At 12:11 AM 11/5/98 -0800, Gary E. Miller wrote:
I think you need to take a serious look at how little of their address space they have really used. This is not funny when I have to kill to allocate /30. Some animals are more equal than others on THIS farm.
I know a little bit about @Home, but not as much as the people who work there, so feel free to yell & scream if I mess this up. I do believe you are correct in your implication that @Home does not utilize address space quite as efficiently as most traditional ISPs. However, they are under a greater burden than your traditional ISP. Most of the equipment they were forced to use in the "early days", and possibly a good deal of it today, is not what I would call "optimal". They are forced to allocate /24s to some cable routers no matter how few customers there are on that router. Most do not understand classless IP, or even basic subnetting. Etc., etc. The point is, the people I know at @Home do try very hard to use their IP space within reason. But there are some things they just can not do. There are two sides to every story. (Well, almost every story.... ;)
Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009
TTFN, patrick I Am Not An Isp www.ianai.net "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
Yo Patrick! On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
I do believe you are correct in your implication that @Home does not utilize address space quite as efficiently as most traditional ISPs. However, they are under a greater burden than your traditional ISP. Most of the equipment they were forced to use in the "early days", and possibly a good deal of it today, is not what I would call "optimal". They are forced to allocate /24s to some cable routers no matter how few customers there are on that router. Most do not understand classless IP, or even basic subnetting. Etc., etc. If I downgrade my routers, do you think I can use this on my next ARIN application? I would have been embarrased to try it even when they got their address space.
The point is, the people I know at @Home do try very hard to use their IP space within reason. But there are some things they just can not do. I have no complaint with the people, I am just jealous.
BTW, their October 13, 1998 press release says they have 210K users. Their /8 has 16,777,216 IP addresses give or take a few hundred thousand. Not a bad packing ratio... RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176
Yo Gary... @Home does not have a /8. Perhaps you should work just a little bit on your facts... ---CJ From: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com> Subject: RE: ARIN? Yo Patrick! On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, I Am Not An Isp wrote: > I do believe you are correct in your implication that @Home does not > utilize address space quite as efficiently as most traditional ISPs. > However, they are under a greater burden than your traditional ISP. Most > of the equipment they were forced to use in the "early days", and possibly > a good deal of it today, is not what I would call "optimal". They are > forced to allocate /24s to some cable routers no matter how few customers > there are on that router. Most do not understand classless IP, or even > basic subnetting. Etc., etc. If I downgrade my routers, do you think I can use this on my next ARIN application? I would have been embarrased to try it even when they got their address space. > The point is, the people I know at @Home do try very hard to use their IP > space within reason. But there are some things they just can not do. I have no complaint with the people, I am just jealous. BTW, their October 13, 1998 press release says they have 210K users. Their /8 has 16,777,216 IP addresses give or take a few hundred thousand. Not a bad packing ratio... RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176
Yo CJ! I was under the impression that although @home was currently allocate just part of the 24/8 space, that the entire space was RESERVED for future expansion of @home. Is this not true? Certainly no-one else is getting space from that block. In any case, a quick check of DejaNews shows that Nanog had this same exact discussion on March 13, 1996, so how about we drop it and just re-read the old messages? RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 gary@internet-appliance.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176 On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 cjw@corp.home.net wrote:
@Home does not have a /8. Perhaps you should work just a little bit on your facts...
---CJ
From: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com> Subject: RE: ARIN? Yo Patrick!
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
> I do believe you are correct in your implication that @Home does not > utilize address space quite as efficiently as most traditional ISPs. > However, they are under a greater burden than your traditional ISP. Most > of the equipment they were forced to use in the "early days", and possibly > a good deal of it today, is not what I would call "optimal". They are > forced to allocate /24s to some cable routers no matter how few customers > there are on that router. Most do not understand classless IP, or even > basic subnetting. Etc., etc. If I downgrade my routers, do you think I can use this on my next ARIN application? I would have been embarrased to try it even when they got their address space.
> The point is, the people I know at @Home do try very hard to use their IP > space within reason. But there are some things they just can not do. I have no complaint with the people, I am just jealous.
BTW, their October 13, 1998 press release says they have 210K users. Their /8 has 16,777,216 IP addresses give or take a few hundred thousand. Not a bad packing ratio...
RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176
RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 2680 Bayshore Pkwy, #202 Mountain View, CA 94043-1009 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(650)964-1186 Fax:+1(650)964-1176
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
However, they are under a greater burden than your traditional ISP. Most of the equipment they were forced to use in the "early days", and possibly a good deal of it today, is not what I would call "optimal". They are forced to allocate /24s to some cable routers no matter how few customers there are on that router. Most do not understand classless IP, or even
So can I qualify for my own chunk of space (I'll be nice and only ask for a /16) if I use RIP and can't subnet? I find it hard to believe ARIN would buy "but my routers won't let me subnet" as justification for address space. ---dont't waste your cpu, crack rc5...www.distributed.net team enzo--- Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | nestea'd...whatever it takes Florida Digital Turnpike | to get the job done. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key________
At 02:49 AM 11/6/98 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
So can I qualify for my own chunk of space (I'll be nice and only ask for a /16) if I use RIP and can't subnet? I find it hard to believe ARIN would buy "but my routers won't let me subnet" as justification for address space.
First of all, I think we've established that @Home's current utilization is pretty good. Secondly, @Home wasn't using classfull addressing at first because they didn't want to put in the effort, they simply had no choice. There was no equipment available at the time which would do CIDR. So, it was either allocate them X amount and make @Home renumber into CIDR when the software was available to do CIDR (which they were in the process of doing last time I talked to them), or put them out of business. Personally, I don't think ARIN should be in charge of deciding who stays in business because the state of the technology isn't up to their standards. Nor do I think we should stifle new technologies because it doesn't suddenly appear on the scene fully mature. I'm all for saving address space, but not at the cost of random But then again, I'm not ARIN - hell, some would say I'm not even an ISP. :p
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or
TTFN, patrick I Am Not An Isp www.ianai.net "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 01:02:36AM -0800, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
At 02:49 AM 11/6/98 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
So can I qualify for my own chunk of space (I'll be nice and only ask for a /16) if I use RIP and can't subnet? I find it hard to believe ARIN would buy "but my routers won't let me subnet" as justification for address space.
First of all, I think we've established that @Home's current utilization is pretty good.
Secondly, @Home wasn't using classfull addressing at first because they didn't want to put in the effort, they simply had no choice. There was no equipment available at the time which would do CIDR. So, it was either allocate them X amount and make @Home renumber into CIDR when the software was available to do CIDR (which they were in the process of doing last time I talked to them), or put them out of business.
Personally, I don't think ARIN should be in charge of deciding who stays in business because the state of the technology isn't up to their standards. Nor do I think we should stifle new technologies because it doesn't suddenly appear on the scene fully mature. I'm all for saving address space, but not at the cost of random
But then again, I'm not ARIN - hell, some would say I'm not even an ISP. :p
That argument equally applies to hardware which is available, but is a LOT cheaper without the feature set that is required to "comply" with ARIN's demands. Why should ARIN be able to put someone's business model into the trash can because of technical complience issues? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
At 06:53 AM 11/6/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
That argument equally applies to hardware which is available, but is a LOT cheaper without the feature set that is required to "comply" with ARIN's demands.
Why should ARIN be able to put someone's business model into the trash can because of technical complience issues?
Hrmmmm, you have a major point. Suppose only routers costing 6 figures or more could do CIDR, while routers costing, say, four figures could do RIPv1? Should we give someone a large block to get "up and running" until they could afford the much more expensive routers? Of course, this is not the case, so it's an exercise in philosophy. Perhaps we should consider it because of the possibility of a new technology coming out in such a fashion. As a member of the board, Karl, this is especially pertinent to you, but I do believe it is an operation issue we should all consider and discuss. I'm inclined to say that we should give someone a larger allocation to start - assuming reasonably priced CIDR capable routers are coming in the near future and they agree to renumber into CIDR once the routers/software/whatever is available to make more reasonable allocations. Of course, this is open to lots of interpretations, such as "reasonably priced" and "near future" - but no one said address allocation policy would be easy. See, I just don't think "Address Space" should be a barrier to entry. It's not like ARIN *owns* the space, they're just the caretaker for the IPv4 space in America for the "community". As a member of the community, I want them to be fugal to avoid waste. But unusually large (and temporary) allocations to allow a company to enter the market - a company that would otherwise have to perform Herculean tasks, tasks none of the rest of us have ever had to perform, or maybe even tasks impossible with the State of the Art - is not, IMHO, waste. How's that for a "grey area"? :)
Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl
TTFN, patrick I Am Not An Isp www.ianai.net "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
At 06:53 AM 11/6/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
Why should ARIN be able to put someone's business model into the trash can because of technical complience issues?
