- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internic address allocation policy (fwd)
by Bill Woodcock 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

> FYI: there will be an Internet Address Registry Evolution (yes, > we'll be coming up with a new name) working group meeting... Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it... "Five years ago, independent registries did not exist, and now IARE one?" :-) -Bill ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)applelink.apple.com user(a)host.domain.com

1 0

RE: Internic address allocation policy (fwd)
by Ed Jackson 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

I would like to see more information on this item in particular -> is this being done currently -> or are plans underway to do so?... in regards to 'un-lending' that address space from those organizations to make them available for everyone else? now that would create some interesting discussions - ;) ed jackson At 04:03 PM 11/19/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > 7. A complete review of /8 allocations should be done > with a complete audit of how the companies > that have those allocations are utilizing those > blocks (as well as other blocks). The CEOs and > shareholders of those companies should be > informed that their past policies may not conform > to modern standards of frugal allocations. +--------------------------------------------------+ Ed Jackson International Network Services numeric pager: 1-888-352-4117 email pager: <mailto:page_ed_jackson@ins.com> +--------------------------------------------------+

1 0

ISPs petition the SPA
by simona＠vtw.org 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

There's been discussion on this list of the Software Publishers Association's harsh and untenable stance regarding liability for Internet Service Providers. The SPA advocates liability for ISPs even when it is the ISP's customer who has the alleged copyright-infringing materials on their web pages; or, worse yet, in cases where it's merely a link to materials said to violate copyright. ISPs who are concerned about the SPA's position are invited to sign onto a letter to the SPA urging them to reconsider this misguided policy. The text of the letter is available at: http://www.vtw.org/copyright/show.cgi?file=spaltr.html and anyone interested can sign on there. I am sending this separately to both nanog and inet-access so people don't end up unintentionally posting to a list they don't subscribe to. -S. ----- Simona Nass simona(a)vtw.org Voters Telecomm Watch

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy. (fwd)
by Billy Biggs 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > Even the private, behind the scenes, allocations > made by the IANA, such as the @Home allocation which was not > made based on SWIP information. How could it be? They did not even > have customers, just a lot of venture capital and the "right" people > on their staff. > > Regardless of whether the skids were greased on this allocation, the > result is the right way to go.. > > As a definite outsider to all this, it looks like much of 24/8 has > been given out in /16../14 sized chunks to various cable operators, > with lots of space in between them (some of them have room to expand > to a /10 or /11...). > > The cable companies *do* have customers; they aren't IP customers > (yet), but they *are* customers, and no doubt the cable providers have > been able to demonstrate how many of their customers already have > computers and access to the internet via modem and are thus realistic > customers for the ip-over-cable system.. I still look forward to a future where every home has an IP address and I thought cable internet access would bring that. However, up here in Canada a new service from the cable companies is soon going to move to a dynamic addressing system. The first reason they told me was that there isn't enough IP space in the world. Is it such a problem for them to purchase more IP space? There is room for expansion in 24, so as far as I can tell if they expect more customers than they have IP space for, they could purchase that space, correct? An article I wrote about the current problems with this new cable-modem service is located at: http://www.magi.com/~bill/linenoiz/LineNoiz-release-3.1.txt -- Billy Biggs ae687(a)freenet.carleton.ca

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy.
by Bill Sommerfeld 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

Even the private, behind the scenes, allocations made by the IANA, such as the @Home allocation which was not made based on SWIP information. How could it be? They did not even have customers, just a lot of venture capital and the "right" people on their staff. Regardless of whether the skids were greased on this allocation, the result is the right way to go.. As a definite outsider to all this, it looks like much of 24/8 has been given out in /16../14 sized chunks to various cable operators, with lots of space in between them (some of them have room to expand to a /10 or /11...). I already know at least two people who already have ip-over-catv internet access, from two different providers, in two different states. I know of at least that many just in my town alone who are likely to sign up the first day it's available (real soon now, they keep saying...).. The cable companies *do* have customers; they aren't IP customers (yet), but they *are* customers, and no doubt the cable providers have been able to demonstrate how many of their customers already have computers and access to the internet via modem and are thus realistic customers for the ip-over-cable system.. - Bill

