- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

ARIN meeting virtual attendance
by jlewis＠lewis.org 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

As is pretty clear from recent threads, there are ARIN members who, for whatever reasons, don't or can't attend the public meetings, but would like to have some input into ARIN's policies as well as voice their concerns over the current state of ARIN <-> member interaction. Since we're a relatively high-tech group, has anyone ever looked into what it takes to setup virtual attendance? i.e. I'm guessing a good number of network operators have either participated DoveBid's auctions (getting the network and office goodies at auction from your failed telecom competitors) or know people who have. I've personally been to these both in person and virtually. In virtual mode, you get to listen in on the auction and speak when necessary (i.e. to bid). With a bit of hardware, I bet this could even be done with VOIP, removing the need for anyone (ARIN or the members) to pay for the long distance calls for virtual attenders. I don't know what hardware/software is involved in this (i.e. what DoveBid uses), but IIRC, ARIN does have several million in the bank. What better way to spend our money than to facilitate member participation? I think this would be a great way to get more member participation at the meetings...and (for personal reasons) it's the only way I can see myself getting to a meeting in the near future. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis(a)lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

5 6

RE: Independent space from ARIN
by Dave Israel 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

On 4/14/2003 at 17:27:20 -0400, Brandon Ross said: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Dave Israel wrote: > > > There's a lot more available real estate than available v4 address > > space. That's the biggest one. > > Is there? How much address space would be available if it were utilized > efficiently by everyone? Once you put a price tag on it, organizations > become the models of efficiency in utilization. If you can use NAT, you > will, if you can't, you'll only assign unique addresses to > users/applications that absolutly require it. If you don't like those > options, maybe you'll move to v6. I just don't see a problem here. Ah, but when you buy address space, are you going to be happy about giving it back when you change providers? Will the provider give you a fair price on selling it back? Do you think sales departments won't insist you buy their address space when you connect? And if you can keep it, it makes the routing table more and more interesting. > > Second, groups that make the Internet go aren't necessarily the ones who > > can afford the address space. > > If they can't afford the address space, there's a very good chance it's > because they are inefficient and they should be done away with. Besides, > I just don't see address space being prohibitively expensive on an open > market, as a previous poster pointed out, only a minority of address space > is currently announced in the Internet. I'd bet at least half of that > isn't used at all, and I'd bet another half of that is unnecessary. That's a pretty brash thing to say on Merit's mail server. Much of the research and coordination of the Internet is done by research groups and universities. It isn't inefficiency that keeps their available cash for address space down; it is the nature of their business. > > But really, you just need the first one: small space. The relatively > > small pool means that a large company with lots of money could buy the > > whole ARIN chunk of the Internet. > > There are a large number of organizations with more addres space than they > need. The chances of any one company buying all the address space and > then just sitting on it are nil. Why would their investors allow them to > sit on a asset and not make any income on it? They would have to compete > with the likes of GE, ATT, MIT, and Genuity for sales of the address space > they already hold. Who said they would just sit on it? Why not make the Internet now "The Internet, Brought To You By Company X?" You need Company X's address space, so you have to provide Company X's services on Company X's operating system? It's this kind of thing that keeps areas of the radio spectrum licensed by the government. -Dave

4 3

Lata 670 connections
by Dan Hollis 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

Anyone bandwidth providers able to sell bandwidth over qwest ATM in lata 670? Please drop me a line. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

1 0

Force 10 gear
by Dr. Mosh 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

Anyone have or work with Force 10 gear and have an opinion? Specifically on their L3 routing like BGP, OSPF, etc. Replies offline please. -D

1 0

Re: Independent space from ARIN
by Dave Israel 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

On 4/14/2003 at 18:13:35 -0500, Stephen Sprunk said: > Thus spake "Dave Israel" <davei(a)algx.net> > > That's a pretty brash thing to say on Merit's mail server. Much of > > the research and coordination of the Internet is done by research > > groups and universities. It isn't inefficiency that keeps their > > available cash for address space down; it is the nature of their > > business. > > While I'm sure we all value Merit's contributions to the Internet, both past > and present, you cannot seriously believe they are even remotely efficient > in their use of 35/8 -- nor can one expect them to be without financial > incentive. What boggles my mind is they managed to get allocated another > 668,424 addresses in CIDR land -- do a whois and see for yourself. I didn't say their usage was efficient; what I was expressing was the fear that they would have to go away entirely, in the face of companies with tons of cash buying into what was suddenly an unregulated pool of precious limited commodity that requires no maintenance or upkeep. > > It's this kind of thing that keeps areas of the radio spectrum > > licensed by the government. > > And the govt licenses that spectrum to the highest bidder, plus allows > owners to sell spectrum to each other as assets. Pretending the RIRs are > even remotely similar is disingenuous. (*sigh*) I guess I should have been more specific. When I said "areas of the radio spectrum," I was referring to the areas that were set apart before anybody learned how to get arbitrary amounts of bandwidth in a very small range. Specifically, the frequencies on your FM dial are meted out by the FCC, and while they, like ARIN, find a way to make gobs of dough off of it, they also make sure the usage is reasonably fair among the users and that the public airwaves are not excessively abused. While we can surely find flaws in both the FCC and in ARIN, that does not mean the work they do does not benefit the users of their domain immensely.

