- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: CIX doing registries?? Just say no!
by Bob Collet 25 May '95

25 May '95

> As I mentioned at the nanog conference, I would very much like to > have registries where we _pay_ for the registration services; the > idea being that paying for the service will result in much better > service. I also mentioned that I would like such registries to > be non-for-profit, and that I would rather CIX stay the hell away > from registries. > > Why am I against CIX? Registries delegate authority over two > different kinds of things: domain names and IP addresses [and AS > numbers too]. > The former have almost no value prior to registration, the latter > have value wether or not they are being used. Either way NICs perform > the service of the delegating authority over domain names and IP > addresses; what they don't do is evaluate the market value of the > domain names and IP addresses they hand out, and _that_ is what I worry > an outfit like CIX might be tempted to do. It wouldn't be too bad if > we had to pay market prices for IP addresses and domain names, but > CIX might not have to pay market prices for the right to > delegate authority either; I don't want to see a huge scam here... > In the old White Paper we were proposing that any surplus funds go to places like ISOC/IETF. Surplus funds, that is surplus over cost of operations, would me minimzed by a board of some type. I am sorry you feel we'd scam you. In any case, the White Paper did its job by acting as a catalyst for further movement with the result being Paul and Jerry's Internet registration Tool Set proposal. > How would CIX determine the fees that we're to pay them for > their registration services?? In response to their members' questions > as to what they (the members) would get [for their fees being spent > on this project] that non-CIX-members woudln't, Paul and Jerry > mumbled something about a two-tiered service pricing scheme where > CIX members would get lower fees. Am I the only one bothered by this? > I think they might have been referring to the tool set. > And _what_ is CIX going to give _who_ in exchange for the > right/responsibility of delegating authority over the Class C space > lying at 207.*.*.* and beyond?? And what would they then charge for > the service of assigning these to ISP's [and whoever else]?? > > Mind you, I don't want to see IP address space auctions like > the electromagnetic spectrum auctions the FCC has been carrying out... > I think that careful delegation, will give us enough time to get to > the point where the older IP assignments can be redone (i.e. when > people renumber) or to when IPv6 can be deployed (which opens up a > whole new wonderful can of worms. My proposal is that a > non-for-profit organization free of conflicting interests (like > the members vs. > non-members problem CIX has) take over the InterNIC's > registry responsibilities. In the old White paper the goal was for the CIX to simply act as a clearing house where the actual registries that customers would deal with operate at ISP level. Therefore, I fail to see the conflict of interest. In any case, as described above, the immediate problem is with the current state of support tools, and that is where we think we should be focusing our attention. Any advise on this matter would be appreciated. The bottom line is to do what's right and what's needed for the ISP community. Thanks Bob Collet Preident, CIX > > Which would be the best forum to discuss these matters? > > Nick >

1 0

Re: Gentle Reminder about NANOG
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 25 May '95

25 May '95

> > Please send me a summary of your remarks from Tuesday's discussions prior to > 9:15am concerning RFC 1797 and OPS review of IETF documentation. > OPS review: With the increasing number of RFCs and drafts that have a direct impact on operations, the question was asked if a true operations forum like NANOG would be willing to function as a review board. It was noted that there have been efforts in the past to address this issue, within the Operations Area of the IETF, which met with some difficulties. It was suggested that the IESG be approached regarding a modification of the standard RFC template to include a operational impact statement, much like the security impact bullet. Bill Manning has taken the action item to do just that. He has asked the IETF OPS AD for input and will talk to the RFC editor when she returns, about making this suggestion at the next IESG meeting. There are some hopes that if there is progress in this area that operators will actually spend time reviewing drafts prior to publication with an eye to the impact the proposed changes will have on operations. RFC 1797 status: RFC 1797 is authorization to test for problems in a distributed class A, before the IANA begins delegation of CIDR blocks in the traditional class A space. Every owner of an AS number has the subnet 39.<AS & 0x7fff>.0/24. The assignment is temporary, and lasts until 951131. There are currently 12 providers with registered delegations. The inital test is to be able to support your own in-addr domain from the primary server. There are currently some reachability problems, since some providers are blocking /24 nets. Current both cisco and gated code is being tested. Bay Networks may be involved soon. There are a few hosts currently on-net that are not ciscos: in-addr.ep.net anka.stupi.se exp39.ripe.net postel.wind.surfnet.nl Other hosts should be brought on-net and some interesting services should be hosts on them. It is likely that one or more root name servers will be moved and at least one ftp and web server may make the change. Two of the lessons learned so far: - Conversion to classless EGP is mandatory (BGP4 is your choice) and conversion to a classless IGP is mandatory. This last is not generally recognized and may be the cause of significant problems in 1996 unless there is action taken NOW. - cisco users need to add the following: "ip classless" to their configs. There has been set up a mailing list to coordinate and discuss this experiment: exp39(a)isi.edu. Send to exp39-request(a)isi.edu to join. --bill

