Why does Sprint have address filters again?
For some unknown reason, although IHETS has been allocated the entire traditional class B 165.138.0.0, they are announcing it as a partial 165.138.0.0/20. They could announce the entire /16. But they've chosen not too. If IHETS wants to ensure they can reach as much as the Internet as possible, they could follow Sprint's filtering policy, and announce their network as a 165.138.0.0/16. IHET could check http://www.sprint.net/filter.htm for a description of the policy. Since IHETS seems to be a SPRINT customer, I sure would appreciate it if the SPRINT NOC could explain to IHETS why such address filters exist, and if Sprint thinks its a good idea to apply them to other ISPs, why the reciprocal argument would also be true. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 06:08:40PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
For some unknown reason, although IHETS has been allocated the entire traditional class B 165.138.0.0, they are announcing it as a partial 165.138.0.0/20. They could announce the entire /16. But they've chosen not too. If IHETS wants to ensure they can reach as much as the Internet as possible, they could follow Sprint's filtering policy, and announce their network as a 165.138.0.0/16. IHET could check http://www.sprint.net/filter.htm for a description of the policy.
Since IHETS seems to be a SPRINT customer, I sure would appreciate it if the SPRINT NOC could explain to IHETS why such address filters exist, and if Sprint thinks its a good idea to apply them to other ISPs, why the reciprocal argument would also be true. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
It is also fascinating that Sprint's argument for their filtering (per their web page) is that ARIN has espoused this as a "proper" thing to do. They even provide a web reference to ARIN's statements in this matter. I have to ask what in the dickens ARIN thinks it is doing advocating *policy* on address filtering for ISPs, how this squares with ARIN's 501c(6) status, and how this can be justified, particularly when it shows up referenced like this as a "business justification". This polciy CERTAINLY has nothing to do with route table size, and wouldn't if it was enforced at the /19 level across the board. So just what is Sprint's, and ARIN's, justification for those *policy* statements? And does anyone on NANOG have other references to ISPs who *also* have picked up on this "suggestion" and have implemented something similar? [This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN] CC: arin-council@arin.net -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Wed, 27 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
It is also fascinating that Sprint's argument for their filtering (per their web page) is that ARIN has espoused this as a "proper" thing to do. They even provide a web reference to ARIN's statements in this matter.
As an ARIN AC member I'd like to see ARIN send them a note requesting that they remove this historical revisionism from their website.
I have to ask what in the dickens ARIN thinks it is doing advocating *policy* on address filtering for ISPs,
As far as I know, ARIN is doing no such thing. Seems to me we have here a document that could have been worded better and probably would have been worded better if anyone had cared to comment on it.
[This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
Seems to me that you are an AC member that has demanded ARIN provide a lot more public documentation of its policies and are, no doubt, a prime motivator for the production of the document in question. Personally, I think this could have been better handled by sending some suggestions on wording directly to the author of the document rather than raising a big public fuss about it. I would suggest that the section in question be replaced with this: In the past, major transit providers have claimed that technical and implementation constraints on the Internet routing system cause them to enforce various policies in order to reduce the number of globally advertised routes and preven the possibility of routing overload. Typically we see these providers setting limits on the size of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) prefixes added to the routing tables or filtering of non-aggregated routes. To aid in the efficient deployment of CIDR, ISPs are encouraged to request address space from their upstream provider. The upstream provider is to maintain control of the allocated block unless explicitly and contractually stated otherwise. In an effort to ensure that CIDR is implemented and utilized as efficiently as possible, ARIN issues blocks of addresses on appropriate "CIDR-supported" bit boundaries. Determination of IP address space allocation size is the responsibility of ARIN. I haven't taken the time to review the rest of the document so if anyone else has suggestions on revising the wording, I would appreciate it if you would contact the author directly. And I think some thanks are in order for the ARIN staff who are undertaking this thankless task of getting the whole IP allocation function better documented for all of us. I can't think of a worse attitude to take than telling them that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 08:08:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: [ Karl asks a bunch of cogent questions and then scares the shit out of me by following up with: ]
[This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
Would it be out of line for me to ask why you are having so much difficulty _getting_ answers to these questions that you need to ask them here? This whole ARIN thing is starting to smell somewhat like the InterNIC does... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:57:34AM +0000, John Golovich wrote:
Dont forget were being charged $500 initially for AS numbers now.
