Re: Internic address allocation policy (fwd)
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Kim Hubbard wrote:
Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that every ISP decides to do this. What's to stop some ISPs from listing a bunch of companies that are not their customers and are not really receiving address space from them for the purpose of getting more address space.
Absolutely nothing, and therein lies the crux of the problem. To be honest, I can understand the motivations behind InterNIC's policies. However, comprehension of said policies does not mean that I agree on all counts. It truly shouldn't (IMHO) be as difficult as it sometimes is to get address space, but perhaps it's simply pushing the limitations of the current system. The problem I see most often in smaller organizations as they grow larger is the lack of consistency in internal policies, and the like. i.e, FooNet Inc. has 12 or so Class C's from MCI, and as they pick up extra providers perhaps the dance goes on until they have a hodgepodge of networks. Now the ISP enters the next level, and someone decides they need a larger CIDR block. They go to the NIC, and are told to submit a justification. The problem seems to be that many ISP's simply have not kept up with SWIP or RWhois, and are completely unprepared for a stricter accounting of their address space, even when/if they are efficiently using it. The frustration enters when the ISP begins to see the possibility of losing customers, as they try to sort out their justification. It's quite easy to see how people might feel compelled to scream at Kim, call their lawyer, make themselves sick and generally have fits over the problem. On the other hand, the NIC staff are simply not superhuman beings capable of personally babysitting a thousand customers as they try to sort out their addressing problems and policies. Hence the restrictive policies, which are really a defense mechanism to prevent unscrupulous people from taking advantage of the system and further screwing it up. So, my question is: What can we do to make it better? Not "What can Kim Hubbard do to fix it", and not "What can those stupid ISP's do to fix it", but what can both do collaboratively to work out a consistent method of doing things, and making sure that it's well known to both new existing providers of network solutions.
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Brian Tackett wrote:
So, my question is: What can we do to make it better? Not "What can Kim Hubbard do to fix it", and not "What can those stupid ISP's do to fix it", but what can both do collaboratively to work out a consistent method of doing things, and making sure that it's well known to both new existing providers of network solutions.
Step 1. Document the whole process in excruciating detail complete with anecdotes. Step 2. Refer everyone to this document I'm on a half dozen ISP mailing lists and we often get questions from new ISP's who obviously don't understand what they are doing. No matter what the topic of the question, there is always one and the same answer. Go to http://www.amazing.com/internet and read the FAQ and other information there. The FAQ and other resources at that site manage to get new ISP's up to speed so that they can join in a more intelligent level of discussion. Where is the SWIP/rwhois/IP allocation FAQ? Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Hi,
So, my question is: What can we do to make it better? Not "What can Kim Hubbard do to fix it", and not "What can those stupid ISP's do to fix it", but what can both do collaboratively to work out a consistent method of doing things, and making sure that it's well known to both new existing providers of network solutions.
Just FYI: there will be an Internet Address Registry Evolution (yes, we'll be coming up with a new name) working group meeting at the San Jose IETF that is chartered to try to come up with ways of evolving the IP address allocation policies. It will be on Monday at 7:30 PM. Note we aren't touching domain name issues and I'd really like to not have it turn into a "bash your favorite registry" session either. Regards, -drc
Now that we've established that I don't have fangs or horns (thanks to Chris and Matt for clearing that up :-)) I would like to urge you all to join the IRE mailing list to discuss the IP polices. Please remember that the IP policies are meant to be constantly evolving and improving. The current policies are definitely not popular and the IP registries like them least of all. However, until other options are available we're stuck with them. So, we need everyone to work together on coming up with alternatives to the allocation polices that will satisfy each of us as well as the limitations on IPv4. All I ask is that instead of just complaining about the policies, you offer valid alternatives at the same time. Thanks, -Kim
Hi,
So, my question is: What can we do to make it better? Not "What can Kim Hubbard do to fix it", and not "What can those stupid ISP's do to fix it", but what can both do collaboratively to work out a consistent method of doing things, and making sure that it's well known to both new existing providers of network solutions.
Just FYI: there will be an Internet Address Registry Evolution (yes, we'll be coming up with a new name) working group meeting at the San Jose IETF that is chartered to try to come up with ways of evolving the IP address allocation policies. It will be on Monday at 7:30 PM. Note we aren't touching domain name issues and I'd really like to not have it turn into a "bash your favorite registry" session either.
Regards, -drc
Kim Hubbard wrote:
Now that we've established that I don't have fangs or horns (thanks to Chris and Matt for clearing that up :-)) I would like to urge you all to join the IRE mailing list to discuss the IP polices.
Please post the subscription address. -- ================================================================ E. Kamau Wanguhu mailto:kamau@AfricaOnline.com Africa Online Inc mailto:kamau@BORGcube.com Medford, Massachusetts http://www.AfricaOnline.com TEL: 1.617.494.1515 FAX: 1.617.494.9422 ================================================================
Kim Hubbard wrote:
Now that we've established that I don't have fangs or horns (thanks to Chris and Matt for clearing that up :-)) I would like to urge you all to join the IRE mailing list to discuss the IP polices.
Please post the subscription address. -- ================================================================ E. Kamau Wanguhu mailto:kamau@AfricaOnline.com Africa Online Inc mailto:kamau@BORGcube.com Medford, Massachusetts http://www.AfricaOnline.com TEL: 1.617.494.1515 FAX: 1.617.494.9422 ================================================================
Sorry, Mailing lists: General Discussion: ire@apnic.net To Subscribe: ire-request@apnic.net Archive: ftp://ftp.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ire Kim
Just as a note, could we trim the replies a bit? I think I got 3 copies of the last few ;D
participants (5)
-
Brian Tackett -
David R. Conrad -
Kamau Wanguhu -
Kim Hubbard -
Michael Dillon