- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: since my name was mentioned (was Re: The Mother of all Solutions)
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 8:00 PM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote: @ > If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog), @ > decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to @ > it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or @ > be able to change it. @ @ That's what we already have. IANA is in charge because the people who own @ the physical plant -- that's the multinationals, larger nationals, government, @ military, and other gigantic users -- think IANA is a good solution for the @ time being. IANA delegates its address assignment authority to registries @ (RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN/InterNIC) whose operational guidelines are set by and @ reviewed by open forums made up of the people to whom addresses are allocated, @ with some oversight/assistance from IETF. @ TRANSLATION: The "big boys" support the status quo...that's not surprising... @ If the people who own the physical plant were to somehow jointly decide that @ some other system would work better for them, then that other system would be @ in place (or die trying) pretty much instantaneously, with no relevant @ fighting. (It's worth noting that confusion over the ownership of the @ physical plant is what makes Karl, Eugene, and Jim try to do what they're @ trying to do with ".", but it's probably not worth discussing over again.) @ TRANSLATION: If a whole bunch of average people make a change in unison, then no one, including the "big boys", can stop them... <snip - Root Name Server operational error story> @ > Let me know if I've left something out. @ @ What you've left out is that the model of Internet self governance has been @ in use since before the U.S. Military thought it had allowed such, and is in @ use now even though it looks rather autocratic to someone who does not know @ from whence IANA and RIPE/APNIC/ARIN derive their relevance. @ @ TRANSLATION: The status quo is based on years of momentum... as well as U.S. Government and DOD support... ...again, not surprising... @@@@@@@@ Alternate Viewpoint... The Internet will never be significantly changed by the people in power. Only the collective will of the people can result in changes. To make changes you have to be open to change. Change for the sake of change is not good. Change for the sake of ensuring that governments and small autocratic societies do not dominate the mediums IS good. Change to allow people of all sexes, sizes, shapes, ages, races, religions, sexual preferences, etc. and viewpoints IS good. The U.S. Government's blockade of new participants in the Internet will eventually end and history will show that thousands of hours were spent with one small group supporting the status quo and another large group advocating an open, fair and level playing field. The Internet will be used to reinvent itself and the few "big boys" will play no significant role other than to provide mass for the blockade which will be lifted by the vary government that paid to have it installed...that lifting is happening as NANOG sleeps...;-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

re: class B for sale
by Brett L. Hawn 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

So that I'm not misunderstood let me say this: 1: I do not neccessarily agree with the sale of IPs, personally, I don't think its a good idea 2: This is a real world economy now, outdated academic practices which are currently being enforced are as wrong as the sale of IPs. 3: Wether you, ARIN, or anyone else likes it or not, IPs are for all intents and purposes a resellable commodity, otherwise ARIN et all can (ala Jim Flemming) be called on as being a Monopoly. 4: The simple fact of the matter is that the RFCs are not at any time, the law of the land. They are at best guidelines and good ideas set down for others to follow, but there is no rule stating that you _must_ follow them. 5: Before you start chasing wild geese selling Class B address space I suggest you go back and check on all those folks that got space long before there were any 'restrictions and justifications'. I have no doubt that there is a veritable feast of IPs sitting unused at MIT, USC, and other such institutions that would be better used elsewhere instead of sitting in a corner like a dusty grad student. 6: Finally and most importantly, stop pretending you still live in the world of happy academia where everyone is willing to follow the rules you set down just because you're the proffessor and they're the student. This just does not work anymore, you may scoff at people like Jim Flemming but for each one you knock down there is another one to learn from his mistakes and take his place. Do not pretend you can sit idle and call people who don't fall in line behind you names so that you can sit back in your dusty chair and pretend nothing is wrong. The internet as a whole is growing at an unthought of pace and your failure to keep up will not be fixed by being tight assed and making it harder on those that follow. Eventually someone else will take the forefront and throw you off your high horse like yesterdays newspaper. You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-]