Yes, and that's for the entirely time-consuming entering your name and a number in a database (can you say "default nextval()"). One has to wonder just where the authority for THAT one comes from. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Yes, and that's for the entirely time-consuming entering your name and a number in a database (can you say "default nextval()").
One has to wonder just where the authority for THAT one comes from.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
As a general idea, I don't have a problem with having some resistor to demand for AS numbers, but $500 probably isn't much of a resistor. But clearly it can take $100 or $200 of time to evaluate a request, trace topology, and/or verify with the future upstreams the validity. Avi
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 12:07:01AM -0400, Avi Freedman wrote:
Yes, and that's for the entirely time-consuming entering your name and a number in a database (can you say "default nextval()").
One has to wonder just where the authority for THAT one comes from.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
As a general idea, I don't have a problem with having some resistor to demand for AS numbers, but $500 probably isn't much of a resistor.
But clearly it can take $100 or $200 of time to evaluate a request, trace topology, and/or verify with the future upstreams the validity.
Avi
It requires $100 worth of someone's time to make two phone calls and/or read two signed service agreements? Perhaps if ARIN is paying their people $100/hour, yes. (This is a CLERK's job) I disagree strongly on the "resistor" argument, at least for the initial assignment. Bottom line - if you're announcing networks, you need an ASN. If you're not, you don't. Demonstrate that someone is going to allow you to announce networks, and you get one. If you want a SECOND one for administrative convenience or whatever, now for THAT I can see charging a significant fee. Why? Because its not *necessary* for you to have a second one. You might WANT a second ASN, you might in fact want several of them for policy routing reasons, but that's not the same thing as a NEED for a second (or subsequent) ASN. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
It requires $100 worth of someone's time to make two phone calls and/or read two signed service agreements?
Perhaps if ARIN is paying their people $100/hour, yes.
(This is a CLERK's job)
Really? You're going to educate clerks about IP transit? How interesting.
I disagree strongly on the "resistor" argument, at least for the initial assignment. Bottom line - if you're announcing networks, you need an ASN. If you're not, you don't. Demonstrate that someone is going to allow you to announce networks, and you get one.
If you want a SECOND one for administrative convenience or whatever, now for THAT I can see charging a significant fee. Why? Because its not *necessary* for you to have a second one. You might WANT a second ASN, you might in fact want several of them for policy routing reasons, but that's not the same thing as a NEED for a second (or subsequent) ASN.
So, what's the criteria? Make a proposal. I don't have a strong problem with charging more for 2nd and subsequent ASNs, but I also think charging something for the reg service is reasonable.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
Avi
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 03:48:54PM -0400, Avi Freedman wrote:
It requires $100 worth of someone's time to make two phone calls and/or read two signed service agreements?
Perhaps if ARIN is paying their people $100/hour, yes.
(This is a CLERK's job)
Really? You're going to educate clerks about IP transit? How interesting.
You need to be educated to ask if someone is going to be announcing routes and note the answer? This is a "matrix" problem Avi. If A + B then YES.
I disagree strongly on the "resistor" argument, at least for the initial assignment. Bottom line - if you're announcing networks, you need an ASN. If you're not, you don't. Demonstrate that someone is going to allow you to announce networks, and you get one.
If you want a SECOND one for administrative convenience or whatever, now for THAT I can see charging a significant fee. Why? Because its not *necessary* for you to have a second one. You might WANT a second ASN, you might in fact want several of them for policy routing reasons, but that's not the same thing as a NEED for a second (or subsequent) ASN.
