From bob at DigiLink.Net Thu May 1 01:00:15 1997 From: bob at DigiLink.Net (Bob Atkins) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <199705010500.WAA26763@cherokee.digilink.net> > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: > > > Today it will be $2500, which I already consider ridiculously high. > > > > Tomorrow what will it be? > > Judging by the precedent of RIPE and APNIC, the fee will drop in the > second year. My estimat is that it will fall to between $1900 and $2100 > in the second year and then fall to around $1800 in the third year. > Ha! Wishfull thinking. I sincerely doubt that ARIN will ever reduce the fees but I am confident that they will probably increase. A monopoly, whether non-profit or for-profit has *absolutely* no incentive to lower prices *or* reduce their backend costs. They have a captive market and no other authority to hold them accountable. > > The idea of paying such a high recurring cost for IP space is absurd > > and only goes to justify a bloated $3M annual budget. > > The companies who will be paying these fees will have annual budgets that > are larger than ARIN's. They can afford it. > You just made the point that I am trying to make. ARIN will serve to squash smaller ISPs. > > I'm not suggesting that the IP registery remain with NSI either. > > So why don't you put in a bid for it then. Please submit full details of > capital and other expenses for the first year of operation in a form > that can be verified by the members of this list. > I may very well do this however, since it isn't likely receive any serious consideration I can't say it will be on the top of my priority list. --- =========================================================================== Bob Atkins, President | bob at digilink.net Digilink Network Services | http://www.DigiLink.Net/ Switched ISDN Internet Access | mailto:info at DigiLink.Net 310-577-9450 "Our business is your network" =========================================================================== The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been. -- Alan Ashley-Pitt From bob at DigiLink.Net Thu May 1 01:47:06 1997 From: bob at DigiLink.Net (Bob Atkins) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <199705010547.WAA26803@cherokee.digilink.net> Paul, > > I'd suggest that you take some time and read the archives for this list. > > Perhaps after doing so, in the future you'll think about making such > flippant remarks; doing so is a clear indicator that you have no idea > how complex the issues really are. > I definitely took the time to scan the archives from 1/17/97 to present. I also read the FAQ published on the www.arin.net. What I saw was a lot of heated disagreement intermixed with justifcations of why ARIN must come into existence. Yes, I have seen that these issues have been covered and discussed into the ground in the list archives but that shouldn't mean that the issue is dead or buried. Clearly, reading the list archives I'm not alone in my opinion. However, the ARIN club supporters seem to dominate this list. I should not have expected otherwise. ARIN will be in a position to be influenced substantially and will be able to make life for smaller ISPs even tougher than it is today. Today getting IP space from the InterNIC is like squeezing blood from a stone for smaller ISPs. However, it is very evident that large ISPs have no problem getting enormous address assignments and give those addresses out with little or no effort to verify the customer need. I have to concur that the present address assignment limitations imposed by the InterNIC are also ridiculous and it pains me that the same people making my life miserable today will be in positions of greater power and autonomy in ARIN without the appearance of any higher authority to or mitigate their actions. The entire IP registery concept needs to be more distributed. The concept of leasing IP addresses that are controlled by ARIN is troubling to say the least. While ARIN will supposedly not be handling IPv6 space I am not convinced that it won't once IPv6 address space comes into use. With IPv6 ARIN will have an enormous pool of address space. The annual recurring fees generated based on the proposed amounts would be criminal for a non-profit organization. Besides my argument is simple - *Who* decided to create ARIN and why isn't such a function put up for bid on a recurring basis? No one organization should have control of such an important resource for an indefinite period of time. The IP address management function should be put up for competitive bid. Better yet the entire registery issue should be further distributed or made highly automated so as not to require any significant resources for management. Consider the way ethernet addresses are doled out. A manufacturer applies for a block - pays a *one time* nominal fee and thats it. Or consider the way telephone numbers are handled - a one time fee to Bellcore and bang you have 10,000 numbers. The entire concept of leasing IP address space is so open to potential abuse it just isn't funny. Sure there would be a board of directors for ARIN, but who are you kidding, politics is then same everywhere. Sooner or later incumbents will be re-elected, big business will eventually or even initially control it and there will be no means to guarantee that smaller organizations will have fair treatment. Besides ARIN will be a monopoly - plain and simple, and it will be accountable to who?? Who will provide a balance when ARIN goes out of control? What is more absurd about all of this is the fact that ARIN would not be in control of the Routing Arbiter's database so in effect they would simply be responsible for in-arpa services and thats all. So how do they intend to enforce their annual fees. Turn off in-arpa services? While that would be inconvenient it certainly wouldn't stop things from working. The argument for a T1 not being able to handle the in-arpa statements is valid. I'm not suggesting that they all be hosted in one place. The root in-addr servers are already diversified and that diversification could be continued in the form of competitive bids to provide the root server services. And lets face it, the in-addr load on the root servers is probably not so great that it would cost anything more than say $5,000/year in actual costs. What really burns me is the entire concept of a *recurring* fee for the address space. The telco industry doesn't handle telephone numbers that way. Only the government doles out national resources on a leased basis and recently the FCC has gone to simply selling radio spectrum outright. As fas as I'm concerned IP space is like radio spectrum. It is a finite resource and it should be managed in such a way as to ensure equitable and fair access to address space to both large and small businesses. The fees currently proposed are a drop in the bucket for larger organizations but they are far more significant to smaller ones. I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to paying in some form for universal resources. The problem is that larger more well funded businesses can easily outbid the smaller guys. That is exactly what has happend with the FCC spectrum autions. Do you think a small business can possibly afford to bid $100-$200M for radio spectrum in a metro area? The idea of a private agency having so much control over such an important resource just really turns my stomach. I'm not opposed to paying recurring costs, but at $2500/year for a /19 that is simply ridiculous! As an ISP I would be more than willing to pay an annual fee for address management but that fee should be the same regardless of how much address space I use. I do think it is reasonable to charge a fixed up front fee for a block of address space as long as the fees are sensible and I don't mean cheap, just sensible. Large IP address block holders should be required to provide root in-addr services. That would be a reasonable way of ensuring that large IP address users also contribute to the overall functioning of the Internet as a whole and will simultaneously diversify the root server load. In fact the concept of contributing so called shared services to the Internet as a whole based on the consumption of universal resources like IP addresses and even domain names would be a much more reasonable and equitable way to handle the providing of shared services such as root name servers which, after all is most of what needs to be done on a continuing basis. The entire management issue is being blown considerably out of proportion. IP address assignments could be largely automated. Inverse mapping the same. A website is all it takes, minimal personnel and minimal recurring costs. The websites could be distributed along with root server functions ensuring a high degree of availability. The bottom line is that some common services are required to sustain the Internet and I am willing to pay for those services. However, what I am seeing in both the domain name registery and now the IP regsitery is this concept of centralization instead of diversification. Control and money. That combination is not good for anyone but the few at the core. --- =========================================================================== Bob Atkins, President | bob at digilink.net Digilink Network Services | http://www.DigiLink.Net/ Switched ISDN Internet Access | mailto:info at DigiLink.Net 310-577-9450 "Our business is your network" =========================================================================== The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been. -- Alan Ashley-Pitt From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu May 1 02:43:50 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <199705010500.WAA26763@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: > A monopoly, > whether non-profit or for-profit has *absolutely* no incentive to lower > prices *or* reduce their backend costs. I quite agree with this statement. > They have a captive market and no other authority to hold them > accountable. Fortunately ARIN is not a monopoly and will have several authorities to hold them accountable. Since ARIN is a 501(c)6 organization, the law holds them accountable to the members and to the IRS regulations for non-profits. The members will hold ARIN accountable. Since ARIN receives its address blocks from IANA for allocation to North American users, IANA will hold ARIN accountable. Since ARIN is applying the policies of RFC2050 set forth by the Internet community and the IETF, both of these groups will hold them accountable. And, in fact, since ARIN is directed by a board of *TRUSTEES*, they too will hold the organization accountable. Not to mention the press and assorted onlookers. I'm glad you brought up this point because until you forced me to think it through I hadn't realized that there were so many layers of accountability that ARIN's activities would be subject to. > > > The idea of paying such a high recurring cost for IP space is absurd > > > and only goes to justify a bloated $3M annual budget. > > > > The companies who will be paying these fees will have annual budgets that > > are larger than ARIN's. They can afford it. > > You just made the point that I am trying to make. ARIN will serve to > squash smaller ISPs. I'm afraid you have misunderstood my statements above. I am trying to point out that ARIN will have *NO* effect, positive or negative, on smaller ISPs. The smaller ISPs will continue to get their address allocations from their upstream providers just as they have done for the past couple of years. It is only the larger ISPs that will have any need to ask ARIN directly for an address allocation and those ISPs are clearly able to pay the small fees with no hardship at all. If I thought that ARIN would have any negative impact on small ISPs I can assure you that I would be utterly opposed to their actions because in the next couple of weeks I expect to begin working for a company that will be selling services to small ISPs and that will be doing everything possible to support and assist those small ISPs to be successful and profitable. > > So why don't you put in a bid for it then. Please submit full details of > > capital and other expenses for the first year of operation in a form > > that can be verified by the members of this list. > > I may very well do this however, since it isn't likely receive any serious > consideration I can't say it will be on the top of my priority list. I can assure you that if you do post a detailled budget to this list, it will receive some serious attention from me and I will urge others to gove it serious attention as well. This doesn't mean I will be praising you from the rooftops, but it does mean that I will be asking some hard questions about your numbers to ensure that they really are solid. I think it is very important that the ARIN budget be a solid one and that all items on the budget be fully justified. Of course, it's pretty hard to do this without some input from other people and that's why I suggest you work up a reasonable first draft and then we can all work together on the list to improve it. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu May 1 03:13:03 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <199705010547.WAA26803@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: > While ARIN will supposedly not be handling IPv6 space I am not > convinced that it won't once IPv6 address space comes into use. With > IPv6 ARIN will have an enormous pool of address space. The annual > recurring fees generated based on the proposed amounts would be > criminal for a non-profit organization. The fees charged by ARIN will be under regular review and will be adjusted downwards when it becomes clear that they are not needed to run the organization. > Besides my argument is simple - *Who* decided to create ARIN and why > isn't such a function put up for bid on a recurring basis? Why isn't the Cancer Society or the IEEE put up for bid on a recurring basis? Both are non-profit organizations run by their members. Probably because the members don't want to do it that way, but if they ever *DID* want to do it that way, it could be done. Since ARIN hasn't even started operations yet, there is nothing recurring that can be put up for bid. > Consider the way ethernet addresses are doled out. A manufacturer > applies for a block - pays a *one time* nominal fee and thats it. The Ethernet MAC address space is considerably larger than the IPv4 address space and it does not need to interoperate in real time on a global basis using routers that are near the limit of their capacity. Read up on CIDR and why it is needed to keep the Internet from collapsing. > Or > consider the way telephone numbers are handled - a one time fee to > Bellcore and bang you have 10,000 numbers. ARIN could do this too. The bottom line is that ARIN needs enough income in one year to cover its costs. If you think it would be better to jack up the fees for address allocations so that the people who get allocations in any one year also finance all of ARIN, then you are welcome to make your case to the membership. I don't think they would agree that this is a good idea, however. > The entire concept of leasing > IP address space is so open to potential abuse it just isn't funny. That's why the practice of leasing or selling address space is frowned upon by IANA and by the registries, RIPE, APNIC and ARIN. > What is more absurd about all of this is the fact that ARIN would not > be in control of the Routing Arbiter's database so in effect they would > simply be responsible for in-arpa services and thats all. So how do they > intend to enforce their annual fees. Turn off in-arpa services? While > that would be inconvenient it certainly wouldn't stop things from > working. ARIN doesn't intend to enforce anything. It is not a government. It is not an army. It is not a police force. ARIN allocates addresses based on a policy that the global Internet community has agreed upon. If someone doesn't pay their fees that will be public knowledge and it will be up to the Internet community to enforce the policy. I do know that the major ISPs filter route announcements to make sure that someone is not announcing address space that doesn't belong to them. > outright. As fas as I'm concerned IP space is like radio spectrum. It > is a finite resource and it should be managed in such a way as to > ensure equitable and fair access to address space to both large and > small businesses. That is one of the main goals of ARIN and the other IP registries. > I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to paying in some form for > universal resources. The problem is that larger more well funded > businesses can easily outbid the smaller guys. That's why ARIN does not put up address space for auction and does not allow ISPs to sell address space to others. A major ISP can get a large allocation only because they have agreed to allocate smaller blocks of space to the organizations who connect to them. > However, what > I am seeing in both the domain name registery and now the IP regsitery > is this concept of centralization instead of diversification. I'm not sure why you see centralization here. There are currently three IP registries in the world, RIPE, APNIC and the Internic. After ARIN gets off the ground there will still be three registries, RIPE, APNIC and ARIN. One of the things ARIN will be doing is helping the South Americans and the Africans to spin off their own IP registries to make a total of five IP registries, each serving a continent-sized area. So ARIN is actually part of a decentralization plan in that respect. But there's more. Right now the Internic IP registry is basically run by a private company (no publicly traded shares) with no possibility for any input from ISPs or users of IPv4 address space. By moving it into a non-profit organization we will be achieving a decentralization of control. Anyone who wishes can become a voting member of this organization. Its activities will take place in the public eye and mailing lists like this one will be available so that even non-members can have some input into ARIN decisions. This is far better than the current state of affairs with the Internic. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From bob at DigiLink.Net Thu May 1 05:11:13 1997 From: bob at DigiLink.Net (Bob Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 02:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <199705010911.CAA27444@cherokee.digilink.net> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: > > > A monopoly, > > whether non-profit or for-profit has *absolutely* no incentive to lower > > prices *or* reduce their backend costs. > > I quite agree with this statement. > > > They have a captive market and no other authority to hold them > > accountable. > > Fortunately ARIN is not a monopoly and will have several authorities to > hold them accountable. Since ARIN is a 501(c)6 organization, the law holds > them accountable to the members and to the IRS regulations for > non-profits. The members will hold ARIN accountable. Since ARIN receives > its address blocks from IANA for allocation to North American users, IANA > will hold ARIN accountable. Since ARIN is applying the policies of RFC2050 > set forth by the Internet community and the IETF, both of these groups > will hold them accountable. And, in fact, since ARIN is directed by a > board of *TRUSTEES*, they too will hold the organization accountable. > Not to mention the press and assorted onlookers. > > I'm glad you brought up this point because until you forced me to think it > through I hadn't realized that there were so many layers of accountability > that ARIN's activities would be subject to. > Granted you have identified a certain level of accountability, however the level you are indicating is not going to be able to mitigate individual issues or even offer some form of mediation when necessary. Most of these bodies will only be in a position to facilitate policies. The board of trustees would likely have a financial interest since it is likely that their salaries would be derived from the collected fees. Neither the IETF nor the Internet community at large have any power of enforcement so their impact is nil or at least not significant - again in the role of mediator. The IRS has no direct role either except in the overall tax status of the organization. > > > > The idea of paying such a high recurring cost for IP space is absurd > > > > and only goes to justify a bloated $3M annual budget. > > > > > > The companies who will be paying these fees will have annual budgets that > > > are larger than ARIN's. They can afford it. > > > > You just made the point that I am trying to make. ARIN will serve to > > squash smaller ISPs. > > I'm afraid you have misunderstood my statements above. I am trying to > point out that ARIN will have *NO* effect, positive or negative, on > smaller ISPs. The smaller ISPs will continue to get their address > allocations from their upstream providers just as they have done for the > past couple of years. It is only the larger ISPs that will have any need > to ask ARIN directly for an address allocation and those ISPs are clearly > able to pay the small fees with no hardship at all. > I need to clarify something. What *is* a smaller ISP? A mom and pop operation with a few dialup lines? A regional ISP with a healthly combination of dialup and leased services? As a regional ISP I cannot take address space from any upstream. I need to be able to establish multi-homed Internet connectivity, peering at one or more NAPs. Due to portability issues an upstream ISP can't be the source of my IP address space. Besides everyone is conveniently sidestepping the issue of cost. Do you think for even a moment in this highly competitive arena that an upstream ISP isn't going to charge for the address space they assign to another ISP? Come on! Of course they will and you can be sure at a premium too. Hey there would be no recourse, the smaller ISP would be stuck with it because they might be too small to apply directly to ARIN for space. Do you think that I, as a regional ISP won't pass along the cost for address space to my customers, maybe, but I might not be able to because the larger ISPs will probably absorb the address space costs and I won't be able to cost recover directly from a customer. So who do you think will get caught in the squeeze. Yep, you got it, the small to medium ISP. > If I thought that ARIN would have any negative impact on small ISPs I can > assure you that I would be utterly opposed to their actions because in the > next couple of weeks I expect to begin working for a company that will > be selling services to small ISPs and that will be doing everything > possible to support and assist those small ISPs to be successful and > profitable. > Upstream, larger ISPs are looking to dominate the marketplace. To think that they will settle for anything less is a dream. You can be sure that ARIN will simply provide one more way in which small/medium ISPs will be squeezed into lower margins by having to absorb one more cost that they won't be able to pass on. $2500/year may not seem like much but it does add up. It is real money and it has to come from somewhere. In a perfect world all ISPs should be able to obtain their address space from a common source. Not a central source, but a common one. A source that has no competitive interests in the ISP market. Relying on upstream ISPs to provide address space for all but the smallest ISPs is not a viable solution in my book. I'm competing against that upstream ISP and you can be sure that *they* will not make it easy for me if they can help it. Besides I need to impress upon you that it is next to impossible for a small ISP to change their upstream ISP if the address space that they get from the upstream is not portable. They become locked in to the upstream provider with no reasonable hope of change. Yet another way in which this type of scheme will further benefit the large players at the expense of the smaller ones. > > > So why don't you put in a bid for it then. Please submit full details of > > > capital and other expenses for the first year of operation in a form > > > that can be verified by the members of this list. > > > > I may very well do this however, since it isn't likely receive any serious > > consideration I can't say it will be on the top of my priority list. > > I can assure you that if you do post a detailled budget to this list, it > will receive some serious attention from me and I will urge others to gove > it serious attention as well. This doesn't mean I will be praising you > from the rooftops, but it does mean that I will be asking some hard > questions about your numbers to ensure that they really are solid. I think > it is very important that the ARIN budget be a solid one and that all > items on the budget be fully justified. Of course, it's pretty hard to do > this without some input from other people and that's why I suggest you > work up a reasonable first draft and then we can all work together on the > list to improve it. > I may very well consider doing this just to see if it leads somewhere. --- =========================================================================== Bob Atkins, President | bob at digilink.net Digilink Network Services | http://www.DigiLink.Net/ Switched ISDN Internet Access | mailto:info at DigiLink.Net 310-577-9450 "Our business is your network" =========================================================================== The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been. -- Alan Ashley-Pitt From bob at DigiLink.Net Thu May 1 06:07:02 1997 From: bob at DigiLink.Net (Bob Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 03:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <199705011007.DAA27518@cherokee.digilink.net> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: > > > While ARIN will supposedly not be handling IPv6 space I am not > > convinced that it won't once IPv6 address space comes into use. With > > IPv6 ARIN will have an enormous pool of address space. The annual > > recurring fees generated based on the proposed amounts would be > > criminal for a non-profit organization. > > The fees charged by ARIN will be under regular review and will be adjusted > downwards when it becomes clear that they are not needed to run the > organization. > Again, that is wishfull thinking at best. To be sure the budget requirements of ARIN will likely grow to absord all available income and then some. ARIN has absolutely no incentive to lower costs. They will be a monopoly. Granted one controlled by a > > Besides my argument is simple - *Who* decided to create ARIN and why > > isn't such a function put up for bid on a recurring basis? > > Why isn't the Cancer Society or the IEEE put up for bid on a recurring > basis? Both are non-profit organizations run by their members. Probably > because the members don't want to do it that way, but if they ever *DID* > want to do it that way, it could be done. Since ARIN hasn't even started > operations yet, there is nothing recurring that can be put up for bid. > We don't *have* to rely on the Cancer Society or IEEE. These are examples of optional organizations. They don't control some crucial resource. Besides there are many that feel that Cancer Society has become highly myopic in its course regarding cancer treatment. > > Consider the way ethernet addresses are doled out. A manufacturer > > applies for a block - pays a *one time* nominal fee and thats it. > > The Ethernet MAC address space is considerably larger than the IPv4 > address space and it does not need to interoperate in real time on a > global basis using routers that are near the limit of their capacity. > Read up on CIDR and why it is needed to keep the Internet from collapsing. > Yes, I understand. But there is still a need for a management body. ARIN will not be playing any more significant role than that of handling Ethernet MAC address space. ARIN will not be functioning as the routing arbiter. They will only be working to ensure that address space isn't duplicated. And yes, of course I understand the issues around CIDR. Are you trying to tell me that there is some magic voodoo in doling out /19 and greater (in terms of block size) CIDR blocks? Please don't try and make this any more complicated - it isn't. The whole thing could be easily coded an algorithm and implemented in a database frontend. > > Or > > consider the way telephone numbers are handled - a one time fee to > > Bellcore and bang you have 10,000 numbers. > > ARIN could do this too. The bottom line is that ARIN needs enough income > in one year to cover its costs. If you think it would be better to jack up > the fees for address allocations so that the people who get allocations in > any one year also finance all of ARIN, then you are welcome to make your > case to the membership. I don't think they would agree that this is a good > idea, however. > The function of ARIN if handled in a more distributed fashion would be very minimal. With root servers being provided by large ISPs (based on their total address assignments), the address assignments handled by mostly automated systems, the entire manpower for ARIN could be three fulltime people *at most*. Annual budget would be reduced to well under $350,000 and the job(s) would be horribly boring. Mainly answering the occasional phone call since almost all the work would be handled automatically. You asked for a sample budget. We would host a single root server for about $1995/month which would include the equipment for that price along with a redundant website service. In terms of manpower, our hostmaster would probably have the server admin added to his duties. Server updates would be largely automated so system monitoring would be the greatest extent of his workload. We would handle the system with the same high priority that we would handle any customer's system. > > The entire concept of leasing > > IP address space is so open to potential abuse it just isn't funny. > > That's why the practice of leasing or selling address space is frowned > upon by IANA and by the registries, RIPE, APNIC and ARIN. > Hold on. If $2500/year for a /19 block isn't leasing then I'd like to know what your definition of leasing is? > > What is more absurd about all of this is the fact that ARIN would not > > be in control of the Routing Arbiter's database so in effect they would > > simply be responsible for in-arpa services and thats all. So how do they > > intend to enforce their annual fees. Turn off in-arpa services? While > > that would be inconvenient it certainly wouldn't stop things from > > working. > > ARIN doesn't intend to enforce anything. It is not a government. It is not > an army. It is not a police force. ARIN allocates addresses based on a > policy that the global Internet community has agreed upon. If someone > doesn't pay their fees that will be public knowledge and it will be up to > the Internet community to enforce the policy. I do know that the major > ISPs filter route announcements to make sure that someone is not > announcing address space that doesn't belong to them. > That is the function of the routing arbiter's database. Entries in that database are controlled by maintainers. If the maintainer's ID is valid and properly assiciated with the route objects and those objects match what is being advertised ia BGP then the routes are accepted. Unless ARIN is granted some override capabilty they will not have the ability to influence the routing arbiter's database. I would be completely opposed to granting anyone overide capability in the routing arbiter's database, especially an organization like ARIN. All it would take is one mis-processed invoice and the next thing you find that you are off the air... And it will take 2 to 3 days to get things back online. I don't even want to consider the possibilities.... > > outright. As fas as I'm concerned IP space is like radio spectrum. It > > is a finite resource and it should be managed in such a way as to > > ensure equitable and fair access to address space to both large and > > small businesses. > > That is one of the main goals of ARIN and the other IP registries. > > > I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to paying in some form for > > universal resources. The problem is that larger more well funded > > businesses can easily outbid the smaller guys. > > That's why ARIN does not put up address space for auction and does not > allow ISPs to sell address space to others. A major ISP can get a large > allocation only because they have agreed to allocate smaller blocks of > space to the organizations who connect to them. > Again, you are coming from that large ISP point of view. Please read carefully: Large ISPs are out to dominate the marketplace. They have no interest in supporting smaller ISPs. So lets not even talk about that anymore because you obviously do not understand that very fundamental aspect of this business. May I ask how long you have been in this business and what your degree and/or experience is in? How many businesses have you started? How many people rely on your business to pay their rent? My guess is that you have either recently came from a University environment either as a graduate or as a staff member. > > However, what > > I am seeing in both the domain name registery and now the IP regsitery > > is this concept of centralization instead of diversification. > > I'm not sure why you see centralization here. There are currently three IP > registries in the world, RIPE, APNIC and the Internic. After ARIN gets off > the ground there will still be three registries, RIPE, APNIC and ARIN. > One of the things ARIN will be doing is helping the South Americans and > the Africans to spin off their own IP registries to make a total of five > IP registries, each serving a continent-sized area. So ARIN is actually > part of a decentralization plan in that respect. > ARIN is the sole management organization for the entire North American continent. At one time AT&T was the only telephone company we had to choose from. Yes there was a choice, you could have a phone or not, but if you did the service came from AT&T. ARIN is a centralized IP address registery for North America pure and simple. > But there's more. Right now the Internic IP registry is basically run by a > private company (no publicly traded shares) with no possibility for any > input from ISPs or users of IPv4 address space. By moving it into a > non-profit organization we will be achieving a decentralization of > control. Anyone who wishes can become a voting member of this > organization. Its activities will take place in the public eye and > mailing lists like this one will be available so that even non-members can > have some input into ARIN decisions. This is far better than the current > state of affairs with the Internic. > I'm not saying that the present situation with NSI is any good either but what I am seeing is just another NSI spinoff. While ARIN would be an improvement over NSI that doesn't mean that it is that much better. ARIN is a completely centralized organization. The functions of IP registery and root server functions need to be separted. What is left will require far less to support than what is currently proposed. If the root servers were put up for bid, several ISPs would be able to win. Diversification would be assured without the need for additional staff or to create/purchase that diversified solution independantly. Overall costs would be lowered and ultimately that is what we need. My preferred method would be to require the largest IP block holders to host a root server at no charge. All ISPs would pay basic annual fee for address management regardless of how much address space that have assigned. Assuming that there are around 600 ISPs that would be doing business directly with ARIN, an annual fee of $600 each would produce $360,000 in annual revenue and that would be more than enough to cover 3 staff, facilities, services and equipment. Add a nominal charge of $0.10 per host for address space and you have a healthy additional income that could easily bring the annual income to over $500,000. Each paying ISP would automotaically be a member and so would be able to directly contribute to ARIN in other ways. My basic gripe is this: $2500/year for a /19 block is highway robbery. The costs estimates being made for ARIN clearly are not reasonable and indicate a fairly bloated budget. I truely believe that it is possible to provide the *same* level of service for a lot less. --- =========================================================================== Bob Atkins, President | bob at digilink.net Digilink Network Services | http://www.DigiLink.Net/ Switched ISDN Internet Access | mailto:info at DigiLink.Net 310-577-9450 "Our business is your network" =========================================================================== The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been. -- Alan Ashley-Pitt From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu May 1 06:47:05 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 06:47:05 -0400 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <199705010500.WAA26763@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970501064705.006efb78@lint.cisco.com> At 10:00 PM 04/30/97 -0700, Bob Atkins wrote: > >You just made the point that I am trying to make. ARIN will serve to >squash smaller ISPs. > Great -- another conspiracy theorist. I should remind you that small organizations should go their upstream service provider for address allocations per RFC2050. If they follow these guidelines, then they will not need to go to ARIN for address space and they can avoid the allocation & administrative fees. If they decide to forego the proscribed policy, then they will have to suck up the cost. No magic here. ARIN must sustain itself, and this is the most practical way to do so. - paul From jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET Thu May 1 07:16:37 1997 From: jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET (Jamie Rishaw) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 07:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [off topic] Re: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970501064705.006efb78@lint.cisco.com> from Paul Ferguson at "May 1, 97 06:47:05 am" Message-ID: <199705011116.HAA21039@dilbert.iagnet.net> > At 10:00 PM 04/30/97 -0700, Bob Atkins wrote: > > > > >You just made the point that I am trying to make. ARIN will serve to > >squash smaller ISPs. > > > If ARIN doesn't squash them, they'll either go out of business or get bought out anyhow. Any ISP that doesnt have a constant $100k in the bank and at least 50% annual growth is doomed imho.. > I should remind you that small organizations should go their upstream > service provider for address allocations per RFC2050. If they follow > these guidelines, then they will not need to go to ARIN for address > space and they can avoid the allocation & administrative fees. If they > decide to forego the proscribed policy, then they will have to suck > up the cost. No magic here. ARIN must sustain itself, and this is the > most practical way to do so. > > - paul > -- jamie g.k. rishaw Internet Access Group Chance favors the prepared mind. __ [http://www.iagnet.net] DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800:800.637.4IAGx5455 From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu May 1 07:19:26 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 20:19:26 +0900 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 May 1997 03:07:02 MST." <199705011007.DAA27518@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: <199705011119.UAA04403@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Bob, >Again, that is wishfull thinking at best. To be sure the budget >requirements of ARIN will likely grow to absord all available income >and then some. ARIN has absolutely no incentive to lower costs. They >will be a monopoly. Granted one controlled by a How do you explain the fact that RIPE-NCC, on which ARIN is based and which shares the same characteristics, has already lowered their fees? >They will only be working to ensure that address space isn't duplicated. