Gratuitous assertions [Was: Re: Let us all bend over, apply the Vaseline...]

[Paul Ferguson]

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