************************************************ > > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > > > The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to > > > utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will > > > assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the > > > > That's not the impression I get from rfc2050. > > > > [direct quote from the rfc] > > --- > > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > > limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor > > in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the > > Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern > > the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates. > > > > Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic > > criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed > > below: > > > > 25% immediate utilization rate > > 50% utilization rate within 1 year > > > > > > --- > > > > Based on this, I would think an ISP that is, or is about to be, multihomed > > and is currently completley (and efficiently) using at least a /21 worth > > of IP's and expects to fully utilize a /20 in about 1 year _should_ be > > able to apply for and receive their very own /19. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > > Florida Digital Turnpike | > > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ > > > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 10:59:03 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:59:03 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B526B7.3426@ix.netcom.com> Jon, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > I have to agree with Jon's assesment here. It would seeme exactly > > so that if an ISP is multihomed and completley using at least a > > Unfortunately, if you read a little more carefully (I missed it when > skimming the rfc before, but Mr. Cook pointed it out) section 3 doesn't > seem to apply to ISPs at all. We get shafted in section 2. Section 3 is > for large organizations not giving IP's out to others...not a fitting > description of most ISPs. Yes i read MR Cooks reply to your post after reading yours. But I still in part agree with your assesment, and find section 3 a bit ambigous. I shall have to reread section 2 again. BUt it seems that size should have no barring in HOW allocations are made. WHAT allocations are made I would agree with MR Cooks evaluation. But yours still has merit. Maybe this should be revised? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 11:08:56 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:08:56 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B52908.91@ix.netcom.com> Jon, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Good point here. What is the amount of these fees, and are there > > any qualifications? Is this posted? If so Where? ARIN's site maybe? > > I will check. Please advise if you know the answers to any of these > > questions. > > http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html Thanks for the pointer! > > > allocations. There is a reb here that I think Jon was trying to get > > to. That being that if you have already paid for allocations, it would > > seem that there could be a vested intrest in how policy is set by those > > whom have paid for allocations. The "Money where your mouth is" sort of > > Actually, its more like "mouth where your money is". If my company has to > pay for an allocation, I think I should have some input into the shaping > of ARIN policy. LOL! Good point! and gramaticaly correct as well or should I say "MORE TO THE POINT"? I agree, that if you or anyone is paying for an allocation, there should be some ability to have a voice in the policy as well. > > > thing. Maybe it would be of intrest to charge an additional nominal fee > > for those who have allocations for the membership in addition to > > their allocation fees as an option? > > I suppose that would be better than no change at all. Deep discounts in > ARIN membership fees for anyone who has paid for an allocation. Right! It was just a suggestion. What are others feelings on this idea? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 16:30:40 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <199706282117.RAA06925@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > evidently allocation and assignment of ip numbers are different. > > evidently sect 3.1 is not intended to apply to isps. > > Gordon, the document clearly states there is a difference between > allocations and assignments and that allocations are for ISPs and assignments > are for end-users. But why is it so much easier for an end user to get a large assignment than it is for an ISP to get a large allocation?...large in both cases being relative to immediate needs. Can an ISP justify allocations via swip by assigning 300% more space than initially needed to all of its end users? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat Jun 28 16:35:31 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <199706282102.RAA06892@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not > ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must > show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving > a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently Before someone asks again, "how do you show past efficient utilization of a /19 if you don't have one?", I'll say that I assume you mean a /19 worth of space, whether that's 2 or more /20's or a bunch of smaller allocations from the upstream provider. If that's not the case, let us know. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 12:06:47 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:06:47 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B53697.EA9@ix.netcom.com> Jon and all, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not > > ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must > > show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving > > a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently > > Before someone asks again, "how do you show past efficient utilization of > a /19 if you don't have one?", I'll say that I assume you mean a /19 worth > of space, whether that's 2 or more /20's or a bunch of smaller allocations > from the upstream provider. If that's not the case, let us know. It really doesn't matter what the REQUESTED allocations are, Jons and my original question still is valid. However I have to admit I was talking about /19's in spicific. But the question applies to ANY allocation. Kim, can you or anyone from ARIN shed any light on this question? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Sat Jun 28 18:28:08 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:28:08 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <199706282102.RAA06892@ops1.internic.net> References: <33B51543.322D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970628172808.00ec5450@texoma.net> At 05:02 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: >Jeff, > >The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not >ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must >show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving >a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently >globally routable. > >One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update >the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any >suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. > >Kim Kim, Neither APNIC or RIPE requires prior efficient utilization of a /19 for an ISP. InterNIC does. What is the authority for doing so? If it is in RFC2050, please point it out `[8-)) Otherwise, please point out the URL of the real rules. Sincerely, --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From vaden at texoma.net Sat Jun 28 18:39:10 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:39:10 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: References: <199706282117.RAA06925@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970628173910.0130aaa0@texoma.net> At 04:30 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: > >Can an ISP justify allocations via swip by assigning 300% more space than >initially needed to all of its end users? > I'm not sure about 300%, but 800-1600% seems to work (i.e., those ISPs using static ip assignment for dialup customers) `[8-(( I don't have information on the ratio of IPs to customers for, e.g., @HOME, but 24.0.0.0 seems to contain a lot of cable television firms with large CIDR blocks. I presume prior efficient utilization of a /19 could be documented with a Freedom of Information Act request along with protective orders for any confidential information. --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From kimh at internic.net Sat Jun 28 19:41:03 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 19:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970628173910.0130aaa0@texoma.net> from "Larry Vaden" at Jun 28, 97 05:39:10 pm Message-ID: <199706282341.TAA06963@ops1.internic.net> > > At 04:30 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: > > > >Can an ISP justify allocations via swip by assigning 300% more space than > >initially needed to all of its end users? > > > > I'm not sure about 300%, but 800-1600% seems to work (i.e., those ISPs > using static ip assignment for dialup customers) `[8-(( > I don't have information on the ratio of IPs to customers for, e.g., @HOME, > but 24.0.0.0 seems to contain a lot of cable television firms with large > CIDR blocks. > > I presume prior efficient utilization of a /19 could be documented with a > Freedom of Information Act request along with protective orders for any > confidential information. Everything that is not confidential is already available in WHOIS via the SWIPped information, I would assume that most ISPs would consider the rest of their documented data to be confidential. Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry > > > > > > --- > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 > From kimh at internic.net Sat Jun 28 19:53:37 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 19:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970628172808.00ec5450@texoma.net> from "Larry Vaden" at Jun 28, 97 05:28:08 pm Message-ID: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> > > At 05:02 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >Jeff, > > > >The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not > >ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must > >show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving > >a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently > >globally routable. > > > >One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update > >the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any > >suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. > > > >Kim > > Kim, > > Neither APNIC or RIPE requires prior efficient utilization of a /19 for an > ISP. InterNIC does. RIPE and APNIC have a built in deterrent to keep everyone from requesting their automatic /19....the annual fee. InterNIC does not have this deterrent. > > What is the authority for doing so? > > If it is in RFC2050, please point it out `[8-)) The RFC states that you must justify the allocation of a fully routable block. Part of the justification (which InterNIC requires) is that you have already issued this much space to your customer base, this shows, as I said before, that you already have a customer base and that you know how to efficiently utilize the space. The RFC also states that projections are not enough justification, therefore, those ISPs that project that they will have 100 customers in the next 3 months are not issued space on that basis alone, but if you have retained 100 customers in the last 3 months than we agree that it is likely you will continue this growth and will issue you the space based on that information. Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry > > Otherwise, please point out the URL of the real rules. > > Sincerely, > > --- > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 15:03:12 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:03:12 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <33B51543.322D@ix.netcom.com> <3.0.2.32.19970628172808.00ec5450@texoma.net> Message-ID: <33B55FF0.61D6@ix.netcom.com> Larry, Kim and all, Larry Vaden wrote: > > At 05:02 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >Jeff, > > > >The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not > >ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must > >show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving > >a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently > >globally routable. > > > >One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update > >the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any > >suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. > > > >Kim > > Kim, > > Neither APNIC or RIPE requires prior efficient utilization of a /19 for an > ISP. InterNIC does. Good point Larry. Kim or anyone on the Board, is there some inconsistencies here? Seems so. I have read the RFC2050 so many times I have it nearly memorized, as well as the ARIN perposal. I don't find an answer to this question reguarding Prior eficient utilization of a /19 or any other type allocation. Please can you elaborate? If so, I am sure everyone on the list and our 800,000 readers of several Internet News sites would be intrested! >;) > > What is the authority for doing so? Well I aam only guesing, but I would guess the authority comes form the ARIN board, or will. and additional question would be, how durring th transition is the allocation for NEW ISP's to be handled? > > If it is in RFC2050, please point it out `[8-)) Yes please do! >;) > > Otherwise, please point out the URL of the real rules. Well this is going a bit far Larry. Let those that are supposed to be managing this situation have a chance to answer difinitively. > > Sincerely, > > --- > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jun 28 21:14:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:14:47 -0500 Subject: FW: past vs future use Message-ID: <01BC83FF.EDC76C60@webster.unety.net> Why isn't the ARIN list the place to discuss ARIN ? ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 1997 8:08 PM To: ISPC-MEMBERS at ispc.org; 'Scott Bradner'; vaden at texoma.net Cc: BOARD at ispc.org; pagan at apnic.net; pagans at texoma.net Subject: RE: past vs future use On Saturday, June 28, 1997 3:36 PM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: @ -- @ That would be, IMHO, covered by a protective @ order if not by FOIA itself. @ -- @ @ since ARIN is not part of the government it would seem that the FOIA @ has no relationship @ @ Scott @ Is the money from the "government" ? @@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_Res.html#30fund Resolution - "30% Fund" May 9, 1997 "The NSF should work with NSI to create a mechanism to ensure that the "30% Fund" will be available for the future development of Internet Intellectual Infrastructure, such as the funding of efforts like ARIN and IANA." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html "...through April 30, 1997, $23,404,162.00 has been deposited into the account" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From ahp at hilander.com Sat Jun 28 21:18:48 1997 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:18:48 -0400 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net>; from Kim Hubbard on Sat, Jun 28, 1997 at 07:53:37PM -0400 References: <3.0.2.32.19970628172808.00ec5450@texoma.net> <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: <19970628211848.13197@kurgan.hilander.com> On Sat, Jun 28, 1997 at 07:53:37PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > RIPE and APNIC have a built in deterrent to keep everyone from requesting > their automatic /19....the annual fee. InterNIC does not have this deterrent. So when ARIN is realized, this requirement will cease? Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 15:11:52 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:11:52 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <199706282341.TAA06963@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: <33B561F8.7606@ix.netcom.com> Kim, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > > > At 04:30 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: > > > > > >Can an ISP justify allocations via swip by assigning 300% more space than > > >initially needed to all of its end users? > > > > > > > I'm not sure about 300%, but 800-1600% seems to work (i.e., those ISPs > > using static ip assignment for dialup customers) `[8-(( > > > I don't have information on the ratio of IPs to customers for, e.g., @HOME, > > but 24.0.0.0 seems to contain a lot of cable television firms with large > > CIDR blocks. > > > > I presume prior efficient utilization of a /19 could be documented with a > > Freedom of Information Act request along with protective orders for any > > confidential information. > > Everything that is not confidential is already available in WHOIS via > the SWIPped information, I would assume that most ISPs would consider > the rest of their documented data to be confidential. I would also assume that you are correct. But this still doesn't answer the original question. Can you PLEASE advise? Or someone on the Board at ARIN advise, or the InterNic? > > Kim Hubbard > InterNIC Registry > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > > Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 > > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 28 15:17:24 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:17:24 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: <33B56344.23CD@ix.netcom.com> Kim and all, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > > > At 05:02 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > >Jeff, > > > > > >The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not > > >ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must > > >show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving > > >a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently > > >globally routable. > > > > > >One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update > > >the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any > > >suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. > > > > > >Kim > > > > Kim, > > > > Neither APNIC or RIPE requires prior efficient utilization of a /19 for an > > ISP. InterNIC does. > > RIPE and APNIC have a built in deterrent to keep everyone from requesting > their automatic /19....the annual fee. InterNIC does not have this deterrent. > > > > What is the authority for doing so? > > > > If it is in RFC2050, please point it out `[8-)) > > The RFC states that you must justify the allocation of a fully routable > block. Part of the justification (which InterNIC requires) is that you > have already issued this much space to your customer base, this shows, as > I said before, that you already have a customer base and that you know how > to efficiently utilize the space. The RFC also states that projections > are not enough justification, therefore, those ISPs that project that they > will have 100 customers in the next 3 months are not issued space on that > basis alone, but if you have retained 100 customers in the last 3 months than > we agree that it is likely you will continue this growth and will issue > you the space based on that information. Yes, Know this part and understand. Sitll it does not answer the original question. Whish was, "If I was to start a new Regional ISP (Which I may shortly), and I request some /19's, you are saying I can't get them becouse I have no previous allocation of /19's. Where does this circle end? Where and how do I get the allocation I need for any type allocation for that matter without prior efficient use, or in this case, any use, in that this is a new ISP? It may be a medium size ISP, or larg or x-large? PLEASE ADVISE! > > Kim Hubbard > InterNIC Registry > > > > Otherwise, please point out the URL of the real rules. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > --- > > > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > > Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 > > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jun 28 21:39:41 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:39:41 -0500 Subject: past vs future use Message-ID: <01BC8403.68844B00@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, June 28, 1997 3:56 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote: @ why are you talking about FOIA larry? what US government agency is @ witholding data you feel you need? @ It is one thing for U.S. Government agencies to withold information, it is another for agencies to create "spin" to explain a situation one way, when it is really another. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is currently in "spin" mode. This is really a form of mis-information or dis-information. The NSF wants out of the InterNIC mess. Instead of doing the right thing and stepping forward and admitting that they have badly mismanaged the cooperative arrangement, they are slowly dismantling the InterNIC and allowing private companies to cart off lucrative pieces. Eventually, there will be nothing there and the NSF can turn its back and walk away, as if they were never involved. No matter what "spin" the NSF tries to put on the mess, they were (and still are) involved. They are a 3.3 billion dollar per year agency which operates with no business sense or concern for commerce, yet they continue to dabble in those arenas. The only way to stop this cycle is for the U.S. Congress to cut their budget and admonish them for trying to play venture capitalists as opposed to a funding agency for research and development. As the Information Age unfolds, it will be especially important for the U.S. Government to control agencies like the NSF. As many more people become knowledge workers and as the service sector dominates the product sector, an organization with a $3.3 billion dollar budget and no sense how to spend it can do a lot of damage to the Information Industry, especially when after they do the damage they try to cover it up with "spin" and walk away. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From freedman at NETAXS.COM Sat Jun 28 22:00:02 1997 From: freedman at NETAXS.COM (Avi Freedman) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 22:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use Message-ID: <199706290200.WAA23364@access.netaxs.com> > Yes, Know this part and understand. Sitll it does not answer the original > question. Whish was, "If I was to start a new Regional ISP > (Which I may shortly), and I request some /19's, you are saying > I can't get them becouse I have no previous allocation of /19's. > Where does this circle end? Where and how do I get the allocation I > need for any type allocation for that matter without prior efficient > use, or in this case, any use, in that this is a new ISP? It may be > a medium size ISP, or larg or x-large? PLEASE ADVISE! Just about every small-, medium-, and large-sized provider out there that's started since 1994/1995 has had to renumber at least once. The trick is managing it so that you only have to renumber ONCE. @Home is the only major exception I can think of... > Jeffrey A. Williams Avi From kimh at internic.net Sun Jun 29 01:30:59 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <19970628211848.13197@kurgan.hilander.com> from "Alec H. Peterson" at Jun 28, 97 09:18:48 pm Message-ID: <199706290530.BAA07021@ops1.internic.net> > > On Sat, Jun 28, 1997 at 07:53:37PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > > RIPE and APNIC have a built in deterrent to keep everyone from requesting > > their automatic /19....the annual fee. InterNIC does not have this deterrent. > > So when ARIN is realized, this requirement will cease? Perhaps. It is a topic that should be discussed with the Advisory Council and ARIN membership. Kim > > Alec > > -- > +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ > |Alec Peterson - ahp at hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | > |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | > +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ > From justin at priori.net Sun Jun 29 13:03:26 1997 From: justin at priori.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:03:26 -0700 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B51745.29D5@ix.netcom.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629100326.00b955b0@priori.net> At 02:53 PM 6/28/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> > [direct quote from the rfc] >> > --- >> > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements >> > >> > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is >> > limited, >> >> It's interesting that RFC2050 is premised on a limitation of addresses. >> >> The real issue that started all off this is not that we are running out of >> addressing space (Frank Solenski's projections show we have about 20 years >> before we hit the wall -- ask me sometime about how and where the original >> calculation was made, it's an interesting story.) Rather, the real issue >> is the routing table expansion. > > Exactly! Whew! Finaly someone sees the light! >;) I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here Jeff. People have been discussing the fact that the real problem was routing space slots on many lists long before you joined them. Please read the archives before pretending like you know /anything/. ********************************************************* Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ********************************************************* From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 07:09:49 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:09:49 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <3.0.2.32.19970629100326.00b955b0@priori.net> Message-ID: <33B6427C.4866@ix.netcom.com> Justin and all, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > At 02:53 PM 6/28/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> > >> > [direct quote from the rfc] > >> > --- > >> > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > >> > > >> > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > >> > limited, > >> > >> It's interesting that RFC2050 is premised on a limitation of addresses. > >> > >> The real issue that started all off this is not that we are running out of > >> addressing space (Frank Solenski's projections show we have about 20 years > >> before we hit the wall -- ask me sometime about how and where the original > >> calculation was made, it's an interesting story.) Rather, the real issue > >> is the routing table expansion. > > > > Exactly! Whew! Finaly someone sees the light! >;) > > I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here Jeff. People have been > discussing the fact that the real problem was routing space slots on many > lists long before you joined them. Please read the archives before > pretending like you know /anything/. As I said on a previous post to another PRIVATE E-mail you sent me in this reguard, been there and done that. But again, thanks for the suggestion anyway! >;) I oh, by the way, I don't pretend! Sure don't know it all. But finding that some who "protest too much" seems to think they might know it all! >;) > > ********************************************************* > Justin W. Newton voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Network Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > Director At Large, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ********************************************************* regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From spsprunk at paranet.com Sun Jun 29 17:00:47 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:00:47 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B56344.23CD@ix.netcom.com> References: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> The fact is 80% of ISPs fail in one year. There is also another oft-ignored fact: NOBODY EVER RECLAIMS DELEGATIONS. This means that the NICs must make sure that they won't make an unused delegation. New ISPs are an easy target, since they are the cause of the whole problem in the first place. The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: 1. Connect to an upstream provider 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation 6. Make every customer you have renumber I hope this clears a bit up. Maybe now people will stop asking these same questions over and over. Stephen At 20:17 28-06-97 +0100, you wrote: > Yes, Know this part and understand. Sitll it does not answer the >original >question. Whish was, "If I was to start a new Regional ISP >(Which I may shortly), and I request some /19's, you are saying >I can't get them becouse I have no previous allocation of /19's. >Where does this circle end? Where and how do I get the allocation I >need for any type allocation for that matter without prior efficient >use, or in this case, any use, in that this is a new ISP? It may be >a medium size ISP, or larg or x-large? PLEASE ADVISE! From spsprunk at paranet.com Sun Jun 29 16:49:55 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:49:55 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <01BC83D9.D80FFE80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629154955.00a3900c@pop.srv.paranet.com> As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. This, in effect, means Jon Postel owns all of the IP space. However, since he owns 100% of it, it essentially has a zero dollar value (since value can only be determined by a sale). Stephen At 15:42 28-06-97 -0500, you wrote: >Just a reminder...it also has to handle or help handle >the maintenance of the delegations under IN-ADDR.ARPA >for the /8s that ARIN will be delegated. > >Does anyone have a list of which /8s those will be ? > >Has the IRS determined what the value of those /8 delegations are ? > >Will those delegations be transferred as assets from Network >Solutions, Inc. to ARIN which was supposed to be an IRS 501(c) 6 ? From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 11:33:49 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:33:49 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33B6805C.132F@ix.netcom.com> Stephen, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > The fact is 80% of ISPs fail in one year. There is also another > oft-ignored fact: NOBODY EVER RECLAIMS DELEGATIONS. This means that the > NICs must make sure that they won't make an unused delegation. New ISPs > are an easy target, since they are the cause of the whole problem in the > first place. I agree that 80% or more ISP's do fail in the first year. But if you look a bit deeper you will find that 96% of these fail due to lack of adaquate funding. The case that I am refering to in this discussion does not suffer form that problem. We already have $12m in initial cash on hand, in addition a $8m line of credit, and currently a $4m in residual partnership funding down stream. So I don't think we will be facing a failuer due to funding at any rate. > > The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: > > 1. Connect to an upstream provider > 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider > 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of > fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient > 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs > 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation > 6. Make every customer you have renumber I here what you are saying here. But this method is too pacarious due to point #6, #2, and #4. Been there done that! Or the three ISP's that I have been directly associated with only one did we need to renumber. And that was mainly due to this sort of planning. The other two we got alot smarter, and certianly didn't use this method, as we pretty much did in the first one. Hence, back to my original question.... >;) > > I hope this clears a bit up. Maybe now people will stop asking these same > questions over and over. Not likely! This plan or method is definatly flawed and of course very likely to create a failier senerio. > > Stephen > > At 20:17 28-06-97 +0100, you wrote: > > Yes, Know this part and understand. Sitll it does not answer the > >original > >question. Whish was, "If I was to start a new Regional ISP > >(Which I may shortly), and I request some /19's, you are saying > >I can't get them becouse I have no previous allocation of /19's. > >Where does this circle end? Where and how do I get the allocation I > >need for any type allocation for that matter without prior efficient > >use, or in this case, any use, in that this is a new ISP? It may be > >a medium size ISP, or larg or x-large? PLEASE ADVISE! Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 11:52:56 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:52:56 +0100 Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: <3.0.2.32.19970629154955.00a3900c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33B684D8.252A@ix.netcom.com> Stephen, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a > SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an > IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space > (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. I think that everyone understands that IP allocations are a sort of LEASE. I can't for a fact say what Jim was refering to. So I won't get into that. > > This, in effect, means Jon Postel owns all of the IP space. However, since > he owns 100% of it, it essentially has a zero dollar value (since value can > only be determined by a sale). I don't believe this statment. > > Stephen > > At 15:42 28-06-97 -0500, you wrote: > >Just a reminder...it also has to handle or help handle > >the maintenance of the delegations under IN-ADDR.ARPA > >for the /8s that ARIN will be delegated. > > > >Does anyone have a list of which /8s those will be ? > > > >Has the IRS determined what the value of those /8 delegations are ? > > > >Will those delegations be transferred as assets from Network > >Solutions, Inc. to ARIN which was supposed to be an IRS 501(c) 6 ? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Jun 29 18:41:16 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970629154955.00a3900c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: > As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a > SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an > IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space > (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does, and often must, show up on balance sheets. To the extent that one can trace IP address space back to a US governmental authority, the handling of those property rights must accord with the various Constitutional requirements of due process. (ARIN may yet have to deal with the issue that it is (or is not) an agent of the US government in these matters.) And even if no governmental agency is involved, a "lease" doesn't mean that there are no reciprocial obligations on the lessor, such as a minimal term, the giving of notice of termination, etc. In other words, waving the word "lease" around isn't going to offer much protection of a higher-level holder of IP space allocations/delegations [pick your word] jerks around a lower-level "leaseholder". --karl-- From jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET Sun Jun 29 18:45:38 1997 From: jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET (Jamie Rishaw) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> from Stephen Sprunk at "Jun 29, 97 04:00:47 pm" Message-ID: <199706292245.SAA15425@dilbert.iagnet.net> > The fact is 80% of ISPs fail in one year. There is also another > oft-ignored fact: NOBODY EVER RECLAIMS DELEGATIONS. This means that the > NICs must make sure that they won't make an unused delegation. New ISPs > are an easy target, since they are the cause of the whole problem in the > first place. ARIN would be perfectly in line if it withdrew allocations that were not advertised after/within x days. Anyone with half a clue and look to see if a route is advertised, and where it originated. -- jamie g.k. rishaw dal/efnet:gavroche Internet Access Group 'whois JGR2' for PGP keyID/Fingerprint __ Network Operations/TSD DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800.637.4IAGx5455 "If a route flaps, and nobody's streaming over it.. does it make a sound?" From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sun Jun 29 18:09:26 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:09:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > The fact is 80% of ISPs fail in one year. There is also another > oft-ignored fact: NOBODY EVER RECLAIMS DELEGATIONS. This means that the 80% in their first year? What black hole did you pull that figure from? > The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: > > 1. Connect to an upstream provider > 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider > 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of > fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient > 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs > 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation > 6. Make every customer you have renumber That't the normal way for an ISP to "grow up"...but what about ISP's that start out with deep pockets? Say you just sold a long distance company or string of video rental stores and decide to start up a regional ISP with multiple connections to the net on day 1, etc. What if you decide instead to start up a new backbone company that plans to sell connectivity to ISP's? Do you sell connections to small handful of customers telling them you'll be renumbering them in a few weeks? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 13:19:28 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:19:28 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: Message-ID: <33B69920.7634@ix.netcom.com> Jon and all Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > The fact is 80% of ISPs fail in one year. There is also another > > oft-ignored fact: NOBODY EVER RECLAIMS DELEGATIONS. This means that the > > 80% in their first year? What black hole did you pull that figure from? > > > The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: > > > > 1. Connect to an upstream provider > > 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider > > 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of > > fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient > > 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs > > 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation > > 6. Make every customer you have renumber > > That't the normal way for an ISP to "grow up"...but what about ISP's that > start out with deep pockets? Say you just sold a long distance company or > string of video rental stores and decide to start up a regional ISP with > multiple connections to the net on day 1, etc. What if you decide instead > to start up a new backbone company that plans to sell connectivity to > ISP's? Do you sell connections to small handful of customers telling them > you'll be renumbering them in a few weeks? Exactly! I think that Stephen's model above is approiate for some rookies in the ISP business. I am not sure whom on this list said this, but the real trick in starting up an ISP is not having to renumber. The "Stephen senerio", just above is a poor one and as you say sure wouldn't apply to a startup with reasonable resources and my response to his post. It seems obvious to me, and you it seems as well, that either Stephen has never done any startup ISP buisness, or/and has little idea as to how to plan well. No offense, Stephen. >;) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 13:21:59 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:21:59 +0100 Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: Message-ID: <33B699B7.98A@ix.netcom.com> Karl and all, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a > > SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an > > IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space > > (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. > > A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under > accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does, > and often must, show up on balance sheets. > > To the extent that one can trace IP address space back to a US > governmental authority, the handling of those property rights must accord > with the various Constitutional requirements of due process. > > (ARIN may yet have to deal with the issue that it is (or is not) an agent > of the US government in these matters.) > > And even if no governmental agency is involved, a "lease" doesn't mean > that there are no reciprocial obligations on the lessor, such as a minimal > term, the giving of notice of termination, etc. > > In other words, waving the word "lease" around isn't going to offer much > protection of a higher-level holder of IP space allocations/delegations > [pick your word] jerks around a lower-level "leaseholder". Exactly! And very well legaly put. > > --karl-- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Jun 29 19:36:10 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:36:10 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? Message-ID: <01BC84BB.51611940@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, June 29, 1997 3:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a @ SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an @ IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space @ (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. @ @ This, in effect, means Jon Postel owns all of the IP space. However, since @ he owns 100% of it, it essentially has a zero dollar value (since value can @ only be determined by a sale). @ The InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were recently "given" or "leased" new /8 allocations. The value of these allocations is millions of dollars. APNIC and RIPE have recently stated that they are providing "funding" to the IANA. The InterNIC and NSI have been providing funding already. Somewhere all of these assets and payments have to show up on someone's books....I would assume... Since ARIN claims it will be an IRS approved 501(c)6, I would assume that all of these details will be spelled out in the ARIN books and records. For example, if these are leases, what is the term of the lease ? (BTW, ask the people in Hong Kong about leases and the terms) ================================================= Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC2) Tokyo Central Post Office Box 351 Tokyo 100-91 JAPAN Netname: APNIC3 Netblock: 61.0.0.0 - 61.255.255.255 Maintainer: AP Coordinator: Conrad, David Randolph (DC396) davidc at APNIC.NET +81-3-5500-0480 (FAX) +81-3-5500-0481 ... Record last updated on 25-Apr-97. Database last updated on 29-Jun-97 05:27:22 EDT. ======================================= European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C3) These addresses have been further assigned to European users. Their contact information can be found in the RIPE database. See below how to use that database to obtain up-to-date information. Netname: RIPE-C3 Netblock: 62.0.0.0 - 62.255.255.255 Maintainer: RIPE Coordinator: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RNC-ORG) nicdb at RIPE.NET http://www.ripe.net/nicdb.html ... Record last updated on 25-Apr-97. Database last updated on 29-Jun-97 05:27:22 EDT. ======================================= InterNIC Registration (NETBLK-INTERNIC-) Network Solutions 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 22070 Netname: INTERNIC-2 Netblock: 63.0.0.0 - 63.255.255.255 Maintainer: INIC Coordinator: Network Solutions, Inc. (HOSTMASTER) hostmaster at INTERNIC.NET (703) 742-4777 (FAX) (703) 742-4811 Record last updated on 25-Apr-97. Database last updated on 29-Jun-97 05:27:22 EDT. ======================================== P.S. You claim that Jon Postel owns all of the IP addresses. Can you tell me when he bought them ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Jun 29 19:56:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:56:53 -0500 Subject: "ARIN may change this in the future" Message-ID: <01BC84BE.361C2C80@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, June 29, 1997 6:25 AM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at vrx.net] wrote: @ @ >> Uh huh. Color me skeptical. @ >> @ >> "This income tax of 1913 is just for a few years" @ > @ >Re-read the ARIN proposal. You only pay (up front?) for your first @ >allocation, or at the end of each year in which you receive allocations. @ >There's nothing in there about charging (rent?) for allocations previously @ >made. @ > @ >http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html @ @ And that'll never change ? @ -- @ According to Kim Hubbard at the recent NANOG meeting... @@@@ http://www.academ.com/nanog/june1997/arin.html "What is grandfathered? Everything is grandfathered that was previously allocated. ARIN may change this in the future. The maintenance fees apply to the number of blocks." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ===== By the way, if you read some of the responses from Network Solutions, Inc. at the time that domain name charging started people actually claimed that the charges would only be required as long as they were needed. The $50 was arbitrary. It has not changed. The expenditures have evidently expanded to cover all available income. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Jun 29 20:05:48 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:05:48 +0900 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:36:10 EST." <01BC84BB.51611940@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199706300005.JAA23501@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> [Oops, syntax error in my procmailrc let some silliness through. Bloody terminal noise configuration files] >P.S. You claim that Jon Postel owns all of the IP >addresses. Can you tell me when he bought them ? Jimmy, I'm beginning to think you've developed anti-clues -- your existance actually results in an actual decrease in absolute clue level (instead of merely decreasing clue density). I know this is pointless as the concepts appear to be beyond you, but think of it this way: the IANA (not Jon Postel) picked one set of 32 bit unsigned integers from the infinite number of possible sets. The people who built the Internet decided to use that set to define "end point identifiers/locators". The value imparted to addresses is derived from the fact that everyone agrees to use the same set of 32 bit unsigned integers -- it is inherited value. If such value does exist, it would be equivalent to staking a claim on wasteland then finding gold. Nothing is stopping you or anyone from doing the same as the IANA, however it is a bit doubtful that anyone will agree to use your set of 32 bit unsigned integers. So exactly what galaxy (stargate?) did you come up with the idea that the IANA had to buy addresses? Regards, -drc P.S. Why do you insist on including full whois records? Do you do it just to prove to others you know how to use whois? From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Jun 29 21:00:11 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <01BC84BB.51611940@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: > Since ARIN claims it will be an IRS approved 501(c)6... Sec. 