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. The allocation registries are also required to attempt to determine when address space is actually necessary (instead of simply desired). You might argue (as _many_ have done) that this isn't an appropriate function for ARIN, however that IS the role the allocation registries are placed into. If you would like to change that role, see the PAGAN working group (to subscribe: send "subscribe" to pagan-request at apnic.net). >And yes, of course I understand the issues around CIDR. Are you trying >to tell me that there is some magic voodoo in doling out /19 and >greater (in terms of block size) CIDR blocks? Please don't try and make >this any more complicated - it isn't. The whole thing could be easily >coded an algorithm and implemented in a database frontend. Uh huh. Right. And how long would it take for some nefarious individuals to come up with the right buttons to push to obtain whatever address space they want? >Hold on. If $2500/year for a /19 block isn't leasing then I'd like to >know what your definition of leasing is? What happens when you don't pay the lease on your car? What happens to your address space if you don't pay your membership fee? >That is the function of the routing arbiter's database. Who would that be? >My basic gripe is this: $2500/year for a /19 block is highway robbery. >The costs estimates being made for ARIN clearly are not reasonable >and indicate a fairly bloated budget. I truely believe that it >is possible to provide the *same* level of service for a lot less. I'd recommend actually understanding what working in an IP allocation registry means before you make such statements. It most assuredly isn't an automatable system (given current Internet policies). Regards, -drc From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu May 1 07:33:37 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 07:33:37 -0400 Subject: Gratuitous assertions [Was: Re: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline...] In-Reply-To: <199705010547.WAA26803@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970501073337.006f33dc@lint.cisco.com> At 10:47 PM 04/30/97 -0700, Bob Atkins wrote: > >I definitely took the time to scan the archives from 1/17/97 to present. >I also read the FAQ published on the www.arin.net. What I saw was a lot >of heated disagreement intermixed with justifcations of why ARIN must >come into existence. > Well, I believe that is very straightforward -- the funding which has supported the IP registry functions will be going away. The ARIN proposal is one which provides for the Americas IP registry to be a self-sustaining, not-for-profit organization, much in the same fashion as the APNIC in the Asia Pacific region and RIPE in Europe. >Yes, I have seen that these issues have been covered and discussed into >the ground in the list archives but that shouldn't mean that the issue >is dead or buried. Clearly, reading the list archives I'm not alone in >my opinion. However, the ARIN club supporters seem to dominate this >list. I should not have expected otherwise. > I would disagree with your assessment. I would categorize the high level of signal/noise on this list to reiterating the same points over and over again for those who have no historical background or realistic perspective on why ARIN is the best proposal to create a regional IP registry. Most of the churn on this list has been due to rebut conspiracy theorists such as yourself. >ARIN will be in a position to be influenced substantially and will be >able to make life for smaller ISPs even tougher than it is today. Really? And pray tell, exactly how do you believe this will be the case? >Today getting IP space from the InterNIC is like squeezing blood from a >stone for smaller ISPs. However, it is very evident that large ISPs >have no problem getting enormous address assignments and give those >addresses out with little or no effort to verify the customer need. > Are you trying to say that large ISP's should not have preference in receiving allocations? If so, you're avoiding reality, since allocations must be done based on demand, justification, and the intention that allocated prefixes can be aggregated properly. Please familiarize yourself with RFC2050; this is the policy that the IP registries use to assess IP address allocations. >I have to concur that the present address assignment limitations >imposed by the InterNIC are also ridiculous and it pains me that the >same people making my life miserable today will be in positions of >greater power and autonomy in ARIN without the appearance of any higher >authority to or mitigate their actions. The entire IP registery concept >needs to be more distributed. The concept of leasing IP addresses that >are controlled by ARIN is troubling to say the least. > The registries are not operating under the assumption that the address allocations are analogous to leasing; clearly, this is a concept that was created within the engineering community (see: RFC2008, Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing). One might suggest that resemblance between policies outlined in RFC2008 and best current practice are not necessarily coincidental. >While ARIN will supposedly not be handling IPv6 space I am not >convinced that it won't once IPv6 address space comes into use. With >IPv6 ARIN will have an enormous pool of address space. The annual >recurring fees generated based on the proposed amounts would be >criminal for a non-profit organization. > This is another humorous misconception -- that IPv6 is going to simplify address allocation and solve any existing problems in obtaining address allocations on a whim. Anyone who is operating under this assumption is delusional. It is ridiculous to assume that if we migrate to IPv6 that some similar address allocation policies will not come into play; in fact, they must, or the global routing system will suffer thermonuclear meltdown. Simply because the address space is larger does not mean that we (collectively) can now begin allocating addresses with wild abandon. There are still finite limits on the size of the global routing table and failure to allocate addresses under a similar policy is detrimental to the global Internet, irrespective of whether it is with v4 or v6. >Besides my argument is simple - *Who* decided to create ARIN and why >isn't such a function put up for bid on a recurring basis? No one The idea was conceived by Kim Hubbard, if I' not mistaken, and once presented, gained support of a large group of us who have been intimately involved in the Internet community for years. Also, please define 'bid'. If you are trying to draw a comparison here to how contracts are bid, then I would suggest that this is an accident waiting to happen, otherwise known as a Bad Idea (tm). The lowest bid usually never equates to the best management or quality in service or performance. >organization should have control of such an important resource for an >indefinite period of time. The IP address management function should be Again, your understanding of reality is skewed. The only entity that controls the IP address space is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), not any one registry. Each of the registries manage a range of address space, and answer to the IANA. Please stop being a silly, whining American -- this practice has been functioning quite well in Europe and Asia for several years now. >put up for competitive bid. Better yet the entire registery issue should >be further distributed or made highly automated so as not to require >any significant resources for management. > It already is, amongst RIPE, APNIC and soon ARIN. >Consider the way ethernet addresses are doled out. A manufacturer >applies for a block - pays a *one time* nominal fee and thats it. Or >consider the way telephone numbers are handled - a one time fee to >Bellcore and bang you have 10,000 numbers. The entire concept of leasing >IP address space is so open to potential abuse it just isn't funny. > This is not an appropriate analog for several reason, namely that IEEE/EIA MAC addresses do not constitute the global routing system, and only denote the manufacturer of a particular device. >Sure there would be a board of directors for ARIN, but who are you >kidding, politics is then same everywhere. Sooner or later incumbents >will be re-elected, big business will eventually or even initially >control it and there will be no means to guarantee that smaller >organizations will have fair treatment. > If the board members are re-elected, then take up your complaints against the membership of ARIN, or better yet, those who do not join, since their voices will not be heard. Sorry, but this is a fundamental concept in any society whereas the constituents of any body decide it's policy and direction. If you do not participate, then by and large, your opinions are meaningless. >Besides ARIN will be a monopoly - plain and simple, and it will be >accountable to who?? Who will provide a balance when ARIN goes out >of control? > Once again, ARIN will not be a monopoly. It is just a regional registry, similar in structure and function to the APNIC and RIPE. All report to the IANA. >What is more absurd about all of this is the fact that ARIN would not >be in control of the Routing Arbiter's database so in effect they would >simply be responsible for in-arpa services and thats all. So how do they Bzzzt. Please do not confuse name/address resolution to address allocation; these are completely different functions and will not be handled by ARIN. Also, you imply that the routing arbiter is some sort of key piece of mandatory technology which holds the Internet together -- it is not. It is a tool that people can use if they so choose. I won't bother responding to the remainder of your ridiculous assertions (e.g. comparisons to the phone system), at least for the moment. I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning and I need to catch a plane. *sigh* - paul From rolf at ceux1.che.uct.ac.za Thu May 1 08:22:20 1997 From: rolf at ceux1.che.uct.ac.za (Rolf Poser) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:22:20 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Unbent ? In-Reply-To: <199705010341.MAA27299@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> from "David R. Conrad" at May 1, 97 12:41:14 pm Message-ID: <199705011222.OAA05736@ceux1.che.uct.ac.za> > Anyone have a script that would periodically resend each > message in the ARIN archives sequentially? We could cycle > them about once every couple of months -- it appears to be > the frequency the same "discussions" keep coming up... On a more serious note, would someone please care to summarise those archives or write up some sort of FAQ. For anyone who really just wants the basics, it is a really daunting task to need to read through the archives. It would also probably lessen chances of misunderstandings. If I had the time and more insight I might even offer to volunteer to do this myself ;-) Regards, Rolf. From Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET Thu May 1 08:46:09 1997 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at RIPE.NET (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 14:46:09 +0200 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:00:15 PDT. <199705010500.WAA26763@cherokee.digilink.net> References: <199705010500.WAA26763@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: <9705011246.AA25860@ncc.ripe.net> > Bob Atkins writes: > > > David Conrad: > > > > Judging by the precedent of RIPE and APNIC, the fee will drop in the > > second year. My estimat is that it will fall to between $1900 and $2100 > > in the second year and then fall to around $1800 in the third year. > > Ha! Wishfull thinking. I sincerely doubt that ARIN will ever reduce the > fees but I am confident that they will probably increase. A monopoly, > whether non-profit or for-profit has *absolutely* no incentive to lower > prices *or* reduce their backend costs. They have a captive market and > no other authority to hold them accountable. Not wishful thinking at all. ARIN will be responsible to its customers/members. There is a lot of incentive coming from them. *** There is an existence proof that it can work ! *** The RIPE NCC has been working like that. In April we had our fifth anniversary. We have been operating with budgets approved by the customers from quite some time now. We have been consistently reducing fees. I am not saying that we will continue to do that because I cannot predict the future. However the trend is quite clear and strong. More importantly the decisions are made by our customers themselves. We have a very constructive and challenging dialogue with our customers who have to approve - activities - expenditure (operating costs) - revenue - charging scheme We are very much aware that we exist to serve the more than 600 ISPs that are our customers and that it would be very bad for us if a significant number of them were unhappy enough to consider alternatives for our services. Given that ARIN is in a somewhat similar situation (understatement of the day) it is very likely that developments are going to be similar. It would be enligtening to hear if someone sees any significant differences between ARIN's situation and the RIPE NCC. Regards Daniel PS: All discussions about the RIPE NCC activities and financial matters are documented in public documents, minutes and mailing list archives. The current documents are ripe-143 Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997 ripe-144 RIPE NCC Activities & Expenditure 1997 ripe-145 RIPE NCC Contributors Committee 1996 Annual Meeting ripe-146 RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 1997 They can be found at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-143.html ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-143.txt ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-143.ps .... Daniel From perry at PIERMONT.COM Thu May 1 09:32:57 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 09:32:57 -0400 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:00:15 PDT." <199705010500.WAA26763@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: <199705011332.JAA06197@jekyll.piermont.com> Bob Atkins writes: > > Judging by the precedent of RIPE and APNIC, the fee will drop in the > > second year. My estimat is that it will fall to between $1900 and $2100 > > in the second year and then fall to around $1800 in the third year. > > Ha! Wishfull thinking. I sincerely doubt that ARIN will ever reduce the > fees but I am confident that they will probably increase. Given that you don't even understand the current fee structure, why should we be listening to your opinion? Perry From mikeg at savvis.com Thu May 1 10:10:36 1997 From: mikeg at savvis.com (Mike Gaddis) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 09:10:36 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... References: <199705010150.SAA26472@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: <3368A45C.DF3@savvis.com> Bob Atkins wrote: > > I can't believe what I've read.... > ... > What we are talking about is maintenance of a simple database. And > the maintenance as it turns out will be performed predominately by > the ISPs themselves. The registry doesn't even have to operate any > significant number of systems but even for argument's sake suppose > they need to run say 10 servers, a T1 to the 'net. Facilities, a staff > of 5-8 etc. At *most* the annual budget would be $500,000 and that > would be allowing for some pretty generous salaries. > I have my own doubts about ARIN but your response shows considerable lack of reasonableness regarding costs of operation. When budgets are fully burdened $500k is pretty lean at best. $3M doesn't seem out of line (look at what the DNS returns amount to...). The fees are also reasonable as long as the *service is EXCELLANT.* There-in lie my concerns about monopolistic control. Let's see an operating plan that insures that 80% of all funds are feeding operations and I'm Ok with it. (Thats phone coverage of about 18 hours a day with few busy lines and personnel who are maximally responsive to member ISP needs...) Hell, they'll probably need $3M for legal expenses alone ;-) > No doubt with ARIN's $3M budget there will be some very well > compensated individuals. Non-profit doesn't mean that individuals > working for the organiztion have to make reasonable salaries. > As a capitalist I'm OK with it as long as I get great service. People need to be incented. High salaried people need to have accountability though, this is clear. > I would be glad to bid on providing the services that ARIN will and we > would provide them for a *fraction* of what is being proposed. We will > be efficient and properly staffed with the necessary expertise. But of > course the IP registery didn't come up for public bid, did it? > Well, good point there... I hope your comments are not sour grapes stuff, I'll assume not. > Please advise if a class action lawsuit has been filed against this > obvious monopoly, ... Well, you are making the argument for $3M again ;-) From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Thu May 1 10:53:16 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:53:16 +0000 Subject: Simple question... Message-ID: <19970501145312.AAA23746@LOCALNAME> >That's why ARIN does not put up address space for auction and does not >allow ISPs to sell address space to others. A major ISP can get a large >allocation only because they have agreed to allocate smaller blocks of >space to the organizations who connect to them. > A simple question: I understand that major ISPs getting a large allocation from ARIN must agree to allocate smaller blocks of space to other organizations (presumably smaller organizations) who connect to them. This is a good thing. However, is there any REQUIREMENT that they serve those smaller organizations at all? In other words, can a larger ISP simply decide as a business policy that they are no longer going to serve other ISPs and still obtain their allocation. I know of a couple of larger ISPs considering or already implementing this practice...dropping service to smaller ISPs. If larger ISPs obtaining their allocations from ARIN can then decide simply not to serve smaller ISPs, will they be able to get around the requirement? There's a big difference between requiring that they provide smaller blocks IF they serve smaller ISPs and requiring that they serve those smaller organizations. I've heard here the argument that competitive pressures will continue to make it profitable to serve smaller ISPs who are admittedly, today, some ISPs' largest customers. But it appears some larger ISPs are today realizing that the smaller ISPs they serve are also competing against them for end users. --- ALAN From JimFleming at unety.net Thu May 1 10:53:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:53:23 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC5615.82BDA5A0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, April 30, 1997 7:13 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: @ @ @ But there's more. Right now the Internic IP registry is basically run by a @ private company (no publicly traded shares) with no possibility for any @ input from ISPs or users of IPv4 address space. By moving it into a @ non-profit organization we will be achieving a decentralization of @ control. Anyone who wishes can become a voting member of this @ organization. Its activities will take place in the public eye and @ mailing lists like this one will be available so that even non-members can @ have some input into ARIN decisions. This is far better than the current @ state of affairs with the Internic. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. @ But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. @ -- Randy Bush @ @ Why not move some of the IP allocation functions for ISPs to the ISP/C ? The ISP/C is already set up. It is a non-profit 501(c) AND...most importantly...it has experts that can handle the job and that ISPs can trust... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From kimh at internic.net Thu May 1 11:21:16 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 11:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Simple question... In-Reply-To: <19970501145312.AAA23746@LOCALNAME> from "Alan Bechtold" at May 1, 97 02:53:16 pm Message-ID: <199705011521.LAA06127@jazz.internic.net> > > > >That's why ARIN does not put up address space for auction and does not > >allow ISPs to sell address space to others. A major ISP can get a large > >allocation only because they have agreed to allocate smaller blocks of > >space to the organizations who connect to them. > > > A simple question: > > I understand that major ISPs getting a large allocation from ARIN must agree > to allocate smaller blocks of space to other organizations (presumably > smaller organizations) who connect to them. This is a good thing. However, > is there any REQUIREMENT that they serve those smaller organizations at all? > In other words, can a larger ISP simply decide as a business policy that > they are no longer going to serve other ISPs and still obtain their > allocation. I know of a couple of larger ISPs considering or already > implementing this practice...dropping service to smaller ISPs. There seems to be a misconception here that the large ISPs do not have to justify their address blocks. They do. If a large ISP were to suddenly stop assigning to their ISP customers than they probably wouldn't be able to justify the large blocks of addresses. I also don't know why any ISP would choose not to assign address space to their ISP customer. Obviously they know that their ISP customer needs address space to stay in business and if they're no longer in business than they won't be able to pay them. - Kim From chris at NAP.NET Thu May 1 11:30:02 1997 From: chris at NAP.NET (Chris A. Icide) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:30:02 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC561A.A150D960@Mallard.nap.net> It seems that Mr. Atkins is defining "small ISP" as a regional, multi-homed ISP that under his definition would "require" thier own /19 or larger block of IP addresses. Now, not only does this ISP have to pay $2500 for this block, they also must justify this block. So lets take a napkin scratch look at this. The regional ISP uses the CIDR block in the following manner: # of old Designated Use Revenue based upon use Class C of IP's of IP's 1 Regional ISP backbone 0 2 Regional ISP dynamic dialup 39,900 (450 lines * 5 * 19.95) 0.5 Regional ISP static dialup 3,000 (100 * 1 * 30.00) 2 R&D / Lab / Test Network 0 5.5 56/64k leased / frame service 3,300 (22 * 1 * 150.00) 17 T1 and higher leased/frame 17,250 (23 * 1 * 750.00) 2 Web Farm Services 40,000 (400 * 1 * 100.00) 2 Reserve/broken router buffer 0 ---- 32 103,450 The (X * Y * Z) stand for the following X - Number of sales of this type of service Y - Overbooking of lines/capacity Z - Average revenue per sale of service So, this "small" regional ISP, if they practice reasonable use of thier assigned block, could (lets say I'm off in my prices by 50%) make as much as 52,000 dollars per month from the block of IP's. Obviously, this ISP has other expenses including access and the such, however, it appears that the ISP should be able to afford the extra $210 per month cost to maintain his CIDR block. Again, this is merely a napkin based shot at a regional ISP's revenue, and in no way is based upon anything more than 3 minutes of my time to throw it together. I'm not privy to the current operating costs and revenue streams of such organizations, and should this lead somewhere perhaps someone who is could flesh it out some. My goal was to try and determine what exactly a small ISP requiring a /19 or larger CIDR block really is. It's definately NOT a single T1 mom & pop shop. Also it should be noted that the above theoretical ISP doesn't have to get a /19 CIDR from ARIN, if it receives a /19 or larger from an upstream, it very well could use that block to maintain it's services. I've seen quite a few CIDR blocks that are owned by Sprint being advertised not only through Sprint, but also through MCI, UUNET, etc... Chris From randy at PSG.COM Thu May 1 11:32:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 1 May 97 08:32 PDT Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... References: <199705011007.DAA27518@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: >> The fees charged by ARIN will be under regular review and will be adjusted >> downwards when it becomes clear that they are not needed to run the >> organization. > Again, that is wishfull thinking at best. To be sure the budget > requirements of ARIN will likely grow to absord all available income > and then some. ARIN has absolutely no incentive to lower costs. The difference here is that you are spewing groundless paranoia in the face of Michael referring to demonstrable history. randy From JimFleming at unety.net Thu May 1 11:31:20 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:31:20 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC561A.D042ABE0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, April 30, 1997 5:40 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at NETAXS.COM] wrote: @ Paul is to kind with his words. Bob, the only other choice is to leave IP @ numbers with in the control of NSI and the SAIC stockholders. Wanna see @ some monopoly prices then!!!!??? Instead ARIN will be independent and @ owned by its members....isp ISP members and responsible to them. you can @ afford 2500 bucks a yer for a class 19???? then don't join and get it @ from your upstream with out the charge. But hell *I* could damned near @ afford 2500 A year for something as important as this. Management @ operating on behalf of stockholders will be much more prepared to stick @ itto you than arin. @ @ ************************************************************************ @ 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 @ ************************************************************************ @ The "only other choice"....??? Have you studied ALL of the choices ? What about the ISP/C handling part of the job ? Is that a choice ? What would the ISP/C charge ISPs for the service ? Would $3 million be required ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Thu May 1 11:32:18 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:32:18 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC561A.F2793760@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, April 30, 1997 3:37 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: @ @ > Today it will be $2500, which I already consider ridiculously high. @ > @ > Tomorrow what will it be? @ @ Judging by the precedent of RIPE and APNIC, the fee will drop in the @ second year. My estimat is that it will fall to between $1900 and $2100 @ in the second year and then fall to around $1800 in the third year. @ @ > The idea of paying such a high recurring cost for IP space is absurd @ > and only goes to justify a bloated $3M annual budget. @ @ The companies who will be paying these fees will have annual budgets that @ are larger than ARIN's. They can afford it. @ @ > I'm not suggesting that the IP registery remain with NSI either. @ @ So why don't you put in a bid for it then. Please submit full details of @ capital and other expenses for the first year of operation in a form @ that can be verified by the members of this list. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. @ But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. @ -- Randy Bush @ @ @ @ Has ARIN provided such a "bid"....? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From cts at VEC.NET Thu May 1 12:36:38 1997 From: cts at VEC.NET (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 11:36:38 EST Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <009B39AC.656C91B6.209@vec.net> > Why not move some of the IP allocation functions > for ISPs to the ISP/C ? > > The ISP/C is already set up. It is a non-profit 501(c) > AND...most importantly...it has experts that can > handle the job and that ISPs can trust... Thanks for the vote of confidence; the ISP/C does not have the dedicated staff or the infrastructure to take on such a task. The ISP/C supports the ARIN plan. There are additional details we'd like to see detailed in the plan, but overall, feel that ARIN is the right direction for the industry and for our membership. Charles Smith Vice President, ISP/C From JimFleming at unety.net Thu May 1 11:37:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:37:35 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC561B.AF80F0A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, May 01, 1997 11:36 AM, Charles T. Smith, Jr.[SMTP:cts at vec.net] wrote: @ > Why not move some of the IP allocation functions @ > for ISPs to the ISP/C ? @ > @ > The ISP/C is already set up. It is a non-profit 501(c) @ > AND...most importantly...it has experts that can @ > handle the job and that ISPs can trust... @ @ Thanks for the vote of confidence; the ISP/C does not have the dedicated @ staff or the infrastructure to take on such a task. @ @ The ISP/C supports the ARIN plan. There are additional details we'd like @ to see detailed in the plan, but overall, feel that ARIN is the right @ direction for the industry and for our membership. @ OK...please stand by your words.... When all of this shakes out and people throw up their hands and head for Switzerland to hand the IPv4 address space over to the ITU, let's revisit your reply.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Thu May 1 11:40:05 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:40:05 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC561C.08F24760@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, April 30, 1997 10:41 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: @ Sigh. @ @ Anyone have a script that would periodically resend each @ message in the ARIN archives sequentially? We could cycle @ them about once every couple of months -- it appears to be @ the frequency the same "discussions" keep coming up... @ @ >Today it will be $2500, which I already consider ridiculously high. @ @ OK, let's see your projected budget figures... @ @ >Tomorrow what will it be? @ @ Well, if ARIN is modeled after RIPE and APNIC (it is), and RIPE has @ already lowered its prices (APNIC is still stabilizing itself so we @ haven't followed suit yet), I figure it is a safe assumption that ARIN @ prices will be adjusted to whatever situation ARIN finds itself in. @ @ >The idea of paying such a high recurring cost for IP space is absurd @ >and only goes to justify a bloated $3M annual budget. @ @ How else do you expect us to maintain our black helicopters? Bloody @ things are expensive, dontcha know... @ @ Actually, I think it'd be fun if ARIN were to start the same way APNIC @ did -- just think: NSI starts forwarding address requests to the one @ or two people who replace NSI's current staff of a dozen or so people. @ Requests processing times exponentiate, people threaten lawsuits, ISPs @ lose customers, an eIAR clique is formed, net.politicians make long @ speeches and get into "fascinating" flame wars, ITU decides it needs @ to be involved, etc., etc., ad nauseam. @ @ Just imagine the gigabytes of email that'll be generated!! I froth @ at the mouth in anticipation. @ @ However, as fun as that might be, it may be _slightly_ more practical @ for the team that current supports Internet addresss allocations to @ organizations in the areas currently served by InterNIC to continue in @ that function as ARIN is started up. Also, since I believe the team @ at NSI is supported by various people within NSI who won't be moving @ to ARIN (software engineers, system admins, etc.), ARIN will need to @ find some of those also. @ @ Of course, I'm *sure* those folk will be more than happy to take @ serious reductions in pay, after all, they're doing this for the "good @ of the Internet" -- .30 cents per address per _year_ is OBVIOUSLY an @ inconceivable burden. My god, it means charging an additional US @ $0.03 per month for dialup customers. I can't imagine how ISPs in @ Armenia, Bangladesh, China, ..., Zaire manage it. @ @ >I'm not suggesting that the IP registery remain with NSI either. But knowing @ >the potential for large organization to dominate a function like ARIN and @ >use it to further ensure a controlling market position doesn't help @ >me sleep well either. @ @ Then take a sedative. Or read the documents on ARIN's structure again @ (probably the same effect... :-)). @ @ Regards, @ -drc @ @ Who are the people behind ARIN ? Who will be working at ARIN ? Will they also keep their jobs (and stock) at NSI ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu May 1 12:39:38 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <199705011007.DAA27518@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 May 1997, Bob Atkins wrote: > Again, you are coming from that large ISP point of view. Please read > carefully: Large ISPs are out to dominate the marketplace. They have > no interest in supporting smaller ISPs. So lets not even talk about > that anymore because you obviously do not understand that very > fundamental aspect of this business. I was going to explain this but since you don't want to talk about it any more, I will honor your wishes. > May I ask how long you have been in this business and what your degree > and/or experience is in? I started my region's first ISP in August 1994 and since that time I have done technical and consulting work for several small ISPs in Canada, the USA, England and Australia. If you want more details, look at my website. In this town of 40,000 I did systems analysis, applications development, etc. for the largest and fastest growing companies in the area until I got into the ISP business. > How many businesses have you started? How many people rely on your > business to pay their rent? Three different businesses, the first one in 1987. Two were with partners and had as many as 6 employees. > My guess is that you have either recently came from a University > environment either as a graduate or as a staff member. I'm a university dropout who never completed a bachelor's degree. But I have always enjoyed learning new things and spend a lot of time and my own money doing research into things that interest me. Like the Internet. > ARIN is a centralized IP address registery for North America pure and > simple. Yes, nice and simple. Everyone will know where to go for IP address allocations. We won't have the costs of coordinating too many IP registries. > I'm not saying that the present situation with NSI is any good either > but what I am seeing is just another NSI spinoff. While ARIN would > be an improvement over NSI that doesn't mean that it is that much > better. ARIN is a completely centralized organization. The functions > of IP registery and root server functions need to be separted. What > is left will require far less to support than what is currently > proposed. ARIN won't be operating root nameservers. Where did you get this idea. Quite frankly, your messages are a stream of one unsubstantiated accusation after another. You accuse ARIN of doing all kinds of things that it is *NOT* doing. And then you pull numbers out of the air about how much you would charge to host a server, or how many ISPs you think would do business with ARIN and claim that the 3500 ISPs in North America should do as you say, just because. This is ludicrous. Why should everyone follow you? What qualifications do you have? To most of us you are a complete unknown who has just popped onto this list and is now claiming that they have the answers to everything if only we would trust you. Let's put it this way, either put up or shut up. Stop wasting everybody's time with these ludicrous claims of yours. If there is any substance to them you will be able to produce a detailled budget with complete justifications for each line item. If you are unwilling to even take the time to do serious work, then go away and shut up. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From kimh at internic.net Thu May 1 13:25:34 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 13:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What do you want? Message-ID: <199705011725.NAA06251@jazz.internic.net> >From the beginning several of you have questioned the estimated budget of approximately two million (not three million) dollars stating that ARIN could be run with a staff of three or four. For those who believe this you need to decide if this is what you really want. Maybe we could run ARIN with this minimal staff, if you don't care about quality of service. You have to decide how important, as an ISP, IP numbers are to you. Is it okay with you to have your allocations take weeks, or months, since we won't have the staff to handle all of the requests in a timely manner? Is it acceptable to hire mediocre engineering staff? Or to understaff the engineering group to save you a couple of dollars? Should we ignore the allocation policies to help conserve address and routing table space because they only mean more staff are required to review requests? Yes, we could automate address assignments and just give every requester what they ask for, is this what you want? Currently, the IP group has a staff of five employees reviewing IP requests, allocating addresses and ASNs, registering in-addr information, SWIPs and helpdesk and we are understaffed. This number does not include any engineering, admin or accounting support. The proposed ARIN staff calls for an engineering staff of four. Maybe we'll be lucky and find one person who's an expert network engineer, programmer, dba, sys admin, webmaster, etc. and doesn't mind working or being on call 24 x 7. If you know of such as person, great send him/her over. Of course, they'll have to be willing to work for less than the going rate because some of you also don't believe that ARIN should be paying staff the same amount as other Internet-related companies pay. ARIN is your company, not mine. If its service doesn't meet your needs it will effect your business, your livelihood. Isn't it better to do it right? And finally, for those of you who think that "ARIN" is out to make a financial "killing" and that "ARIN" is going to increase its fees and stick it to the ISPs, please remember, YOU ARE ARIN! Arin will be doing whatever its members (you, the ISPs) tell it to. Kim Hubbard From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu May 1 13:29:19 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Simple question... In-Reply-To: <19970501145312.AAA23746@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 May 1997, Alan Bechtold wrote: > I understand that major ISPs getting a large allocation from ARIN must agree > to allocate smaller blocks of space to other organizations (presumably > smaller organizations) who connect to them. This is a good thing. However, > is there any REQUIREMENT that they serve those smaller organizations at all? > In other words, can a larger ISP simply decide as a business policy that > they are no longer going to serve other ISPs and still obtain their > allocation. I know of a couple of larger ISPs considering or already > implementing this practice...dropping service to smaller ISPs. There have always been network providers who do not sell connections to resellers, aka ISPs. This is a business decision that ARIN has no say in. Regardless of who a network provider sells to, they will need to get address space from ARIN to allocate to their connected customers. > I've heard here the argument that competitive pressures will continue to > make it profitable to serve smaller ISPs who are admittedly, today, some > ISPs' largest customers. But it appears some larger ISPs are today > realizing that the smaller ISPs they serve are also competing against > them for end users. It has always been like this. As the Internet market grows, it is not surprising that we see some specialization. But, as you point out, ISPs represent a very significant customer base so there will always be companies willing to supply them. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Thu May 1 13:40:55 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 13:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What do you want? Message-ID: <199705011740.NAA05858@newdev.harvard.edu> > please remember, YOU ARE ARIN! Arin will be doing whatever its members (you, the ISPs) tell it to. so - if you-all want Kim to get a new Caddy or take vacations in Paris please be sure to let her know & the fees can be adjusted Scott From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu May 1 13:54:52 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <01BC5615.82BDA5A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 May 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Why not move some of the IP allocation functions > for ISPs to the ISP/C ? The ISP/C is a trade association for ISPs. It would not be appropriate for such an organization to do IP allocation for all of North America. People tend to forget that ISPs are not the only users of IP addresses. There are also large universities and companies that use significant block of IPv4 addresses. > The ISP/C is already set up. It is a non-profit 501(c) > AND...most importantly...it has experts that can > handle the job and that ISPs can trust... Wrong. The ISP/C is not a 501(c) and it does not have experts that can handle the job. And you will note that in this press release http://www.ispc.org/press/19970207.html the ISP/C fully supports the formation of ARIN. I expect that ISPs who trust us would also fully support ARIN. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From randy at PSG.COM Thu May 1 14:01:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 1 May 97 11:01 PDT Subject: What do you want? References: <199705011740.NAA05858@newdev.harvard.edu> Message-ID: >> please remember, YOU ARE ARIN! Arin will be doing whatever its >> members (you, the ISPs) tell it to. > so - if you-all want Kim to get a new Caddy or take vacations in Paris > please be sure to let her know & the fees can be adjusted I would hope that Kim and ARIN would be wise enough not to try to drive a Caddy in Paris until IPv6 is widely deployed. randy From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Thu May 1 14:44:59 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What do you want? In-Reply-To: <199705011725.NAA06251@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 May 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >From the beginning several of you have questioned the estimated budget > of approximately two million (not three million) dollars stating that > ARIN could be run with a staff of three or four. For those who believe > this you need to decide if this is what you really want. Maybe we > could run ARIN with this minimal staff, if you don't care about quality > of service. What size staff does NSI have? Has staff size had any bearing at all on the level of incompetance NSI has aspired to? Has anyone ever explained what the heck was going on when thousands of messages went out saying "we don't think you've paid for your domain and will cut off DNS in x days if you don't prove payment has been made". Many of these were paid, and many were sent to the wrong people...as if they just went out to random contact addresses. I got notification for a few dozen domains registered to people in other countries...domains I had absolutely nothing to do with and had never heard of. To err is human, to really muck things up requires a huge incompetant staff? > You have to decide how important, as an ISP, IP numbers are to you. Is > it okay with you to have your allocations take weeks, or months, since > we won't have the staff to handle all of the requests in a timely manner? So now it's a protection scheme? "Support ARIN, or IP allocations at NSI might get even slower?" > over. Of course, they'll have to be willing to work for less than the > going rate because some of you also don't believe that ARIN should > be paying staff the same amount as other Internet-related companies pay. That's a very vague figure. What is the going rate for internet-related jobs? Maybe it would make sense to locate ARIN in an area where money goes a lot further and salaries can be lower without being unfairly low. I've had offers to relocate from Gainesville, FL to Miami, FL, for 50% more pay...but my money wouldn't go nearly as far in Miami. The same sort of thing goes for places like Boston, much of California, and probably the D.C. area. I've had offers in the former 2 and didn't seriously consider them because Gainesville has a reasonably low cost of living. > And finally, for those of you who think that "ARIN" is out to make > a financial "killing" and that "ARIN" is going to increase its fees > and stick it to the ISPs, please remember, YOU ARE ARIN! Arin will > be doing whatever its members (you, the ISPs) tell it to. We're not ARIN, because we get no say unless we pay $1k/year for membership. I think, at the very least, this needs to be changes such that any organization that has paid for an allocation is made a permenant member at no charge. Any successful ISP will eventually need to apply to ARIN/Internic for an allocation either because their provider won't give bigger blocks or because they are multihoming and want/need bigger/portable blocks. $2500 isn't necessarily pocket change...that's a cisco 2501 and CSU/DSU. If $2500 was change to us, we'd probably have some spare Cisco parts on the shelf...but we don't. Assuming we cough up the $2500 for a /19 and get the allocation, asking us to pay another $1000/year just to have some say in ARIN is a slap in the face. Buying (I know you won't call it that, but that's about what it is) an allocation should make us a member for life in ARIN. Charging organizations for membership after they have bought allocations just makes it that much more an elite club. I'm not against ARIN...I just don't like the way it appears to be shaping up as a private club that only internet big wigs and large companies will be able to play in. Jim's idea of a registry for each state or some other plan for lots of IP registries is crazy in that there will be lots of waste and it seems likely to me that there will be greater chances of corruption "I hear you can get whatever allocation you want from the Chicago IP registry if you slip them a few bills". ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From mikeg at savvis.com Thu May 1 14:52:46 1997 From: mikeg at savvis.com (Mike Gaddis) Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 13:52:46 -0500 Subject: What do you want? References: <199705011725.NAA06251@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: <3368E67E.664B@savvis.com> Kim Hubbard wrote: Some of this is a repeat of my previous diatribe but I wanted to specifically address Kim's points. ctrl d now... > > From the beginning several of you have questioned the estimated budget > of approximately two million (not three million) dollars stating that > ARIN could be run with a staff of three or four. For those who believe > this you need to decide if this is what you really want. Maybe we > could run ARIN with this minimal staff, if you don't care about quality > of service. > > You have to decide how important, as an ISP, IP numbers are to you. Is > it okay with you to have your allocations take weeks, or months, since > we won't have the staff to handle all of the requests in a timely manner? > 2 hour response would be great, no more than 24 hours. Also, have enough operators on duty to keep the busy signals down to a minimum. For great service I would pay half again as much (God, did I say that?) > Is it acceptable to hire mediocre engineering staff? Or to understaff > the engineering group to save you a couple of dollars? > Nope. > Should we ignore the allocation policies to help conserve address and > routing table space because they only mean more staff are required to > review requests? > Nope. We will follow the rules but we want rapid response. After all it takes a lot of work to get the data ready. > Yes, we could automate address assignments and just give every requester > what they ask for, is this what you want? > For my company yes. Screw the rest. ;-) > Currently, the IP group has a staff of five employees reviewing IP > requests, allocating addresses and ASNs, registering in-addr information, > SWIPs and helpdesk and we are understaffed. This number does not > include any engineering, admin or accounting support. > > The proposed ARIN staff calls for an engineering staff of four. Maybe > we'll be lucky and find one person who's an expert network engineer, > programmer, dba, sys admin, webmaster, etc. and doesn't mind working or > being on call 24 x 7. If you know of such as person, great send him/her > over. Of course, they'll have to be willing to work for less than the > going rate because some of you also don't believe that ARIN should > be paying staff the same amount as other Internet-related companies pay. > The fees are reasonable. You will be judged on performance and fairness, period. IMO Don't focus so much or be so apologetic for price, rather, make it work - well. > ARIN is your company, not mine. If its service doesn't meet your > needs it will effect your business, your livelihood. Isn't it better > to do it right? > There is no doubt this is correct. The questions raised can only be answered by actual performance in the future. All else is speculation. I read previously that ARIN was starting with a class A and further allocations will be given based on success. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If the doubts other folks have come to fruition with ARIN, then we move to plan B (whatever that is). Mike Gaddis Executive Vice President & CTO Savvis Communications From jtk at titania.net Thu May 1 13:17:33 1997 From: jtk at titania.net (Joseph T. Klein) Date: Thu, 1 May 97 12:17:33 CDT Subject: alt.conspiracy.arin References: <01BC561C.08F24760@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: Who are the people behind Jim Flemming ? > Who are the people behind ARIN ? > > Who will be working at ARIN ? > > Will they also keep their jobs (and stock) at NSI ? > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > http://www.Unir.Corp > > Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall > If you have a point or a rational argument please make it. Perhaps these people have no other agenda then to do what they believe is in the best interests of the Internet community. This continual wining by a few individuals who feel that a grand conspiracy is being orchestrated by (Jon Postel/The Illuminati/ The Club of Rome/The Tri-lateral Commision/The Jews) an unnamed group is not productive. Lay your evidence on the table and stop with the rhetorical question. Perhaps the only thing in the shadows is a lack of illumination. I am reminded that today is May Day. May day is not recognized in the United States because it is a real example of when corrupt government and unregulated industry conspired to suppress the aspirations of the people. It was a day when American troops killed American citizens in Chicago and Milwaukee. It is an embarrassing episode in American history. The threat of a socialist revolution in Germany and/or the United States was very real in 1890. It was the reforms made by Teddy and later Franklin Roosevelt that prevented violent upheaval here. Germany eventually tore itself to shreds, giving rise to the Natzis. The ARIN and IAHC proposals are evolutionary reforms being made by rational and well meaning people. They are the progressives of the Internet, reforming the structure before instability sets in. The gang making the conspiracy charges have a rhetorical harmony reminiscent to the chattering of the historical figures who drove Germany, Italy, Russia, and China into extremist positions. This is another rendition of the international conspiracy as oft repeated by commiczars and natzi information officers. The Internet can not become a channel for commerce unless we have stability. It is you... You who are making these unsubstantiated conspiracy claims that are threatening the economic viability of our industry. You who claim conspiracy are the cause of delay in implementing these needed reforms in the allocation of IP addresses and TDLs. Rational people need to keep your disruptive behavior in check before the spread of your propaganda destabilize commerce. -- From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net E-mail: jtk at titania.net Sent: 12:17:34 CST/CDT 05/01/97 If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction and march collectively into the future. -- http://info.isoc.org/internet-history/#Future From wimsey at rtci.com Thu May 1 15:04:07 1997 From: wimsey at rtci.com (David Wimsey) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: What do you want? - Cost justification Message-ID: <199705011935.PAA24462@mail.interpath.net> I haven't been following the arin discussion real closly as time isn't on myside at this point, I am how ever concerned about what happens. My actaul concern is where is the 2 million $$ cost justification. I am not be any means saying thats too much, I just can't see where it is all going. If you could point me towards some sort of costs justification data I would greatly appricaite it. David ---------- > From: Kim Hubbard > To: naipr at arin.net > Subject: What do you want? > Date: Thursday, May 01, 1997 1:25 PM > > > From the beginning several of you have questioned the estimated budget > of approximately two million (not three million) dollars stating that > ARIN could be run with a staff of three or four. For those who believe > this you need to decide if this is what you really want. Maybe we > could run ARIN with this minimal staff, if you don't care about quality > of service. > > You have to decide how important, as an ISP, IP numbers are to you. Is > it okay with you to have your allocations take weeks, or months, since > we won't have the staff to handle all of the requests in a timely manner? > > Is it acceptable to hire mediocre engineering staff? Or to understaff > the engineering group to save you a couple of dollars? > > Should we ignore the allocation policies to help conserve address and > routing table space because they only mean more staff are required to > review requests? > > Yes, we could automate address assignments and just give every requester > what they ask for, is this what you want? > > Currently, the IP group has a staff of five employees reviewing IP > requests, allocating addresses and ASNs, registering in-addr information, > SWIPs and helpdesk and we are understaffed. This number does not > include any engineering, admin or accounting support. > > The proposed ARIN staff calls for an engineering staff of four. Maybe > we'll be lucky and find one person who's an expert network engineer, > programmer, dba, sys admin, webmaster, etc. and doesn't mind working or > being on call 24 x 7. If you know of such as person, great send him/her > over. Of course, they'll have to be willing to work for less than the > going rate because some of you also don't believe that ARIN should > be paying staff the same amount as other Internet-related companies pay. > > ARIN is your company, not mine. If its service doesn't meet your > needs it will effect your business, your livelihood. Isn't it better > to do it right? > > And finally, for those of you who think that "ARIN" is out to make > a financial "killing" and that "ARIN" is going to increase its fees > and stick it to the ISPs, please remember, YOU ARE ARIN! Arin will > be doing whatever its members (you, the ISPs) tell it to. > > > Kim Hubbard From kimh at internic.net Thu May 1 15:53:08 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 15:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What do you want? - Cost justification In-Reply-To: <199705011935.PAA24462@mail.interpath.net> from "David Wimsey" at May 1, 97 03:04:07 pm Message-ID: <199705011953.PAA06394@jazz.internic.net> > We haven't put out the final budget yet because we're waiting on pricing for legal insurance. I can't even estimate how much that will cost so we're waiting until we have actual prices. Kim > I haven't been following the arin discussion real closly as time isn't on > myside at this point, I am how ever concerned about what happens. My > actaul concern is where is the 2 million $$ cost justification. I am not > be any means saying thats too much, I just can't see where it is all going. > If you could point me towards some sort of costs justification data I > would greatly appricaite it. > > David > > ---------- > > From: Kim Hubbard > > To: naipr at arin.net > > Subject: What do you want? > > Date: Thursday, May 01, 1997 1:25 PM > > > > > > From the beginning several of you have questioned the estimated budget > > of approximately two million (not three million) dollars stating that > > ARIN could be run with a staff of three or four. For those who believe > > this you need to decide if this is what you really want. Maybe we > > could run ARIN with this minimal staff, if you don't care about quality > > of service. > > > > You have to decide how important, as an ISP, IP numbers are to you. Is > > it okay with you to have your allocations take weeks, or months, since > > we won't have the staff to handle all of the requests in a timely manner? > > > > Is it acceptable to hire mediocre engineering staff? Or to understaff > > the engineering group to save you a couple of dollars? > > > > Should we ignore the allocation policies to help conserve address and > > routing table space because they only mean more staff are required to > > review requests? > > > > Yes, we could automate address assignments and just give every requester > > what they ask for, is this what you want? > > > > Currently, the IP group has a staff of five employees reviewing IP > > requests, allocating addresses and ASNs, registering in-addr information, > > SWIPs and helpdesk and we are understaffed. This number does not > > include any engineering, admin or accounting support. > > > > The proposed ARIN staff calls for an engineering staff of four. Maybe > > we'll be lucky and find one person who's an expert network engineer, > > programmer, dba, sys admin, webmaster, etc. and doesn't mind working or > > being on call 24 x 7. If you know of such as person, great send him/her > > over. Of course, they'll have to be willing to work for less than the > > going rate because some of you also don't believe that ARIN should > > be paying staff the same amount as other Internet-related companies pay. > > > > ARIN is your company, not mine. If its service doesn't meet your > > needs it will effect your business, your livelihood. Isn't it better > > to do it right? > > > > And finally, for those of you who think that "ARIN" is out to make > > a financial "killing" and that "ARIN" is going to increase its fees > > and stick it to the ISPs, please remember, YOU ARE ARIN! Arin will > > be doing whatever its members (you, the ISPs) tell it to. > > > > > > Kim Hubbard > From kent at SONGBIRD.COM Thu May 1 17:30:47 1997 From: kent at SONGBIRD.COM (Kent Crispin) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:30:47 -0700 Subject: What do you want? - Cost justification References: <199705011935.PAA24462@mail.interpath.net> <199705011953.PAA06394@jazz.internic.net> Message-ID: <19970501143047.64814@bywater.songbird.com> On Thu, May 01, 1997 at 03:53:08PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > We haven't put out the final budget yet because we're waiting on > pricing for legal insurance. I can't even estimate how much that will > cost so we're waiting until we have actual prices. > > Kim So put out a budget with the real nmbers you have, and leave a placeholder for legal insurance. It's almost completely orthogonal from issues like employee salary, service level, and so on. If you are really interested in having this discussed in a public forum the lack of information on legal insurance won't hold up discussion, I assure you. