So that I'm not misunderstood let me say this: 1: I do not neccessarily agree with the sale of IPs, personally, I don't think its a good idea 2: This is a real world economy now, outdated academic practices which are currently being enforced are as wrong as the sale of IPs. 3: Wether you, ARIN, or anyone else likes it or not, IPs are for all intents and purposes a resellable commodity, otherwise ARIN et all can (ala Jim Flemming) be called on as being a Monopoly. 4: The simple fact of the matter is that the RFCs are not at any time, the law of the land. They are at best guidelines and good ideas set down for others to follow, but there is no rule stating that you _must_ follow them. 5: Before you start chasing wild geese selling Class B address space I suggest you go back and check on all those folks that got space long before there were any 'restrictions and justifications'. I have no doubt that there is a veritable feast of IPs sitting unused at MIT, USC, and other such institutions that would be better used elsewhere instead of sitting in a corner like a dusty grad student. 6: Finally and most importantly, stop pretending you still live in the world of happy academia where everyone is willing to follow the rules you set down just because you're the proffessor and they're the student. This just does not work anymore, you may scoff at people like Jim Flemming but for each one you knock down there is another one to learn from his mistakes and take his place. Do not pretend you can sit idle and call people who don't fall in line behind you names so that you can sit back in your dusty chair and pretend nothing is wrong. The internet as a whole is growing at an unthought of pace and your failure to keep up will not be fixed by being tight assed and making it harder on those that follow. Eventually someone else will take the forefront and throw you off your high horse like yesterdays newspaper. You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-]
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote:
You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality.
There are no leaders of the Internet. The problems are *YOUR* problems and it is *YOUR* responsibility to solve them as much as anyone else's. As always, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
At 11:27 -0800 3/9/97, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote:
You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality.
There are no leaders of the Internet.
Yes, there are no leaders, just rulers (IANA, InterNIC, etc.). It's about time the rulers started leading, or they will be ignored (seeming divine right notwithstanding).
The problems are *YOUR* problems and it is *YOUR* responsibility to solve them as much as anyone else's.
Wow, that sounds a lot like fingerpointing. It's not my problem, it's yours. My network isn't losing packets, the NAPs are. My peering requirements are reasonable, yours aren't. My HOL blocking isn't the problem, your refusal to daisy chain a second non-working device is the problem. I'm sure that's not what you meant, Michael, but the wording is rather ironic given the outcome of packet loss/performance discussions at NANOG (yuk yuk).
As always, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
The prevailing attitude here seems to be "If it's not my solution, you are part of the problem." The tendency of network operators in this arena to jump up and down screaming "WAH WAH WAH WAH" with their fingers in their ears when problems are pointed out is rather disturbing. It seems that the "players" want to present an appearance of cooperation to prevent regulation, yet I see no effective cooperation. (Yes, CAIDA people, I know you are trying. However, I don't see the big six at http://compute.merit.edu/ipn.html.) I'm beginning to think a little regulation will go a long way in correcting this attitude. Why shouldn't network metrics be standardized, published, and audited by an independent agency? Car manufacturers have to publish results of their mandatory saftey tests. I'm sure it is embarrasing as hell when GM makes an alternator that shreds itself, or a window that breaks too easily. But, the public interest is served. Does this analogy hold for the Internet? Well, when the network crashes (or provider A blackholes provider B, or provider C dumps an OC3 of traffic onto a DS3) it doesn't kill me, but it sure as hell costs me money... which is nearly as bad. Then again, if running a network was easy, it would be about as exciting as running the cash register at your local Taco Bell. Jim Browne jbrowne@jbrowne.com "Also shocking is just how bad Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher are in their first major roles." - CNN Film Critic Paul Tatara
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Jim Browne wrote:
The problems are *YOUR* problems and it is *YOUR* responsibility to solve them as much as anyone else's.
Wow, that sounds a lot like fingerpointing. It's not my problem, it's yours. My network isn't losing packets, the NAPs are. My peering requirements are reasonable, yours aren't. My HOL blocking isn't the problem, your refusal to daisy chain a second non-working device is the problem. I'm sure that's not what you meant, Michael,
No, it's not what I meant. I should have said the problems are *OUR* problems as individuals and as a group. And it is *OUR* responsibility to solve them rather than waiting for the gods to speak. Aide-toi, Dieu t'aidera.
The prevailing attitude here seems to be "If it's not my solution, you are part of the problem."