The same way that Auto Insurance companies can revoke your license in California. They simply revoke you insurance policy after you gather 3 point agaisnt you driving record. According to CA-DMV, you license immediately becomes suspended for lack of insurance. Notice that the legal suspension limit is more than 6 points. However, the over-arching requirement is liability insurance. Thus, placing the control with the insurance companies (hell, I never said I *liked* living here). ARIN seems to be operating on a similar principle as the DMV. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
At 06:53 AM 11/6/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
Why should ARIN be able to put someone's business model into the trash can because of technical complience issues?
The same way that Auto Insurance companies can revoke your license in California. They simply revoke you insurance policy after you gather 3 point agaisnt you driving record. According to CA-DMV, you license immediately becomes suspended for lack of insurance. Notice that the legal suspension limit is more than 6 points. However, the over-arching requirement is liability insurance. Thus, placing the control with the insurance companies (hell, I never said I *liked* living here).
ARIN seems to be operating on a similar principle as the DMV.
I don't recall ARIN ever revoking or suspending addresses. I'd be interested in any examples where ARIN has done this or are you just making assumptions here? Kim Hubbard ARIN
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
At 06:51 PM 11/8/98 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote:
At 06:53 AM 11/6/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
Why should ARIN be able to put someone's business model into the trash can because of technical complience issues?
The same way that Auto Insurance companies can revoke your license in California. They simply revoke you insurance policy after you gather 3 point agaisnt you driving record. According to CA-DMV, you license immediately becomes suspended for lack of insurance. Notice that the legal suspension limit is more than 6 points. However, the over-arching requirement is liability insurance. Thus, placing the control with the insurance companies (hell, I never said I *liked* living here).
ARIN seems to be operating on a similar principle as the DMV.
I don't recall ARIN ever revoking or suspending addresses. I'd be interested in any examples where ARIN has done this or are you just making assumptions here?
I was speaking of the suspension of a business license by not allowing IP assignments. The requirement to present a business plan is the issue here. I was also not making any accusations, I was answering Karl's question. I was trying to answer how the requirements of one agency pre-empts another's, more liberal, requirements. In this case, how the more restrictive requirements, of ARIN IP allocations, pre-empts the business requirements of various incorporation regulations. Some of this may actuially be improper, as in the case of the DMV vs the Auto-insurance carriers, where the carrier has a stricter standard than is maintained by the regulatory agency. Unfortunately, it is not illegal, yet. In the DMV/Insurance case, there is actually grounds within public liability statutes. It still doesn't condone the stricter standards of the Insurance carriers, IMHO. ARIN, is facing a similar issue, on murkier grounds. This was my only point to this, my answer to Karl. Yes, I believe it is improper. No private company should be allowed to pre-empt *any* regulatory agency, with stricter standards. Were ARIN to be a regulatory agency then the argument becomes one of jurisdiction. Since it is not, then ARIN has less legal footing on which to base this policy, IMHO. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 02:49:19AM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
However, they are under a greater burden than your traditional ISP. Most of the equipment they were forced to use in the "early days", and possibly a good deal of it today, is not what I would call "optimal". They are forced to allocate /24s to some cable routers no matter how few customers there are on that router. Most do not understand classless IP, or even
So can I qualify for my own chunk of space (I'll be nice and only ask for a /16) if I use RIP and can't subnet? I find it hard to believe ARIN would buy "but my routers won't let me subnet" as justification for address space.
That argument only works for *some* people Jon. As you can see (it apparently worked for @HOME!) Try it and let us know if it works for you :-) -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
participants (7)
-
cjw＠corp.home.net -
Gary E. Miller -
I Am Not An Isp -
Jon Lewis -
Karl Denninger -
Kim Hubbard -
Roeland M.J. Meyer