- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by David Miller 04 Feb '96

04 Feb '96

On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said: > > > >I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted. > > > >If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all > >those not count? > > If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more > than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address > from RFC1597 internally and return the /16. While that certainly sounds nice from the current context, there are other reasons for wanting unique address space. Things like mergers come to mind, as well as the expectation of better security in ipv6. --- David Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by sob＠academ.com 03 Feb '96

03 Feb '96

> Furthermore, there an infinite number of views and ideas that are > inconsonant between peoples and organizations. Forcing a particular > philosophy on others in the style of a Crusade is *absolutely wrong* > and has been proven wrong for the entire span of human history. There cannot be an infinite number of views unless there is an infinite number of people with at least one view, or at least one person has an infinite number of views. The first is certainly not true. The latter is not likely to be true. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Tim Bass 03 Feb '96

03 Feb '96

A good and old friend writes: > Okay, I'll play along. > ......................... [ ..... ] .................... I have had this reply in my /tmp directory for a few hours to a NANOG post on the same subject matter...... and if we are just 'playing along' please allow the heretics in the 'rebel base camp' to play as well :-) ----------- A Rebuke Against the Crusade ---------- Back and forth: Bill: >> Hijacking has a number of interesting problems Curtis: > There is no need to call it hijacking. [ ... ] The Heretic Responds: Why not call it hijacking? That is exactly what it appears to be. NANOG nor the IETF has the right to judge the motives of address space holders and the holder of the address space has no legal nor moral obligation to contact the providers of services. Hijacking is actually a "kind and polite" term, it seems. What the "Self-proclaimed Omnipotent Crusaders and Saviors of the Fate of Routing" seem to forget is that they do not control the world IP address space; but they sure would like the world to believe have been "Blessed with the Right from the Holy Grail of IP" to act without remorse "for the cause". Furthermore, there an infinite number of views and ideas that are inconsonant between peoples and organizations. Forcing a particular philosophy on others in the style of a Crusade is *absolutely wrong* and has been proven wrong for the entire span of human history. ( I suggest a select few might be illuminated to read literature beyond FAQs, technical manuals, and IETF documents; a world history exists, believe-it-or-not! ) The "IP Routing Table Crusade" is just a modern example of the same tactics used by dioramic zealots during all human history. I'll stop here, especially to the pleasure of those who believe that providers of IP services and hardware vendors have dominion over the users of the technology. What is the most educational, in my opinion, is to watch and read as others are seduced into the "Ardor of the Crusade". The myth and perception of 'self-righteousness' is very dangerous; the world of IP and internetworking is not exempt from the causal results of crusaders. Tim

2 1

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Scott Huddle 03 Feb '96

03 Feb '96

> Scott Huddle writes: > >> Name a backbone which doesn't come into the San Francisco Bay Area. > > > >Um, all of the rest of the world's providers. > > Backbone, Scott. Backbone. You, Sprint, PSI, Alternet, > Net-99, etc. All the rest of the world's providers are getting > transit from some backbone. If all the transit backbones are in the > area the problem is merely political. They aren't... ICM, Pipex, and Dante to name three. Sprintlink may play nice and handle ICM, what do you plan to do to address the others? And for the next trick, how do you scale your solution to the next site? Does your solution require sites of all the backbone providers to be at each metropolitan exchange? Doesn't this put a limit in the number of providers that can do this? -scott

4 7

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Peter Galbavy 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

> >All this impacts very severely on the commercial decisions taken as to > >the routeing of traffic. I would much rather buy more lines to the US > >and let the traffics flow back to Europe then to just buy lines to > >Europe. Luckily, commercial concerns are not the only contraints > >within which we have to work. > > What this has to do with RIPE allocation policies is beyond > me. Everyone in the European realm suffers from extremely high > tariffs. So what? Sorry - I do not know your background, but here in the UK, in business, money and financing matters. If I can show that I could buy two lines for the same amount of money; where on would be 20% utilised on average and the other at 80% then any money (wo)man will take the second option as it is *seen* to be better use of the money. > You and hundreds of other companies approach RIPE with the same > story of how big they are, how large their investors are, how > their network is gonna take the world of the Internet by storm, > and therefore they deserve a /16 or even a /15. If RIPE followed > your logic, there would be no more address space left. I have to say it, even if I was trying not too, - but we *are* the largest dialup IP provider in Europe. Anyone want to argue ? We are not a new provider asking for a new allocation. We have a large, installed customer base that is growing at between 10 and 15% per *month*. This is difficult enough to manage in terms of our infrastructure. I am doing two things in Amsterdam this week. One is the RIPE, the other is visiting our Amsterdam operation, which is due to go live very soon now. Other countries to follow. We are not new comers here is what I am trying to get across. I think we have suffered in terms of the Internet politics because we have been too busy being concerned about our customer base... > Use dynamic IP like the rest of us. We all realize the drain of > IP addresses and try our best to maximize the addresses. Why > should you be different? Because we have a grwoning customer base that has been buying that particular product fastre than we can sell it for 3 1/2 years now. > It all depends on your ego. You could just look at them as > an organization assigned the tough role of making sure there > are IP addresses available in 1999. You see it as God. A viewpoint > based on your world view. Roll on IPv6 - that will be hell for us, but we will cope. I do not want "fix" what isn't actually broken now, or is likely to be. > IBM has 460 POPs in over 40 countries and uses dynamic IP addresses. > I can be in London or NYC or Tel Aviv and still use my SLIP connection > to read my mail wherever I am. Why should you have static IP addresses > for something others can do the dynamic way and thereby conserve > IP address space? Your mail yes, but can you access secure systems that use IP filtering ? Can you run a BBS from midnight to 5am and p expect people to find your host by domain name ? Can you get SMTP mail delivery ? etc etc. We have always been selling a full Internet connection, not just access. Regards, -- Peter Galbavy peter(a)demon.net @ Demon Internet phone://44/181/371_3700 http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/ snail://UK/N3_1TT/London/42_Hendon_Lane/Demon_Internet_Ltd/

2 1

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Sean Donelan 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

>If an organization registered an address they are responsible for >keeping the contact name up to date. If they don't announce the >route, they have not provided a valid contact, and there is no way to >contact them, including publishing a list on major mailing lists, then >it should be safe to recover the address since every reasonable effort >was made to contact them. If a route is not announced, this is a NOOP >anyway. Things get out of date very, very quickly on the net (and real-life). And even the best run organizations sometimes have lapses. How about an example a little closer to home. Although its an AS number rather than an IP network number, what happens when the net runs out of AS numbers. Should things like AS 690 'reclaimed' based on out-of-date information? Although Elise is kind enough to forward messages on to ANS now, what if she got tired of it, and just dumped the message in the bit bucket. And the following week the NIC issued AS 690 to some other network. $ whois as 690 Merit Computer Network (ASN-NSFNET-T3-RT) 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Autonomous System Name: NSFNET-T3-RT-AS Autonomous System Number: 690 Coordinator: Gerich, Elise (EG14) epg(a)MERIT.EDU 313 764 9430 (FAX) (313) 747-3745 Record last updated on 13-Apr-94. The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. >If the route is announced, go through the AS path and/or traceroute >asking the provider closest to the route for a contact name. Just >send a "Dear IP Provider" letter stating "This appears to be your >customer but we have no way to contact them. Can you help?". Most >providers have a way of contacting their customers. Sometimes not even the providers seems to know. I've dealt with several providers whose only contact information for a customer is a credit card number. They 'contact' the customer by disabling the connection, and what for the customer to call them. Not very friendly, and about as bad as hijacking the connection. Ok, maybe that's just the little guys. If you consider MFS as the 'provider' of MAE-East. You might expect MFS knew how to contact their mae-east customers. Sorry MFS, you're just a nice neutral example to show the half-life of contact information on the net is very, very short. I've been contacting other ISP's on mae-east off and on for several months. About 40% of MFS's mae-east customer contact information was outdated or non-existent. For example, the contact person doesn't work for the company any more. The company has changed names three or more times, moved twice, and no one knows the current company name, address or phone number. In a few cases, the phone number has been disconnected, with no forwarding number. Add the number of people who got the message, and didn't care to respond, I can easily understand a 60% non-response rate. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Kent W. England 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

At 02:16 PM 2/2/96 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: > >How about a policy which says that if you fail to pay an annual amount >by a due date then a process is commenced with an outcome such that >your registration details expire and the associated number space is no >longer registered to you. > >Geoff > > > I have a concern about tying any kind of fee to address allocations. If we do that, we are essentially leasing addresses and we have no way to deal with address speculation. There is no way we could prevent arbitrage, scalping, speculation and hoarding, no matter how high the fees are set. Better to stay away from fees and leave open options with respect to allocation. That's not to say that we could have charges for routing table entries, although no one has suggested a formula for how to do that or predict the total costs. --Kent

2 1

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Paul Ferguson 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

At 02:16 PM 2/2/96 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: >> >> > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now. >> > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG) >> > >> > 60% - invalid or missing contact information >> >> This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you >> and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your >> addresses get recycled. > >How about a policy which says that if you fail to pay an annual amount >by a due date then a process is commenced with an outcome such that >your registration details expire and the associated number space is no >longer registered to you. > >Geoff > Would this process, perhaps, be associated with a route announcement charging scheme? - paul

2 1

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Kent W. England 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

At 11:20 AM 2/2/96 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >There must be some mechanism implemented whereby address space will return >to the IANA after a specified period of time unless otherwise requested by >the prefix holder. Otherwise what will happen is that this 60% (or some >other large percentage when the figures finally settle) of the 192/8 address >space will effectively be lost from the internet with no real means of >retrieving it. A system like this without any garbage collection mechanism >is eventually going to fill up with defunct allocations and the cruft of >years past -- something which is not an option when dealing with limited >address space. > We have no lack of address space in the 32 bit IPv4 world. Half of the old A space is reserved and so is most of the old C space and above. We exhausted the old B space and created a limited address space crisis, but CIDR solved that. What we are constrained on is routing table space. So it's not whether IANA gets the addresses back, it's whether ISPs have to carry all the routes for all the cruft and leftovers or whether they can safely delist abandoned address blocks. Should be straightforward to do that based on traffic measurements. But don't assume that just because routes don't appear to have traffic that the address blocks aren't being used. They may have disappeared behind a firewall, where they are still being used. In which case they could safely be delisted from the routing table or safely aggregated. --Kent

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Hank Nussbacher 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:16:18 +1100 (EST) you said: >> >> > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now. >> > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG) >> > >> > 60% - invalid or missing contact information >> >> This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you >> and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your >> addresses get recycled. > >How about a policy which says that if you fail to pay an annual amount >by a due date then a process is commenced with an outcome such that >your registration details expire and the associated number space is no >longer registered to you. and how about a waive of the fee if you return smaller aggregates for a larger one (I started doing something similiar in Israel 3 months ago). > >Geoff > Hank

1 0