- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: ARINANOG
by Jim Fleming 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

On Saturday, March 29, 1997 9:34 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders @ > quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and @ > U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what @ > other people do when they want to start a business. @ @ (a) Some of the proposed founders *WILL* be quitting their comfortable @ jobs to go work at ARIN. @ Who ? When ? Those questions were never answered ? @ (b) "venture capital". Almost nobody (except for very small mom&pop @ operations on the low end) starts a business totally on their own funds. @ Why should this be any different? @ Venture capitalists are going to look for a 10x return in a 12 month period. ARIN proposes to be cost based and non-profit. VCs might not be interested in that. Again, why don't all the people that want to see ARIN happen fund the thing and then ARIN can line up for one /8 and if they make that work, they can get another. Why does ARIN "assume" that the InterNIC's resources are its resources ? Air Force pilots do not take their jets with them when they leave the military. Also, these concerns about ARIN helping to safeguard against lawsuits brought against the InterNIC for domain names are pure FUD. In fact, just the opposite situation exists. I would be MORE concerned about ARIN getting shut down by the DOJ or the IRS than about the InterNIC being shut down because the InterNIC is the NSF + AT&T + NSI. I think that I would trust that AT&T's lawyers, NSI's lawyers and the NSF's lawyers could keep the InterNIC going much longer than ARIN could withstand a challenge. Besides, if ARIN is cost-based and the "members" pay the costs then a loawsuit or charges brought against ARIN could become very expensive for the members. Special fees or taxes might be needed to keep ARIN solvent through a challenge. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

1 0

ARINANOG
by Jim Fleming 30 Mar '97

30 Mar '97

[1] As a reminder, there is an ARIN mailing list available from http://www.arin.net. [2] I hope that this NANOG discussion gets reflected on the ARIN mailing list because some people may be following that list and may falsely conclude that the "Internet community" supports ARIN with "broad consensus" when in fact they have not really seen the discussions about ARIN which are held on other lists, in other meetings, in Hong Kong, etc. [3] The reasons for creating ARIN have nothing to do with the words reflected in the ARIN proposal. This nonsense about DNS funding IP and vice versa are not the core issues any more than an ISP debating how dial-up subsidizes leased lines or vice versa. [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what other people do when they want to start a business. Before doing that, why don't the founders get ISPs to sign subscription agreements agreeing to fund the enterprise and therefore money will not be an issue because the companies that sign up will fund the effort. In fact, some of the people on NANOG claim that people are always throwing money at them. Why don't those people step forward to bank-roll ARIN ? [5] Once ARIN is launched, why doesn't ARIN petition the NSF/InterNIC/IANA for a /8 to manage ? Given that some people think that ARIN is such a great idea, this should not take long, especially if the "right" people are on the ARIN board of directors. [6] If NANOG members think that ARIN is such a great idea why not just pull the activity into NANOG and call the thing ARINANOG and get on with it ? @@@@ http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02405.html Re: ARIN is A Good Thing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .To: "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)MERIT.EDU> .Subject: Re: ARIN is A Good Thing .From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> .Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:54:54 -0800 .In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:11:16 MST." <01IH23Y6AYGG8WW0FK(a)ACES.COM> .Sender: owner-nanog(a)MERIT.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ehud wrote: > With no offense to Internic, IANA, Jon, or Jbb. If I have to pay the > Internic (and I do) [1] and they can also support IP (and they do) [2] > and come out $60M black (they do!) then they can damn well fund their [3] > own damn program to assign the [4] goddamned addresses without billing me. I added the [#] notations above so I could comment in detail. [1] you do not have to pay the InterNIC -- there's always .US, and once IAHC's proposal gets going, you will be able to select among other alternatives as well (and my expectation is that .COM et al will become a shared gTLD in 1998). [2] you're right that they support IP, but remember the golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules. Leaving InterNIC to support this means that they (InterNIC rather than Kim personally or any ISP) get to decide _how_ they support it. They don't presently have to do anything you agree with. [3] it's not their program, it was NSF's program most recently, and believe me when I tell you that you don't WANT it to be "InterNIC's program". Finally, [4] to assign is to assert some form of ownership. I'd much rather see the ISP's, with Kim continuing as coordinator reporting a board of ISP "regents", assign and therefore assert ownership of, the address pool. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ As for the rest of the Registry Industry, there is a lot of work still to be done. As companies develop Internet Infrastructure and Registry Industry Infrastructure some of them will become likely candidates to take over parts of the IPv4 address space for management purposes. This will help to spread some of the administrative costs around and will ensure more fair and equitable policies. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

2 1

let's just have one mailing list
by Paul A Vixie 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy to: nobody(a)vix.com reply-to: nobody(a)vix.com Subject: let's just have one mailing list Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:14:17 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <vixie(a)wisdom.home.vix.com> why on earth do we have a nanog list that's separate from spam-list that's separate from spam-list? clearly all discussions on any topic belong on all three lists -- otherwise why would we consistently see: cc: spam-list(a)psc.edu, nanog(a)merit.edu, spam(a)zorch.sf-bay.org i'm receiving multiple copies of this stuff since i'm on all three lists. can't we just coalesce all three lists, and the other 20,000 mailing lists on the internet, onto one? we could call it net.general(a)ihnp4.uucp and just put everybody on the internet onto it. then noone would ever miss out on an interesting discussion that takes place on a list that they are not on. not being on a mailing list is clearly an error, and if someone happens to prefer not being on a list since they don't want to hear about the topic of that list, they are clearly confused since lists don't have topics, right? i'm especially worried about the fact that there is a NAIPR list for ARIN discussions and that not all NANOG messages are -- yet -- automatically CC'd to it. can the postmaster(a)merit.edu please automatically CC all NANOG messages to all known mailing lists to correct this obvious problem? (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.) ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