So, what's the criteria? Make a proposal. I don't have a strong problem with charging more for 2nd and subsequent ASNs, but I also think charging something for the reg service is reasonable.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
Avi
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable. Charging a lot more (say, $1,000) for the second and subsequent ASNs (or even an increasing fee, say $1k per ASN, so the second is $1k, the third $2k, etc) is also reasonable. Why? Because there are ways to skin the cat that don't require this, and if you're going to use more than a trivial amount of a limited resource then a "resistor" is reasonable on that use. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
The drivers license world defrays their fixed overhead costs across millions of drivers a year who get renewals done - there are not that many ASNs and other things done a day. Again, as a businessman Karl, you should understand that already.
Charging a lot more (say, $1,000) for the second and subsequent ASNs (or even an increasing fee, say $1k per ASN, so the second is $1k, the third $2k, etc) is also reasonable. Why? Because there are ways to skin the cat that don't require this, and if you're going to use more than a trivial amount of a limited resource then a "resistor" is reasonable on that use.
You are either charging a price to defray costs, or you are changing a price to encourage/discourage behaviour. In the two cases, the answers to "what is the correct price" are radically different, so we need to decide what the goal is before determining if the current price is good or bad. Doug
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 04:55:49PM -0400, Doug Humphrey wrote:
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
The drivers license world defrays their fixed overhead costs across millions of drivers a year who get renewals done - there are not that many ASNs and other things done a day. Again, as a businessman Karl, you should understand that already.
The Federal Government has set up a corporation for "E-Rate" connections. These are the "libraries and schools" program you keep hearing about. To bid on these, you must have a SPIN, or service provider ID number. To get one of THOSE, you make one call to an 800 number, they assign the number, send you a packet of info, you fill it out, and send it back. That's it. I know this, because MCSNet has one of these things since we've had a bunch of schools and libraries call us requesting Erate quotes over the last couple of months. Total cost to the ISP to get a SPIN: $0.00 Now, let's look at the parallels: 1. Both are required to "do business" in a given sector (ie: announce routes, sell to the Erate customer base) 2. Both are simple *technical* providers (assignment of a number, with the important being that it is unique in both cases). 3. One is free to the ISP. 4. The other costs $500.00
You are either charging a price to defray costs, or you are changing a price to encourage/discourage behaviour. In the two cases, the answers to "what is the correct price" are radically different, so we need to decide what the goal is before determining if the current price is good or bad.
Doug
What is going on here? ASNs didn't used to cost money until ARIN got its claws into them. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
While I agree with both sides of the ARIN argument, I have been silent for a while, but I have to speak now. ARIN, the 'American Registry for Internet Numbers', is something that I have come to fear. It has put an interesting spin on my business. As a preface to this email, I would like to say that I don't want to sound like the typical kvetcher (for the non-jews, it's yiddish for 'whiner') who just likes to complain about things, because they can. I think that we are beyond that. Anyway... A little history. nac.net (Net Access Corporation, nothing to do with Avi) was founded in late 1995. Fortunately, we were multi-homing early, and applies for a block and got it (after some arguing, which was absolutley justified on Internic's part) -- 207.99/18. As we filled and used that block, we requested -- and got with more ease -- 207.99.64/18 (to make for a whole /17). Time went on, and we filled that one, and requested another /16 (our 1 year estimate), and were turned down, but approved for a /18 -- 209.123/18. This all took place before ARIN was actively taking registrations. So, recently, we began to get low on space -- we were at about 80 to 90% utilization. We began the procedure of making sure all SWIPs were up to date, and proceed to ask for another chunk. This was two months ago, and to this day, the issue is still unresolved. My issues are simple. Early on, before I actually experienced what ARIN could do for me, I was in support of it; RIPE is wildly successful, and folks in Europe that I talk to are generally very supportive of RIPE or APNIC, etc, and dealing with them is not a 'chore'. An ISP who is approaching ARIN for space, especially one who has already rec'd space over the last 2 years, should be treated with respect. I know this sounds