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html From jdp at CYBERRAMP.NET Thu May 1 20:26:33 1997 From: jdp at CYBERRAMP.NET (Janet Pippin) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 19:26:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: alt.conspiracy.arin In-Reply-To: from "Joseph T. Klein" at "May 1, 97 12:17:33 pm" Message-ID: <199705020026.TAA05713@mailhost.cyberramp.net> Yea, who *are* those little shadows fluttering around Fleming???????? -janet Joseph T. Klein wrote: > Who are the people behind Jim Flemming ? > > > Who are the people behind ARIN ? > > > > Who will be working at ARIN ? > > > > Will they also keep their jobs (and stock) at NSI ? > > > > -- > > Jim Fleming > > Unir Corporation > > http://www.Unir.Corp > > > > Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall > > > > If you have a point or a rational argument please make it. > Perhaps these people have no other agenda then to do what they > believe is in the best interests of the Internet community. > > This continual wining by a few individuals who feel that a grand > conspiracy is being orchestrated by (Jon Postel/The Illuminati/ > The Club of Rome/The Tri-lateral Commision/The Jews) an unnamed > group is not productive. Lay your evidence on the table and stop > with the rhetorical question. Perhaps the only thing in the > shadows is a lack of illumination. > > I am reminded that today is May Day. > > May day is not recognized in the United States because it is > a real example of when corrupt government and unregulated industry > conspired to suppress the aspirations of the people. It was a day > when American troops killed American citizens in Chicago and > Milwaukee. It is an embarrassing episode in American history. > > The threat of a socialist revolution in Germany and/or the United > States was very real in 1890. It was the reforms made by Teddy and > later Franklin Roosevelt that prevented violent upheaval here. > Germany eventually tore itself to shreds, giving rise to the Natzis. > > The ARIN and IAHC proposals are evolutionary reforms being made by > rational and well meaning people. They are the progressives of the > Internet, reforming the structure before instability sets in. > > The gang making the conspiracy charges have a rhetorical harmony > reminiscent to the chattering of the historical figures who drove > Germany, Italy, Russia, and China into extremist positions. > > This is another rendition of the international conspiracy as oft > repeated by commiczars and natzi information officers. > > The Internet can not become a channel for commerce unless we have > stability. It is you... You who are making these unsubstantiated conspiracy > claims that are threatening the economic viability of our industry. > You who claim conspiracy are the cause of delay in implementing these > needed reforms in the allocation of IP addresses and TDLs. > > Rational people need to keep your disruptive behavior in check before > the spread of your propaganda destabilize commerce. > -- > From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net > E-mail: jtk at titania.net Sent: 12:17:34 CST/CDT 05/01/97 > > If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, > vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction > and march collectively into the future. > -- http://info.isoc.org/internet-history/#Future > -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp at cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020 From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu May 1 22:07:12 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 11:07:12 +0900 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 May 1997 10:40:05 EST." <01BC561C.08F24760@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199705020207.LAA28856@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Jimmy, >Who are the people behind ARIN ? Primarily, albeit not exclusively service providers. >Who will be working at ARIN ? ARIN employees. >Will they also keep their jobs (and stock) at NSI ? You'd have to ask them to be sure, but I wouldn't think so... Regards, -drc P.S. Weren't you supposed to cite ANY instance in which a regional registry violated its confidentiality agreements? From randy at PSG.COM Thu May 1 22:21:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 1 May 97 19:21 PDT Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... References: <01BC561C.08F24760@webster.unety.net> <199705020207.LAA28856@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: >> Who are the people behind ARIN ? > Primarily, albeit not exclusively service providers. The Board is composed of net.citizens whose daytime jobs are o two ISPs, o a University, o a Research Institution, o a Business type from NSI, and o an IANA=R&E person. randy From davidc at APNIC.NET Thu May 1 22:34:45 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 11:34:45 +0900 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 May 1997 19:21:00 PDT." Message-ID: <199705020234.LAA28992@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> I suppose Jimmy's "question" could be interpretted several ways. I was answering in the sense of who would be providing the funding. Randy is correct in the observation that the board is made up of a wider range of organizations/people. Regards, -drc -------- >>> Who are the people behind ARIN ? >> Primarily, albeit not exclusively service providers. > >The Board is composed of net.citizens whose daytime jobs are > o two ISPs, > o a University, > o a Research Institution, > o a Business type from NSI, and > o an IANA=R&E person. > >randy > From randy at PSG.COM Thu May 1 22:56:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 1 May 97 19:56 PDT Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... References: <199705020234.LAA28992@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: > I suppose Jimmy's "question" could be interpretted several ways. > I was answering in the sense of who would be providing the funding. > Randy is correct in the observation that the board is made up > of a wider range of organizations/people. And, in my geeky literal way, the BofT is all there is of ARIN so far. But membership forms are coming! randy From justin at EROLS.COM Fri May 2 12:48:04 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:48:04 -0400 Subject: Global council of registries??? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970502124803.00a3d8e0@justin.erols.com> At 03:57 PM 4/28/97 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: > >> 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 monolpoly (Internic). > >First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will >be run by its members and eventually funded by its members. > >Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a >shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly >disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its >downstream customer networks? I can answer this one. No. As a side note, I find it frightening that lawyers for trade associations are making statements without consulting with their constituency. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org From justin at EROLS.COM Fri May 2 12:53:51 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:53:51 -0400 Subject: Global council of registries??? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970502125350.014eb5a0@justin.erols.com> At 06:59 PM 4/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:57 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: >@ On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: >@ >@ > 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 monolpoly (Internic). >@ >@ First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will >@ be run by its members and eventually funded by its members. >@ >@ Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a >@ shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly >@ disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its >@ downstream customer networks? Have you asked those downstream customers >@ how they would feel if their network information was publicly available >@ to their competitors. >@ > >What about the flip-side....????? > >Is everyone supposed to give this information to >ARIN and then find out that someone from Erols >or another "East Coast" ISP or the ISP/C is off >discussing this information on the ISP mailing lists ? Jim, if you are going to make backhand accusations against me, I will have to ask for proof. This is not the first time that you have done this, and you have never provided a single example. Anything that I have ever said about anyone publically has been information that was gathered publically, off of mailing lists, web sites, and PUBLIC meetings (such as NANOG presentations or IETF working group sessions), or information about something which I am working on and the information was not publically available yet. Either provide an example, or get off the pot, I am tired of your accusations. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org From justin at EROLS.COM Fri May 2 12:59:09 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:59:09 -0400 Subject: Global council of registries??? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970502125907.014eb600@justin.erols.com> At 08:42 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: >Just ask any small or mid-sized company that has requested address space >in the past 9 months, no matter how much money is behind the company, or >what kind of business plans they have. They all get the same runaround >from Internic. Internic states that a company may only obtain address >space if it has a history of efficiently utilizing IPs. But how the >heck can you have a history if you can't get any from Internic? The >response to this question is not that these ISPS should get it from >their upstream provider - and be subject to later renumbering - or the >loss of the IPs during a merger or buy-out, or any other such case. Rudolph, As a mid sized ISP, who is one of your members, I would like to inform you of my support for the ARIN proposal. I /AM/ speaking for Erol's, as I am the person here who deals with IP allocation and requests. ISP's do have to eventually renumber if they decide to leave their upstream. It happens, plan for it. What's the problem? Justin "I am renumbering a /16 worth of IPs sunday night" Newton Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org From JimFleming at unety.net Fri May 2 19:45:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:45:53 -0500 Subject: Global council of registries??? Message-ID: <01BC5729.11214540@webster.unety.net> On Friday, May 02, 1997 11:53 AM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ At 06:59 PM 4/28/97 -0500, you wrote: @ >On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:57 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] @ wrote: @ >@ On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote: @ >@ @ >@ > 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 monolpoly (Internic). @ >@ @ >@ First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will @ >@ be run by its members and eventually funded by its members. @ >@ @ >@ Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a @ >@ shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly @ >@ disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its @ >@ downstream customer networks? Have you asked those downstream customers @ >@ how they would feel if their network information was publicly available @ >@ to their competitors. @ >@ @ > @ >What about the flip-side....????? @ > @ >Is everyone supposed to give this information to @ >ARIN and then find out that someone from Erols @ >or another "East Coast" ISP or the ISP/C is off @ >discussing this information on the ISP mailing lists ? @ @ Jim, if you are going to make backhand accusations against me, I will have @ to ask for proof. This is not the first time that you have done this, and @ you have never provided a single example. Anything that I have ever said @ about anyone publically has been information that was gathered publically, @ off of mailing lists, web sites, and PUBLIC meetings (such as NANOG @ presentations or IETF working group sessions), or information about @ something which I am working on and the information was not publically @ available yet. Either provide an example, or get off the pot, I am tired @ of your accusations. @ @ Justin Newton @ Network Architect @ Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com @ ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org @ @ I suggest that you read your postings to inet-access. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Fri May 2 20:58:11 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 19:58:11 -0500 Subject: Global council of registries??? In-Reply-To: <199704291753.AA033896414@martigny.ai.mit.edu> References: from "Stephen Satchell" at Apr 28, 97 09:37:44 pm Message-ID: At 12:53 PM -0500 4/29/97, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >Stephen Satchell supposedly said: >> >> MIT should know how much address space they are using. In a perfect world, >> some of the early players would return a majority of the "free space" back >> to the pool. As for who decides: >> > >Many early players have returned address space. Large blocks in fact have >been returned. > >> The owners do, under the audit of ARIN or whatever. >> > >You want ARIN to be the IP address police? My feeling about address >assignment is very similar to building permits. You have to go through the >approval process and meet the current regulations, but one your building >permit is granted then the government shouldn't be able to require you to >rewire your house every few years as the wiring code change. When I said "under the audit of ARIN or whatever" I'm talking about the organization "checking in" the released numbers for future reallocation, and making sure that the right numbers have indeed been released. Nothing could be worse than for some poor clerk type to miskey the returned address block and adding to the mess instead of making it better. Also, in line with some of the comments that have been on the list, the actual address blocks returned for reallocation should be selected to avoid causing routing problems. Don't like the word "audit"? Fine. . --- Stephen Satchell,{Satchell Evaluations, Motorola ISG} http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Fri May 2 21:06:30 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 20:06:30 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <199705010341.MAA27299@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:50:42 MST." <199705010250.TAA26598@cherokee.digilink.net> Message-ID: At 10:41 PM -0500 4/30/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Sigh. > >Anyone have a script that would periodically resend each >message in the ARIN archives sequentially? We could cycle >them about once every couple of months -- it appears to be >the frequency the same "discussions" keep coming up... > >>Today it will be $2500, which I already consider ridiculously high. > >OK, let's see your projected budget figures... This should be interesting -- I did it in November, and we finally got some numbers from NSI. Could it be that we will have a *third* set of numbers which agree? I might add that I've talked about this with some people, and they don't see enough revenue from this business to make it worth while. --- Stephen Satchell,{Satchell Evaluations, Motorola ISG} http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From JimFleming at unety.net Sat May 3 00:56:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:56:02 -0500 Subject: April 1st Message-ID: <01BC5754.648D9140@webster.unety.net> @@@@@@@@ From the Cook Report...http://cookreport.com/ "Meanwhile the problem of the IANA authority has been exacerbated by two events. On April 1, 1997 DARPA allowed its contract with ISI at USC that paid for most of the IANA activity to expire. This action rendered Tony Rutkowski's description of IANA as "the name of an activity of the US government performed under contract by the University of Southern California" moot. On April 4 the Office of General Counsel of the USC sent a letter to NSI that stated that the functions that NSI had been carrying out as a contractor for IANA had not been done under the authority of ISI or USC, but only at the behest of the IANA, acting on behalf of the consensual authority of the internet community which NSI had chosen to accept. The conclusion seems to us very clear. Faced with PGP's lawsuit against NSI, USC and ISI have decided to run for cover. When we sought clarification, Jon Postel advised us to go directly to Robert Lane, the USC General Counsel. We did and got no statement from the letter of April 4 to NSI, but rather one that "the IANA function has been performed by ISI, through its employee, Dr. Jon Postel, for quite some time." When we pointed out that this statement seemed to contradict the position of the letter of April 4, we received a very curt dismissal." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_board.html Raymundo Vega Aguilar Randy Bush John Curran - BBN Scott Bradner - Harvard Donald N. Telage - NSI Jon Postel - IANA/ISI/USC Kim Hubbard - NSI @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sat May 3 02:05:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 01:05:53 -0500 Subject: Questions Message-ID: <01BC575E.26E649E0@webster.unety.net> Hmmmm....all I did was ask a question... "Have any ISPs considered becoming IP Address Registries ?" and guess what came out... http://www.scomm.net/inet-access/1997-01/msg00675.html ==== Here are some other questions that remain unanswered... http://www.scomm.net/inet-access/1996-09/msg01553.html ==== -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sat May 3 02:18:53 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 01:18:53 -0500 Subject: Is ARIN's Job Easy ? Message-ID: <01BC575F.F813FB60@webster.unety.net> Is IP address allocation difficult or not ? @@@@@ http://www.scomm.net/inet-access/1996-06/msg01745.html > ASN registration is pretty simple. I wouldn't worry about that end of > things. A good understanding of IP allocation and CIDR takes a little more > understanding though (although not a heeck of a lot). > Justin Newton > Internet Architect > Erol's Internet Services @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ What does "not a heck of a lot" mean ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat May 3 19:09:48 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > Any ISP that can afford a multihoming-capable router and > two upstream Internet connections should have no problems with > $2500/year for their portable address space. As you point out, it's a mere > drop in the bucket, 30 cents per year per host address. Are you sure of that? Do you run an ISP trying to scrape together the money to multihome? Do you sit around at night wondering if it's worth trying to hack together a BGP router with a P100 and ET cards or just wait until you can afford a 4500M or better? > Most ISP's will not be multihoming, therefore will not need > portable address space and therefore, most ISPs will not be paying this Most ISP's in what time period? I personally think that if the telco's and other giants ever get serious about providing internet service with clues, many (but certainly not all) smaller ISP's will be unable to compete. Those that do stay in business will require the reliability of a multihomedmed internet connection. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat May 3 19:49:18 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 16:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 May 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > Any ISP that can afford a multihoming-capable router and > > two upstream Internet connections should have no problems with > > $2500/year for their portable address space. As you point out, it's a mere > > drop in the bucket, 30 cents per year per host address. > > Are you sure of that? Actually, no I'm not. If you have any hard facts to show the contrary, then I'd like to hear them. > Do you run an ISP trying to scrape together the > money to multihome? Do you sit around at night wondering if it's worth > trying to hack together a BGP router with a P100 and ET cards or just wait > until you can afford a 4500M or better? No, although have consulted with ISPs trying to make this discussion including my former partners in the ISP business. So far, everyone I have talked to has been able to make a business case for spending the money to buy or build a multihoming capable router. > > Most ISP's will not be multihoming, therefore will not need > > portable address space and therefore, most ISPs will not be paying this > > Most ISP's in what time period? Let me answer your other question first. > I personally think that if the telco's > and other giants ever get serious about providing internet service with > clues, many (but certainly not all) smaller ISP's will be unable to > compete. That's a lot of ifs. Many people feel that it is simply not possible for a large company in any industry to maintain a high enough clue level to compete for very long against smaller entrepreneurial companies. I tend to agree with this. However I also agree that smaller ISPs that do not have a clue will be unable to compete with anyone. > Those that do stay in business will require the reliability of a > multihomedmed internet connection. I used to think that most ISPs would become multihomed but as I've watched things evolve over the last year and a half, I'm no longer so certain that this will happen or that it will be necessary. Multihoming is only one part of the redundancy equation in which an ISP strives to make sure their connectivity into the global Internet is redundant enough that no single point of failure can cut them off completely. The idea is that having multiple backbone providers protects you from screwups by any one of them. However, things are not so simple. On the one hand, the large backbones are working towards fully meshed networks with failover capabilities so that the loss of a connection or a router will not cut anybody off. They're not there yet but they are headed in that direction and I have no doubt they will arrive. At the same time there are smaller backbone prividers and regional providers who are building multihomed networks in order that their downstream customers will not be cut off if a single major provider goes down or if a single fault occurs within the regional provider's network. Quite often these regional providers will supply their ISP customers with a backup connection, either a second T1 or a frame relay or ISDN circuit. This can even protect you from local backhoe activity if it is engineered carefully. So I think that in the grand scheme of things, multihomeing is less important for the smaller ISPs than redundancy. And there are many ways in which good redundancy can be deployed without multihoming. If you look at the typical pyramid found in most industries, i.e. a few large companies, many mid-size companies and a ton of smaller companies, then I think I am referring to the ton of smaller companies when I say that most ISPs will not be multihoming. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From JimFleming at unety.net Sat May 3 20:05:34 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:05:34 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC57F4.FB3F5600@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, May 03, 1997 2:09 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote: @ On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: @ @ > Any ISP that can afford a multihoming-capable router and @ > two upstream Internet connections should have no problems with @ > $2500/year for their portable address space. As you point out, it's a mere @ > drop in the bucket, 30 cents per year per host address. @ @ Are you sure of that? Do you run an ISP trying to scrape together the @ money to multihome? Do you sit around at night wondering if it's worth @ trying to hack together a BGP router with a P100 and ET cards or just wait @ until you can afford a 4500M or better? @ @ > Most ISP's will not be multihoming, therefore will not need @ > portable address space and therefore, most ISPs will not be paying this @ @ Most ISP's in what time period? I personally think that if the telco's @ and other giants ever get serious about providing internet service with @ clues, many (but certainly not all) smaller ISP's will be unable to @ compete. Those that do stay in business will require the reliability of a @ multihomedmed internet connection. @ @ @ ------------------------------------------------------------------ @ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will @ Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. @ ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ @ @ @ Of course Mr. Dillon does not sit around and do that at night. He sold his interest in his ISP. He cashed out. @@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/board/michael.html "After selling his share in the ISP business at the end of 1996, Michael continued to share his knowledge on these mailing lists to help ensure that the independent ISP industry is a strong and vibrant one. He now acts as an ISP and Internet consultant." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sat May 3 23:18:53 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 May 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > I personally think that if the telco's > > and other giants ever get serious about providing internet service with > > clues, many (but certainly not all) smaller ISP's will be unable to > > compete. > > That's a lot of ifs. Many people feel that it is simply not possible for a > large company in any industry to maintain a high enough clue level to > compete for very long against smaller entrepreneurial companies. I tend to > agree with this. However I also agree that smaller ISPs that do not have a > clue will be unable to compete with anyone. The thing is, if they have enough money, clues are optional. Bellsouth just decided to increase our phone bill by 20%, by adding new fees for a service used primarily by ISPs. This is the sort of big business squeezing the little guy that the new telco/ISP's are using to try to drive smaller ISP's out of business while increasing their own market share. > > > Those that do stay in business will require the reliability of a > > multihomedmed internet connection. > > I used to think that most ISPs would become multihomed but as I've watched > things evolve over the last year and a half, I'm no longer so certain that > this will happen or that it will be necessary. Multihoming is only one > part of the redundancy equation in which an ISP strives to make sure their > connectivity into the global Internet is redundant enough that no single > point of failure can cut them off completely. The idea is that having > multiple backbone providers protects you from screwups by any one of them. FDT has a single T1 link to UUNet. That T1 has been the single largest source of downtime type problems we've had to face. During one 3 month period, we had several dozen hours of downtime with the longest outage lasting well over 12 hours. I'd have to go back and check logs, but I think it was 17h. We got no explanation for most of these outages. The scenario was typically: T1 goes out. We call UUNet to report loss of service. They look into it and agree. Sometimes over an hour would go by before they call Worldcomm. Time goes by, and eventually Worldcomm says their part of the loop is clean, so UUNet reports the problem to BellSouth (local loop provider). BellSouth generally takes a while, but eventually reports their part of the loop is good. While everyone's playing phone tag pointing fingers, the T1 magically comes back up. Nobody claims to have a clue what caused or fixed the problem. The few outages we did get explanations for were chronic problems in a cascade switch at UUNet's JAX POP. The Switch stops working, we lose service, and UUNet eventually replaces a card in it and it works again. Then the whole unit starts acting up and UUNet announces a planned outage, skips it, but then does it the next night without warning. During the particularly bad 3 month period, I talked to UUNet about doing a backup ISDN link for times that our T1 was out for extended periods, and the engineers would agree, but say to talk to sales...and sales would always say "we can't do that". Well...you can't rely on a single provider like this forever and expect to stay in business. Each time we've had an extended outage, we've lost a few customers our reputation has suffered. If renumbering weren't such a bitch, we'd probably have left UUNet late last year. There will come a time (soon, I hope) when we can afford the hardware necessary to effectively utilize a second link to the net. The more we have to pay ARIN, the longer it will take us to get there. > So I think that in the grand scheme of things, multihomeing is less > important for the smaller ISPs than redundancy. And there are many ways in Nobody plans to stay small forever (at least in the ISP biz). FDT's been doing this for two years, and I'd like to think we're not still "small". Certainly there will always be smaller ones, for whom multiple connections to top level providers just isn't feasible...and some of them will/do get connections from us, thus increasing the need for our connection to the net to be more reliable. If anyone's still reading at this point, I'd just like to say again and in public, I'm not oposed to ARIN. I'm not totally opposed to the fees, though I'm not happy about them. And I think any organization that pays for an IP block allocation should be given a free membership in ARIN for as long as they hold that block. i.e. no $1000/year membership fee for organizations that are actively using ARIN allocated space and thus have a greater interest in how ARIN is run. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sun May 4 00:38:28 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 00:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... In-Reply-To: <199705011119.UAA04403@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 May 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > >Hold on. If $2500/year for a /19 block isn't leasing then I'd like to > >know what your definition of leasing is? > > What happens when you don't pay the lease on your car? What happens > to your address space if you don't pay your membership fee? I don't see this in the proposal. What does happen if an ISP gets a /19, and then fails to pay? Also, I think this needs to be reworded more clearly: The annual subscription fee will be based on the total allocation of address space received in the previous year. ISPs receiving address space for the first time will be charged a fee based on the size of the initial address space allocation. The subscription fees will include inverse addressing (in-addr) service, updates, and maintenance. >From this, I assume an ISP wanting its first /19 from ARIN will have to pay $2500 up front, and then $2500 the next year. It seems obvious that if they refuse to pay at all, they won't get the /19, but what happens if they fail to pay the second $2500? Does in-addr service get suspended for the block or blocks that ISP uses? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From JimFleming at unety.net Sun May 4 09:54:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 08:54:02 -0500 Subject: Funding IP Allocations Message-ID: <01BC5868.B74DBEE0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, May 03, 1997 6:18 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote: @ On Sat, 3 May 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: @ @ @ If anyone's still reading at this point, I'd just like to say again and in @ public, I'm not oposed to ARIN. I'm not totally opposed to the fees, @ though I'm not happy about them. And I think any organization that pays @ for an IP block allocation should be given a free membership in ARIN for @ as long as they hold that block. i.e. no $1000/year membership fee for @ organizations that are actively using ARIN allocated space and thus have a @ greater interest in how ARIN is run. @ @ ------------------------------------------------------------------ @ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will @ Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. @ ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ @ @ In my opinion, there are many ways to handle the evolution of IP administration without taxing the ISPs. For ISPs and other companies that have a real vested interest (i.e. money) in this, I suggest that you contact the National Science Foundation and ask for copies of all of the communication that they are now distributing on these issues. When you receive that information, I think that you will see that there are plans underway to make use of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund [1] which now has plenty of money. [1] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html ...through October 31, 1996, $8,542,200.00 has been deposited into the account. ...through November 30, 1996, $9,911,000.00 has been deposited into the account. ...through December 31, 1996: $12,685,450.00 has been desposited into the account. ...through January 31, 1997: $15,284,934.00 has been desposited into the account. ...through February 28, 1997: $17,397,321.00 has been desposited into the account. ...through March 31, 1997, $20,560,000.00 has been deposited into the account. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The above money is mostly "commissions" that should have been paid to ISPs for channeling domain name registrations to the InterNIC as sales agents. This money is intended to help fund additional Internet Infrastructure. In my opinion, IP allocations fall in that category. Now, that does not mean that I think that $20 million should be given to the two NSI people that are pushing ARIN. Of course, if you read the NSF reports you will note that the NSF states that they are working with NSI to develop a plan for the above money. Once again, the question has to be asked, "Why does the NSF only work with NSI and not bring the ISP community into the planning ? " -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun May 4 16:33:10 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 15:33:10 -0500 Subject: Telco ISP, another thought (was: ...Vaseline) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:49 PM -0500 5/3/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >On Sat, 3 May 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: >> I personally think that if the telco's >> and other giants ever get serious about providing internet service with >> clues, many (but certainly not all) smaller ISP's will be unable to >> compete. > >That's a lot of ifs. Many people feel that it is simply not possible for a >large company in any industry to maintain a high enough clue level to >compete for very long against smaller entrepreneurial companies. I tend to >agree with this. However I also agree that smaller ISPs that do not have a >clue will be unable to compete with anyone. While this has nothing to do with ARIN per se, I believe that in the general the marketing story with regards to telcos getting into the ISP marketplace is one that can affect the structure of ARIN. It's called how to leverage existing position. Here is what the telco-base ISP has over any other ISP, be it small or large: access to the switch. There are several companies who are looking at what it's going to take to add modems seamlessly to a CO switch, and in large quantities. The elimination of the local loop and the integration of the line card with modem makes it far cheaper per line for a telco to provide service. Depending on the tariff model the telco negotiates with the state Public Utility (Services) Commission, that means either a healthy profit or a significant underbidding of what the non-telco can do. If the telco can attract signficiant dialup business, that means that you have a 600-lb ape vying (vi-ing?) for IP addresses to service its market. As for maintaining a clue level, the telcos are learning, and learning fast. Don't count them out of the race just yet. (Cable companies are another matter, from what I've seen in The Wall Street Journal and other business sources.) --- Stephen Satchell,{Satchell Evaluations, Motorola ISG} http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Mon May 5 03:16:52 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 03:16:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Funding IP Allocations In-Reply-To: <01BC5868.B74DBEE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 May 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > When you receive that information, I think that > you will see that there are plans underway to > make use of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure > Fund [1] which now has plenty of money. > > [1] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html > > ...through March 31, 1997, $20,560,000.00 has been deposited into the account. Cute...is there some reason a small chunk of this money can't be used to get ARIN started up and financially stable so registration fees can start out at a reasonable level rather than start high and eventually (supposedly) get lower? Starting a new business guaranteed to at least break even in year 1 is a nice idea...I'd certainly like to do it...but it's usually unreasonable. There's money here that can be used to subsidize ARIN until registration fees keep ARIN in the black. This page states: During the period September 14, 1995 through December 31, 1996, there have been no disbursements from the account. What happened since December? Did some of the money already go somewhere? Where? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon May 5 03:52:55 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 03:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NEWDOM: Re: Funding IP Allocations In-Reply-To: from "Jon Lewis" at May 5, 97 03:16:52 am Message-ID: <199705050752.AA267378777@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jon Lewis supposedly said: > Cute...is there some reason a small chunk of this money can't be used to > get ARIN started up and financially stable so registration fees can start > out at a reasonable level rather than start high and eventually > (supposedly) get lower? Starting a new business guaranteed to at least > break even in year 1 is a nice idea...I'd certainly like to do it...but > it's usually unreasonable. There's money here that can be used to > subsidize ARIN until registration fees keep ARIN in the black. > If you read the ARIN archives you will find that the original plan has NSI providing seed money to ARIN to get them started. Since people will only have to pay fees as they first request blocks, there is no guarentee that income will start to flow immediately. There are also startup costs to be considered which NSI will be funding. The current fee structure is based on estimates of a two million dollar yearly budget and using current allocation parameters. And before people jump in and start screaming about the budget amount. It is currently an estimate and a real one will be presented as one is prepared. I will note that a then very anti-ARIN list member tried to do an independent budget and came up with about $2 million do to a quality job. I don't know if he is a supporter or not now, but I don't think he believes the budget is unreasonable. (I think it was Stephen Satchell (I am sorry if I massacred the spelling of your name or got the wrong person)). The infrastructure fund has been collected from DNS registration, as well as current funding for IP allocations. Since NSI has no responsibility to continue funding this function after their agreement expires next year, this subsidy is going to go away no matter how much it would be nice for ISP's if it didn't. It is just a cost of doing business. ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Mon May 5 09:19:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:19:01 -0500 Subject: Funding IP Allocations Message-ID: <01BC592C.FD7B98A0@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, May 04, 1997 10:16 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 4 May 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > When you receive that information, I think that @ > you will see that there are plans underway to @ > make use of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure @ > Fund [1] which now has plenty of money. @ > @ > [1] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html @ > @ > ...through March 31, 1997, $20,560,000.00 has been deposited into the account. @ @ Cute...is there some reason a small chunk of this money can't be used to @ get ARIN started up and financially stable so registration fees can start @ out at a reasonable level rather than start high and eventually @ (supposedly) get lower? Starting a new business guaranteed to at least @ break even in year 1 is a nice idea...I'd certainly like to do it...but @ it's usually unreasonable. There's money here that can be used to @ subsidize ARIN until registration fees keep ARIN in the black. @ @ This page states: @ During the period September 14, 1995 through December 31, 1996, there have @ been no disbursements from the account. @ @ What happened since December? Did some of the money already go somewhere? @ Where? @ @ ------------------------------------------------------------------ @ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will @ Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. @ ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ @ @ @ According to one of the letters from the National Science Foundation, they view ARIN as a separate venture. It is my understanding that NSI is funding and staffing ARIN. The NSF is evidently planning on setting up an organization with the fund to help provide continuity of the Cooperative Agreement that creates the non-company called the InterNIC. The InterNIC is of course: NSF - management managing three companies: IS - NSI (replaced GA) DS - AT&T RS - NSI If NSI wants out, the NSF can fund a replacement with the money that was set aside. Unfortunately, all of the money was not collected by NSI so the fund is not as endowed as it should be. Despite that, the fund certainly has enough money to help pay for some infrastructure that the "IS company" was supposed to help create. No new infrastructure has ever been created. The NSF did not demand that the terms of the Cooperative Agreement be followed. The NSF has mismanaged the InterNIC. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Mon May 5 09:30:05 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:30:05 -0500 Subject: Funding IP Allocations Message-ID: <01BC592E.89AE4B00@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, May 04, 1997 10:16 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 4 May 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > When you receive that information, I think that @ > you will see that there are plans underway to @ > make use of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure @ > Fund [1] which now has plenty of money. @ > @ > [1] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html @ > @ > ...through March 31, 1997, $20,560,000.00 has been deposited into the account. @ @ Cute...is there some reason a small chunk of this money can't be used to @ get ARIN started up and financially stable so registration fees can start @ out at a reasonable level rather than start high and eventually @ (supposedly) get lower? Starting a new business guaranteed to at least @ break even in year 1 is a nice idea...I'd certainly like to do it...but @ it's usually unreasonable. There's money here that can be used to @ subsidize ARIN until registration fees keep ARIN in the black. @ @ This page states: @ During the period September 14, 1995 through December 31, 1996, there have @ been no disbursements from the account. @ @ What happened since December? Did some of the money already go somewhere? @ Where? @ @ ------------------------------------------------------------------ @ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will @ Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. @ ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ @ @ @ Please note that things move very slowly at the National Science Foundation (NSF). As noted below, it could take 18 months to prepare a budget.[1] Despite the snail's pace they have in decision-making it is important to let the people in charge know that the Registry Industry continues to develop and the longer the U.S. Government blocks the entry of the new registries into the Root Name Servers they control, the longer this industry will take to reach the U.S. taxpayers. The recent packets sent out by the National Science Foundation seem to indicate that the Internet Registry Industry issues are now being handled by Joseph Bordogna, the Deputy Director of the NSF. In the one of the letters that Mr. Bordogna sent, he indicates that the NSF is working with NSI to develop a new non-profit company to continue the InterNIC and this company will be funded with the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund which currently has over $20,000,000 [2] from domain registration "taxes". This will apparently allow NSI to go off and compete with other TLD registries. It is interesting that NSF is considering funding a NEW company, using the Internet taxes collected, so that the previous company can be free to compete using the market share it developed with the millions of dollars that the NSF provided to it as seed capital. At some point this budget cycle has to be broken. With an 18 month preparation period it is clear that decisions made today may not have an impact for a long time. As a result of that, the NSF appears to resort to its own tax and spend cycle that it controls. It is a shame that the people and companies being taxed do not seem to have much input to how those taxes are being spent. Maybe if people let the people at the NSF know that this process is not helping the Internet, is damaging businesses, and is eventually going to require that NSF budgets be cut by Congress, then these people will start to become more responsive and responsible for their actions Here are the people to contact: National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Joseph Bordogna - jbordogn at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov [1] @@@@@ http://www.cise.nsf.gov/general/budget/budget_caveat.html "CISE budgets, along with budgets for the rest of NSF, are the result of months of negotiation within NSF and then between NSF and the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These negotiations (which are not public) culminate in a set of numbers and accompanying verbiage for Fiscal Year 1996 (as an example year), which is submitted along with budgets for all of the Executive Branch, generally in the January before the Fiscal Year (January 1995, in the case of the Fiscal Year 1996 budget), from the President to Congress. The submission to Congress is public, and is the material which you find here on the CISE web pages. <...> So there is potentially up to 18 months between the writing of CISE' budgetary plans, and the completion of the budgetary process. When you read the CISE budgetary language on the CISE Web pages, please keep that in mind." @@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy1998/cise.htm LEVEL OF FUNDING BY SUBACTIVITY AND PROGRAM (Dollars in Thousands) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHANGE FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 98 Req/FY 97 CP ACTUAL REQUEST CURRENT PLAN REQUEST AMOUNT PERCENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NETWORKING AND COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE NSFNET 42,233 44,140 42,740 47,740 5,000 11.7% Networking & Communications Research Project Support 12,803 12,950 12,950 14,520 1,570 12.1% ---------------------------------------------------------- Total 55,036 57,090 55,690 62,260 6,570 11.8% ---------------------------------------------------------- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ [2] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html ...through February 28, 1997: $17,397,321.00 has been desposited into the account. ...through March 31, 1997, $20,560,000.00 has been deposited into the account @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ $20,560,000 -$17,397,321 ------------------- $3,162,679 = 30% of $10,542,263 ============================================= -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From justin at EROLS.COM Mon May 5 13:56:15 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 13:56:15 -0400 Subject: Is ARIN's Job Easy ? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970505135549.00f9ea40@justin.erols.com> Hmm, wow, an email I sent almost a year ago. (I know, if I happened to change my mind over the course of the past year, I am obviously part of the EvilInternetCabal(tm)). That being said... You are once again pulling things out of context (I was /wondering/ why I said that). Congratulations on another successful job of obfuscating meaning. The full post is included below, and I believe that you can see from the context that I was talking about submitting IP allocation requests, not the act of checking the allocations. Once again, nice try Jim, do you care to try again? Justin "My web browser works" Newton > At 11:26 AM 6/17/96 -0600, you wrote: > >David M. Graves of NSI has agreed to come to ONE ISPCON in August > >specifically to meet with ISP's on these issues. I think it's one of the > >central issues on the net today. We're also interested in basic > >information about IP address/CIDR assignments and issues, and basic ASN > >registration procedures. > > > >Jack Rickard > > ASN registration is pretty simple. I wouldn't worry about that end of > things. A good understanding of IP allocation and CIDR takes a little more > understanding though (although not a heeck of a lot). I talk which covered > the whole range from ASN registration all the way through swipping and IP > allocation requests would be quite a nice talk for many people though. Kim, > isn't this more or less your ball of wax? Yes, this is more or less my ball of wax :-) Kim At 01:18 AM 5/3/97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: > >Is IP address allocation difficult or not ? > >@@@@@ http://www.scomm.net/inet-access/1996-06/msg01745.html > >> ASN registration is pretty simple. I wouldn't worry about that end of >> things. A good understanding of IP allocation and CIDR takes a little more >> understanding though (although not a heeck of a lot). > >> Justin Newton >> Internet Architect >> Erol's Internet Services > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > >What does "not a heck of a lot" mean ? > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation >http://www.Unir.Corp > >Check out...http://Register.A.Mall > > > > Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org From JimFleming at unety.net Mon May 5 13:34:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 12:34:19 -0500 Subject: Is ARIN's Job Easy ? Message-ID: <01BC5950.A7D2D840@webster.unety.net> On Monday, May 05, 1997 12:56 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ Hmm, wow, an email I sent almost a year ago. (I know, if I happened to @ change my mind over the course of the past year, I am obviously part of the @ EvilInternetCabal(tm)). @ @ That being said... You are once again pulling things out of context (I was @ /wondering/ why I said that). Congratulations on another successful job of @ obfuscating meaning. The full post is included below, and I believe that @ you can see from the context that I was talking about submitting IP @ allocation requests, not the act of checking the allocations. Once again, @ nice try Jim, do you care to try again? @ So the "checking" is the hard part of the job.... Can you describe what is being checked ? Who is doing the checking ? What are their qualifications for checking ? What are their methods for checking ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From justin at EROLS.COM Mon May 5 14:00:20 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 14:00:20 -0400 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970505140018.01012ab0@justin.erols.com> At 07:05 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: > >Of course Mr. Dillon does not sit around and >do that at night. He sold his interest in his ISP. >He cashed out. > >@@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/board/michael.html > >"After selling his share in the ISP business at the end >of 1996, Michael continued to share his knowledge on >these mailing lists to help ensure that the independent >ISP industry is a strong and vibrant one. He now acts >as an ISP and Internet consultant." > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Actually, Jim, Michael and I are about to be involved in a venture together (along with a few others). Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org From JimFleming at unety.net Mon May 5 13:44:42 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 12:44:42 -0500 Subject: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline... Message-ID: <01BC5952.1B4DB8C0@webster.unety.net> On Monday, May 05, 1997 1:00 PM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at erols.com] wrote: @ At 07:05 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ >Of course Mr. Dillon does not sit around and @ >do that at night. He sold his interest in his ISP. @ >He cashed out. @ > @ >@@@@@ http://www.ispc.org/board/michael.html @ > @ >"After selling his share in the ISP business at the end @ >of 1996, Michael continued to share his knowledge on @ >these mailing lists to help ensure that the independent @ >ISP industry is a strong and vibrant one. He now acts @ >as an ISP and Internet consultant." @ > @ >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ Actually, Jim, Michael and I are about to be involved in a venture together @ (along with a few others). @ @ Justin Newton @ Network Architect @ Erol's Internet Services http://www.erols.com @ ISP/C Director at Large http://www.ispc.org @ @ Sounds good... Maybe you could pioneer the IP Allocation Registry Industry. I bet there are some "qualified" people that you could hire that would love to work in the private sector as opposed to the U.S. Government. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Mon May 5 19:21:33 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 18:21:33 -0500 Subject: NEWDOM: Re: Funding IP Allocations In-Reply-To: <199705050752.AA267378777@martigny.ai.mit.edu> References: from "Jon Lewis" at May 5, 97 03:16:52 am Message-ID: At 2:52 AM -0500 5/5/97, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > >The current fee structure is based on estimates of a two million dollar >yearly budget and using current allocation parameters. And before people >jump in and start screaming about the budget amount. It is currently an >estimate and a real one will be presented as one is prepared. I will note >that a then very anti-ARIN list member tried to do an independent budget >and came up with about $2 million do to a quality job. I don't know if he >is a supporter or not now, but I don't think he believes the budget is >unreasonable. (I think it was Stephen Satchell (I am sorry if I massacred >the spelling of your name or got the wrong person)). Right person, right spelling. Gold star, Phil. As for my orientation, I was never "Anti-ARIN", just concerned about the size of the fee for membership and for registration. Still am in the case of the former. In the case of address registration, I'm in favor of doing what happens all the time: let the people who directly benefit from the service pay for the service. No subsidy. > >The infrastructure fund has been collected from DNS registration, as well >as current funding for IP allocations. Since NSI has no responsibility to >continue funding this function after their agreement expires next year, >this subsidy is going to go away no matter how much it would be nice for >ISP's if it didn't. It is just a cost of doing business. Any time you have a manager of a "scarce resource" there will be costs involved. Those costs will be passed on to the ultimate user. The idea is to keep the costs as small as possible without compromising quality to an excessive degree. This is why I'm one of the people asking to see a straw-man budget, so (because this is "ours") we can see how the money is currently earmarked. Satch --- Stephen Satchell,{Satchell Evaluations, Motorola ISG} http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From davidc at APNIC.NET Tue May 6 03:39:32 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 16:39:32 +0900 Subject: Funding IP Allocations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 May 1997 03:16:52 -0400." Message-ID: <199705060739.QAA03405@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [cc'd reduced] Hi, >is there some reason a small chunk of this money can't be used to >get ARIN started up and financially stable so registration fees can start >out at a reasonable level rather than start high and eventually >(supposedly) get lower? One concern I've heard expressed is that since the money was not exclusively derived from ARIN service area sources that it would be inappropriate to use that money to promote a service that would be used only for the ARIN service area. Note that I do not necessarily agree with this reasoning. Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Tue May 6 10:29:03 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:29:03 -0500 Subject: Funding IP Allocations Message-ID: <01BC59FF.F0FD5CC0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, May 06, 1997 2:39 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: @ [cc'd reduced] @ @ Hi, @ @ >is there some reason a small chunk of this money can't be used to @ >get ARIN started up and financially stable so registration fees can start @ >out at a reasonable level rather than start high and eventually @ >(supposedly) get lower? @ @ One concern I've heard expressed is that since the money was not @ exclusively derived from ARIN service area sources that it would be @ inappropriate to use that money to promote a service that would be @ used only for the ARIN service area. @ @ Note that I do not necessarily agree with this reasoning. @ I agree with David. Domain name registration fees were not just for domain name services. This has been a recent "spin" developed by people that want to try to walk off with the lucrative parts of the InterNIC while leaving the other jobs behind. This also goes back to the efforts to split IP allocations and domain name registrations to make sure that certain people have long-term jobs and do not have to work with each other. In my opinion, the Internet is too large and too precious a resource to be structuring the future agencies based on individual people's personal goals and personalities as of 1997. The InterNIC future should also be independent of companies' plans to cash out with IPOs. It now appears that the NSF is trying to structure a situation where something like the InterNIC remains and is funded with the $20,000,000. This will allow all of the private parties that want "out" of the InterNIC to go pursue their agendas in the private sector. The question still remains about assets. As private parties depart from the U.S. Government, they may prefer to quietly take assets with them to launch their businesses, but this is not allowed by law. In my opinion, blocks of IPv4 addresses are an asset and have a known market value. If ARIN intends to use a /8 block, they should plan on buying it from BBN or the U.S. Government or someone that is willing to sell one. If this does not occur, then everyone that wants a /8 to launch something similar to ARIN will be lined up at the InterNIC's door, demanding their /8. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From davidc at APNIC.NET Wed May 7 02:22:53 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 15:22:53 +0900 Subject: Funding IP Allocations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 May 1997 09:29:03 EST." <01BC59FF.F0FD5CC0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199705070622.PAA09476@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Amusing. No Jimmy, you don't agree with me, but nice try at twisting my words. Don't suppose you'd care to expand on your (typical) childish insinuations (highlighted below)? You have insinuated criminal and unethical behavior numerous times, yet cowardly, you never seem to be able to come out and make your accusations explicit. Could it be because you know your insinuations are pure bullshit and you're afraid of the the slander/libel lawsuits that would follow? Let's try it in classical Flem style: Who are "certain people" mentioned below ? Who would "individual people's" make reference to ? Who are "private parties" ? (only three, my stomach can take only so much) Regards, -drc ------- ... >This also goes back to the efforts to split IP allocations >and domain name registrations to make sure that >certain people have long-term jobs and do not have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to work with each other. > >In my opinion, the Internet is too large and too precious >a resource to be structuring the future agencies based >on individual people's personal goals and personalities ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >as of 1997. The InterNIC future should also be independent >of companies' plans to cash out with IPOs. > >It now appears that the NSF is trying to structure a >situation where something like the InterNIC remains >and is funded with the $20,000,000. This will allow >all of the private parties that want "out" of the InterNIC ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to go pursue their agendas in the private sector. > >The question still remains about assets. As private ^^^^^^^ >parties depart from the U.S. Government, they may ^^^^^^^ >prefer to quietly take assets with them to launch >their businesses, but this is not allowed by law. ....[pointless drivel deleted]... From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri May 9 00:13:53 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: No subject Message-ID: Some of you may be interested in reading a report released April 15th by Industry Canada entitled "Repatriate Internet Protocol Registration - A Feasibility Report" http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/cgi-bin/dec/wwwfetch?/sgml/it03371e_pr115.sgml A brief quote from the executive summary follows: The report finds that the economic cost of a Canadian IP registry would be high. Construction, or set-up costs would exceed $100,000, while the registry would probably suffer an operating loss, after deduction of fees to its users, of approximately $400,000 in its first year of operation. These costs would need to be absorbed by the Canadian ISPs, or passed on to customers. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush From JimFleming at unety.net Sun May 11 22:16:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 21:16:32 -0500 Subject: ARIN Funding ? Message-ID: <01BC5E50.9A90B260@webster.unety.net> @@@@ 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." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall