- Test - lists.nanog.org

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 19 Mar '95

19 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

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Vadim Antonov 19 Mar '95

19 Mar '95

That silly argument boils down to the very simple observation: Authorithy should be in hands of those who can _enforce_ and _verify_. I.e. InterNIC shoudl go out of address allocation business completely and ISPs should step in. Can they enforce? You bet. If you try to announce network 1.0.0.0 as a SprintLink's customer you'll see filters in place before you say "amen". Can they verify? Sure. I'm declining lots of bogus requests for address space -- and then proceed with explaining how to use subnets or whatever. I can always check how the access link is loaded, what routes are really announced etc. Recently somebody asked me to route, like, 12 class Bs, over a 56k link. Turned out they need three class Cs, but grabbed lots of Bs back then when InterNIC was very liberal. The allocation should be performed by service providers in the "food chain" order -- to ensure reasonable aggregation. I.e. nation-wide and world-wide service providers should allocate blocks to regional ISPs, etc. Do "big" service provider need to be "checked" by users? I don't think so because they bet millions on the future of the Internet and won't willingly destroy the market. The fierce competition in the area also ensures that they won't use the address allocation as means of sqeezing small service providers out. And at least two of them fear anti-trust litigation more than coming of Antichrist. You may like it or dislike it but nation-wide backbone providers effectively run the Internet nowadays. It is a rare case when big businesses actually introduced some common sense in the way things are done architecture-wise. Why not to do the same with the address allocation? --vadim

1 0

Re: Internic address allocation policy
by Finger in the Infodike 19 Mar '95

19 Mar '95

Very interesting debate... let's look back in time to the turn of the century, when our fair city had several competing phone companies. The largest, AT&T, drove the rest out of business by refusing to connect to them. Hence they became a monopoly and claimed that it was "natural" for the phone company to be a monopoly. The "natural monopoly" lasted until fairly recently, when the government broke it up. I think that the Internet could well face the same set of issues. In particular if, say MCInet became convincingly dominant, they could easily put the rest of you guys out of business by refusing to connect you. I think that the only thing that can prevent the Internet following the same course as the telephone network is government anti-trust regulation, which I would hope to see, since I value free competition. -- Walt -------

1 0

InterNIC RS
by hwb＠upeksa.sdsc.edu 19 Mar '95

19 Mar '95

Okay, it seems to me that people here perceive there is reasonable concern about on or more of the following intertwined but separable problems: 1. policies for the current mode of operation do not map to today's real requirements, or are unreasonable 2. there is no reasonable response time, things get delayed or even lost 3. the InterNIC is a US Federal instrument which makes them bad by definition Really fixing issue (1.) will require more than "I don't like X," it will require deriving solid guidelines with community consensus, and that take the global picture and its future evolution into account. I think it would be great is people would create better guidelines and get the service providers etc. to sign off on it. I suspect best would be a consolidated position coming from the IEPG, perhaps with NANOG taking the first cut? Issue (2.) I suspect to be a resource issue. May be the InterNIC should be held more accountable for their actions and submit weekly status reports (perhaps automatically generated?) or so of what they did. That would at least help for a better understanding of the work volume. Above and beyond that, I think the InterNIC registration service is run by a private for profit corporation, under contract to NSF. They will likely take money from private corporations to be used for allocating more resources to the handling of commercial requests. Why don't you all just fund a staff person (or however many it takes) for commercial service providers there, and make them accountable to your requirements? Also, how long does it take to get an Ethernet Type field or a 3 byte Ethernet address prefix? Who does that these days? IEEE? (3.) is perhaps harder, as we are dealing with perceptions here. I am not convinced that anyone is purposely trying to interfere with the requirements of private industry. I suspect it more to be a lack of guidelines with consensus, and general resources. Again, the RS is a private corporation, and in and of itself not "bad." Obviously there is a need for central coordination, and that may require more than one thinks at first, in terms of resources. Are you all prepared to pick that up? Would you, e.g., be willing to offer to NSF to pick up the InterNIC funding and make the RS accountable to private industry?

1 0