8 9

IP Ownership and Domain Names
by Jim Fleming 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 9:56 PM, Steven M. Bellovin[SMTP:smb@research.att.com] wrote: @ At 08:23 AM 3/10/97 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: @ >Of course this scenario breaks down quickly.. @ > @ >Listed registrant A "sells" to B who "sells" to C who... @ > @ >Now the sucker who "buys" from C has the problem of tracing authenticity @ >of the "title" C is selling. This is not easy, particularly if B is less @ >than scrupulous and has "sold" title to a number of folk including @ >C, or if C is unscrupulous and is "selling" without have concluded @ >and transaction with B. @ @ This can easily be solved in a number of ways. For example, a public key @ could be publicly associated with each address. A transfer is accomplished @ by signing a message to that effect. Similarly -- and very importantly -- @ control over routing of that address is also governed by that @ private/public key pair. There's more to this protocol than I've @ described, but it can be made to work. @ @ You could also handle it just like "domain names".... Does AT&T "own"....ATT.COM ? Does AT&T "own".... 12.IN-ADDR.ARPA ? and 135.IN-ADDR.ARPA ? How about... 12.IP4.INT ? 135.IP4.INT ? are those registered....? FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) FL 135.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT-135-0-0-0-B) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

Is the InterNIC really screwed in the head?
by Ehud Gavron 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

RFC954 specifies WHOIS. Client requests, server sends. Simple, really. $ whois opus4-hst .... Would you like to see registered users of this host? WHAT??? My whois client is supposed to search for this string and then do interactive input??? HuH?? $ whois pa aces (shows a handful of entries) There are 96 more matches.... would you like these displayed? EH? Anyone else think this is not only a gross violation of an RFC, does a disservice to millions of WHOIS-using users out there, and the final leg of the dissolution of the world? Ehud

3 3

RE: The Mother of all Solutions (Was Class B for Sale or Rent)
by Jim Fleming 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 3:56 PM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy@psg.com] wrote: @ Emilio Bugatti (sp?), at the time the maker of the finest cars in the world, @ was asked why the brakes on his cars were not as good as they might be. He @ replied "Any fool can make a car stop. It takes a genius to make a car go." @ @ I suggest we focus on the latter. @ After the Top Level Domain debates, someone sent me private mail saying that if General Motors had invented and released the Internet, the public would currently be in every court in the land claiming that GM intentionally forgot to design in the brakes.... I see that you confirm that what some people see as a flaw, you view as a feature...Thanks...;-) P.S. Business people may look at this an conclude that there is a huge market for retrofit brakes... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 4:35 PM, Stephen Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk@paranet.com] wrote: <snip> @ Did you sign any such contract when you got your IP addresses? Are there @ any laws in your jurisdiction stating the ownership and appropriate use of @ your addresses? @ People who are homesteading may not have "signed" anything. Other people may have signed papers and paid money. @ There is no workable analogy in this case because there are no contracts and @ no laws regarding anything on the Net at this point. Until ARIN makes you @ sign an acceptable-use agreement (and makes pre-1996 "owners" sign it too), @ there can be no enforceable policy other than what the core router owners @ decide. Routability determines address assignment far more definitively @ than a NIC board room full of cigar smoke and $10k fees. @ @ Stephen Sprunk How do you know...."there are no contracts and no laws"...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Stephen Sprunk 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

There are LAWs (not RFCs) stating that you cannot do this. Also, you have signed papers (which undoubtedly you don't remember) which state that the plates are owned by the state and you must return them upon request, are non-transferrable, etc etc etc. Did you sign any such contract when you got your IP addresses? Are there any laws in your jurisdiction stating the ownership and appropriate use of your addresses? There is no workable analogy in this case because there are no contracts and no laws regarding anything on the Net at this point. Until ARIN makes you sign an acceptable-use agreement (and makes pre-1996 "owners" sign it too), there can be no enforceable policy other than what the core router owners decide. Routability determines address assignment far more definitively than a NIC board room full of cigar smoke and $10k fees. Stephen Sprunk At 13:59 09 03 97 -0500, Lon R. Stockton, Jr. wrote: >So, since I paid money for my car registration & license plates, I should >be able to sell my plates to someone else to put on their car? >On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote: >> Been there, read that, and I still say they're selling space, leasing space, >> auctioning space, etc. Fact of the matter is they are _CHARGING MONEY_ (not >> bannana peels) for services rendered. Their services are to hand out IP >> space and maintain databases, therefor they are SELLING space.