I disagree. If you judge people by their actions rather than by their words there are a LOT of people silently working to make things better and not interested in loudly proclaiming how great they are. They deserve some thanks and the rest of us should roll up our sleeves and pitch in. This network is still a baby. Everyone here on this list could spend the rest of their adult life building and deploying the network and it still wouldn't be finished.
effective cooperation. (Yes, CAIDA people, I know you are trying. However, I don't see the big six at http://compute.merit.edu/ipn.html.)
It's still a significantly long list. And sooner or later some network engineer is going to figure out how to explain this to their marketing people and the big six will start to lose contracts because they are not collaborating.
I'm beginning to think a little regulation will go a long way in correcting this attitude.
One thing that would help is some legislation that draws a clear line between what is and what is not antitrust behavior in the Internet industry. The United States has such severe penalties for antitrust behavior that it is understandable that companies large enough to be considered dominant within the industry would shy away from participating in things like IPN.
Why shouldn't network metrics be standardized, published, and audited by an independent agency?
They should, but...
Car manufacturers have to publish results of their mandatory saftey tests.
The Internet industry has now reached the same level that the car industry reached just after Henry Ford introduced the Model T. When Internet engineering is as well understood as automotive engineering is today then the standards you are looking for will come to be. It's probably no coincidence that ANX is the major group pushing for this kind of thing. But the tools are there for any network provider who really wants to work on quality. ISO 9000, TQM, etc... Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
There are no leaders of the Internet. The problems are *YOUR* problems and it is *YOUR* responsibility to solve them as much as anyone else's. As always, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
You know, that last line is so overused its sad to see someone I would like to think is intelligent use it. I as a person am not capable of changing the way things work at ARIN or across the internet as a whole, but yet I am not the problem either. I'm at best a bystander watching you people play your silly games and pointing out what I think is right or wrong. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-]
Let me add a word to Brett's comments. This IS a world-scale economy. If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog), decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or be able to change it. Here's the Ehud Scenario: 1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa. in F. 2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8). 3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now ;) Is this unlawful? No. There's no law about announcing routes, nor about delegating them in private internets. For practical purposes, NANOG members form a private internet. Is this unethical? Some would say 'Sure, only the InterNIC and IANA can assign IP addresses.' Some tell me this thinking is obsolete. Jim Fleming would salivate, and Karl Deninger would laugh. Well, maybe. Is this impractical? I dunno. I figure we could bribe Paul with $ 2000 per assignment regardless of size (after all, two NS entries are all the same cost). After about 52 /24s, he'd double his yearly retainer income (all figures guesses with no real basis) and probably be able to retire to Caymans. (That's a Brett Scenario). Oh yeah, it's my idea, so I want anyone who gets an allocation from this scheme to send me a bottle of single-malt Scotch. Let me know if I've left something out. Ehud p.s. If I've pissed off anybody in this post, send me a private note via us mail. Be sure to include a bottle of single malt Scotch or your note will be returned. Just like email to admin@crl
So that I'm not misunderstood let me say this:
1: I do not neccessarily agree with the sale of IPs, personally, I don't think its a good idea
2: This is a real world economy now, outdated academic practices which are currently being enforced are as wrong as the sale of IPs.
3: Wether you, ARIN, or anyone else likes it or not, IPs are for all intents and purposes a resellable commodity, otherwise ARIN et all can (ala Jim Flemming) be called on as being a Monopoly.
4: The simple fact of the matter is that the RFCs are not at any time, the law of the land. They are at best guidelines and good ideas set down for others to follow, but there is no rule stating that you _must_ follow them.
5: Before you start chasing wild geese selling Class B address space I suggest you go back and check on all those folks that got space long before there were any 'restrictions and justifications'. I have no doubt that there is a veritable feast of IPs sitting unused at MIT, USC, and other such institutions that would be better used elsewhere instead of sitting in a corner like a dusty grad student.
6: Finally and most importantly, stop pretending you still live in the world of happy academia where everyone is willing to follow the rules you set down just because you're the proffessor and they're the student. This just does not work anymore, you may scoff at people like Jim Flemming but for each one you knock down there is another one to learn from his mistakes and take his place. Do not pretend you can sit idle and call people who don't fall in line behind you names so that you can sit back in your dusty chair and pretend nothing is wrong. The internet as a whole is growing at an unthought of pace and your failure to keep up will not be fixed by being tight assed and making it harder on those that follow. Eventually someone else will take the forefront and throw you off your high horse like yesterdays newspaper. You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality.
