Internic address allocation policy
I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers. Scruz-Net recently merged with another company. As the new company, we are in the process of deploying a large DS-3 based IP network, with attachments to more than 5 major interconnect points. As such, we need address space both for our backbone and our customers. First, I tried to get address space for the new company. Response was that under the slow-start policies, I could get nothing bigger than a /19. Well, that's not interesting, because I'm not about to deliberately subject myself to routing filters that I think make good technical sense (hello Sprint). So I turned around and said that the EXISTING company (scruz-net) needs more address space. First off, we got told that because we didn't use our last allocation (a /16) quickly enough (three months is their suggestion, took us more like 9-12 months to fill it up, with careful assignment) we obviously didn't need a block that big. (Now, since the point is to conserve routing table size among us providers who carry full tables, isn't it better for me to get a /16 and use it slowly than to get 4 unrelated /18's that each last three months???) So then I argued that since the merger has happened, and we have sales projections that show that with a much larger geographic coverage and hundreds of people out selling the product, we ought to be using addresses a bit faster. That started a back-and-forth where I had to "prove" that a merger had really occured, when I was in fact under legal requirements to not talk about the merger until it was made public. Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg@internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously sanitize it. All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've been forced into getting our lawyers involved. I never thought that getting another block of IP addresses would come to that. *sigh* Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note. -matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers.
Lawyers will only cost you money, slow you down and accomplish nothing in the end.
Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg@internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously sanitize it.
Sounds like your company is suffering from a serious lack of knowledge about IP allocation procedures and policies. The only solution to this is to educate yourself, get your internal procedures and policies in order, and integrate your knowledge of IP allocation procedures into your planning processes.
All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've been forced into getting our lawyers involved.
It's your own ignorance that created your problem and its your own ignorance that is leading you to lawyers.
Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.
For starters after reading your plans I can't see any reason why you couldn't afford to spend $10,000 or $20,000 to get the IP addresses you need. If you are willing to spend some money here's what to do. Telephone the IP allocation folks at the Internic and ask to meet with them in Virginia to explain what you need to do to get IP addresses and ensure smooth allocation of addresses in the future. Don't even mention the specifics of what has happened in the past and do *NOT* ask for addresses. Ask for a meeting. Tell them that a technical person and a management person (CEO) will be at the meeting. Once the date and time is arranged, fly to Virginia, sit down, listen, ask questions, take notes. Be especially careful with the notetaking. For instance, if the Internic person says "You have to one, two, thre, blah blah" you should confirm it by saying "So if we one, two three, blah, blah that will meet this requirement?". Throughout this meeting be friendly. Do not bluster or threaten or yell or whine. What if they won't meet with you? Then ask them where you can find out this information. Where can you find a consultant to hire who knows. Your intent on the phone call should be to determine who has the knowledge to solve the problem (Internic person or consultant) and where you have to go to meet with this person. Be prepared to change your internal policies. Be prepared to thoroughly document what you are using IP addresses for. Be civil. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Sounds like your company is suffering from a serious lack of knowledge about IP allocation procedures and policies. The only solution to this is to educate yourself, get your internal procedures and policies in order, and integrate your knowledge of IP allocation procedures into your planning processes.
I happen to know Matthew and quite a few of his companies procedures. He's also been an active participant on this list for some years, as well as a number of other ISP management and cooperation discussion areas. Describing the scruznet internal knowledge or IP allocation policies as uneducated is an incorrect statement. They have consistently been better about this than any of the Tier-1 or below ISPs whose net allocation strategy I have been able to observe in practice. I hesitate to think how truly ignorant bottom level ISPs are being treated if this is what's happening to rapidly growing, well educated, active-in-the-community ISPs when they start to hit Tier 1 status. This should not be happening. Matthew should not have to fly out to Virginia to tell someone at InterNIC face to face what he's been saying in email. I have heard nothing but horror stories about dealings with the NIC in the last month or two, including the domain my day job is at being shut down 3 times in one week and not being able to get through on the phone or fax literally all day for several days last week. There is something monumentally wrong at InterNIC right now. I don't know if it's just a bad month or if they've finally fallen and can't get up, but if this doesn't improve it's going to be a horrific winter for all of us. -george william herbert gherbert@crl.com
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, George Herbert wrote:
This should not be happening. Matthew should not have to fly out to Virginia to tell someone at InterNIC face to face what he's been saying in email.
I agree. But this is business and businesses are based on personal relationships with key suppliers and customers. The Internic IP registry is a key supplier for any large ISP and that means if they have not developped a relationship with the IP registry people during their early days, they will run into this sort of problem when they need the IP registry's help.