like a gripe, but the treatment we have gotten from ARIN alone has made our experiences with ARIN very negative. The attitude of "Why are you bothering me for address space" permeated the entire conversation. Not only that, we have moved from IP Address allocation being a 'free' 'in the extent that you didn't pay the Internic for address space) to a 'fee' service, and the customer service has taken a severe dive. Not to mention that fact that response time is horrid; why does it take 48 hours for responses from ARIN staff? My next gripe is the draconian (sp?) measures ARIN takes to make sure that you are as insulted as possible. My attitude is that we've maintained good SWIPping policies internal at NAC, and that customers who are assigned space from us have gotten either just what they need, or a small amount of growth made upon their representations of needs withing a 6 month period. We practice policies as much as possible to save address space (like dynamic addressing at dialup nodes, unnumbering interfaces when possible, etc.). We reclaim address space as quickly as possible and reuse it when needed. But, to ARIN, it is though you are 'guilty until proven innocent'. There is a great deal of time wasted in dealing with ARIN over *very* simple matters. And, the best part about this is that we get to pay now for the lack of customer service, and we have no choice but to use ARIN. Next, (as if you weren't expecting to hear this) is the pricing. The fee structure seems as though it is based upon, "If you have a /14, then you must be able to afford $20k per year." This is crazy! This is not a representation of what it takes time wise to review an application! I highly doubt that ARIN goes over every IP allocation that Sprint or MCI requests. And, if an ISP becomes stagnant in their requests, then the entire scheme falls to pieces; let me explain. Let's assume for a moment that an ISP gets enough customers over time to get a /16. They are billed $5,000 per year. But, if they become stagnant, and don't require any future allocations, there is a $5k yearly fee that goes where? For IN-ADDR delegations? (not to mention that the name servers that do IN-ADDR are generally on networks that donate the bandwidth, so what really is the cost to ARIN for IN-ADDR?) I think that the argument overall is that this fee is collected so that ARIN can afford to pay thier employees to look over IP requests; but, what if there are no further requests? Why would that organization have to pay the same as another which is actually creating a load on ARIN? I do believe that ARIN's prices are *way too high* and unjustified, but without interesting numbers to swallow, it would be impossible to assume. How does one get a report of what ARIN has registered, what they have collected? What about a balance sheet? Mu opinion is that ARIN's policies were shoe-horned into place, almost as if in hopes that no one was watching. Comments are welcome.
The drivers license world defrays their fixed overhead costs across millions of drivers a year who get renewals done - there are not that many ASNs and other things done a day. Again, as a businessman Karl, you should understand that already.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mr. Rubenstein, I was very concerned after reading your message so I reviewed every message regarding your latest request. You state that you haven't been able to receive address space, however, our records show that you were "approved" for a block of addresses on March 27, 1998. Your request was handled by Cathy Clements who is one of the most professional individuals around. She also happens to have the patience of a saint (as I'm sure many ISPs could attest to). I'm sorry if you were not happy with ARIN's service, however, IMO at no time could any of Cathy's messages be considered rude or be perceived as having an attitude of "why are you bothering me", as you claim. The ARIN policies have not changed since InterNIC, nor have the basic questions we ask on utilization. Kim
While I agree with both sides of the ARIN argument, I have been silent for a while, but I have to speak now.
ARIN, the 'American Registry for Internet Numbers', is something that I have come to fear. It has put an interesting spin on my business.
As a preface to this email, I would like to say that I don't want to sound like the typical kvetcher (for the non-jews, it's yiddish for 'whiner') who just likes to complain about things, because they can. I think that we are beyond that. Anyway... A little history.
nac.net (Net Access Corporation, nothing to do with Avi) was founded in late 1995. Fortunately, we were multi-homing early, and applies for a block and got it (after some arguing, which was absolutley justified on Internic's part) -- 207.99/18. As we filled and used that block, we requested -- and got with more ease -- 207.99.64/18 (to make for a whole /17). Time went on, and we filled that one, and requested another /16 (our 1 year estimate), and were turned down, but approved for a /18 -- 209.123/18. This all took place before ARIN was actively taking registrations.