1 0

CIX doing registries?? Just say no!
by Nicolas Williams 25 May '95

25 May '95

As I mentioned at the nanog conference, I would very much like to have registries where we _pay_ for the registration services; the idea being that paying for the service will result in much better service. I also mentioned that I would like such registries to be non-for-profit, and that I would rather CIX stay the hell away from registries. Why am I against CIX? Registries delegate authority over two different kinds of things: domain names and IP addresses [and AS numbers too]. The former have almost no value prior to registration, the latter have value wether or not they are being used. Either way NICs perform the service of the delegating authority over domain names and IP addresses; what they don't do is evaluate the market value of the domain names and IP addresses they hand out, and _that_ is what I worry an outfit like CIX might be tempted to do. It wouldn't be too bad if we had to pay market prices for IP addresses and domain names, but CIX might not have to pay market prices for the right to delegate authority either; I don't want to see a huge scam here... How would CIX determine the fees that we're to pay them for their registration services?? In response to their members' questions as to what they (the members) would get [for their fees being spent on this project] that non-CIX-members woudln't, Paul and Jerry mumbled something about a two-tiered service pricing scheme where CIX members would get lower fees. Am I the only one bothered by this? And _what_ is CIX going to give _who_ in exchange for the right/responsibility of delegating authority over the Class C space lying at 207.*.*.* and beyond?? And what would they then charge for the service of assigning these to ISP's [and whoever else]?? Mind you, I don't want to see IP address space auctions like the electromagnetic spectrum auctions the FCC has been carrying out... I think that careful delegation, will give us enough time to get to the point where the older IP assignments can be redone (i.e. when people renumber) or to when IPv6 can be deployed (which opens up a whole new wonderful can of worms. My proposal is that a non-for-profit organization free of conflicting interests (like the members vs. non-members problem CIX has) take over the InterNIC's registry responsibilities. Which would be the best forum to discuss these matters? Nick

3 2

"Steven J. Richardson": Re: Delegation
by Steven J. Richardson 24 May '95

24 May '95

Sorry for this message; it seems that merit.edu had problems with your message (and some with one from Sean) at the time in question. This appears to have been fixed for several days, now. Steve R. ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: list-admin(a)merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by home.merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id TAA16742; Mon, 22 May 1995 19:02:39 -0400 Received: from home.merit.edu (home.merit.edu [198.108.60.42]) by merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id SAA00380 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 22 May 1995 18:32:54 -0400 Received: (from sjr@localhost) by home.merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) id SAA15604; Mon, 22 May 1995 18:32:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 18:32:51 -0400 From: "Steven J. Richardson" <sjr(a)merit.edu> Message-Id: <199505222232.SAA15604(a)home.merit.edu> To: briank(a)kimbro.com, nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Delegation Status: O Brian: Please cease this. thanks, Steve Richardson/Merit == >From list-admin(a)merit.edu Fri May 19 03:27:59 1995 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by home.merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id DAA19726; Fri, 19 May 1995 03:26:36 -0400 Received: from kimbro.kimbro.com (root(a)[199.33.239.1]) by merit.edu (8.6.10/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id PAA06014 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Wed, 17 May 1995 15:22:36 -0400 Received: from kimbro.kimbro.com (briank(a)localhost.kimbro.com [127.0.0.1]) by kimbro.kimbro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA07439 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Wed, 17 May 1995 12:21:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199505171921.MAA07439(a)kimbro.kimbro.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Delegation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 12:21:52 -0700 From: "D. Brian Kimmel" <briank(a)Kimbro.Com> Status: R Is there a document or reference available that spells out the proper way to delegate in-addr authority? Thanks Brian D. Brian Kimmel Kimbro, Inc. Voice 937-8381 ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Delegation
by D. Brian Kimmel 24 May '95