[-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-]
Emilio Bugatti (sp?), at the time the maker of the finest cars in the world, was asked why the brakes on his cars were not as good as they might be. He replied "Any fool can make a car stop. It takes a genius to make a car go." I suggest we focus on the latter. randy
hang on there while i'm actually *not* necessarily against your proposal for providers to "just take over," i do think you're being a bit rash. specifically, if you want to do something like this, why not actually propose the *way* that the "seized" addresses would be allocated such that your proposal results in a *less* chaotic future? for example, why not try a test run of some of the market-based approaches others have suggested? the most promising one, in my opinion, is scott huddle's proposal for a market for both addresses and routing table slots; registries (which cover the address part) would simply record who has what address while the providers (and whatever other third- party businesses which might spring up) would deal with the routing slot part. this assumes certain mechanisms within bgp (or some other ~routing protocol) to reserve slots (kind of like an RSVP for routing [as opposed to forwarding]), but i think some of the direct implications, as well as some of the fallout, would be very good and would show the internet maturing as a service. i also think it would help technically by forcing us to answer the question: "given a time and a technology, what does 'full' mean for a routing table?" in other words, if you're gonna take over the world, don't just do more of the same... just my US$0.02 /jws
Let me add a word to Brett's comments. This IS a world-scale economy.
If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog), decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or be able to change it.
Here's the Ehud Scenario: 1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa. in F. 2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8). 3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now ;)
Is this unlawful? No. There's no law about announcing routes, nor about delegating them in private internets. For practical purposes, NANOG members form a private internet.
Is this unethical? Some would say 'Sure, only the InterNIC and IANA can assign IP addresses.' Some tell me this thinking is obsolete. Jim Fleming would salivate, and Karl Deninger would laugh. Well, maybe.
Is this impractical? I dunno. I figure we could bribe Paul with $ 2000 per assignment regardless of size (after all, two NS entries are all the same cost). After about 52 /24s, he'd double his yearly retainer income (all figures guesses with no real basis) and probably be able to retire to Caymans. (That's a Brett Scenario).
Oh yeah, it's my idea, so I want anyone who gets an allocation from
this scheme to send me a bottle of single-malt Scotch.
Let me know if I've left something out.
Ehud
p.s. If I've pissed off anybody in this post, send me a private note via us mail. Be sure to include a bottle of single malt Scotch or your note will be returned. Just like email to admin@cr l
So that I'm not misunderstood let me say this:
1: I do not neccessarily agree with the sale of IPs, personally, I don't think its a good idea
2: This is a real world economy now, outdated academic practices which are currently being enforced are as wrong as the sale of IPs.
3: Wether you, ARIN, or anyone else likes it or not, IPs are for all intent s and purposes a resellable commodity, otherwise ARIN et all can (ala Jim Flemming) be called on as being a Monopoly.
4: The simple fact of the matter is that the RFCs are not at any time, the law of the land. They are at best guidelines and good ideas set down for others to follow, but there is no rule stating that you _must_ follow them.
5: Before you start chasing wild geese selling Class B address space I suggest you go back and check on all those folks that got space long before there were any 'restrictions and justifications'. I have no doubt that ther e is a veritable feast of IPs sitting unused at MIT, USC, and other such institutions that would be better used elsewhere instead of sitting in a corner like a dusty grad student.
6: Finally and most importantly, stop pretending you still live in the worl d of happy academia where everyone is willing to follow the rules you set dow n just because you're the proffessor and they're the student. This just does not work anymore, you may scoff at people like Jim Flemming but for each on e you knock down there is another one to learn from his mistakes and take his place. Do not pretend you can sit idle and call people who don't fall in line behind you names so that you can sit back in your dusty chair and pretend nothing is wrong. The internet as a whole is growing at an unthough t of pace and your failure to keep up will not be fixed by being tight assed and making it harder on those that follow. Eventually someone else will tak e the forefront and throw you off your high horse like yesterdays newspaper. You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality.
[-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-]
Less ARIN and NIC are run by the principles Adam Smith described in the early Nineteenth Century. I don't know, maybe Address assignment is controlled by the unseen hand of god. The beginning and end of it is that selling address space is against RFC's and ethics, and it should be left at that. ---------------------------- Benajmin Vaughn Sedriss@IRC sedriss@prophet-indy.org OR "whois BV209" "And the rest is silence." ---------------------------- On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Ehud Gavron wrote:
Let me add a word to Brett's comments. This IS a world-scale economy.
If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog), decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or be able to change it.