So, recently, we began to get low on space -- we were at about 80 to 90% utilization. We began the procedure of making sure all SWIPs were up to date, and proceed to ask for another chunk. This was two months ago, and to this day, the issue is still unresolved.
My issues are simple. Early on, before I actually experienced what ARIN could do for me, I was in support of it; RIPE is wildly successful, and folks in Europe that I talk to are generally very supportive of RIPE or APNIC, etc, and dealing with them is not a 'chore'. An ISP who is approaching ARIN for space, especially one who has already rec'd space over the last 2 years, should be treated with respect. I know this sounds like a gripe, but the treatment we have gotten from ARIN alone has made our experiences with ARIN very negative. The attitude of "Why are you bothering me for address space" permeated the entire conversation. Not only that, we have moved from IP Address allocation being a 'free' 'in the extent that you didn't pay the Internic for address space) to a 'fee' service, and the customer service has taken a severe dive. Not to mention that fact that response time is horrid; why does it take 48 hours for responses from ARIN staff?
My next gripe is the draconian (sp?) measures ARIN takes to make sure that you are as insulted as possible. My attitude is that we've maintained good SWIPping policies internal at NAC, and that customers who are assigned space from us have gotten either just what they need, or a small amount of growth made upon their representations of needs withing a 6 month period. We practice policies as much as possible to save address space (like dynamic addressing at dialup nodes, unnumbering interfaces when possible, etc.). We reclaim address space as quickly as possible and reuse it when needed. But, to ARIN, it is though you are 'guilty until proven innocent'. There is a great deal of time wasted in dealing with ARIN over *very* simple matters.
And, the best part about this is that we get to pay now for the lack of customer service, and we have no choice but to use ARIN.
Next, (as if you weren't expecting to hear this) is the pricing. The fee structure seems as though it is based upon, "If you have a /14, then you must be able to afford $20k per year." This is crazy! This is not a representation of what it takes time wise to review an application! I highly doubt that ARIN goes over every IP allocation that Sprint or MCI requests. And, if an ISP becomes stagnant in their requests, then the entire scheme falls to pieces; let me explain. Let's assume for a moment that an ISP gets enough customers over time to get a /16. They are billed $5,000 per year. But, if they become stagnant, and don't require any future allocations, there is a $5k yearly fee that goes where? For IN-ADDR delegations? (not to mention that the name servers that do IN-ADDR are generally on networks that donate the bandwidth, so what really is the cost to ARIN for IN-ADDR?) I think that the argument overall is that this fee is collected so that ARIN can afford to pay thier employees to look over IP requests; but, what if there are no further requests? Why would that organization have to pay the same as another which is actually creating a load on ARIN?
I do believe that ARIN's prices are *way too high* and unjustified, but without interesting numbers to swallow, it would be impossible to assume. How does one get a report of what ARIN has registered, what they have collected? What about a balance sheet?
Mu opinion is that ARIN's policies were shoe-horned into place, almost as if in hopes that no one was watching.
Comments are welcome.
The drivers license world defrays their fixed overhead costs across millions of drivers a year who get renewals done - there are not that many ASNs and other things done a day. Again, as a businessman Karl, you should understand that already.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:
Mr. Rubenstein,
I was very concerned after reading your message so I reviewed every message regarding your latest request.
You state that you haven't been able to receive address space, however, our records show that you were "approved" for a block of addresses on March 27, 1998.
Interesting. The allocation approval was never mailed to me, the block isn't visible in WHOIS, and I haven't rec'd an invoice.
Your request was handled by Cathy Clements who is one of the most professional individuals around. She also happens to have the patience of a saint (as I'm sure many ISPs could attest to).
