- Test - lists.nanog.org

Internet address allocation policy
by Jerry Marsh 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

I too am having increasing difficulty getting address from Internic without tons of justification. One small point I would like to make: There is an implicit assumption here that the addresses requested are for immediate use on the Internet. Many State agencies here are moving to TCP/IP based networks. This is as much for interconnectivity among ourselves as anything else. They may initially not even connect to other State agencies, let alone the Internet. That does not reduce their need to have coordinated addresses. The last thing they need to do is deploy a network with bogus addresses and then have to change the addresses when they interconnect with others/Internet. They could request small blocks of "C" themselves, but it makes more sense to me to use sub-block of CIDRs that I manage when they have intent of eventually attaching to the Internet thru us. Jerry Marsh | State of Washington - DIS/TSD - MS 2450 jerrym(a)dis.wa.gov | Olympia, Wa 98504-2450 voice: 360-902-3311

1 0

Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) (fwd)
by karl＠mcs.com 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

> From: Brett Watson <bwatson(a)diamond.cary.mci.net> > > It just seems to me that everyone is taking all of this way out > of bounds. The internic is strict and sometimes contradicts > itself, I agree. but all they ask for is a plan, or rather and > *estimate*. Karl, you say you can't possibly guess those > numbers? How do you do business then? You've got to be able to > estimate business and market growth (not bashing you, just don't > understand). > > -brett No, what I'm saying is that it is none of the NIC's concern what my growth plan looks like, or what my business plan looks like. If someone else is willing to turn over a business plan, that's their choice, but IMHO that's really, really stupid. As in possibly suicidally stupid. I would give my left nut (pardon the vernacular) for some of these business plans. They are absolutely golden in terms of their value to a competitor in the areas of the country you do business, and anyone who doesn't understand that really ought to be working for someone else rather than running a company in this, or any other, marketplace. There are all kinds of interesting pieces of information in our business plan, and many of them would be VERY useful to a competitor. For that reason that piece of paper is to be found only in our vault at the bank, and in an encrypted (strongly!) file on a PC in my home. The NIC can have a copy of ours if and when they take out an indeminty bond of about $10M and sign the contracts required by me of anyone who wants a peek at that for any other legitimate business purpose. Until then my answer to that request is "stuff it". I know what's in there, I know how much value it has to a potential or actual competitor, and that information simply will not be allowed to pass out of my control without the strongest of guarantees that it will remain secure. Even our *bank* doesn't have a copy of this document, and that relationship is traditionally one of the strongest between two firms. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland Voice: [+1 312 248-8649] | 6 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8 Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Email to "info(a)mcs.net" for more information ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Jeff.Ogden＠um.cc.umich.edu 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

I didn't think that the RS folks were asking for business plans. I have heard them ask for IP numbering plans or routing plans or other things that give them at least a feel that you will be putting the address to good use. Sounds like the sort of thing I'd want them to ask for. I don't want them to make too much of a judgement on what you submit, other than you seem to know enough to not waste the addresses. -Jeff Ogden Merit/MichNet

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Jonathan Heiliger 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

On Mar 19, 8:36am, Karl Denninger wrote: > Yet, we were told to go stuff a year ago when we asked for the block, and > instead have had to get four different smaller blocks of space from other > sources. And we are not alone; I am personally involved with another > NATIONAL provider who has been told to stuff more than once by these folks, > and they consume addresses rather more quickly than we do. > > This sucks, and in addition, it is counter-productive. Announcing one > aggregate beats announcing 4. >-- End of excerpt from Karl Denninger I have to agree with Karl & Joe (is this a first? :) Dealing with the InterNIC for address space just takes more time than it should, IMHO. In order to get our address space out of them I had to write over 10 pages of justification and FAXed it to them, after our electronic requests were slammed immediately. This got us 1/4 of the requested space which we're now reaching the limits of only 2months after allocation. I was actually just tossing the idea around of using the RFC 1597 (it's 6am, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong) networks that "shouldn't be announced" to the outside world for parts of our infrastructure. The only downside I can see is that DNS will fail to function on that part of our network. The upside is that an outsider has no chance of directly reaching internal routers. :-) -jh

2 1

FBOI apolpgy
by fboi＠netcom.com 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

We apologize for sending you our unsolicitated press release. We carefully screened who received our information. We could not, however, determine proper parties in all cases. Please understand our desire to inform the users of the Internet of our services. Thank You First Bank of Internet

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by ATM_Feel_the_Power 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

Sean, More than a few providers expressed concerns. The people present at that meeting deal with thses and other issues. I think that anything that could impact the operation of the net would be fair game for discussion. Who knows I could be wrong. At any point we are willing to work toward an imeadiate solution. As I said before, we had some of the best minds in the world present at that meeting. If we can't solve the problem shame on us. Joseph On Mon, 20 Mar 1995, Sean Donelan wrote: > >First off this is not about what Karl wants. All NSP's are involved in > >this matter. Karl does not have to prove that NET-99 is valid to the > >Nic. The Nic knows this. Their guidelines are in our opinion and the > >opinions of many outdated. What we were talking about is how to change > >this. Nothing more. Groups like NANOG are where these talks take > >place. > > I sat through the last NANOG meeting this came up. While a few providers > expressed concern about the current guidelines, they offered no hard > evidence of problems at the meeting. Since the mantra of the NANOG > is it is an operations group, not a policy group; in the absence of > any hard evidence of an current operational problem the NANOG didn't > seem to be the correct forum for changing policy guidelines. > > -- > Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO > Affiliation given for identification not representation > >

1 0

ANNOUNCE:FBOI Opens
by fboi＠netcom.com 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