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter F, PART I, Sec. 501 (c) List of exempt organizations The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a): (6)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. Which one of these are they claiming to be? A "business league", a "board of trade", a "professional football league", or what? By-the-way, who are the shareholders? --karl-- From spsprunk at paranet.com Sun Jun 29 21:01:38 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:01:38 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B69920.7634@ix.netcom.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629200138.006e1adc@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 18:19 29-06-97 +0100, you wrote: >> That't the normal way for an ISP to "grow up"...but what about ISP's that >> start out with deep pockets? Say you just sold a long distance company or >> string of video rental stores and decide to start up a regional ISP with >> multiple connections to the net on day 1, etc. What if you decide instead >> to start up a new backbone company that plans to sell connectivity to >> ISP's? Do you sell connections to small handful of customers telling them >> you'll be renumbering them in a few weeks? > > Exactly! I think that Stephen's model above is approiate for some >rookies in the ISP business. I am not sure whom on this list said this, >but the real trick in starting up an ISP is not having to renumber. Unless you have exceedingly deep pockets (which the majority of garage ISPs starting up do not), it is not likely you will be able to avoid renumbering. If you are going to be starting a regional backbone, you will probably immediately satisfy the requirements for (at least) a /19. Get sufficient committments from your customers that you will be able to SWIP 80% of a /19 immediately, and you should be able to get it. Note that your customers either need to SWIP 80% of their allocations or directly use 25% immediately and 50% within one year. >The "Stephen senerio", just above is a poor one and as you say sure wouldn't >apply to a startup with reasonable resources and my response to his >post. Please don't name it after me, as I didn't come up with it (and if things were up to me I'd do it very differently). Hmmm, let's call it RFC 2050 or "Slow Start". >It seems obvious to me, and you it seems as well, that either >Stephen has never done any startup ISP buisness, or/and has little >idea as to how to plan well. No offense, Stephen. >;) I have indeed been in the startup ISP business. Again, I don't endorse the model I presented in any way; I was merely clarifying the currently expected procedure since many people seem to be unclear. Stephen From spsprunk at paranet.com Sun Jun 29 20:15:16 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:15:16 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B6805C.132F@ix.netcom.com> References: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629191516.00775cb8@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 16:33 29-06-97 +0100, you wrote: > I agree that 80% or more ISP's do fail in the first year. But if you >look a bit deeper you will find that 96% of these fail due to lack of >adaquate funding. The case that I am refering to in this discussion >does not suffer form that problem. We already have $12m in initial >cash on hand, in addition a $8m line of credit, and currently a >$4m in residual partnership funding down stream. So I don't think >we will be facing a failuer due to funding at any rate. Good for you (golf clap). If you have this much capital, I assume you also have a fair number of clients lined up. If you have enough clients (which I will assume you do), you may be able to qualify for a /19 immediately, if you can meet the requirements under RFC 2050. SWIP out 80% of the allocation and make sure each customer uses 25% immediately and 50% within the first year. >> The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: >> >> 1. Connect to an upstream provider >> 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider >> 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of >> fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient >> 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs >> 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation >> 6. Make every customer you have renumber > > I here what you are saying here. But this method is too pacarious due >to point #6 [renumber], #2 [get PA IPs], and #4 [lather, rinse, repeat]. >Been there done that! Or the three ISP's >that I have been directly associated with only one did we need to >renumber. And that was mainly due to this sort of planning. The other >two we got alot smarter, and certianly didn't use this method, as we >pretty much did in the first one. Hence, back to my original >question.... >;) Would you care to enlighten the rest of the world as to the method you used for the latter two businesses? > Not likely! This plan or method is definatly flawed and of course >very likely to create a failier senerio. I never said I liked, suggested, endorsed, or otherwise felt anything positive about this plan. That's just how it is (now). If you don't like ARIN/RIPE/APNIC policies, become a member and put up a vote to change them. Stephen From spsprunk at paranet.com Sun Jun 29 20:42:22 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:42:22 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19970629154955.00a3900c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629194222.00a1b684@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 15:41 29-06-97 -0700, you wrote: >> As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a >> SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an >> IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space >> (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. > >A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under >accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does, >and often must, show up on balance sheets. Where on your balance sheets do you show the telephone numbers you have been leased from your local telco? According to my accountant (certified in my jurisdiction), "you never -have- to record anything as an asset". Also, "if you got it for free...and you may have to give it back at any time...it's not really yours". IPs are never _yours_ to begin with, so you cannot count them as assets. She also was unable to find a better term for IP allocations/delegations/assignments than "lease". >To the extent that one can trace IP address space back to a US >governmental authority, the handling of those property rights must accord >with the various Constitutional requirements of due process. > >(ARIN may yet have to deal with the issue that it is (or is not) an agent >of the US government in these matters.) It will be interesting to see what the courts think about ARIN; I'm sure it will be in court soon enough. >And even if no governmental agency is involved, a "lease" doesn't mean >that there are no reciprocial obligations on the lessor, such as a minimal >term, the giving of notice of termination, etc. If there is no contract, there are obviously no enforceable conditions on either party involved in the lease. Up to this point, AFAIK there have been no contracts involved in IP leases; I'm sure this will change once money starts changing hands. >In other words, waving the word "lease" around isn't going to offer much >protection of a higher-level holder of IP space allocations/delegations >[pick your word] jerks around a lower-level "leaseholder". Until people start demanding a contract with terms and conditions signed by both parties, there is no protection at all for the consumer. Stephen From spsprunk at paranet.com Sun Jun 29 21:21:23 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:21:23 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <01BC84BB.51611940@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970629202123.0077abb4@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 18:36 29-06-97 -0500, you wrote: >The InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were recently "given" or "leased" >new /8 allocations. The value of these allocations is millions of >dollars. Please tell us how you determined the value of these allocations. >APNIC and RIPE have recently stated that they are providing >"funding" to the IANA. The InterNIC and NSI have been providing >funding already. This funding is for the operation of the registry and does not involve the purchase/leasing of IP addresses. >Somewhere all of these assets and payments have to show >up on someone's books....I would assume... Since there are no payments and IP addresses are not an asset, they do not have to appear on paper anywhere. >Since ARIN claims it will be an IRS approved 501(c)6, I would >assume that all of these details will be spelled out in the ARIN >books and records. For example, if these are leases, what is >the term of the lease ? (BTW, ask the people in Hong Kong about >leases and the terms) The term of all IANA-registry IP leases appears to be indefinite; I doubt any formal terms have been put in writing yet. >P.S. You claim that Jon Postel owns all of the IP >addresses. Can you tell me when he bought them ? He didn't; I'll leave the explanation to the more eloquent David Conrad. Stephen From stpeters at NETHEAVEN.COM Sun Jun 29 21:34:06 1997 From: stpeters at NETHEAVEN.COM (Dick St.Peters) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:34:06 -0400 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19970629154955.00a3900c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <199706300134.VAA23916@saint.heaven.net> > > As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a > > SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an > > IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space > > (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. > > A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under > accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does, > and often must, show up on balance sheets. > To the extent that one can trace IP address space back to a US > governmental authority, the handling of those property rights must accord > with the various Constitutional requirements of due process. I'm no lawyer, but my guess is that the legal concept of a lease being property derives from the fact that what is being leased is property to begin with - i.e., when you lease an office, the lease has value because the office has value. In the absence of routing, an IP allocation is simply a number with no value. If legally ignorant technical people misusing legal terms to express concepts is going to be the basis for Constitutional legal considerations, I've a few legal terms I'd like to misuse myself. :) What's meant when people say an IP allocation is a lease not a sale is that no ownership of anything is transferred. A registration service is performed, and the numbers registered have no value yet. The routing/IP service that add value to the numbers must be arranged separately, by buying the service from someone in a position to provide it, or by building a network sufficiently large to qualify for peering. I really doubt I obliged to go through due process in order not to route someone's addresses ... -- Dick St.Peters, stpeters at NetHeaven.com Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY, 1-800-910-6671 (voice) Albany/Saratoga/Glens Falls/North Creek/Lake Placid/Blue Mountain Lake Soon: Elizabethtown/Greenwich/Keene/Plattsburgh/Saranac Lake/Ticonderoga First Internet service based in the 518 area code From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Jun 29 22:08:28 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970629194222.00a1b684@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: > >> As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a > >> SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an > >> IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space > >> (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. > > > >A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under > >accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does, > >and often must, show up on balance sheets. > > Where on your balance sheets do you show the telephone numbers you have > been leased from your local telco? In the same place where you show the value of a lease on property -- under assets and liabilities. For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset that needs to be listed. The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to be of concern. If one has something which has a market value, and IP address allocations are certainly among those, then there is clearly an asset although its exact value may not be ascertainable until it is sold. > According to my accountant (certified in my jurisdiction), "you never > -have- to record anything as an asset". Also, "if you got it for > free...and you may have to give it back at any time...it's not really > yours". IPs are never _yours_ to begin with, so you cannot count them as > assets. She also was unable to find a better term for IP > allocations/delegations/assignments than "lease". In most states. if one has a duty to report their assets/liabilities, as does any corporation or partnership, failure to report can cause administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. The right to use an IP address is certainly a property right no matter what one thinks of the underlying 32 bits. A property right can be limited in many ways; yet it is still a property right. Don't be tripped up by the word "lease". The right to use an IP address is still a property right and it has value. > >And even if no governmental agency is involved, a "lease" doesn't mean > >that there are no reciprocial obligations on the lessor, such as a minimal > >term, the giving of notice of termination, etc. > > If there is no contract, there are obviously no enforceable conditions on > either party involved in the lease. Up to this point, AFAIK there have > been no contracts involved in IP leases; I'm sure this will change once > money starts changing hands. I don't know about that. My network contract for my company has a very definite written contract. General contract intrepretation implies obligations to enable either party to the enjoyment of the benefits of the contract. One could argue that rapid and frequent coerced changes in addressing violates those implied terms. > >In other words, waving the word "lease" around isn't going to offer much > >protection of a higher-level holder of IP space allocations/delegations > >[pick your word] jerks around a lower-level "leaseholder". > > Until people start demanding a contract with terms and conditions signed by > both parties, there is no protection at all for the consumer. I rather disagree that there are not existing contracts. Perhaps not all of them are written. However, I don't see any parol evidence rule that prevents oral contrants in these matters. --karl-- Attorney at law California and US Federal courts From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Jun 29 22:12:25 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:12:25 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? Message-ID: <01BC84D1.25181DA0@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, June 29, 1997 8:21 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote: @ At 18:36 29-06-97 -0500, you wrote: @ >The InterNIC, APNIC and RIPE were recently "given" or "leased" @ >new /8 allocations. The value of these allocations is millions of @ >dollars. @ @ Please tell us how you determined the value of these allocations. @ The street value of a /16 is $50,000 to $100,000. I am sure you can multiply... @ >APNIC and RIPE have recently stated that they are providing @ >"funding" to the IANA. The InterNIC and NSI have been providing @ >funding already. @ @ This funding is for the operation of the registry and does not involve the @ purchase/leasing of IP addresses. @ Without IP addresses (inventory) the registry is out of business. @ >Somewhere all of these assets and payments have to show @ >up on someone's books....I would assume... @ @ Since there are no payments and IP addresses are not an asset, they do not @ have to appear on paper anywhere. @ IP addresses have already been determined to be an asset by the IRS. From what I understand, the IRS has already sold them as part of bankrupcy and tax settlements. @ >Since ARIN claims it will be an IRS approved 501(c)6, I would @ >assume that all of these details will be spelled out in the ARIN @ >books and records. For example, if these are leases, what is @ >the term of the lease ? (BTW, ask the people in Hong Kong about @ >leases and the terms) @ @ The term of all IANA-registry IP leases appears to be indefinite; I doubt @ any formal terms have been put in writing yet. @ Surely there must be something in writing that indicates why APNIC is able to get IP addresses. How did APNIC come to have a monopoly for the Asia/Pacific region ? Are you implying that other companies, for instance an Australian company, could also obtain IP addresses just like APNIC ? Surely there must be an RFC documented procedure. There is an RFC for everything else. @ >P.S. You claim that Jon Postel owns all of the IP @ >addresses. Can you tell me when he bought them ? @ @ He didn't; I'll leave the explanation to the more eloquent David Conrad. @ He owns them....but he did not buy them....interesting... ...and now he leases them...but does not sell them... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Jun 29 22:19:02 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:19:02 +0900 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:08:28 MST." Message-ID: <199706300219.LAA11045@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Karl, >If one has something which has a market value, and IP address allocations >are certainly among those, Can you point me to the market in which IP addresses are bought and sold? I seem to have missed the URL. >The right to use an IP address is certainly a property right no matter >what one thinks of the underlying 32 bits. Could you point me to the ruling which made the association of IP addresses and property rights? This is the first I've heard of it. Thanks, -drc From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Jun 29 22:24:18 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <199706300134.VAA23916@saint.heaven.net> Message-ID: > > > As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a > > > SALE. Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an > > > IP allocation. Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space > > > (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA. > > > > A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under > > accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does, > > and often must, show up on balance sheets. > > > To the extent that one can trace IP address space back to a US > > governmental authority, the handling of those property rights must accord > > with the various Constitutional requirements of due process. > > > I'm no lawyer, but my guess is that the legal concept of a lease being > property derives from the fact that what is being leased is property > to begin with - i.e., when you lease an office, the lease has value > because the office has value. Try substituting the "right to use" in lieu of "ownership" of an IP address. You may have a drivers license. (Except for the paper certificate it is even less tangible than an IP address.) You have a right to use the drivers license (don't get yourself confused by right/privilege distinctions -- those don't really work) until the government a) either buys it from you or b) removes it from you under a procedure meeting due process requirements. Similarly, with a telephone number, you have a right to use it. And the telephone company can revoke it, but only under the conditions, either explicit or implied, in your agreement, written or not, with it. These rights often may be sold, and hence clearly have a value and consequently are "property". Those who delegate or assign address spaces are going to have to expect that, whether it is technically a pain or not, the consumers of IP address space are going to demand some stability and predicatabilty in their ability to use allocated numbers. Since, I doubt that anybody reading this list is really talking about a network in which you could wake up each day and find that you have a different allocation, but that occassionally reallocations will be necessary for technical reasons, rather than taking a "we can do what we want any time we want" attitude, we'd be better off coming up with some guidelines about the mutual obligations of an address space allocator and allocatee -- things like "We will give two months notice and we won't do it more than once a year." Otherwise we could end up having to fight "IP address portability" legislative proposals even if they aren't technically sound. --karl-- From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Jun 29 22:36:06 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <199706300219.LAA11045@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > >If one has something which has a market value, and IP address allocations > >are certainly among those, > > Can you point me to the market in which IP addresses are bought and > sold? I seem to have missed the URL. Go to PSI and say "I want a class C". They aren't going to simply hand you one without payment. I've seen a fair number of address blocks bought and sold over the last couple of years. The prices vary, but I've seen a very rough rule of thumb of $1 and up per address for larger blocks. It is fairly obvious to anyone who has ever had to deal with "rights to use" that a right (or even a privilge) to use an IP address is a property right with a value. --karl-- From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Jun 29 22:54:12 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:54:12 +0900 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:36:06 MST." Message-ID: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Karl, >Go to PSI and say "I want a class C". They aren't going to simply hand >you one without payment. Actually, many ISPs do. However, what happens when you leave PSI? What happens when you take that number to (say) Sprint or UUNet and demand they route traffic to it through their networks? >I've seen a fair number of address blocks bought and sold over the last >couple of years. The prices vary, but I've seen a very rough rule of >thumb of $1 and up per address for larger blocks. And what happens when InterNIC finds out about such transactions? >It is fairly obvious to anyone who has ever had to deal with "rights to >use" that a right (or even a privilge) to use an IP address is a property >right with a value. You are presumably using legal terms in a forum composed of people with little to no legal knowledge (although some may pretend otherwise). It may be "fairly obvious" to you, I doubt strongly it is "fairly obvious" to others. You claim there is a "right to use" and "property" rights in the context of IP addresses and in a strictly legal sense, perhaps you are correct (don't know -- never considered a career in law). Yet in the real world, I am not aware of any cases or rulings which would impart these attributes to IP addresses. Feel free to point me to such rulings, I'd honestly be interested. You make the analogy of a drivers license. I would argue the fundamental difference here is that a drivers license allows one to make use of public roads (as far as I know you do not need a drivers license to make use of purely private roads, correct me if I'm wrong). The Internet, as I'm sure you are aware, is an interconnection of private networks. Exactly what "right to use" do you have over my network, regardless of what IP address you are using? Regards, -drc From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Jun 29 23:40:54 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: Before we go off further onto this tangent, my feeling is that we drop the discussion of "ownership" and talk more about the mutual obligations which should be imposed to ensure that the recapture of addresses can't be called an arbitrary or capricious processs. I suggest that ARIN say (as I believe it does) that addresses assignements may be changed, and even withdrawn. In addition, ARIN should say that such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without N months prior notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be withdrawn or changed except after a minimum of one year. And ARIN should require that these provisions be imposed as part of any sub-delegation/assignment. That's pretty close to the way most real property leases work, and no one who receives a delegation could realistically (I hope) complain that such terms are too onerous. Similarly, we should have our network planning stable enough that we can add a couple of months delay before yanking or changing anyone's address block. --karl-- From randy at PSG.COM Sun Jun 29 23:50:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 97 20:50 PDT Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > I suggest that ARIN say (as I believe it does) that addresses assignements > may be changed, and even withdrawn. In addition, ARIN should say that > such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without N months prior > notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be withdrawn or > changed except after a minimum of one year. And ARIN should require that > these provisions be imposed as part of any sub-delegation/assignment. Thank you for a constructive suggestion. Do you have wording you would suggest be at the bottom of an application for allocation that would make this clear? What about the criteria which might cause withdrawal or change? These would seem to need spelling out to make the game 'fair' and not have surprises. > That's pretty close to the way most real property leases work, and no one > who receives a delegation could realistically (I hope) complain that such > terms are too onerous. Uh, given the current weak renumbering technology, getting space and losing it a year or so later would seem onerous if one had not done something to 'deserve' it. randy From stpeters at NETHEAVEN.COM Sun Jun 29 23:58:48 1997 From: stpeters at NETHEAVEN.COM (Dick St.Peters) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:58:48 -0400 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <199706300134.VAA23916@saint.heaven.net> Message-ID: <199706300358.XAA25678@saint.heaven.net> > Since, I doubt that anybody reading this list is really talking about a > network in which you could wake up each day and find that you have a > different allocation ... Well, already the majority of Internet users get a different IP address every time they dial in. > Otherwise we could end up having to fight "IP > address portability" legislative proposals even if they aren't technically > sound. At this point I'd almost welcome such a legislative proposal, so I could go to my congressman and complain about the lack of portability of zip+4 codes. I'm moving my business base in a couple of weeks, and the Post Office is forcing me to renumber. Well, actually, they're not. I can still use the old zip+4 if I want; my mail just won't get to me. -- Dick St.Peters, stpeters at NetHeaven.com Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY, 1-800-910-6671 (voice) Albany/Saratoga/Glens Falls/North Creek/Lake Placid/Blue Mountain Lake Soon: Elizabethtown/Greenwich/Keene/Plattsburgh/Saranac Lake/Ticonderoga First Internet service based in the 518 area code From jdfalk at cybernothing.org Mon Jun 30 00:11:51 1997 From: jdfalk at cybernothing.org (J.D. Falk) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:11:51 -0700 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [9706.30] References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <19970629211151.29869@cybernothing.org> On Jun 30, "David R. Conrad" wrote: > >I've seen a fair number of address blocks bought and sold over the last > >couple of years. The prices vary, but I've seen a very rough rule of > >thumb of $1 and up per address for larger blocks. > > And what happens when InterNIC finds out about such transactions? Nothing. It's happened before. Of course, the transaction has no power over the InterNIC (in its current role as allocation authority as assigned by the IANA), and therefore any allocated addresses covered by that transaction could be reclaimed if the InterNIC were to start doing that. BTW, as usual, I'm NOT talking about whether this is right or wrong -- it's only the current situation AFAIK. > Exactly what "right to use" do you have over my > network, regardless of what IP address you are using? I love this question. Nobody has /ever/ been able to answer it without looking like either an idiot or an idealist. ---------========== J.D. Falk =========--------- | "That article and its poster have been canceled." | | -David B. O'Donnell, Sysadmin, America OnLine | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========---- From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Jun 30 00:12:07 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:12:07 +0900 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:40:54 MST." Message-ID: <199706300412.NAA11320@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [cc'd to pagan] Karl, >I suggest that ARIN say (as I believe it does) that addresses >assignements may be changed, and even withdrawn. >From RFC 2050: IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met. The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4 address space. Is this wording insufficient? It is in the "Assignment Framework" section, but should probably be moved to a "general considerations" section. I gather you would add some wording to indicate actual timeframes when discussing "reasonable efforts"? >In addition, ARIN >should say that such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without >N months prior notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be >withdrawn or changed except after a minimum of one year. And ARIN >should require that these provisions be imposed as part of any >sub-delegation/assignment. I'd argue that this isn't an ARIN thing, but rather it affects all the registries. >That's pretty close to the way most real property leases work, and no one >who receives a delegation could realistically (I hope) complain that such >terms are too onerous. Heh. This was a joke, right? If one thing is true about the Internet, it is that complaints, realistic or not, are not on the endangered list. :-) Regards, -drc From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Jun 30 07:32:06 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:32:06 -0400 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <199706300134.VAA23916@saint.heaven.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970630073206.00720bf0@lint.cisco.com> At 07:24 PM 06/29/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >Try substituting the "right to use" in lieu of "ownership" of an IP >address. > Karl, The 'right to use' an IP address should probably be restated to indicate the 'ability to have a route announced', or something similar. In any event, I would suggest that either of these is similar to the text imprinted on your credit card: "This card is the property of the issuing authority. It must be surrendered to the issuing authority....' - paul From tfox at FOXBERRY.COM Mon Jun 30 07:49:45 1997 From: tfox at FOXBERRY.COM (Fox, Thomas L.