2 1

RE: Internic address allocation policy (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

On Tuesday, November 19, 1996 7:54 AM, Brian Tackett[SMTP:cym@acrux.net] wrote: @ <snip> @ @ @ So, my question is: What can we do to make it better? Not "What can Kim @ Hubbard do to fix it", and not "What can those stupid ISP's do to fix it", @ but what can both do collaboratively to work out a consistent method of @ doing things, and making sure that it's well known to both new existing @ providers of network solutions. @ I would suggest the following for starters... 1. ALL* proposed IP allocations (and transfers) should be published in a well-known public place and some public comment period should be set before the allocations are made. 2. More NICs should be created. The original NSF contracts called for General Atomics to be the NIC of NICs. This concept has been lost and most of the power is in the hands of a too few people. 3. ALL of the NICs should vote on whether the allocations should be made. The result of these votes should be recorded with the public information above. As the number of NICs is increased, via #2, then more voices will be heard. 4. Some sort of Board or approval body, drawn from Industry groups should be developed as an appeals body should the vote in #3 not go the way someone or some company prefers. This would be a last resort sort of step. 5. All meetings** between the NICs should be publicized and anyone should be allowed to attend. The meeting agenda should be readily available as well as the meeting notes. 6. A complete and detailed accounting with allocation percentages should be posted on a well-known public web site. This will allow everyone to see precisely where allocations stand in the IPv4 address space and what a small percentage of the space has been allocated to ISPs, while huge blocks are "reserved" for unknown purposes. 7. A complete review of /8 allocations should be done with a complete audit of how the companies that have those allocations are utilizing those blocks (as well as other blocks). The CEOs and shareholders of those companies should be informed that their past policies may not conform to modern standards of frugal allocations. 8. More emphasis should be placed on IP Address Ecology and people should be rewarded and/or awarded for their actions via public forums and peer support. * ALL means ALL - Even the private, behind the scenes, allocations made by the IANA, such as the @Home allocation which was not made based on SWIP information. How could it be? They did not even have customers, just a lot of venture capital and the "right" people on their staff. ** The people involved in the following meeting could start by documenting it. @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9610.txt IP Support Kim Hubbard met with Jon Postel (IANA), David Conrad (APNIC) and Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE) in California to discuss IP issues. @@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: Internic address allocation policy
by Eric Germann 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

At 10:14 PM 11/18/96 -0800, you wrote: >Bah, humbug! I've seen the Internet these kind of people try to create. >They call them FREE-nets and then tangle everyone up in petty politics, >power struggles and mindless sniping. Instead of bringing people together, >they divide people between the commercial providers (with 95% market >share) and the community networks (with 5% market share) all the while >claiming that they are great because they have brought the power of the >Internet into the community. Internet access in North America costs less >than a month's supply of cigarettes. How many poor people can't afford >cigarettes? Not many. > The barrier to entry for that poor person is significantly higher, in the real world, for the poor person. Net access may be had for $20/month. But the hardware is a significant barrier for the poor person. To expand your analogy, poor people don't have to buy hardware to smoke. We all come with lips :) Eric

4 3

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by matthew＠scruz.net 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