I have heard nothing but horror stories about dealings with the NIC in the last month or two, including the domain my day job is at being shut down 3 times in one week and not being able to get through on the phone or fax literally all day for several days last week. There is something monumentally wrong at InterNIC right now.
I really dislike to mix domain name registry issues with IP allocation issues. Obviously both are run out of the same company with the same incompetent management, IMHO. But they are fundamentally different tasks. We will all be happier when they are handled by two separate organizations.
I don't know if it's just a bad month or if they've finally fallen and can't get up, but if this doesn't improve it's going to be a horrific winter for all of us.
There is always the various .US registries.... Or you might be willing to sell me flowers.crl.com ? :-) Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Or you might be willing to sell me flowers.crl.com ? :-)
Hey, I haven't worked for CRL for over 2 years now... Do I need to put my disclaimers back in my signature files? 8-) Besides, you've never struck me as a flowers kind of guy, Michael... -george william herbert gherbert@crl.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Michael, Thank you for your note. It explains a lot to me and likely others. It also resembles the way SRI-NIC.ARPA used to do business. Perhaps it confuses me to see unknowns jumping into place calling SCRUZ-NET an unknown entity when it's run by people whom so many people *DO* know. Just ask Jim Haynes <haynes@cats.ucsc.edu>. These people aren't randoms. Well, sorry, Jim, I don't mean to be volunteering you, but the point is how can honesty be questioned? It seems to superfluous to me to say that they have little honesty. In the name of reducing routing tables Internic Inc. (what a name) has instead been increasing them! If it were John Q. Doe <thisiscool@interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net>, ok so ask for a plan and judge their honesty; John needs good service too. But, when it's Matthew, I mean sheesh! We're not talking about the admin of interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net here. Some of SCRUZ-NET's customers have been major international news before (remember NAZIs and Germany and Compuserve and censorship?) It's not like they don't exist. As little as I like the NAZIs, I like the ability to keep track of their pulse so I know when to take cover and shoot. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQEVAwUBMpZE1pxWhFYc6x9VAQGNlggAplrrmtLHBsoNQw6/ft34E83rYtGumwqz aK2rYPlw62Jm9VXBlLqvEPn/ea1zVxuNNuYs69MpBtGJiF/P2XoG9i0Fb51rZRqH VXojuyd9BlKp1cR9mbJb28F6c5qmJantSFH1Cr6a/d2eMM/g5Ig+dLwuT0x4xpMF 8LSTie9puBrblISYlXT3dIGFsO/ZXDFY/dj96mn1eYO5JzBSjbimmFM4crPfTr+p UISoIZySjeGAOOz1/q6Z9/KSllSUFkJ1t86itXem5T0wCgSYUYAaZc9mJWDmbriR Ah4VZgfOvFWA9/90kHShkABOOtKz4/2z0AeSgDPLpdp+BbEnw7fhQQ== =yPIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
First of all the name isn't InterNIC Inc. Secondly, from what you're saying the policy should say that whoever the InterNIC or others deem as trustworthy don't have to follow policy but those that the InterNIC or others do not believe are trustworthy should follow policy. I don't know for sure, but a think you'd probably have a hard time getting an IETF consensus on that one. Finally, the trustworthiness of Scruz.net was never called into question. Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry
Michael,
Thank you for your note. It explains a lot to me and likely others. It also resembles the way SRI-NIC.ARPA used to do business.
Perhaps it confuses me to see unknowns jumping into place calling SCRUZ-NET an unknown entity when it's run by people whom so many people *DO* know. Just ask Jim Haynes <haynes@cats.ucsc.edu>. These people aren't randoms.
Well, sorry, Jim, I don't mean to be volunteering you, but the point is how can honesty be questioned? It seems to superfluous to me to say that they have little honesty. In the name of reducing routing tables Internic Inc. (what a name) has instead been increasing them! If it were John Q. Doe <thisiscool@interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net>, ok so ask for a plan and judge their honesty; John needs good service too. But, when it's Matthew, I mean sheesh! We're not talking about the admin of interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net here. Some of SCRUZ-NET's customers have been major international news before (remember NAZIs and Germany and Compuserve and censorship?) It's not like they don't exist. As little as I like the NAZIs, I like the ability to keep track of their pulse so I know when to take cover and shoot.
By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting address space.
I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers.
Scruz-Net recently merged with another company. As the new company, we are in the process of deploying a large DS-3 based IP network, with attachments to more than 5 major interconnect points. As such, we need address space both for our backbone and our customers.
First, I tried to get address space for the new company. Response was that under the slow-start policies, I could get nothing bigger than a /19. Well, that's not interesting, because I'm not about to deliberately subject myself to routing filters that I think make good technical sense (hello Sprint).
