- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internic address allocation policy (fwd)
by Brian Tackett 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Kim Hubbard wrote: > Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that every ISP decides to do this. > What's to stop some ISPs from listing a bunch of companies that are > not their customers and are not really receiving address space from > them for the purpose of getting more address space. Absolutely nothing, and therein lies the crux of the problem. To be honest, I can understand the motivations behind InterNIC's policies. However, comprehension of said policies does not mean that I agree on all counts. It truly shouldn't (IMHO) be as difficult as it sometimes is to get address space, but perhaps it's simply pushing the limitations of the current system. The problem I see most often in smaller organizations as they grow larger is the lack of consistency in internal policies, and the like. i.e, FooNet Inc. has 12 or so Class C's from MCI, and as they pick up extra providers perhaps the dance goes on until they have a hodgepodge of networks. Now the ISP enters the next level, and someone decides they need a larger CIDR block. They go to the NIC, and are told to submit a justification. The problem seems to be that many ISP's simply have not kept up with SWIP or RWhois, and are completely unprepared for a stricter accounting of their address space, even when/if they are efficiently using it. The frustration enters when the ISP begins to see the possibility of losing customers, as they try to sort out their justification. It's quite easy to see how people might feel compelled to scream at Kim, call their lawyer, make themselves sick and generally have fits over the problem. On the other hand, the NIC staff are simply not superhuman beings capable of personally babysitting a thousand customers as they try to sort out their addressing problems and policies. Hence the restrictive policies, which are really a defense mechanism to prevent unscrupulous people from taking advantage of the system and further screwing it up. 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.

5 6

Re: "Virtual" web servers (was Re: IP Allocation)
by Jay McCarthy 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

Greetings, I've put together a test page at "http://www.atmnet.net/testhttp/". This will tell you if your browser supports the Host variable. I would like to compile a list of which browsers do and do not. This should help companies decide whether it is appropriate to replace their web servers with http 1.1 compliant ones to do virtual hosting. We have seen many problems with traditional virtual web serving for instance: - Many OS implementations make it difficult to support more than a few IP's per physical card. - Many OS implementations do not support superneting - Some OSs do not support load balancing therefor web trafic management is problematic - Large amounts of IP address space is needed. - Most OSs barf with large numbers of IPs So IMHO web server based virtual hosting is the way to go. -Jay- > Subject: Re: "Virtual" web servers (was Re: IP Allocation) > > > Am I getting confused here myself, or are we talking about HTTP/1.1 > > rather than HTML 1.1 ? > > We are in fact talking about HTTP/1.1. It was a quick brain typo. > > > One good reason at the moment for not moving to only providing support > > for HTTP/1.1 is the lack of support for it in lynx, which many blind > > people use as a browser, and lack of support for which by ISPs would > > probably be fairly politically unpopular. > > Lynx 2.5 and 2.6 appear to be HTTP/1.1 compliant and support the host feature > that we are talking about. (Atleast in the testing we have done). > > -Pete > > > ========================================================================= > Peter Davis - Sr. Systems & Network Engineer <pete(a)tiac.net> > The Internet Access Company PO Box 1098 Bedford MA 617-276-7200 > Mail info(a)tiac.net for a list of access-points! > ========================================================================= > -------- REPLY, End of original message -------- -- ------------------------------------------------ Jay McCarthy jay(a)atmnet.net Network Engineer ATMnet 5440 Morehouse Dr. #3700 San Diego, CA 92121 (619)643-1813 voice (619) 643-1801 fax

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by matthew＠scruz.net 20 Nov '96

20 Nov '96

Original message <3.0.32.19961118224915.006f2b00(a)nap.net> From: "Chris A. Icide" <chris(a)nap.net> Date: Nov 18, 22:49 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > ... > 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. In fact, though, I have stories piling up via private email that shows that this "impartial and show no preferences" is in fact ignored on a fairly regular basis. Thanks to everyone who has given me stuff via private email, and keep the stories coming in. The allocation policies do in fact have fatal flaws. For instance, conservation of addresses which results in not filling an allocated block within 3 months is penalized, not rewarded. The penalty for using up addresses too slowly is to have future allocations blocked entirely, not simply limited to /19. You are better off allocating /24's quickly than carefully analyzing customer needs and allocating smaller subnets. However, wasting addresses too quickly can get your subnet-size policy brought into question. But, bigger providers are given much more slack with regard to their allocation policies, and their own public SWIP and rwhois information bears this out. There are dozens of examples of /24 subnets being handed out to people with very low numbers of actual hosts by Sprint, for instance, from their 207.40.0.0 block, and clearly they were able to receive their 208.0.0.0/12 block in spite of this. (I hate to pick on Sprint here, but that's the first set of data I pulled for examination). It goes on and on. Yes, by bringing this out into the public I've potentially made someone(s) at the Internic unhappy. Sorry. I've also received dozens of private emails thanking me for making this more widely known, and several other providers have contacted me because they're in the same situation... comply with the policy, and get screwed. The fact is, I *don't* ever have to post stuff like this about my other "suppliers". For starters, I've never had a real supplier try to jerk me around so much, and secondly, there really aren't any other suppliers who are sole (monopolistic) sources. If Cisco's tech support people were as hard to deal with as the Internic representatives, I'd go buy someone else's routers. I don't have this choice for IP addresses, and my complaints are going to be public as long as there's people who want to hear them. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

6 7

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