Original message <199611191527.KAA14083(a)jazz.internic.net> From: Kim Hubbard <kimh(a)internic.net> Date: Nov 19, 10:27 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > > > Matthew, > > The InterNIC bases additional allocation blocks on efficient utilization. > We can only see the utilization from your SWIPs and RWHOIS info. If > you refuse to supply contact information on your assignments, how can we > tell what your utilization is? > > And as for the routing table overload, although the initial allocation > may be relatively small, it is almost always reserved from a larger block. > > Bottom line, to receive additional address space all you have to do is > the same thing everyone else does - submit reassignment information. You > don't have to fly out here, you don't have to be nice to me, just follow > the basic policies. > > Regards, > > Kim Hubbard > InterNIC Registry > If you review the email exchanged between myself and netreg(a)internic.net you'll find that several other "requirements" have been put out there for me to meet. It isn't just "all you have to do is... submit reassignment information". Furthermore, my mailbox is filling with stories from people who submitted reassignment information and were then told "sorry, you conserved addresses so well that you didn't even use a /19 in 3 months, so you don't get any more addresses" THAT sure isn't "all you have to do is... submit reassignment information" My SWIP and RWHOIS data shows that over 90% of my address space is allocated and lists contact information. There are only about 16 class C's where I've listed "subnetted for large numbers of 'workgroup' accounts", which is something like 3% of my total addresses. This exceeds, by far, the number of allocated addresses that show up via rwhois and swip for address blocks held by other providers who are not having problems receiving addresses. Clearly the standards are not being applied equally, and the standards are preventing some people from engaging in this business. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Chris A. Icide 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

At 09:15 PM 11/18/96 -0700, Ehud Gavron wrote: > > Wait, WHICH BLACKLIST is he getting on? No, wait, you must > mean that "by asking questions in a manner that makes it seem > like the Internic is run by people who stole a government-provided > sole-source database and now extort money from commercial industry > to pay for its maintenance, you are opening up a can of worms"? > > Maybe you mean "Matthew, we know you're clueful, but by being > negative, you'll PISS OFF the Internic, and THEY WON'T PLAY > with you despite their charter, mission, govt. contract, etc. > > Now, don't get me wrong. I'd love to have the Internic pissed > off at me just as much as the next guy. I just hate to see people > (like Matthew, who's been around for a while) being told to > "shut up or you'll _never_ get what you want." > > Ehud > No, I don't think that is anything near what he is saying. IMHO, what I read between the lines is this in fact... We have all been having to deal with this. Many of us have been in Matt's position, and what we have learned is that in fact, the IP people at the Internic are in fact that, people! Imagine my amazement when I met Kim in person and found out she didn't have fangs, horns, and a string with dried Network Engineers' ears 'round her neck. In fact, she is a very nice person doing a very difficult job. She has a set of rules she must live by. she has to be impartial, and show no preferences. The things that Matt is running into sounds just like the things that a good number of us have run into. The end being, if you follow the requirements (sign an NDA, EVERY lawyer of worth knows what those are), you get the addresses you need. So maybe you have to deal with a /19 here, an /18 there, and a few /17's before you get a /16. It's a rough life, but I doubt anyone is going to jump on your case for creating two routes where only one would have existed before. That extra route is going to fall in the noise level as everyone and thier brother multi-home. If route table size was an argument that the Internic was going to blindly accept, it would have already happened. What your lawyers will eventually find out, is that you are being treated in exactly the same manner as everyone else. At this point, you're going to be looking at a suit that will run for a couple of years without any sign of closure. My suggestion is to seriously sit down, and evaluate your current assignment of IP's and make sure they are allocated in a sane and efficient manner. If they are not, renumber, if they are, swip. Then create an engineering plan that runs a good distance into the future, and supply that plan to the IP group at the Internic. I think you might find the way less rocky at that point. Again, this is all my humble opinion, and not based on any semblance of knowledge on the internal functions of the Internic. I'll leave that to Kim. (*wave* Hi Kim) Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C.