So I turned around and said that the EXISTING company (scruz-net) needs more address space. First off, we got told that because we didn't use our last allocation (a /16) quickly enough (three months is their suggestion, took us more like 9-12 months to fill it up, with careful assignment) we obviously didn't need a block that big. (Now, since the point is to conserve routing table size among us providers who carry full tables, isn't it better for me to get a /16 and use it slowly than to get 4 unrelated /18's that each last three months???)
So then I argued that since the merger has happened, and we have sales projections that show that with a much larger geographic coverage and hundreds of people out selling the product, we ought to be using addresses a bit faster. That started a back-and-forth where I had to "prove" that a merger had really occured, when I was in fact under legal requirements to not talk about the merger until it was made public.
Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg@internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously sanitize it.
All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've been forced into getting our lawyers involved.
I never thought that getting another block of IP addresses would come to that. *sigh*
Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.
-matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net
-- jamie g. k. rishaw | jamie@multiverse.com | home e-mail:jamie@arpa.com url-free sig file | corporate support svcs. | "I had a dream .. there was corp: 216.771.0002 |"religious right" is neither| an info-mercial selling an C4 48 1B 26 18 7B 1F D9 BA C4 9C 7A B1 07 07 E8 | awk script for $29.95" -rdm
By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting address space.
Wait, WHICH BLACKLIST is he getting on? No, wait, you must mean that "by asking questions in a manner that makes it seem like the Internic is run by people who stole a government-provided sole-source database and now extort money from commercial industry to pay for its maintenance, you are opening up a can of worms"? Maybe you mean "Matthew, we know you're clueful, but by being negative, you'll PISS OFF the Internic, and THEY WON'T PLAY with you despite their charter, mission, govt. contract, etc. Now, don't get me wrong. I'd love to have the Internic pissed off at me just as much as the next guy. I just hate to see people (like Matthew, who's been around for a while) being told to "shut up or you'll _never_ get what you want." Ehud
I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers.
Scruz-Net recently merged with another company. As the new company, we are in the process of deploying a large DS-3 based IP network, with attachments to more than 5 major interconnect points. As such, we need address space both for our backbone and our customers.
First, I tried to get address space for the new company. Response was that under the slow-start policies, I could get nothing bigger than a /19. Well, that's not interesting, because I'm not about to deliberately subject myself to routing filters that I think make good technical sense (hello Sprint).
So I turned around and said that the EXISTING company (scruz-net) needs more address space. First off, we got told that because we didn't use our last allocation (a /16) quickly enough (three months is their suggestion, took us more like 9-12 months to fill it up, with careful assignment) we obviously didn't need a block that big. (Now, since the point is to conserve routing table size among us providers who carry full tables, isn't it better for me to get a /16 and use it slowly than to get 4 unrelated /18's that each last three months???)
So then I argued that since the merger has happened, and we have sales projections that show that with a much larger geographic coverage and hundreds of people out selling the product, we ought to be using addresses a bit faster. That started a back-and-forth where I had to "prove" that a merger had really occured, when I was in fact under legal requirements to not talk about the merger until it was made public.
Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg@internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously sanitize it.
All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've been forced into getting our lawyers involved.
I never thought that getting another block of IP addresses would come to that. *sigh*
Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.
-matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net
-- jamie g. k. rishaw | jamie@multiverse.com | home e-mail:jamie@arpa.com url-free sig file | corporate support svcs. | "I had a dream .. there was corp: 216.771.0002 |"religious right" is neither| an info-mercial selling an C4 48 1B 26 18 7B 1F D9 BA C4 9C 7A B1 07 07 E8 | awk script for $29.95" -rdm
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Ehud Gavron wrote:
Now, don't get me wrong. I'd love to have the Internic pissed off at me just as much as the next guy. I just hate to see people (like Matthew, who's been around for a while) being told to "shut up or you'll _never_ get what you want."
You don't understand. The IP allocation people at the Internic get jerked around every day by sleazy people who lie about their IP allocations and do whatever they can to manipulate more IP addresses out of them. The Internic asks you to prove that you have responsibly allocated the IP addresses they gave you. This requires that they *TRUST* your evidence. Trust is the key here. The more you behave like the sleazy bastards with stories about the big investor with $7 billion ready to spend starting next month, the less they trust you. Build up a strong trust relationship with them and you will get much further than by whining. You can build that kind of relationship with honesty and integrity in your reporting of IP address usage. And knowing that you need this to grow, you should make sure that internal policies and customer contracts do not disallow you from releasing that information. If this puts you between a rock and a hard place, then give your customers an ultimatum. Either sign a release for the info, or find another provider. Every contract has an out in it somewhere and if a $10,000 per month customer is preventing you from becoming a multi-million dollar company, then dump them. That's business. I would guess that if you are up front with the customer about the reason you need to release the info to the Internic you are not likely to have a problem with them. And BTW, I don't know Matthew or anyone else at scruz.net. I have absolutely no knowledge of their operations or their history. My messages are directed to the list in general rather than Matthew and scruz.net in particular because I think there is an important lesson here for other ISP's to learn that will prevent them grief down the road. It will likely make the Internic IP allocation job easier too. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Do I sense an experienced bribe maker? perhaps Jamie is the one you're looking for, Matthew.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.
