- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

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

19 Nov '96

On Monday, November 18, 1996 2:28 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @ On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, George Herbert wrote: @ @ > This should not be happening. Matthew should not have to fly out @ > to Virginia to tell someone at InterNIC face to face what he's been @ > saying in email. @ @ I agree. But this is business and businesses are based on personal @ 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 ? or just trying to get a government clerk to assign some numbers ? If people are going to develop a relationship, maybe they should be attending meetings like the following that was reported in the October 1996 Internet Monthly Report. Of course to do that, they would have to be notified. You should note that no notes or minutes are included, just the following brief mention. @@@@ 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. @@@@@@ Anyone that has not figured out by now that the Internet is a country club like place where you have the "haves" and the "have nots", and the "right people" and the "wrong people" and people with relationships and those without, then you have not looked very closely at the system. One would hope that the "system" had been designed to accommodate an expanding number of people helping to provide the infrastructure and the commitments needed to protect some of the precious natural resources of the Internet. In my opinion, the technical system *has* been designed this way, but the *people* system has not. What we now see evolving is a system which does not protect the natural resources of the Internet but instead operates to protect the "people resources" of the Internet. Rather than focusing on the "relationships" of routers and networks, and routing tables and IP allocations, we are focusing on relationships of people. Actually, the people do not probably matter as much as the money they represent. More and more people are suggesting that non-Internet meetings be used to solve problems. More and more, people are talking about jet setting around the world to participate in forums. Why ? Because only those people with the money can participate. The barrier to entry is being raised to make sure that only the "right" people get in. The Internet is not being used effectively by the people who are designing systems to "exclude" people, rather than "include" them. I predict that all of this will lead to a new generation of teachers, students, inventors, citizens, and government officials building a true Internet using the current network as a base. People are not going to continue to tolerate being oppressed by these policies and systems which are designed to favor a small elite group of people at the expense of the performance of the network. The focus needs to shift back to the relationships of natural Internet resources and the fragile eco-system that is required to keep things working. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Eric Kozowski 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

Everyone has a problem getting address space. That's a fact of life with the current IP allocation policy. My suggestion is to ask for a /18, with the rest of the /16 reserved for your use. Religiously SWIP or RWhois your allocations. Get network engineering documents from your customers _before_ you assign address space. Yes, all of the above is a pain in the ass. But that's life. And lastly, don't take your frustration out on Kim Hubbard or anyone else at the InterNIC (and yes, I'm guilty). They're just enforcing the policy. It's a tough place to be in. And _please_ keep the lawyers out of this. ObLaywerJoke: Q. What you have when there are 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand? A. Not enough sand! -- Eric Kozowski Senior Network Engineer eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (503)656-3235 FAX Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (800)881-0962 Voice http://www.structured.net/ "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" -- 56k to DS3

4 3

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by fehnb＠jerseycape.net 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

> >I have heard nothing but horror stories about dealings with the NIC >in the last month or two, including the domain my day job is at >being shut down 3 times in one week and not being able to get through Same here. Seems the WHOIS database went south and rs.internic.net was unreachable for at least 24hrs. Then Email was being bounced... Sounds like a minor meltdown.... Robert J. Fehn Sr.,President and CEO Jersey Cape Information Systems Inc. PO Box 967 Marmora, NJ, 08223 Voice: 609-390-0061 http://www.jerseycape.net fehnb(a)jerseycape.net fehnb(a)jerseycape.com

2 1

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

19 Nov '96

Original message <199611190257.VAA03776(a)dilbert.multiverse.com> From: Jamie <jamie(a)dilbert.multiverse.com> Date: Nov 18, 21:57 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting > address space. That had better not be the case. This is business. Multimillion dollar business, even. And if the Internic starts to pick and choose which companies can and cannot have IP addresses based on their public postings, some judge is going to have a field day. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1