1 0

RE: The Mother of all Solutions (Was Class B for Sale or Rent)
by Jim Fleming 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 6:16 PM, Benjamin Inman Vaughn[SMTP:sedriss@Prophet-indy.org] wrote: @ @ Less ARIN and NIC are run by the principles Adam Smith described @ in the early Nineteenth Century. I don't know, maybe Address assignment is @ controlled by the unseen hand of god. @ @ The beginning and end of it is that selling address space is @ against RFC's and ethics, and it should be left at that. @ You might want to be more specific when you use the term... ..."address space"... Do you mean...? IPv4 address space ? IPv6 address space ? IPv8 address space ? How do you describe the current status of the address spaces below ? 1. On loan ? 2. Homesteading ? 3. Owned ? 4. Unused ? 5. U.S. Government Property ? 6. Grandfathered ? 7. Not part of the Real World(tm) ? 8. _________________ (other) FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) MI 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) VA 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) VA 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) DC 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) CA 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) CA 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Geoff Huston 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

Of course this scenario breaks down quickly.. Listed registrant A "sells" to B who "sells" to C who... Now the sucker who "buys" from C has the problem of tracing authenticity of the "title" C is selling. This is not easy, particularly if B is less than scrupulous and has "sold" title to a number of folk including C, or if C is unscrupulous and is "selling" without have concluded and transaction with B. The Land Titles office is there for a damn fine reason. We ignore the seeds of destructive anarchy in the IP address space at our collective risk (or is that peril?) regards, Geoff >Given the registries do not allow for outright transfers of this sort >directly (see RFC 2050), one course of action would be for the >original "owner" to sell the "right of use" of the /16. Of course, >the appropriate action (according to RFC 2050 and historical Internet >culture) would be for the original "owner" to return address space >they don't need... > >Regards, >-drc > > >

1 0

RE: The Mother of all Solutions (Was Class B for Sale or Rent)
by Jim Fleming 09 Mar '97

09 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Ehud Gavron[SMTP:GAVRON@ACES.COM] wrote: @ Let me add a word to Brett's comments. This IS a world-scale @ economy. @ @ If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog), @ decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to @ it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or @ be able to change it. @ @ Here's the Ehud Scenario: @ 1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha @ and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa. @ in F. @ 2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8). @ 3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone @ yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now ;) @ Your scenario is very interesting. I suggest that you study prior art. Also, in my other posting I left one of the players out. I have labeled it 1A. Many owners will not want to "manage" their blocks just like many people who own large office buildings do not want to manage the property. 1. The ownership of aggregated IPv4 addresses (i.e. blocks). 1A. The management of the blocks. 2. The leasing of those blocks. 3. The registration of those blocks. 4. The reverse resolution of those blocks. 5. The routing announcement of those blocks. @ Is this unlawful? No. There's no law about announcing routes, @ nor about delegating them in private internets. For practical @ purposes, NANOG members form a private internet. @ @ Is this unethical? Some would say 'Sure, only the InterNIC and @ IANA can assign IP addresses.' Some tell me this thinking is @ obsolete. Jim Fleming would salivate, and Karl Deninger would @ laugh. Well, maybe. @ Please study prior art before jumping to conclusions. Also, you might want to study the SBA/NSF proposal(s) that call for the creation of 10 regional InterNIC clones in the U.S. Each regional InterNIC would have several TLDs and several /8s to manage to generate revenue to help cover their costs. @ Is this impractical? I dunno. I figure we could bribe Paul with @ $ 2000 per assignment regardless of size (after all, two NS entries @ are all the same cost). After about 52 /24s, he'd double his @ yearly retainer income (all figures guesses with no real basis) @ and probably be able to retire to Caymans. (That's a Brett Scenario). @ I would first check with the owners of the various parts of the IPv4 space. @ Oh yeah, it's my idea, so I want anyone who gets an allocation from @ this scheme to send me a bottle of single-malt Scotch. @ @ Let me know if I've left something out. @ @ Ehud @ @ p.s. If I've pissed off anybody in this post, send me a private @ note via us mail. Be sure to include a bottle of single malt @ Scotch or your note will be returned. Just like email to admin@crl Why would anyone be upset...? People most likely fall into one of the following categories... 1. Owner 2. Homesteader 3. Manager 4. Registrar 5. Resolver 6. Router >From what I understand most of the NANOG people are #4, #5, or #6. The issues you have raised will mostly be of interest to people in the categories #1 to #3. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0