I'm sorry if you were not happy with ARIN's service, however, IMO at no time could any of Cathy's messages be considered rude or be perceived as having an attitude of "why are you bothering me", as you claim.
If you would check my original mail, I didn't claim 'rude'; the 'why are you bothering me' was more of an air of inattentiveness, timelyness (sp?), etc. I mean, the question still stands; why does it take 48 to 72 hours to get a response when sending responses to ARINs qualification requests?
The ARIN policies have not changed since InterNIC, nor have the basic questions we ask on utilization.
Maybe from your prospective, when you have the policy book in your hand or memorized. But, things are way different from ours (and I am sure others).
Kim
Thank you for your response. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:
Mr. Rubenstein,
I was very concerned after reading your message so I reviewed every message regarding your latest request.
You state that you haven't been able to receive address space, however, our records show that you were "approved" for a block of addresses on March 27, 1998.
Interesting. The allocation approval was never mailed to me, the block isn't visible in WHOIS, and I haven't rec'd an invoice.
You weren't issued the space because we're still waiting for you to create your customer account. The process is: we send you an approval message stating how much you were approved for and how to create your customer account, you create your customer account and we invoice you, you pay the invoice and we issue the address space. I will resend you the approval notice.
Your request was handled by Cathy Clements who is one of the most professional individuals around. She also happens to have the patience of a saint (as I'm sure many ISPs could attest to).
I'm sorry if you were not happy with ARIN's service, however, IMO at no time could any of Cathy's messages be considered rude or be perceived as having an attitude of "why are you bothering me", as you claim.
If you would check my original mail, I didn't claim 'rude'; the 'why are you bothering me' was more of an air of inattentiveness, timelyness (sp?), etc. I mean, the question still stands; why does it take 48 to 72 hours to get a response when sending responses to ARINs qualification requests?
I checked the dates of the messages and you are correct, there were two instances of messages that were not answered for 48 hours. Please keep in mind that ARIN has four IP analysts that have to handle thousands of messages each day comprised of ISP/IP/ASN/in-addr/SWIP requests, not to mention the help desk and the emails containing general Internet questions. Our goal is for a same day response on all messages, however, sometimes that is not possible. And before anyone asks, yes, a lot of it is automated, however, much of it still needs human interaction. I apologize for any delay.
The ARIN policies have not changed since InterNIC, nor have the basic questions we ask on utilization.
Maybe from your prospective, when you have the policy book in your hand or memorized. But, things are way different from ours (and I am sure others).
There were very specific reasons why we asked you the questions we did, however, I think it's best if we discuss this one on one. Feel free to call me or email me and I will be happy to discuss your particular request. Kim
Kim
Thank you for your response.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 11:38:39PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:
Alex wrote:
Kim wrote:
The ARIN policies have not changed since InterNIC, nor have the basic questions we ask on utilization.
Maybe from your prospective, when you have the policy book in your hand or memorized. But, things are way different from ours (and I am sure others).
Uh, they had better have changed or the AC work which was previously done was ignored (if THAT is the case, the web site is wrong and ARIN is not following the recommendations that they claim were approved and are currently out there as existing practice)
There were very specific reasons why we asked you the questions we did, however, I think it's best if we discuss this one on one. Feel free to call me or email me and I will be happy to discuss your particular request.
If those very specific reasons go beyond the requirements specified on the ARIN web page for ISP initial assignments, then I would expect NAC.NET (or anyone else) to refuse to comply, as those demands exceed ARIN's announced policies. If they do NOT go beyond those requirements, then there is nothing privileged about discussing the issue out in the open, assuming NAC.NET wishes to do so (and I encourage them to do so). This is the beauty of published, objective criteria - either you meet it or you do not. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
If those very specific reasons go beyond the requirements specified on the ARIN web page for ISP initial assignments, then I would expect NAC.NET (or anyone else) to refuse to comply, as those demands exceed ARIN's announced policies.
