January 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: tcg and cerf.net?
by Rod Nayfield 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

At 01:18 PM 1/3/97 -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: >Comm Week 23/12/96 said that Teleport Communications Group closed >a deal to buy CERFnet http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/cwi/search/ enter "cerfnet" in the search field. It should be the first result. (btw check out the length of the URL of the actualy story, you'll see why I didn't post it here) Rod

1 0

Re: tcg and cerf.net?
by Paul Ferguson 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

At 11:07 AM 1/3/97 -0700, Brett D. Watson wrote: > i've heard something in the press about tcg buying cerfnet... >anyone heard the same or can verify that? just curious. it seems >like an odd match. > >-brett > Brett: [snip] Teleport Buys ISP CERFnet Source: Communications Week Communications Week via Individual Inc. : Teleport Communications Group, New York, has closed a deal to purchase Internet service provider CERFnet at an undisclosed price. TCG is expected to use CERFnet's resources to expand its nascent Internet services business, which it now offers in limited markets. San Diego-based CERFnet has an extensive T3 backbone connecting major markets in California and Arizona, as well as a dedicated link to New York City. The deal, approved by CERFnet's board Friday, is expected to be made public this week. Copyright 1996 CMP Media Inc. <<Communications Week -- 12-23-96, p. 8>> [12-23-96 at 16:51 EST, Copyright 1996, CMP Publications, Inc.] [snip]

1 0

tcg and cerf.net?
by Brett D. Watson 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

i've heard something in the press about tcg buying cerfnet... anyone heard the same or can verify that? just curious. it seems like an odd match. -brett

4 3

NANOG Registration
by Pam Ciesla 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

Please note that if you were experiencing problems with registration through the web page the problem has been fixed. Thanks Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by fehnb＠jerseycape.net 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

Eric makes two very important points here but its the overall "rush" that I wonder about. This thing seems to have come up quite suddenly and appears as if it's being implemented as we speak. A program with such far reaching effects should not be taken lightly. One need only look at the state of the domain name system to realize that its what we haven't thought of that will bite us later.... >One: > How will portable/non-portable address space be effected. Does the mean >that if I have non-portable address space, I can charge customers for >address space, and if it is portable, they have to pay $2500 per /24 to >have it registered to them? That would not go over well. <G> > >Two: > If an entity has address space already and does not require more space, >do they have to pay the fee or is this going to be grandfather claused? I >know with domain names it was not that way, but that is only 50 bucks, >$2500 or more could put a lot of business off the net. > Again, this could put an unbearable financial hardship on many companies if not grandfathered... > >I guess this will make the routing table size come to a sudden and >screaching halt! Doubtful but it certainly will slow things down. But remember, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in business as well. Robert J. Fehn Sr.,President and CEO Jersey Cape Information Systems Inc. http://www.jerseycape.net

2 1

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by Daryn D. Fisher 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

Begin forwarded message: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Daryn D. Fisher <oz> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 97 23:13:29 -0700 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Non-profit IP Registry cc: naipr(a)lists.internic.net Reply-To: oz(a)tpa.net That is why: " The Advisory Council is to act on behalf of the membership on all issues including, but not limited to: _ Registry goals _ Future funding _ Allocation policy guidelines _ Training _ Nominations for Advisory Council _ Database maintenance _ Registry procedures " and: "ARIN members will nominate candidates for the the Advisory Council." This allows: "The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they should all play a role." BTW, let's move this to the NAIPR list. > There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan. > > The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is >technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations. > > Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could. > > Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small >bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a small bar >because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing >you to pay more. > > Think about it. > > David Schwartz

1 0

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by David Stoddard 03 Jan '97

03 Jan '97

While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750 for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative effect on our own industry. Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs(a)us.net

5 4

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by Eric D. Madison 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

Two questions come to mind with this: One: How will portable/non-portable address space be effected. Does the mean that if I have non-portable address space, I can charge customers for address space, and if it is portable, they have to pay $2500 per /24 to have it registered to them? Two: If an entity has address space already and does not require more space, do they have to pay the fee or is this going to be grandfather claused? I know with domain names it was not that way, but that is only 50 bucks, $2500 or more could put a lot of business off the net. I guess this will make the routing table size come to a sudden and screaching halt! Eric At 09:57 PM 1/2/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > >Hello, > >Recently, there has been discussion concerning the need to keep IP issues >separate from domain issues. The stability of the Internet in part relies >on the careful management of the Internet Protocol addresses. > >The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should >be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether >those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they >should all play a role. > >To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund >a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry >for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to manage the IP address space for the >territories it currently administers, similar to the APNIC and RIPE >regional IP registries. This organization will be a non-profit >spin-off of the current InterNIC IP group. > >Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed >and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable, >self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership >dues, registration and maintenance fees. > >Details on the proposed organizational structure and 1997 funding >model are located at http://rs.internic.net/arin. > >Questions regarding the proposal will be answered on the ARIN mailing >list. To subscribe, send mail to: > > listserv(a)internic.net > > with "subscribe naipr" in the body along with your first and > last name. > > >Regards, > >Kim Hubbard >InterNIC Registry > > > _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net

1 0

IP number allocations -- Authority
by Bob Collie 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

One quick item: I know that the InterNIC has authority under IANA to issue domain names, and that their previous funding for the registry was provided by the NSF. So, in that same right, the IANA has delegated the authority of delegating IP address space to the InterNIC (for the specific region that it serves). I, and I'm sure that others would too..., would like to hear from an AUTHORIZED and NAMED representative of IANA that this organization (the ARIN) is authorized to be created, and to charge such fees. I do realize that everything costs money. A mere confirmation that this is the way to go from those that are supposed to be in-charge would be greatly appreciated. -Bob -- Bob Collie, Chief Technical Officer, Telalink Corporation mailto:rmc@telalink.net

1 0

Re: Non-profit IP Registry
by Bob Collie 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

See below: --On Thu, Jan 2, 1997 9:56 PM "Kim Hubbard" <kimh(a)internic.net> wrote: > Recently, there has been discussion concerning the need to keep IP issues > separate from domain issues. The stability of the Internet in part relies > on the careful management of the Internet Protocol addresses. > > The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should > be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether > those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they > should all play a role. > > To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund > a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry > for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to manage the IP address space for the > territories it currently administers, similar to the APNIC and RIPE > regional IP registries. This organization will be a non-profit > spin-off of the current InterNIC IP group. > > Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed > and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable, > self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership > dues, registration and maintenance fees. > > Details on the proposed organizational structure and 1997 funding > model are located at http://rs.internic.net/arin. Two questions that I am sure will be widespread. 1) The information on the web page does not seem to cover this: If an ISP pays the annual membership fees and it delegates a /24 (or so) to a customer, will the customer have to pay the $2,500 one-time fee for a /24? 2) What is the proposed timeframe for such an organization to be created and fees to be imposed (important to those of us who are in the middle of budget time...). Thanks, -Bob -- Bob Collie, Chief Technical Officer, Telalink Corporation mailto:rmc@telalink.net

1 0