1 0

RE: Independent space from ARIN
by Kris Foster 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

> > Was this tongue in cheek? > > Nope. > > > I am not an economist, but this is a sure fire way to > destroy the internet > > as we know it today. > > Why is this so hard to believe? Real estate is mostly a free > market, and > that seems to perform pretty well for the most part. How is > address space > that different? Please explain how you believe this would destroy the > internet. There is a finite amount of IPv4 address space. If you recall the spectrum auctions of years past, only the ultra-wealthy become owners of it. The only good thing that would come of it, would be forcing everyone to transition to IPv6. Kris

3 2

RE: Independent space from ARIN
by Dave Israel 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

On 4/14/2003 at 16:33:34 -0400, Brandon Ross said: > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Kris Foster wrote: > > > Was this tongue in cheek? > > Nope. > > > I am not an economist, but this is a sure fire way to destroy the internet > > as we know it today. > > Why is this so hard to believe? Real estate is mostly a free market, and > that seems to perform pretty well for the most part. How is address space > that different? Please explain how you believe this would destroy the > internet. There's a lot more available real estate than available v4 address space. That's the biggest one. Second, groups that make the Internet go aren't necessarily the ones who can afford the address space. Third, there's no root owner of the address space, so who is going to sell it? But really, you just need the first one: small space. The relatively small pool means that a large company with lots of money could buy the whole ARIN chunk of the Internet. Speculators would probably buy address space and leave it unused, much like they do for domain names. Address space would have to be bought and sold on arbitrary borders, resulting in massive fragmentation of the tables. On the good side, address-based lawsuits would revitalize our flagging litigous economy ;-) And I agree with what others are saying: It would kick IPv6 into high gear. I'm not sure that's a good thing, however. -Dave

5 4

RE: Independent space from ARIN
by Kris Foster 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

Was this tongue in cheek? I am not an economist, but this is a sure fire way to destroy the internet as we know it today. Kris > -----Original Message----- > From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@sockeye.com] > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 4:20 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Independent space from ARIN > > > > The solution to the problems posted in this thread about ARIN > is fairly > simple. It's time to deregulate the IP address market and > convert to a > free market approach to allocating IP addresses. If address > space could > be bought and sold on a free market you would no longer have > to justify > your address space to anyone, saving untold amount of > resources and costs > pulling these reports together. Of course, address space wouldn't be > wasted the way it is today by organizations that hoard it, or > by companies > that go out of business because it would make sound financial sense to > sell what you don't need. > > ARIN (and the other registries as well) could still exist and > function as > a central repository (think of a title registry) of > information about the > current ownership of address blocks. > > -- > Brandon Ross > AIM: BrandonNR > VP Operations > ICQ: 2269442 > Sockeye Networks > > >

5 5

Cisco Support for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks
by Sean Donelan 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

What are service providers doing concerning lawful intercept support in their networks? Fred Baker, et al published an internet draft this month (April 2003) containing a lawful intercept architecture. http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-slem-architecture-00.… Has anyone gotten a real set of requirements from the FBI for lawful intercept in IP Networks? Would Cisco's proposed architecture work, or just result in buying more cisco equipment?

1 0

RE: Independent space from ARIN [wandering further OT]
by Mike Damm 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@sockeye.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:51 PM To: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Independent space from ARIN > > Overbuilding office space in San Francisco doesn't *usually* cause real > > estate issues in Tokyo. > > I must be missing your point because I don't see how that's relevant. > Think of the 69/8 space as being out in the middle of nowhere (due to the > bogon filters). It's cheap land but it comes with it's problems. If you > invest in it, you can increase it's value, if you don't want to, buy the > more expensive downtown property. And everything goes the way of the domain market. You mistype a .3 as a .4 and end up at some porn site! Or worse yet, Silicon Valley startups are building business models around peddling vanity IPs such as 69.69.69.69 and 4.2.2.4 on eBay. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research & Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: miked(a)irwinresearch.com

1 0