It wasn't NAC's first assignment.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
Avi
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
Now, let's look at the parallels:
1. Both are required to "do business" in a given sector (ie: announce routes, sell to the Erate customer base)
2. Both are simple *technical* providers (assignment of a number, with the important being that it is unique in both cases).
3. One is free to the ISP.
4. The other costs $500.00
5. One is financed by the government out of your taxes and is merely an accounting formality much like a customer ID number. The other is funded by a corporation that has no government funding and must support itself not unlike most businesses and the number is a critical infrastructure identifier something like an NPA-NXX.
What is going on here? ASNs didn't used to cost money until ARIN got its claws into them.
ASNs have always cost money to issue. It's just that in the past it was funded out of taxes funnelled through the NSF to a subcontractor and hidden somewhere in NSI's budget. Those days are gone, thank God. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
Karl Denninger wrote:
The Federal Government has set up a corporation for "E-Rate" connections. These are the "libraries and schools" program you keep hearing about.
To bid on these, you must have a SPIN, or service provider ID number.
[...]
Total cost to the ISP to get a SPIN: $0.00
[...]
What is going on here? ASNs didn't used to cost money until ARIN got its claws into them.
The cost of administering SPINs is paid for by the U.S. government (and therefore by the U.S. taxpayers), just like the U.S. government used to pay for the administration of ASNs, IP address allocations, and domain names. What has changed is that the U.S. government no longer pays for the administration of ASNs. It still costs money to do the administration so the money has to come from somewhere. In fact, knowing the way the U.S. government works, it probably costs the taxpayers more than $500 to allocate a SPIN. Jeff
And who pays for the administration of this service? The government does. Not the "members". Do you really want the govt more involved in the Internet? Why are you drawing parallels when you obviously realize that there are none to be made? Insinuation is your specialty so I won't even try it myself, but as Doug said, you're obviously too intelligent to be making parallels where there are none, so one does wonder what the motive is. Avi
Total cost to the ISP to get a SPIN: $0.00
Now, let's look at the parallels:
1. Both are required to "do business" in a given sector (ie: announce routes, sell to the Erate customer base)
2. Both are simple *technical* providers (assignment of a number, with the important being that it is unique in both cases).
3. One is free to the ISP.
4. The other costs $500.00
You are either charging a price to defray costs, or you are changing a price to encourage/discourage behaviour. In the two cases, the answers to "what is the correct price" are radically different, so we need to decide what the goal is before determining if the current price is good or bad.
Doug
What is going on here? ASNs didn't used to cost money until ARIN got its claws into them.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 09:22:35AM -0400, Avi Freedman wrote:
And who pays for the administration of this service? The government does.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here, but I thought ARIN was supposed to be moving towards not being funded by anyone besides themselves...
What is going on here? ASNs didn't used to cost money until ARIN got its claws into them.
Question is, what are the costs of maintaining the database of ASN information? -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
Come on, you're not engaging in reasonable discourse here...
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
Avi
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 05:17:08PM -0400, Avi Freedman wrote:
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
Come on, you're not engaging in reasonable discourse here...
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
Avi
I'm not? What kind of investigation is required to grant someone a *single* ASN? Seriously. Its not like they are in particularly short supply (there are ~3900 unique ones in the routing tables right now). If they're close to free (and the first one really ought to be) then you can also say "use it or lose it", as it can be easily replaced if you need a "new" one. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
At 3:49 PM -0500 5/29/98, Karl Denninger wrote:
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
And the DMV breaks even on that, right? Jordyn |----------------------------------------------------------------| |Jordyn A. Buchanan mailto:jordyn@bestweb.net | |Bestweb Corporation http://www.bestweb.net | |Director of Technology +1.914.271.4500 | |----------------------------------------------------------------|
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
At 3:49 PM -0500 5/29/98, Karl Denninger wrote:
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
And the DMV breaks even on that, right?