Here's the Ehud Scenario: 1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa. in F. 2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8). 3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now ;)
Is this unlawful? No. There's no law about announcing routes, nor about delegating them in private internets. For practical purposes, NANOG members form a private internet.
Is this unethical? Some would say 'Sure, only the InterNIC and IANA can assign IP addresses.' Some tell me this thinking is obsolete. Jim Fleming would salivate, and Karl Deninger would laugh. Well, maybe.
Is this impractical? I dunno. I figure we could bribe Paul with $ 2000 per assignment regardless of size (after all, two NS entries are all the same cost). After about 52 /24s, he'd double his yearly retainer income (all figures guesses with no real basis) and probably be able to retire to Caymans. (That's a Brett Scenario).
Oh yeah, it's my idea, so I want anyone who gets an allocation from this scheme to send me a bottle of single-malt Scotch.
Let me know if I've left something out.
Ehud
p.s. If I've pissed off anybody in this post, send me a private note via us mail. Be sure to include a bottle of single malt Scotch or your note will be returned. Just like email to admin@crl
So that I'm not misunderstood let me say this:
1: I do not neccessarily agree with the sale of IPs, personally, I don't think its a good idea
2: This is a real world economy now, outdated academic practices which are currently being enforced are as wrong as the sale of IPs.
3: Wether you, ARIN, or anyone else likes it or not, IPs are for all intents and purposes a resellable commodity, otherwise ARIN et all can (ala Jim Flemming) be called on as being a Monopoly.
4: The simple fact of the matter is that the RFCs are not at any time, the law of the land. They are at best guidelines and good ideas set down for others to follow, but there is no rule stating that you _must_ follow them.
5: Before you start chasing wild geese selling Class B address space I suggest you go back and check on all those folks that got space long before there were any 'restrictions and justifications'. I have no doubt that there is a veritable feast of IPs sitting unused at MIT, USC, and other such institutions that would be better used elsewhere instead of sitting in a corner like a dusty grad student.
6: Finally and most importantly, stop pretending you still live in the world of happy academia where everyone is willing to follow the rules you set down just because you're the proffessor and they're the student. This just does not work anymore, you may scoff at people like Jim Flemming but for each one you knock down there is another one to learn from his mistakes and take his place. Do not pretend you can sit idle and call people who don't fall in line behind you names so that you can sit back in your dusty chair and pretend nothing is wrong. The internet as a whole is growing at an unthought of pace and your failure to keep up will not be fixed by being tight assed and making it harder on those that follow. Eventually someone else will take the forefront and throw you off your high horse like yesterdays newspaper. You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the problems go away by being ignorant of reality.
[-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-]
If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog), decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or be able to change it.
That's what we already have. IANA is in charge because the people who own the physical plant -- that's the multinationals, larger nationals, government, military, and other gigantic users -- think IANA is a good solution for the time being. IANA delegates its address assignment authority to registries (RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN/InterNIC) whose operational guidelines are set by and reviewed by open forums made up of the people to whom addresses are allocated, with some oversight/assistance from IETF. If the people who own the physical plant were to somehow jointly decide that some other system would work better for them, then that other system would be in place (or die trying) pretty much instantaneously, with no relevant fighting. (It's worth noting that confusion over the ownership of the physical plant is what makes Karl, Eugene, and Jim try to do what they're trying to do with ".", but it's probably not worth discussing over again.)
Here's the Ehud Scenario: 1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa. in F.
This could never happen. I am not an address or domain assignment authority. The chosen focal point for the will of the owners of the physical plant is the IANA, and my root (and gTLD and iTLD) name server(s) will export exactly what the respective domain owners put into their domains. No more, no less. Wait, I can feel an example coming on. Consider these data elements: LOCALHOST. in a 127.0.0.1 1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA. in ptr LOCALHOST. When I was first delegated F, I put these in since they are a standard feature of all "my" other name servers. However, a few days later the little light went on and I said "oops, I just polluted the global DNS name space with stuff the IANA did not authorize" and I took it out.
2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8). 3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now ;)
This is exactly what happens now except that "we" is larger by far than NANOG.
Let me know if I've left something out.
What you've left out is that the model of Internet self governance has been in use since before the U.S. Military thought it had allowed such, and is in use now even though it looks rather autocratic to someone who does not know from whence IANA and RIPE/APNIC/ARIN derive their relevance.
participants (8)
-
Benjamin Inman Vaughn -
Brett L. Hawn -
Ehud Gavron -
Jim Browne -
John W. Stewart III -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
randy＠psg.com