- Test - lists.nanog.org

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 03 Jan '97

03 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 03 Jan '97

03 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 03 Jan '97

03 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

Re: Film at 11:00
by Vadim Antonov 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

> Well, i do not think that using off-the-shelf cheapo CPUs debugged by > somebody else and tested in millions of applications, instead of > single-purpose ASICs qualifies as a reliability hit or a development lag :) >Agreed that the part itself is correct. However, unlike you, the rest of >us tend to take perfect parts and make mistakes putting them together. ;-) Ah, i do a lot of mistakes. Anyway, it's much easier to put together debugged parts, than put together new silicon. I've had more than enough of that at nCUBE. --vadim

1 0

Re: Film at 11:00
by Vadim Antonov 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

Tony wrote: > Providing that there's a way to get a bunch of cheapo CPUs to do the > job. >True, but there's a complexity hit (which translates into a reliability hit >and a development lag) from this approach. Well, i do not think that using off-the-shelf cheapo CPUs debugged by somebody else and tested in millions of applications, instead of single-purpose ASICs qualifies as a reliability hit or a development lag :) --vadim

2 1

Re: Film at 11:00
by Mike Vallee 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

At 10:35 AM 1/3/97 -0500, Avi Freedman wrote: > >Well, it's also somewhat more complicated to distribute the tasks in a router >to multiple CPUs. > >There are plenty of ways to break Bays by accidentally doing that distribution >wrong. > > >Avi > Hmmm. There are some who would contend that there are plenty of ways to break Bays by accidentally doing something right. ;) mike v

1 0

Re: Which RFC?
by Paul G. Donner 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

Alex: While you are probably looking for "mandate" material, OSPF provides a specific example of implementation of the most specific route, in an actual routing protocol. Check out the OSPF RFC (I believe it was 1247) as well as the new one (1583). The old one talks about selecting the least ambiguous route. The new RFC I believe has changed the terminology to use "best match" or "most specific match" as opposed to "least ambiguous". >From Section 3.5 IP subnetting support (RFC1583) "When an IP packet is forwarded, it is always forwarded to the network that is the best match for the packet's destination. Here best match is synonymous with the longest or most specific match." >From Section 1.1 Protocol Overview (RFC1583) <bigger>"OSPF calculates separate routes for each Type of Service (TOS). When several equal-cost routes to a destination exist, traffic is distributed equally among them. The cost of a route is described by a single dimensionless metric.</bigger>" In OSPF's case there doesn't seem to be any implication of metric involvement in forwarding from the RFC. The metric is used to define the shortest path for routes to be implemented in the topological database. OSPF works well with subnetting. Each subnet carries its mask with it and these are also both present in the routing table. Donner At 03:16 PM 1/2/97 +0000, Alex.Bligh wrote: >Anyone know *which* RFC says a packets should be routed using the >most specific route in a routing table, not (for instance) the first >route in the table that matches, or, for instance, using a less specific >route that has a better metric? This is so basic I hardly >know where to find it, but I have a (for the time being anonymous) >systems vendor who really prefers the way their kernel does it .... >Oddly enough it doesn't work well with subnetting. > >Alex Bligh >Xara Networks > > > >

1 0

Re: Which RFC?
by Kamau Wanguhu 02 Jan '97

02 Jan '97

RFC 1338 makes mention of this in regard to CIDR. Later Kamau Wanguhu ---------- > From: Alex.Bligh <amb(a)xara.net> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Cc: amb(a)xara.net > Subject: Which RFC? > Date: Thursday, January 02, 1997 10:16 AM > > Anyone know *which* RFC says a packets should be routed using the > most specific route in a routing table, not (for instance) the first > route in the table that matches, or, for instance, using a less specific > route that has a better metric? This is so basic I hardly > know where to find it, but I have a (for the time being anonymous) > systems vendor who really prefers the way their kernel does it .... > Oddly enough it doesn't work well with subnetting. > > Alex Bligh > Xara Networks > >

1 0