2 1

RE: Internic address allocation policy
by Jim Fleming 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

On Monday, November 18, 1996 4:14 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @ On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ relationships with key suppliers and customers. The Internic IP registry @ > @ is a key supplier for any large ISP and that means if they have not @ > @ developped a relationship with the IP registry people during their early @ > @ days, they will run into this sort of problem when they need the IP @ > @ registry's help. @ @ > Hmmm...develop a relationship...are people getting married ? @ @ Yes. In order to succeed in business you must develop relationships with @ key suppliers that are much like marriage relationships. @ @ > or just trying to get a government clerk to assign some numbers ? @ @ Government clerks are not involved here. @ Michael, Once again, I do not think that you have your InterNIC facts straight. While I understand that you might like to "spin" things up there in Canada so that Internet users think that there is no U.S. Government involvement in the Internet, the facts speak otherwise. Also, suggesting that people hire a consultant (as opposed to an attorney) to help them cut through the Internet red tape, gives the impression that these are technical problems. This is misleading and will not help people acheive their goal. JF @@@@@@ The InterNIC is an abstract entity of the National Science Foundation (NSF) which is funded by the United States Government. (Note the .GOV top level domain below as a clue). The InterNIC was originally composed of THREE contractors. General Atomics - Information Services AT&T - Data Base Services Network Solutions, Inc. - Registration Services General Atomics was removed by the NSF after a panel of experts reviewed their performance. AT&T and NSI remain. For some reason the "spin doctors" keep trying to make people think that NSI and the InterNIC are one and the same. This is not the case. The person most responsible for the InterNIC and all of its operations is Dr. George Strawn of the U.S Government funded, National Science Foundation. Dr. Strawn was recently appointed to the IAHC <http://www.iahc.org> and also recently reported to the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) on the status of registries, etc. <http://www.fnc.gov> The FNCAC advised the NSF to get out of the registry business, but that is not going to happen very quickly. For one reason, there are tens of millions of dollars at stake, which are supposed to be spent on Internet infrastructure. Someone has to account for all of that money and make sure that it is properly managed. The NSF can not walk away from that "government" responsibility. @@@@ http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ncri/Georgehome.html Dr. George Strawn Division Director, Division of Networking and Communication Research and Infrastructure National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1175 Arlington, VA 22230 Phone: (703) 306-1950 Fax: (703) 306-0621 Email: gstrawn(a)nsf.gov @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ In my opinion, anyone that can not get "customer" satisfaction from the InterNIC should contact Dr. Strawn. He and his staff are responsible for those operations and contracts. If you still can not get satisfaction, you should check out the Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation. Unlike the Internet Government being formed by the various I* organizations, the U.S. Government has already worked through many of the problems that can arise when a few people make arbitrary decisions about huge sums of money or valuable resources. The OIG provides an appeals body and a direct link to the U.S. Congress. @@@@@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Office of Inspector General On February 10, 1989, the National Science Board established NSF's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in compliance with the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-504). OIG recommends policies to: promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in administering NSF programs and operations; prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in NSF programs and operations; and prevent, detect, and handle cases involving misconduct in science. OIG is headed by the Inspector General (IG), who reports directly to the NSB and Congress. The IG is independent and may not be prevented from carrying out any audit or investigation or issuing any report. Under the law, the IG has the authority and responsibility to conduct audits and investigations involving any NSF proposal, award, program, function, system, or operation. In support of these responsibilities, OIG has statutory authority to subpoena or otherwise obtain all records, files, reports, documents, or any materials needed to perform audits and investigations. If you need further information or want to discuss confidentially any allegation or suspicion of misconduct in science, fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, please contact the appropriate Assistant Inspector General or the Counsel to the Inspector General. Office of Audit (703) 306-2001 Investigations (703) 306-2004 Oversight Activities (703) 306-2006 Legal Issues (703) 306-2100 Hotline (703) 306-2004 Electronic Mail Hotline oig(a)nsf.gov @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The above "government" agencies can be very helpful in obtaining the Internet resources that you need allocated from the InterNIC. Any U.S. citizen or company that does not take advantage of these agencies is wasting their tax dollars (and their time). U.S. taxpayers are funding the above agencies and the employees of those agencies, and their contractors, should treat the taxpayers as customers. It has been my experience that the NSF clearly understands this "relationship" agreement and can make things happen very quickly at the InterNIC. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0