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:49:45 -0400 Subject: OT: Value of telephone numbers Message-ID: <01BC852A.2E4621C0@tfox.foxberry.com> Let me comment on just this one part: >For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current >market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset >that needs to be listed. > >The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use >a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to >be of concern. Many business carry their phone numbers on the books as an asset, especially older, more established ones -- there is a value to having a telephone number that is easily recognizable and memorable. Anyone call 1-800-Flowers lately? --tlf From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Jun 30 07:33:46 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:33:46 -0400 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <199706300219.LAA11045@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970630073346.00720e38@lint.cisco.com> At 07:36 PM 06/29/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >Go to PSI and say "I want a class C". They aren't going to simply hand >you one without payment. > This is *business model*, not an allocation policy invoked by the registries. Whether a good or bad business model is an exercise left to the reader. - paul From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 30 02:25:38 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:25:38 +0100 Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <33B75162.3179@ix.netcom.com> David and all, Good mourning! David R. Conrad wrote: > > Karl, > > >Go to PSI and say "I want a class C". They aren't going to simply hand > >you one without payment. > > Actually, many ISPs do. However, what happens when you leave PSI? > What happens when you take that number to (say) Sprint or UUNet and > demand they route traffic to it through their networks? Under the telecommunications act of 1995 this is part and parcil to that act. In addition the "Judge Green" decision of 1980, which has been interprated in many ways legaly, but none the less provided for this ability which has been upheld many times now by the US supream cort. > > >I've seen a fair number of address blocks bought and sold over the last > >couple of years. The prices vary, but I've seen a very rough rule of > >thumb of $1 and up per address for larger blocks. > > And what happens when InterNIC finds out about such transactions? That is up to the InterNic I would suppose. But essentialy nothing. > > >It is fairly obvious to anyone who has ever had to deal with "rights to > >use" that a right (or even a privilge) to use an IP address is a property > >right with a value. > > You are presumably using legal terms in a forum composed of people > with little to no legal knowledge (although some may pretend > otherwise). It may be "fairly obvious" to you, I doubt strongly it is > "fairly obvious" to others. Well speaking for myself only, it is obviuos to me. > > You claim there is a "right to use" and "property" rights in the > context of IP addresses and in a strictly legal sense, perhaps you are > correct (don't know -- never considered a career in law). Yet in the > real world, I am not aware of any cases or rulings which would impart > these attributes to IP addresses. Feel free to point me to such > rulings, I'd honestly be interested. Review the Telecommunications act of 1995. > > You make the analogy of a drivers license. I would argue the > fundamental difference here is that a drivers license allows one to > make use of public roads (as far as I know you do not need a drivers > license to make use of purely private roads, correct me if I'm wrong). > The Internet, as I'm sure you are aware, is an interconnection of > private networks. Exactly what "right to use" do you have over my > network, regardless of what IP address you are using? In this context the "Right" is determined by the sale or "Lease" of those networks, or by other agreement. > > Regards, > -drc Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From chris at NAP.NET Mon Jun 30 10:13:57 1997 From: chris at NAP.NET (Chris A. Icide) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:13:57 -0500 Subject: Value of telephone numbers Message-ID: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> Is it so difficult to see that the fees, etc. that will be collected by ARIN are for recovery of the costs required to maintain an address registry? The value is not in the addresses, the value is in the maintenance of a registry that all members of the Internet recognize. Without either the registry or the recoginition of said registry, the addresses are worthless. Therefore, what members and users of ARIN are paying for is not a block or blocks of IP addresses, but the guarantee that the addresses that you do have are recognized by the Internet community and thus usable. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C. ---------- From: Fox, Thomas L.[SMTP:tfox at FOXBERRY.COM] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 6:49 AM To: naipr at arin.net; 'karl at CAVEBEAR.COM' Subject: OT: Value of telephone numbers Let me comment on just this one part: >For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current >market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset >that needs to be listed. > >The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use >a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to >be of concern. Many business carry their phone numbers on the books as an asset, especially older, more established ones -- there is a value to having a telephone number that is easily recognizable and memorable. Anyone call 1-800-Flowers lately? --tlf From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Mon Jun 30 09:47:54 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970630073206.00720bf0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > >Try substituting the "right to use" in lieu of "ownership" of an IP > >address. > > > > The 'right to use' an IP address should probably be restated > to indicate the 'ability to have a route announced', or something > similar. A while back there was a thread on this list about whether an allocation implied that the number was routable (I guess that means that people would accept the routing announcements.) That kinda got rejected. Perhaps a better formulation is that an allocation gives one the right to exclude others from announcing the number. > In any event, I would suggest that either of these is similar > to the text imprinted on your credit card: "This card is the > property of the issuing authority. It must be surrendered to > the issuing authority....' Even a credit card company can't pull back the card on a whim. But I don't think we are talking about a net run on arbitrary, sudden revocations or changes in assignments. If we just lay out some ground rules about what kind of commitments and mutual obligations go along with an allocation then I think we will have avoided a lot of problems (and hopefully derailed any excessive outside regulation.) There's no technology there, just words. Although with the right words we may be able to get people to do good things like "trade up" an old block so that they can get a bigger, contiguous block rather than demand a separate additional, but non-aggregatable allocation. --karl-- From spsprunk at paranet.com Mon Jun 30 10:05:38 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:05:38 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630090538.0072cd7c@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 20:50 29-06-97 PDT, you wrote: >> I suggest that ARIN say (as I believe it does) that addresses assignements >> may be changed, and even withdrawn. In addition, ARIN should say that >> such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without N months prior >> notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be withdrawn or >> changed except after a minimum of one year. And ARIN should require that >> these provisions be imposed as part of any sub-delegation/assignment. > >Thank you for a constructive suggestion. Do you have wording you would >suggest be at the bottom of an application for allocation that would make >this clear? I'm sure ARIN has/will have plenty of lawyers that will be happy to write the fine print legalese for you, but the content will end up like this: ARIN/RIPE/APNIC reserves the right to invalidate any IP lease at any time, with or without prior notice, with or without the lessee's consent. >What about the criteria which might cause withdrawal or change? These would >seem to need spelling out to make the game 'fair' and not have surprises. I'll throw in a few suggestions: . Not advertised on the public internet for 30 days (unless it is a documented case of necessary private use; a specific block for this perhaps?) . Advertised by a different AS than the one it is allocated to, without an approved transfer . Periodic analysis of usage reveals that RFC 2050 requirements are not met If an IP lease is invalidated for either of the latter two reasons there should be a new lease of an appropriate number of IPs to the appropriate party, with an appropriate conversion period. Of course, all this assumes that ARIN is going to make an effort to reclaim leases (either those made prior to or after its formation), which has never been publicly stated. I would also like proof ARIN/InterNIC has done any detailed analysis of the Big ISPs' allocations and their use which would justify the MASSIVE amounts of IP space allocated to them. >> That's pretty close to the way most real property leases work, and no one >> who receives a delegation could realistically (I hope) complain that such >> terms are too onerous. > >Uh, given the current weak renumbering technology, getting space and losing >it a year or so later would seem onerous if one had not done something to >'deserve' it. Our entire network, including all servers, could be renumbered in 24 hours; those with customers are obviously in a different boat, but one would think that a business with a substantial number of commercial users wouldn't need to renumber. >randy Stephen From spsprunk at paranet.com Mon Jun 30 10:21:33 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:21:33 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: <33B75162.3179@ix.netcom.com> References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630092133.00768714@pop.srv.paranet.com> Please enlighten the residents of the OTHER 60 countries ARIN will support as to the content (and relevance) of the US Telecommunications Act of 1995 as it applies to IP leases in their jurisdictions. Stephen At 07:25 30-06-97 +0100, you wrote: > Under the telecommunications act of 1995 this is part and parcil to >that act. In addition the "Judge Green" decision of 1980, which >has been interprated in many ways legaly, but none the less provided >for this ability which has been upheld many times now by the US supream >cort. ... > Review the Telecommunications act of 1995. From karl at MCS.NET Mon Jun 30 10:32:32 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:32:32 -0500 Subject: Value of telephone numbers In-Reply-To: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net>; from Chris A. Icide on Mon, Jun 30, 1997 at 09:13:57AM -0500 References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> Message-ID: <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> Uh, Chris, you're missing something. ARIN can't guarantee that the addresses they give you will be "recognized" by the Internet Community. That is, unless you're redefined a bunch of laws overnight. It can claim that *within its sphere of influence* it will make no overlapping or duplicate allocations, but that's a different thing entirely. The generic problem isn't address space -- its router manufacturers being coddled by the Internet industry rather than being forced to produce equipment that can handle the real load out there. Why is it that I can buy a 100 MIPS system -- a GENERAL PURPOSE system -- for well under $1,000 on the secondary market (this pretty much establishes the price on the CPU, by the way) while that same class of processor isn't at the core of any existing major router doing BGP computations? Why is it that nobody is producing a router where there is a *dedicated* CPU that does NOTHING OTHER than recompute BGP tables? (I don't count prototypes, and yes, I am aware that there is *one* such device in that phase right now) Again, we're talking about something that isn't very expensive to do from a design perspective, and would obviate many of these discussions. Now, add to that the other problem -- entropy of the tables. This is *caused* not by the little guys (look at the flap reports sometime for proof) but by the *BIG* guys. Fact is, if I look at my own dampened list I find that the huge majority of flapping prefixes are owned by people like MCI, Sprint, etc. -- virtually all of the time. The BIG problem right now is: Entropy in the route tables. Possible to resolve by setting standards within the community on the presentation of announcements and their withdrawal, enforced with existing dampening software in the routers on the mainstream market. Violate the standards, and you get "penalized" by having your announcements which flap dampened for a goodly period of time (say, 3-4 hours). We are NOT running out of prefixes to assign, and attempts to prevent assignment of address space to those who need it *IS* acting to restrain trade. RAM is cheap. CPU power is cheap too, but the geometric scale problem is real and valid. Fixing the entropy problem will resolve this to a large degree, leaving only the RAM issue (which is really a matter of vendors putting appropriate numbers of sockets and address decoding hardware on their processor cards). The *second* problem is (which is, by the way, being ignored): BGP *sucks* as a means to determine available bandwidth and proper routing configuration. In fact, BGP does really only one thing well - determining how many ASNs you must traverse to reach a destination. Unfortunately, since there is *NO* standardization of metrics and performance levels associated with them, using BGP to determine *routing* (rather than reachability) leads to a host of performance problems. This cannot be fixed within the *current* operational parameters of BGP4. However, it NEEDS to be fixed, and that probably means that we're overdue for either another version of BGP or something entirely different. What a *routing* protocol needs to be able to do is determine the *best* path to a given destination given the potential paths to select from. "BEST" means, at least to me: 1) least congested and possibly 2) lowest latency. (2) actually implies (1) most of the time, but in some cases it might not. And yes, I understand that this is a tricky computation, and yes, I also understand that at present it doesn't appear that anyone has done the work required to even *quantify* this problem, say much less attempt to resolve it. But BGP doesn't take EITHER of those two items into account in making its routing decisions, and that's a real issue. -- -- 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, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal On Mon, Jun 30, 1997 at 09:13:57AM -0500, Chris A. Icide wrote: > Is it so difficult to see that the fees, etc. that will be collected by ARIN > are for recovery of the costs required to maintain an address registry? > The value is not in the addresses, the value is in the maintenance of > a registry that all members of the Internet recognize. Without either > the registry or the recoginition of said registry, the addresses are > worthless. > > Therefore, what members and users of ARIN are paying for is not a > block or blocks of IP addresses, but the guarantee that the addresses > that you do have are recognized by the Internet community and thus > usable. > > Chris A. Icide > Nap.Net, L.L.C. > > ---------- > From: Fox, Thomas L.