___/\___ _|_()_|_ A N N O U C E M E N T For immediate release: Contact: fboi(a)netcom.com Monday, March 20, 1995 Subject of 'info' for details Direct questions to Vinn K. Beigh The First Bank of Internet, FBOI, is announcing the initiation of transaction processing services for Internet electronic commerce. Purchases over the Internet can now be made without exposing personal credit card information. Vendors can now sell products on the Internet without the restrictions imposed by credit card use. Other Internet purchase procedures require personal credit card information. Those proceedings will be monitored by thousands of people all over the world. Some will attempt to either decode the credit card information or impersonate the customer in future transactions. The alternative to personal credit cards for electronic commerce is based on an FBOI procured Visa (tm) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card. The card is prepaid, PIN protected, replaceable, disposable, and good at over 200,000 Visa/PLUS (tm) ATMs in 83 countries. The safety of FBOI is ensured because access to ATM funds without possession of both the ATM card and the Personal Identification Number (PIN) is not possible. ATM cards are also better than credit cards because their purchase does not require the personal, financial, and employment background of the consumer. The Visa ATM card is not a credit card. It is cash. The ATM card will be used as a checking account. Using an ATM card allows consumers to set aside dedicated funds for Internet data purchases. It provides a safe, secure way to transfer cash from consumers to producers. In addition, consumers can reclaim their funds at any time using an ATM. A check/invoice procedure is used that consumers will find familiar. The consumer first places an order with a vendor. The consumer then sends to the vendor or FBOI an e-mail 'check' for the purchase of the program/file/data product. The vendor sends FBOI an e-mail 'invoice'. FBOI will reconcile the transaction and send e-mail transaction receipts to both the vendor and customer. Cash will be taken from the customer ATM account and credited to the vendor for later payment. FBOI charges a 5% vendor commission per transaction. Producers of software, information collections, newsletters, graphics, and other data products can use FBOI services for the sale of their products. These vendors can sell their products for prices that would be too low for credit card transactions. Subscription services that charge an up-front fee for one time access to data depositories and services also can participate. Vendors will benefit from a very large consumer base because this global solution works just as well outside the U.S. as within the U.S.. The Visa ATM network is worldwide. Consumers will benefit from a very large vendor base because software produced in non-North American countries can be offered for sale much easier than now. The worldwide producers on the Internet can use FBOI services without the expense of owning or renting a dedicated Internet server or a World-Wide Web site. E-mail is the cheapest and simplest of all Internet services. Large Internet commercial services will soon be starting that provide only for the on-line purchase of catalog products. It will not be possible for the individual producer to sell a data product using those services. Those services will collect the consumers credit card information in advance because of Internet security problems. FBOI transmits no sensitive information over the Internet and prevents forgery and impersonation by using Pretty Good Privacy, PGP (tm), software for all transactions. This freeware provides excellent authentication and anti-alteration security. In addition to the unsecured nature of the Internet, consumers should be hesitant giving out their credit card information to vendors of unknown credibility. Tracking is much harder on the Internet than magazine direct marketing. Also, it is not the same as mail order merchandise since U.S. Postal Service and Federal Trade Commission mail order laws do not apply to the Internet. For high volume, low cost, transactions directly between producers and consumers on the Internet contact FBOI. Further information can be obtained from The First Bank of Internet by sending an e-mail message with the subject "info" to <fboi(a)netcom.com>. Visa is a trademark of Visa International Service Association. PLUS is a trademark of Plus System, Inc. PGP and Pretty Good Privacy are trademarks of Philip Zimmermann. The First Bank of Internet (tm) is not a lending institution. The First Bank of Internet (tm) is not a chartered.

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by johnr＠geo.net 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

I for one, think that this resource would be less "scarce" if it were not free. As an ISP who has and is investing substantial sums of money in our operation, I cannot afford to be put out of business due to lack of IP addresses. Speaking for my company and its customers, we would be more than willing to pay for IP space if we could be assured of getting it when we need it to service our customers! Hopefully, a market approach to assigning IP space would take into account large blocks and Class B's being held and not used at all. I happen to know of a small high tech company in Silicon Valley that holds more than one class B, and could barely spell Internet last year when we talked to them about attaching. Kind Regards, John A. Russo GeoNet Communications, Inc.

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by johnr＠geo.net 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

> > From: Alan Hannan <alan(a)mid.net> > Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > I know of several companies that would be willing to spend over $10,000 for > a class B network. Money is not the issue. Your idea of a (more efficient) > distribution center makes sense, however, this should be achieved through > group concensus and appointed councils, not by who wants to make money. > >If T.J. Rogers was dead, he'd be spinning in his grave right now. > >If you want something done efficiently, you want it run by people who are >damn well hungry for money, not by appointed councils. I couldn't agree with you more Paul.

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Vadim Antonov 20 Mar '95

20 Mar '95

From karl(a)mcs.com (Karl Denninger): > But others have reported to me that they have been asked for them, and I > was a personal witness to one of those requests. If Sprint, PSI, and > Alternet have them on file with the NIC I want to FOIA those documents! Dunno about others but Sprint provides InterNIC with extensive documentation on allocations and the technical reasons for doing this and that. We have automated facilities for producing the data on address space utilization. It is not bias on part of InterNIC, it is lack of proven usage history and proper documentation which makes life of people who go directly to InterNIC miserable. (I have complaints about InterNIC not allocating more than 1024 Cs a POP, so now i have to maintain three dozen of CIDR blocks instead of six the SprintLink's address allocation sstrategy requires, and have to limit per-customer allocations by small blocks; but i cannot say they are unfair). --vadim

1 0