1 0

Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet (fwd)
by Jim Carroll 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:08:44 -0500 > From: Jonathan Clark <jhc(a)lynxhub.att.com> > To: spam-list(a)psc.edu, nanog(a)merit.edu, spam(a)zorch.sf-bay.org > Subject: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet > > AT&T Worldnet announces that starting Monday, March 31 1997, > it will be taking action to stop email from non-AT&T Worldnet > account holders being relayed through its servers. > > We have reserved the right to treat such mail any way we deem appropriate, > which may include deleting it without notification to the originator. > > Please address any questions about this policy to abuse(a)worldnet.att.net. This should really be treated as a warning message to mail administrators everywhere. If you have not already implemented mail-relay blocking, you should think seriously about adding it now. When AT&T starts the filtering, those senders "hijacking" AT&T mail servers will go searching for alterate servers; sort of like rats fleeing an abandoned warehouse that is now being renovated. --- Jim C., President | C A R R O L L - N E T, Inc. 201-488-1332 voice | New Jersey's Premier Internet Service Provider 201-487-5717 dialup | http://www.carroll.com | Ask about our Business Web Services

1 0

ARIN mail
by Jonathan Heiliger 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

i apologize for further increasing the S/N of this list.. but I believe the 'naipr(a)arin.net' list was created to focus on ARIN discussions, among other things. as we all know, NANOG's charter is defined in murky terms, but why continue a retorical debate on two lists? thanks. -jh- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 14:12 PST From: Michael Gersten <michael(a)stb.info.com> To: JimFleming(a)unety.net, naipr(a)arin.net Cc: ckuehn(a)NSF.GOV, gstrawn(a)NSF.GOV, lsundro(a)NSF.GOV, nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: ARINANOG Jim raises an extremely good point. Why not start ARIN off by giving it a /8 to work with and see how well it will actually work? Lets face it, there is only ONE /0, and giving that to ARIN might not be a good idea if it doesn't work right. By giving them a /8, they will have to compete with other ways of assigning IP addresses, and demonstrate that they actually can work. Just like a would-be ISP has to start with a /24 and work up... Michael

1 0

Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
by Scott Bradner 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

-- Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to screw around with mail that you have accepted for delivery. -- spammers bill of rights? kinda don't think that would have been the aim. Scott

2 1

RE: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah.
by Jim Fleming 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

On Saturday, March 29, 1997 5:49 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote: @ @ > I for one like the idea of ARIN. It's the pricing structure that is @ > compleatly wrong. The structure will create a market for companies to @ > "lease" large quantities for address space from ARIN, and then "sublease" @ > them cheaper than ARIN it self. You may claim you can not sell address @ > space but we have all seen it happen. @ @ I'm not claiming that ARIN is perfect and that it will instantly solve all @ problems. But I do believe that it will be far more responsive to the @ industry than the Internic could be. And if enough ISP's join ARIN and @ come up with a better funding/pricing scheme then I believe it *CAN* @ be implemented. The fundamental feature of ARIN is that it will be @ responsive to the needs of those organizations who use IP address space. @ It's just a first step in the right direction, not the ultimate goal. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com @ @ @ If more companies had been allowed to develop more Registry Industy Infrastructure during the past 18 months, rather than debate how many IAHCs or ARINs can dance on the head of a pin, then we would all be much further, at least here in the U.S. As companies come up to speed in the Registry Industry they will be natural candidates to help take over some of the InterNIC duties. IP allocations are only one aspect of those duties. Some companies may not choose to get into that activity, other companies might start there. Again, why don't the people chomping at the bit to form ARIN, just do it ? Once they do they can stand in line with the other ISPs to obtain an IP allocation which they can then use to provide "services" to fund themselves. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

1 0

RE: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah.
by Jim Fleming 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

On Saturday, March 29, 1997 5:09 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Matthew Pearson wrote: @ <snip> @ @ I don't understand why so many people want to push these ideas to reductio @ ad absurdum. We all rely on a cooperative network in order to support our @ businesses. Without a cooperative network there is no industry and we @ would all be out of work. Why can you not see that ARIN is just another @ form of cooperation in keeping the network running smoothly so that we can @ all get on with business. As the network gets bigger there are more and @ more activities that it makes sense to carve out and run autonomously. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com @ @ @ Yes Michael...you never seem to understand... Maybe the reason is that some people rely on MORE than just a cooperative network to support their businesses. They rely on cooperative communities, they rely on cooperative governments, and they rely on cooperative companies to provide jobs, etc. For a person tucked away in a cabin in the woods in Canada without a TV and without contact with urban areas, you may not be able to understand. Unfortunately, many of the people in the real world have different challenges that face them each day, because of that they have different solutions than the ones you dream up. Have you considered that people DO understand that ARIN is "just another form of cooperation", but the problem is it is a cooperation of people that are out of touch with the needs of the real world ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

1 0

Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
by Jonathan Clark 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

> Any email...even regular questions/replies....I think specific > types of email would be more appropriate..."spam","obscene" etc. I read it as clearly stating that _any_ mail (not limited to spam or obscene, etc.) being relayed (not to or from an AT&T Worldnet customer) will not be delivered by AT&T Worldnet's mail servers. ``We have reserved the right to treat such mail any way we deem appropriate,''. This may include actually delivering it, but in the vast majority of cases I do not expect the mail to reach its intended destination(s). We will be keeping statistics and I hope to be able to present these in some public forum in due course. Jonathan

2 1

Re: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. (fwd)
by epg＠corp.home.net 29 Mar '97

29 Mar '97

Forwarded message:

1 0