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

19 Nov '96

Original message <Pine.BSI.3.93.961118181247.11775K-100000(a)sidhe.memra.com> From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> Date: Nov 18, 18:25 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > > I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP > > addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others > > who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers. > > Lawyers will only cost you money, slow you down and accomplish nothing in > the end. > > > Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument > > that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on > > looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with > > small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed > > publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like > > w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently > > doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg(a)internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing > > our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had > > to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously > > sanitize it. > > Sounds like your company is suffering from a serious lack of knowledge > about IP allocation procedures and policies. The only solution to this is > to educate yourself, get your internal procedures and policies in order, > and integrate your knowledge of IP allocation procedures into your > planning processes. We have been doing this since 1992, and have significant knowledge of IP allocation proceedures and policies. We were around when class B addresses were still being handed out,... we were around when CIDR was first deployed, and we've adjusted our internal policies regarding allocation as the standards have changed. For instance, it was once standard to issue a full class C subnet to almost any "corporate" client, and most routers didn't understand VLSM anyway. Now that's changed, and our policies have changed to match. In order to keep table size down, in the very early days we got a class B network and issued subnets of that to some of our clients, which even today saves a significant number of announcements that pre-CIDR couldn't have been reduced any other way. We also used to accept and advertise routes for customers who had their own PI class C space, but now we almost always require renumbering to inside one of our CIDR blocks,... something which has increased the rate at which those blocks are taken up. We were around when SWIP became available, and were one of the early victims of the "SWIP deletes IN-ADDR records" bug. And when rwhois became an option, one of our techs set up an rwhois server, and we switched to that for reporting our distribution of networks downstream. The reason for CIDR is to reduce table size. The reason for tight subnetting is to reduce IP address space waste until more addresses become available (class A subnetting, and then IPv6). We use both. > > > All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, > > allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more > > addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've > > been forced into getting our lawyers involved. > > It's your own ignorance that created your problem and its your own > ignorance that is leading you to lawyers. The Internic formerly responded to requests for addresses, backed up with valid engineering requirements, with an address allocation. Now they do everything possible to block the allocation of additional addresses, and have gone so far as to request information which we are contractually prohibited from releasing. Ask anyone who receives junk (snail)mail from their domain name records why a provider should be able to keep its customer contact information private. The Internic has changed the allocation model to a 3-month term, which, unless large reservations are kept, will simply increase table size as providers consume their small blocks. > > > Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be > > reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note. > > For starters after reading your plans I can't see any reason why you > couldn't afford to spend $10,000 or $20,000 to get the IP addresses you > need. If you are willing to spend some money here's what to do. > > Telephone the IP allocation folks at the Internic and ask to meet with > them in Virginia to explain what you need to do to get IP addresses and > ensure smooth allocation of addresses in the future. Don't even mention > the specifics of what has happened in the past and do *NOT* ask for > addresses. Ask for a meeting. Tell them that a technical person and a > management person (CEO) will be at the meeting. Once the date and time is > arranged, fly to Virginia, sit down, listen, ask questions, take notes. First you say I'm ignorant of how IP address allocation works, and now you're telling me that the way it works is to fly me and the CEO to Virginia?!? This is the INTERNET. I ought to be able to get this entire matter resolved via email. Period. > > Be especially careful with the notetaking. For instance, if the Internic > person says "You have to one, two, thre, blah blah" you should confirm it > by saying "So if we one, two three, blah, blah that will meet this > requirement?". Throughout this meeting be friendly. Do not bluster or > threaten or yell or whine. I've asked for specific requirements via email, and been told that only one thing was blocking me, and then when that's resolved, found that now there's 3 more things blocking it. That sort of nonsense is why lawyers are getting involved. A simple inability to keep their own word via email, and actions which are preventing us from doing business make them perfect targets. > What if they won't meet with you? Then ask them where you can find out > this information. Where can you find a consultant to hire who knows. > Your intent on the phone call should be to determine who has the knowledge > to solve the problem (Internic person or consultant) and where you have to > go to meet with this person. I have a consultant who can help me when my own negotiations with the Internic fail. He happens to be my lawyer, and has a very good track record of getting the Internic to behave themselves. If I'm going to fly someone out to take notes at a meeting, it'll be my lawyer, because then there won't be any argument over what the stated requirements were. > Be prepared to change your internal policies. Be prepared to thoroughly > document what you are using IP addresses for. Be civil. Our internal policies have been and continue to dynamically adjust to the current "state of the art" for address allocation. Our usage of IP addresses has been extensively documented to the Internic via SWIP, rwhois, and detailed statements on our applications for additional addresses. The ONLY thing we've refused to document is the specific names and addresses of people who have been allocated small subnets and who don't already have their contact information on file with the Internic. We've been civil. We've been frank. We've pointed out that a failure to act will start to cost us real money. And we've been turned away every time. As I said before, I can't believe that this process has gotten to the point where lawyers have to get involved, but it has, and that's that. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1

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

19 Nov '96

I know of one large ($1 Billion+) retailer who was assigned 5 Class C's two months ago by MCI for a DMZ network, one for each division sharing the link. 1270 addresses is a hell of a lot of proxies and email gateways... At 08:00 PM 11/18/96 -0800, Matt Ranney wrote: >Wayne Bouchard writes... >> >> Heartily agreed.. Its far far easier to get address space when you've >> got the docs to prove you need it and you've allocated >> intelligently. They require you to justify need, why shouldn't you >> require customers requesting multiple class Cs to justify need? > >Do larger providers have to play by the same rules, or do they all >still have so much extra space from the pre-CIDR days that it doesn't >matter? I ask because I know of at least one BBN customer that less >than a year ago was assigned 3 /24's for their 30 machine network. >-- >Matt Ranney - mjr(a)eit.com > >This is how I sign all my messages. > >

1 0

quote from the last issue of EE Times
by Vadim Antonov 19 Nov '96

19 Nov '96

"Still, MCI's Gross noted that one unidentified member of the engineering task force recently condemned RSVP as, according to Gross, "the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the Internet community."" (nov 18, page 16) Does anybody know who that "unidentified member" is? I would like to buy him beer. --vadim

1 0