By everybody who I've talked to and the intuitions I have personally perceived as well, the method being used is bribes. Only thing is, since bribes aren't legal, you have to be a rather experienced bribe maker. Perhaps you have to bribe a briber? This, folks, is why we all hate the allocation policies of the Pigs That Fly (excuse me, make that SAIC, er, Internic). This isn't leftists looking for something to quarrel about (if so, where is all our support from them?!); this is real stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQEVAwUBMpZAq5xWhFYc6x9VAQH30ggAkxltqiJRwX873yxLWark2WPGGu9i2UZK pRCQWRpFq7hOzAnVXdKjpIYmU2Ic3PVtSZcaH9kv3653eUlrYqQLBzYc7qQHiQPJ Dp+ww9nVOcx+VgS4lS7AzMpGCd+6LPqFqFhi5xqLVIqFC+BTUVwF8nnVtI9shPxt UIict10Zc1iX1Ndis4haP2PjTbpihT5vz3HYUZn7VCIpjoQ/ADl58KlFXP62W37c 0JHwnm4MH5mukXaqd7cyIJ9CjbqXMZDaTO5um4yvKoEG55Cl2MgVecaPoi0f1Dug wGIUePkiM1pwrNNdLoTgEvDRySNqITsZsdeIPT5+MVSJSlldLeHFWw== =vd4L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bradley,
By everybody who I've talked to and the intuitions I have personally perceived as well, the method being used is bribes.
Would you care to provide _any_ evidence whatsoever that registry personnel accept bribes? If not, then please refrain from spreading such unsubstantiated bullshit. Thanks, -drc
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, David R. Conrad wrote:
By everybody who I've talked to and the intuitions I have personally perceived as well, the method being used is bribes.
Would you care to provide _any_ evidence whatsoever that registry personnel accept bribes? If not, then please refrain from spreading such unsubstantiated bullshit.
He may have been talking to people that made joking references to bribes like "being nice", "sending thank you notes", and similar stuff. I have come across people who talk about bribing the Internic for favors but they are referring to the above, not to suitcases of cash. The phrase "bribing with kindness" comes to mind. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Would you care to provide _any_ evidence whatsoever that registry personnel accept bribes? If not, then please refrain from spreading such unsubstantiated bullshit.
He may have been talking to people that made joking references to bribes like "being nice", "sending thank you notes", and similar stuff. I have come across people who talk about bribing the Internic for favors but they are referring to the above, not to suitcases of cash. The phrase "bribing with kindness" comes to mind.
Policy or no policy, customers who are dickheads to me get put at the very bottom of my queue and priority list. They don't get *ignored*, but they're put waaaaaaaaay down there. The nice ones, the chummy ones or ones who let me know that what I do for them is appreciated obviously will get a higher preference. We're not all robots. We do have feelings, regardless of policy, and if you had a T1, T3, whatever with me, and you publicly attacked me on mailing lists, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm not going to be too nice to you.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
-- jamie g.k. rishaw | work: jamie@multiverse.com | home: jamie@arpa.com url-free sig file | multiverse corporate support| work tel: 216 771 0002 "I'm a doctor, not a doorstop!" -EMH, "Star Trek: First Contact"
Mr. Allen, I suggest you retract your statement below immediately. I've been allocating address space for 6 years now and I've for the most part remained silent while clueless people like yourself make unsubstantiated accusations because I figured it was just part of the job. However, you, Mr. Allen have called into question my character and the character of my staff and that is where I draw the line. Yes, bribes are illegal and so is libel. Kim Hubbard Manager, IP Registry InterNIC
Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.
By everybody who I've talked to and the intuitions I have personally perceived as well, the method being used is bribes. Only thing is, since bribes aren't legal, you have to be a rather experienced bribe maker. Perhaps you have to bribe a briber?
This, folks, is why we all hate the allocation policies of the Pigs That Fly (excuse me, make that SAIC, er, Internic). This isn't leftists looking for something to quarrel about (if so, where is all our support from them?!); this is real stuff.
participants (9)
-
Bradley Ward Allen -
David R. Conrad -
Ehud Gavron -
George Herbert -
Jamie -
jamie＠dilbert.multiverse.com
-
Kim Hubbard -
matthew＠scruz.net -
Michael Dillon