[SMTP:tfox at FOXBERRY.COM] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 6:49 AM > To: naipr at arin.net; 'karl at CAVEBEAR.COM' > Subject: OT: Value of telephone numbers > > Let me comment on just this one part: > > > >For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current > >market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset > >that needs to be listed. > > > >The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use > >a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to > >be of concern. > > Many business carry their phone numbers on the books as an asset, > especially older, more established ones -- there is a value to having > a telephone number that is easily recognizable and memorable. > Anyone call 1-800-Flowers lately? > > --tlf > > > > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 30 04:32:37 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:32:37 +0100 Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970630092133.00768714@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33B76F25.38B8@ix.netcom.com> Stephen and all, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Please enlighten the residents of the OTHER 60 countries ARIN will support > as to the content (and relevance) of the US Telecommunications Act of 1995 > as it applies to IP leases in their jurisdictions. Please feel free to read the US Telecommunications Act of 1995 for yourself, and seek any leagel opinion you choose to help you understand it's contents as needed. Much of it is easy to understand, so I doubt that much will need legal interpratation. In refrence to part of your comment "OTHER 60 countries", there is some relevance as it applies to GATT as is refrenced. In addition refrence to IP adresses is stated is several sections, and again please feel free to comb those sections closely as you please. If you would like me to advise or consult to the ARIN, on this subject in detail, I would be happy to do so in an official manner, under a spicific contract, which I have done on several occasions. > > Stephen > > At 07:25 30-06-97 +0100, you wrote: > > Under the telecommunications act of 1995 this is part and parcil to > >that act. In addition the "Judge Green" decision of 1980, which > >has been interprated in many ways legaly, but none the less provided > >for this ability which has been upheld many times now by the US supream > >cort. > ... > > Review the Telecommunications act of 1995. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Mon Jun 30 10:41:46 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:41:46 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970630070614.00713c4c@lint.cisco.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19970629104144.00c6daa0@texoma.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630094146.01236b80@texoma.net> At 07:06 AM 6/30/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: >At 10:41 AM 06/29/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: > >> >>More to the point, RB and other powers that be are not proposing that the >>big players economize on their use of router slots, which would make room >>(if you listen to the limited memory argument) for small multi-homed ISPs. >> > >I think you are missing the point yourself, Larrykins. Actually, Paul, what you guys don't like is that I get it. I get the use of diminutive forms of people's names by you and David Conrad, I get the "geographical monopoly" stuff from David Conrad and Daniel Kerrenberg, and I get that Randy Bush's "plonking" is acceptable in a sideline commentator, but insufferable as a representative of ARIN. I'm reminded of Thomas (Tommy to y'all, correct?) Carter's invention of the Carterfone, which Bell disallowed to be connected to the network before several in or around the discussion were in grade school. I can't help but wonder where we would all be if that use of fear and protectionism (as has occurred in this thread) by Bell had not been overturned by the court system y'all seem to disdain. Modems were $1/baud and memory was $1/byte if you bought it by the megabyte. I would like to see more constructive suggestions about how to deal with today's Carterfone case (small multi-homed ISPs). The question is not whether you guys know how to do it, but whether you're willing to permit today's Carterfone or you wish to force an industry consolidation and thereby get rid of today's Carterfone. Those favoring the status quo, complete with continuation of the monopolies, might want to read "Cutting the Barbed Wire: Lessons of a Reformed Monopolist", a speech given by Robert E. Allen, Chairman and CEO of AT&T, at the University of Texas last year. There's a lot of other reading about the historical Carterfone decision which might serve to help some of the writers and yes, actors in the legal sense, on this mailing list. Could we turn to constructive and timely suggestions on how to deal with the small, multi-homed ISP, please? If not, the alternative is to see how "Carterfone II" is decided. I prefer the former over the latter. Don't you? --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Jun 30 10:53:11 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:53:11 -0400 Subject: Value of telephone numbers In-Reply-To: <19970630093232.64624@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970630105311.00725538@lint.cisco.com> Since this thread is deviating from the gist of the initial discussion, I'll keep this brief. I would point out that what you are advocation is already recognized, at least insofar as BGP does not take into account path congestion, latency, other metrics, etc. Take at look at: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/qosr-charter.html We have our first WG meeting in Munich/IETF in August, and there has been significant discussion on the mailing list. In any event, this discussion should be moved to the QoSR mailing list. - paul At 09:32 AM 06/30/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: > > BGP *sucks* as a means to determine available bandwidth and proper > routing configuration. In fact, BGP does really only one thing > well - determining how many ASNs you must traverse to reach a > destination. Unfortunately, since there is *NO* standardization > of metrics and performance levels associated with them, using BGP > to determine *routing* (rather than reachability) leads to a host > of performance problems. This cannot be fixed within the *current* > operational parameters of BGP4. However, it NEEDS to be fixed, > and that probably means that we're overdue for either another > version of BGP or something entirely different. > > What a *routing* protocol needs to be able to do is determine the > *best* path to a given destination given the potential paths to > select from. "BEST" means, at least to me: 1) least congested > and possibly 2) lowest latency. (2) actually implies (1) most > of the time, but in some cases it might not. > > And yes, I understand that this is a tricky computation, and yes, I > also understand that at present it doesn't appear that anyone has > done the work required to even *quantify* this problem, say much > less attempt to resolve it. > > But BGP doesn't take EITHER of those two items into account in > making its routing decisions, and that's a real issue. > From vaden at texoma.net Mon Jun 30 10:55:46 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:55:46 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970630073206.00720bf0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630095546.01236b80@texoma.net> At 06:47 AM 6/30/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >If we just lay out some ground rules about what kind of commitments and >mutual obligations go along with an allocation then I think we will have >avoided a lot of problems (and hopefully derailed any excessive outside >regulation.) There's no technology there, just words. Although with the >right words we may be able to get people to do good things like "trade up" >an old block so that they can get a bigger, contiguous block rather than >demand a separate additional, but non-aggregatable allocation. > > --karl-- Karl, We're there with a /21 and and /23 which we've offered to trade up with no avail: BGP table version is 736887, local router ID is 165.117.1.121 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 205.229.106.0/23 192.41.177.145 0 4200 6467 4963 i * 192.41.177.240 6 0 1800 1239 4200 6467 4963 i * i 165.117.1.122 2000000000 100 0 6467 4963 i *>i 192.41.177.108 100 100 6467 4963 i * 206.65.112.0/21 192.41.177.145 0 4200 6467 4963 i * i 165.117.1.122 2000000000 100 0 6467 4963 i *>i 192.41.177.108 100 100 6467 4963 i Twice as much of everything except IPs. Our primary connection is to uu.net (AS701). --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From vaden at texoma.net Mon Jun 30 11:01:16 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:01:16 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970630073206.00720bf0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630100116.00b34eb8@texoma.net> At 06:47 AM 6/30/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> >Try substituting the "right to use" in lieu of "ownership" of an IP >> >address. >> > >> >> The 'right to use' an IP address should probably be restated >> to indicate the 'ability to have a route announced', or something >> similar. > >A while back there was a thread on this list about whether an allocation >implied that the number was routable (I guess that means that people would >accept the routing announcements.) > >That kinda got rejected. > >Perhaps a better formulation is that an allocation gives one the right to >exclude others from announcing the number. Be careful here, Karl. A CIDR block without the right to announce is similar to a sterile fruit fly. And you know what we're trying to do with fruit flies, correct? --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From spsprunk at paranet.com Mon Jun 30 11:04:27 1997 From: spsprunk at paranet.com (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:04:27 -0500 Subject: ARIN /8s ? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970630073206.00720bf0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630100427.00772334@pop.srv.paranet.com> At 06:47 30-06-97 -0700, you wrote: >Perhaps a better formulation is that an allocation gives one the right to >exclude others from announcing the number. Interesting wording... Does that mean that since net 27 hasn't been allocated I'm free to advertise it? >Even a credit card company can't pull back the card on a whim. Read the fine print; most can cancel your account at any time for any reason. The majority of the restrictions are on the reporting they do to the credit bureaus. >But I don't think we are talking about a net run on arbitrary, sudden >revocations or changes in assignments. I wouldn't expect anything arbitrary; it has yet to be shown anyone will do ANYTHING to fix the problem. >If we just lay out some ground rules about what kind of commitments and >mutual obligations go along with an allocation then I think we will have >avoided a lot of problems (and hopefully derailed any excessive outside >regulation.) There's no technology there, just words. Although with the >right words we may be able to get people to do good things like "trade up" >an old block so that they can get a bigger, contiguous block rather than >demand a separate additional, but non-aggregatable allocation. I would certainly like to see a program where someone can trade in small blocks for a single larger one (plus growth space). Something like 8 C's => 1 x /20; the exact ratio is an exercise for the reader. I think it'd be reasonable to put in place some restrictions on the number of small allocations an entity may have; something like "no more than 4 allocations smaller than /16" or some such. Making the number >1 allows smaller ISPs to grow without renumbering excessively. Stephen From tfox at FOXBERRY.COM Mon Jun 30 11:36:45 1997 From: tfox at FOXBERRY.COM (Fox, Thomas L.) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:36:45 -0400 Subject: Value of telephone numbers Message-ID: <01BC8549.E4841720@tfox.foxberry.com> I guess you could make a valid argument that the "value" of the addresses is determined by their maintenance/route-ability. Price, however, is determined by simple supply and demand. ---------- From: Chris A. Icide[SMTP:chris at nap.net] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 10:13 AM To: 'karl at CAVEBEAR.COM'; naipr at arin.net; 'Fox, Thomas L.' Subject: RE: Value of telephone numbers Is it so difficult to see that the fees, etc. that will be collected by ARIN are for recovery of the costs required to maintain an address registry? The value is not in the addresses, the value is in the maintenance of a registry that all members of the Internet recognize. Without either the registry or the recoginition of said registry, the addresses are worthless. Therefore, what members and users of ARIN are paying for is not a block or blocks of IP addresses, but the guarantee that the addresses that you do have are recognized by the Internet community and thus usable. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C. ---------- From: Fox, Thomas L.[SMTP:tfox at FOXBERRY.COM] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 6:49 AM To: naipr at arin.net; 'karl at CAVEBEAR.COM' Subject: OT: Value of telephone numbers Let me comment on just this one part: >For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current >market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset >that needs to be listed. > >The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use >a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to >be of concern. Many business carry their phone numbers on the books as an asset, especially older, more established ones -- there is a value to having a telephone number that is easily recognizable and memorable. Anyone call 1-800-Flowers lately? --tlf From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 29 17:13:38 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:13:38 +0100 Subject: past vs future use References: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970629191516.00775cb8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33B6CFFD.22C6@ix.netcom.com> Stephen, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > At 16:33 29-06-97 +0100, you wrote: > > I agree that 80% or more ISP's do fail in the first year. But if you > >look a bit deeper you will find that 96% of these fail due to lack of > >adaquate funding. The case that I am refering to in this discussion > >does not suffer form that problem. We already have $12m in initial > >cash on hand, in addition a $8m line of credit, and currently a > >$4m in residual partnership funding down stream. So I don't think > >we will be facing a failuer due to funding at any rate. > > Good for you (golf clap). If you have this much capital, I assume you also > have a fair number of clients lined up. If you have enough clients (which > I will assume you do), you may be able to qualify for a /19 immediately, if > you can meet the requirements under RFC 2050. SWIP out 80% of the > allocation and make sure each customer uses 25% immediately and 50% within > the first year. Well first let me say, thanks for the "Golf clap". >;) Next is see that you have not read RFC2050 very closely. If you had in section 2.1 (4-7) partians to this area. In those sections, there is no spicific pervision stated for this type of situation. Not only that if you had been following the discussion you would, of course already know that. My question to you, is, are you speeking authoritativly? > > >> The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: > >> > >> 1. Connect to an upstream provider > >> 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider > >> 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of > >> fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient > >> 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs > >> 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation > >> 6. Make every customer you have renumber > > > > I here what you are saying here. But this method is too pacarious due > >to point #6 [renumber], #2 [get PA IPs], and #4 [lather, rinse, repeat]. > >Been there done that! Or the three ISP's > >that I have been directly associated with