24 May '95

Is there a document or reference available that spells out the proper way to delegate in-addr authority? Thanks Brian D. Brian Kimmel Kimbro, Inc. Voice 937-8381

4 3

NANOG Speakers -- READ THIS!
by sob＠academ.com 24 May '95

24 May '95

If you were a speaker at NANOG, please send me the machine readbable copies of your slides. I can take most any format -- PowerPoint, FrameMaker, Word, text, postscript, whatever. Upload it via FTP to owlman.academ.com in the /incoming directory. Or, send it in a MIME-encoded email message. tar is fine, zip is fine, binhex is fine. Thanks for your assistance. Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: bcm!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Will there be mbone ?
by Tony Bates 24 May '95

24 May '95

Is the forhcoming meeting going to be multicast ? Thanks, --Tony.

10 13

Re: Delegation
by Steven J. Richardson 22 May '95

22 May '95

Brian: Please cease this. thanks, Steve Richardson/Merit == >From list-admin(a)merit.edu Fri May 19 03:27:59 1995 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by home.merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id DAA19726; Fri, 19 May 1995 03:26:36 -0400 Received: from kimbro.kimbro.com (root(a)[199.33.239.1]) by merit.edu (8.6.10/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id PAA06014 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Wed, 17 May 1995 15:22:36 -0400 Received: from kimbro.kimbro.com (briank(a)localhost.kimbro.com [127.0.0.1]) by kimbro.kimbro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA07439 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Wed, 17 May 1995 12:21:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199505171921.MAA07439(a)kimbro.kimbro.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Delegation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 12:21:52 -0700 From: "D. Brian Kimmel" <briank(a)Kimbro.Com> Status: R Is there a document or reference available that spells out the proper way to delegate in-addr authority? Thanks Brian D. Brian Kimmel Kimbro, Inc. Voice 937-8381

1 0

I-D ACTION:draft-degroot-classless-inaddr-00.txt
by Internet-Drafts＠CNRI.Reston.VA.US 22 May '95

22 May '95

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Classless in-addr.arpa delegation Author(s) : H. Eidnes, G. de Groot Filename : draft-degroot-classless-inaddr-00.txt Pages : 6 Date : 05/19/1995 This document describes a way to do in-addr.arpa delegation on non-octet boundaries. The proposed method should thus remove one of the objections to do subnetting on non-octet boundaries but perhaps more significantly, make it possible to assign IP address space in smaller chunks than 24-bit prefixes without losing the ability to delegate authority for the corresponding in-addr.arpa mappings. The proposed method is fully compatible with the original DNS lookup mechanisms specified in [1], i.e. there is no need to modify the lookup algorithm used, and there should be no need to modify any software which does DNS lookups either. Internet-Drafts are available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-degroot-classless-inaddr-00.txt". A URL for the Internet-Draft is: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-degroot-classless-inaddr-00.txt Internet-Drafts directories are located at: o Africa Address: ftp.is.co.za (196.4.160.2) o Europe Address: nic.nordu.net (192.36.148.17) Address: ftp.nis.garr.it (192.12.192.10) o Pacific Rim Address: munnari.oz.au (128.250.1.21) o US East Coast Address: ds.internic.net (198.49.45.10) o US West Coast Address: ftp.isi.edu (128.9.0.32) Internet-Drafts are also available by mail. Send a message to: mailserv(a)ds.internic.net. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-degroot-classless-inaddr-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ds.internic.net can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e., documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. For questions, please mail to Internet-Drafts(a)cnri.reston.va.us. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-degroot-classless-inaddr-00.txt

1 0

Re: PI vs PA Address Space
by Hank Nussbacher 22 May '95

22 May '95

On Wed, 17 May 1995 13:00:00 +0200 you said: Doc 1: > > Provider Independent > > vs > > Provider Aggregatable > > Address Space > > > > Daniel Karrenberg > RIPE NCC Doc 2: > On the Implications of Address Ownership for Internet Routing > <draft-ietf-cidrd-ownership-00.txt> Doc 3 (from Internic): > INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES > > FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS (ISP) Can I make a suggestion? Can Yakov, Daniel and the people from Internic (Mark and Kim), get together and merge these 3 papers into one draft RFC and put on the fast track so that everyone not following these internal discussions will know what to do come the end of the summer? Hank Nussbacher Israel

1 0