only one did we need to > >renumber. And that was mainly due to this sort of planning. The other > >two we got alot smarter, and certianly didn't use this method, as we > >pretty much did in the first one. Hence, back to my original > >question.... >;) > > Would you care to enlighten the rest of the world as to the method you used > for the latter two businesses? > > > Not likely! This plan or method is definatly flawed and of course > >very likely to create a failier senerio. > > I never said I liked, suggested, endorsed, or otherwise felt anything > positive about this plan. That's just how it is (now). I am sure this is NOT true. In fact I KNOW that it isn't in all cases. Yes it would be true for SOME small start-up ISP's. > > If you don't like ARIN/RIPE/APNIC policies, become a member and put up a > vote to change them. I intend to dojust that. >;) > > Stephen Fondest regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From vaden at texoma.net Mon Jun 30 13:08:54 1997 From: vaden at texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:08:54 -0500 Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <33B6CFFD.22C6@ix.netcom.com> References: <199706282353.TAA06971@ops1.internic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970629160047.00a53be8@pop.srv.paranet.com> <3.0.2.32.19970629191516.00775cb8@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970630120854.0170b0c0@texoma.net> At 10:13 PM 6/29/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > My question to you, is, are you speeking authoritativly? > >> >> >> The expected procedure for a new ISP is thus: >> >> >> >> 1. Connect to an upstream provider >> >> 2. Obtain some PA IPs from that provider >> >> 3. Efficiently assign those IPs to your customers OR do a bunch of >> >> fake SWIPs that make it look like you're efficient >> >> 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until you have ~8192 PA IPs >> >> 5. Trade in your PA IPs for a /19 allocation >> >> 6. Make every customer you have renumber What is outlined here is a LOW ROAD procedure which is used by some. There is software available to emulate large modem pools, e.g., complete with response times to fake the latency time of a connection via a 14.4, 28.8, 33.6 modem. What IT is seeking/proposing is a HIGH ROAD solution. --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 From cook at NETAXS.COM Mon Jun 30 13:17:34 1997 From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: past vs future use In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970630094146.01236b80@texoma.net> Message-ID: Larry, I have spent most of the last five days looking at these same issues. I see some procedural issues that might be made a little clearer. I see continuing need for the institutionalization of IANA authority....ASAP. What I have *not seen* is any shread of evidence of effort on the part of the big guys to shut the little guys out. I believe you are drawing conclusions from the evidence that after, further probing, turn out to be unjustified. I do not think you have been irreparably harmed by the refusal of a 19/. I also do not think that if you come back a year from now there will be any reason why you should not have been able to show enough growth to get a 19/. I also think that as soon as ARIN is up and running....with members and its own policies, that the allocation policies will likely change in such a way that you will be able to get a 19/. my advice is to work on building your network and give these processes more time to work. Gordon 'not-a-doormat-of-the-bigboys' Cook ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Larry Vaden wrote: > At 07:06 AM 6/30/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: > >At 10:41 AM 06/29/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: > > > >> > >>More to the point, RB and other powers that be are not proposing that the > >>big players economize on their use of router slots, which would make room > >>(if you listen to the limited memory argument) for small multi-homed ISPs. > >> > > > >I think you are missing the point yourself, Larrykins. > > Actually, Paul, what you guys don't like is that I get it. I get the use > of diminutive forms of people's names by you and David Conrad, I get the > "geographical monopoly" stuff from David Conrad and Daniel Kerrenberg, and > I get that Randy Bush's "plonking" is acceptable in a sideline commentator, > but insufferable as a representative of ARIN. > > I'm reminded of Thomas (Tommy to y'all, correct?) Carter's invention of the > Carterfone, which Bell disallowed to be connected to the network before > several in or around the discussion were in grade school. I can't help but > wonder where we would all be if that use of fear and protectionism (as has > occurred in this thread) by Bell had not been overturned by the court > system y'all seem to disdain. Modems were $1/baud and memory was $1/byte > if you bought it by the megabyte. > > I would like to see more constructive suggestions about how to deal with > today's Carterfone case (small multi-homed ISPs). The question is not > whether you guys know how to do it, but whether you're willing to permit > today's Carterfone or you wish to force an industry consolidation and > thereby get rid of today's Carterfone. > > Those favoring the status quo, complete with continuation of the > monopolies, might want to read "Cutting the Barbed Wire: Lessons of a > Reformed Monopolist", a speech given by Robert E. Allen, Chairman and CEO > of AT&T, at the University of Texas last year. > > There's a lot of other reading about the historical Carterfone decision > which might serve to help some of the writers and yes, actors in the legal > sense, on this mailing list. > > Could we turn to constructive and timely suggestions on how to deal with > the small, multi-homed ISP, please? If not, the alternative is to see how > "Carterfone II" is decided. I prefer the former over the latter. Don't you? > > > --- > > Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 > Internet Texoma, Inc. direct 903-870-0365 > fax 903-868-8551 > bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571 > From randy at PSG.COM Mon Jun 30 13:04:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 10:04 PDT Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970630090538.0072cd7c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: > I'm sure ARIN has/will have plenty of lawyers that will be happy to write > the fine print legalese for you, but the content will end up like this: > > ARIN/RIPE/APNIC reserves the right to invalidate any IP lease at any time, > with or without prior notice, with or without the lessee's consent. This is QUITE different than what Karl seemed to me to be saying. And he is an actual lawyer. > Of course, all this assumes that ARIN is going to make an effort to reclaim > leases (either those made prior to or after its formation), which has never > been publicly stated. Other that Suzanne's and Bill's /8 reclamation project, there has been no plans for this of which I am aware. But Karl suggested it, so I am trying to understand his suggestion and its consequences. If it could be done fairly, it might be a useful approach. > I would also like proof ARIN/InterNIC has done any detailed analysis of the > Big ISPs' allocations and their use which would justify the MASSIVE amounts > of IP space allocated to them. InterNIC does the same for large as for small. They may be oppressive, but they oppress everyone equally. randy From randy at PSG.COM Mon Jun 30 20:17:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 17:17 PDT Subject: when & how could policy be changed (was) Re: past vs future use References: <3.0.32.19970630124036.00bae724@liveoak.priori.net> Message-ID: > Yet I have the impression that the arin board feels that it cannot make > *any* policy moves on its own now because they might not be representative > of what the membership will really want. While I can not contest that you may have that impression, I believe you mis-state the ARIN BofT's motivations. This is my perception, absent discussion with other members: o It has not been shown that the discussion on these lists represents any industry consensus. In fact, there is belief by some non-trivial players in the industry that it really represents only a vocal minority. Note that we do not hear from a significant number of the players. If anyone here can ascertain what the future ARIN membership might want amid the posturing, screaming, whining, red herrings, and predominantly clue-free garbage on these lists, they could much better spend their fantastic talents on world peace rather than internet addresses. o The BofT has been a weensie bit occupied with just getting this puppy off the ground in a straight line. While deviations from course might appear very interesting, rightly or wrongly, they get viewed with more suspicion than one hopes they will once we have progressed just a wee bit further than one week along. o The BofT is hesitant to make policy changes on its own because of the precedent it will set. Note that this is quite different from your conjecture. "Those evil bastards changed policy behind closed doors when they had promised that members, ..." Now, if it were a very much needed and 'one obvious way to do it right' change, maybe the BofT would feel the need for precipitous action. But that would not describe the current circumstances. o One can fight fires or one can build systems to deal with them. If you spend your energy on the former, you will be doing it forever. If you spend it on the latter, this month's problems will fall into perspective in six months. And note that the policies you are trying to address are not new this week and the solutions are not no-brainers or without controversy, except to those with large axes to grind. So, I am sorry to be an apologist for inaction, but that seems wisest at the moment. And I definitely do not mean to imply that the problem is not important. But I also note how few constructive answers I have received to queries on how certain policy problems might be addressed when we have the mechanisms to do so. randy From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 30 18:39:13 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:39:13 +0100 Subject: Value of telephone numbers References: <01BC8535.F10181E0@Mallard.nap.net> Message-ID: <33B83591.5202@ix.netcom.com> Chris, Chris A. Icide wrote: > > Is it so difficult to see that the fees, etc. that will be collected by ARIN > are for recovery of the costs required to maintain an address registry? > The value is not in the addresses, the value is in the maintenance of > a registry that all members of the Internet recognize. Without either > the registry or the recoginition of said registry, the addresses are > worthless. Very true. Glad someone finnaly brought this point up! >;) I was wondering when this was going to come up. > > Therefore, what members and users of ARIN are paying for is not a > block or blocks of IP addresses, but the guarantee that the addresses > that you do have are recognized by the Internet community and thus > usable. Yep! > > Chris A. Icide > Nap.Net, L.L.C. > > ---------- > From: Fox, Thomas L.[SMTP:tfox at FOXBERRY.COM] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 6:49 AM > To: naipr at arin.net; 'karl at CAVEBEAR.COM' > Subject: OT: Value of telephone numbers > > Let me comment on just this one part: > > >For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current > >market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset > >that needs to be listed. > > > >The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use > >a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to > >be of concern. > > Many business carry their phone numbers on the books as an asset, > especially older, more established ones -- there is a value to having > a telephone number that is easily recognizable and memorable. > Anyone call 1-800-Flowers lately? > > --tlf Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 30 18:52:20 1997 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:52:20 +0100 Subject: ARIN /8s ? References: <199706300254.LAA11170@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> <3.0.2.32.19970630090538.0072cd7c@pop.srv.paranet.com> Message-ID: <33B838A4.82E@ix.netcom.com> Stephen, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > At 20:50 29-06-97 PDT, you wrote: > >> I suggest that ARIN say (as I believe it does) that addresses assignements > >> may be changed, and even withdrawn. In addition, ARIN should say that > >> such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without N months prior > >> notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be withdrawn or > >> changed except after a minimum of one year. And ARIN should require that > >> these provisions be imposed as part of any sub-delegation/assignment. > > > >Thank you for a constructive suggestion. Do you have wording you would > >suggest be at the bottom of an application for allocation that would make > >this clear? > > I'm sure ARIN has/will have plenty of lawyers that will be happy to write > the fine print legalese for you, but the content will end up like this: > > ARIN/RIPE/APNIC reserves the right to invalidate any IP lease at any time, > with or without prior notice, with or without the lessee's consent. If the language is written in this manner, I think that there would be quite an uproar. Not to mention some Damage legal filings form many diffrent sectors. Won't fly! > > >What about the criteria which might cause withdrawal or change? These would > >seem to need spelling out to make the game 'fair' and not have surprises. Shouldn't need to be a "GAME" at all. > > I'll throw in a few suggestions: > > . Not advertised on the public internet for 30 days (unless it is a documented > case of necessary private use; a specific block for this perhaps?) > . Advertised by a different AS than the one it is allocated to, without an > approved transfer > . Periodic analysis of usage reveals that RFC 2050 requirements are not met Now you are talking! Still there needs to be some additional provisions added to RFC2050. > > If an IP lease is invalidated for either of the latter two reasons there > should be a new lease of an appropriate number of IPs to the appropriate > party, with an appropriate conversion period. This would seem a wise and prudent requirnment. > > Of course, all this assumes that ARIN is going to make an effort to reclaim > leases (either those made prior to or after its formation), which has never > been publicly stated. > > I would also like proof ARIN/InterNIC has done any detailed analysis of the > Big ISPs' allocations and their use which would justify the MASSIVE amounts > of IP space allocated to them. I doubt that this will ever be done, not to mention made public. But I must say, I agree with you. > > >> That's pretty close to the way most real property leases work, and no one > >> who receives a delegation could realistically (I hope) complain that such > >> terms are too onerous. > > > >Uh, given the current weak renumbering technology, getting space and losing > >it a year or so later would seem onerous if one had not done something to > >'deserve' it. > > Our entire network, including all servers, could be renumbered in 24 hours; > those with customers are obviously in a different boat, but one would think > that a business with a substantial number of commercial users wouldn't need > to renumber. Renumbering should rarely be necessary. An should avoided in any way that can be made avalible. This should also be part of the shared responsibility of ARIN.InterNic in the manner of offering some kind of assistance if necesssary. Now, if an ISP is abusing or not using the IP space it has allocated within the outline provided in RFC2050, than that would be that ISP's responsibility to rectify. > > >randy > > Stephen Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com