Jordyn
I don't care if its $50; even that's reasonable. $500 is punitive. Now if you want to be "restrictive" on *multiple* ASNs, that makes some sense, since the quantity has to fit in 16 bits (at least it does today). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
Charging reasonable costs (ie: the kind of fee that the Driver License bureau charges, ergo, $10 or so) for the first ASN is reasonable.
And the DMV breaks even on that, right?
I don't care if its $50; even that's reasonable.
$500 is punitive.
This really gets to the crux of the matter. How much does it cost for ARIN to do the work that it needs to do? How should we divide the costs up amongst the various fees? How much extra should be charged over costs to allow for growth, and for unforseen future costs? It has always been public knowledge that ARIN would review its costs after the first year and reduce its fees if they prove to be to high. Only half a year has passed so far. While it can be lots of fun to speculate on the fee structure using real dollar amounts I think we have to be careful to remember that in the absence of actual lower costs, a reduction in any one fee has to be accompanied by an INCREASE in some other fee. And even if the fee structure itself is left unchanged, all fees will be decreased if there is a real difference between estimated and actual costs. Personally, I'd rather keep the focus of these discussions away from money and specific dollar figures because it tends to obscure the real goals of ARIN which are to do a darn good job of allocating/registering the unique numbers that are absolutely critical to the Internet's operational infrastructure. IMHO, quality of ARIN's services should come first. If we can increase quality and simultaneously decrease costs, then that is great but you can't provide top quality service without top quality employees. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
At 07:32 AM 5/29/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 12:07:01AM -0400, Avi Freedman wrote:
As a general idea, I don't have a problem with having some resistor to demand for AS numbers, but $500 probably isn't much of a resistor.
But clearly it can take $100 or $200 of time to evaluate a request, trace topology, and/or verify with the future upstreams the validity.
Avi
It requires $100 worth of someone's time to make two phone calls and/or read two signed service agreements?
Perhaps if ARIN is paying their people $100/hour, yes.
(This is a CLERK's job)
Now, I am far from ARIN's biggest fan, but I think Avi's estimate is reasonable. I've see lots of companies trying to hold down costs and it still takes over $100 to handle 30 to 60 minutes of paperwork. Remember the overhead of office space, insurance, etc., etc. Plus it takes more than 5 minutes to actually do something like this. Plus lots of other administrative details, etc. Five hundred may be high, might not, but it is definitely close to reasonable.
If you want a SECOND one for administrative convenience or whatever, now for THAT I can see charging a significant fee. Why? Because its not *necessary* for you to have a second one. You might WANT a second ASN, you might in fact want several of them for policy routing reasons, but that's not the same thing as a NEED for a second (or subsequent) ASN.
Hrmmmmm.... I think this could be a very good idea. There are lots of arguments on both sides, but I think that if you are so large you need two (or more) ASNs - globally unique ASNs - you should probably bear a larger portion of the burden of running ARIN. I mean, if you were really good, couldn't you just use the private ASNs and confederations or something?
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
TTFN, patrick ************************************************************** Patrick W. Gilmore voice: +1-650-482-2840 Director of Operations, CCIE #2983 fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today" **************************************************************
In the Detroit area alot of smaller ISPs are looking to create a peering between each other to create shorter router for wherever traffic needs to go (ie. transit routing). This plan has been placed on hold and almost officially shelved because alot of the smaller ISPs dont see the need for an AS number. It is like trying to get your budget increased. If the fee for AS numbers was removed this peering would probably be already completed.
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:57:34AM +0000, John Golovich wrote:
Dont forget were being charged $500 initially for AS numbers now.
Yes, and that's for the entirely time-consuming entering your name and a number in a database (can you say "default nextval()").
One has to wonder just where the authority for THAT one comes from.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
John Golovich said once upon a time:
In the Detroit area alot of smaller ISPs are looking to create a peering between each other to create shorter router for wherever traffic needs to go (ie. transit routing).
This plan has been placed on hold and almost officially shelved because alot of the smaller ISPs dont see the need for an AS number.
It is like trying to get your budget increased. If the fee for AS numbers was removed this peering would probably be already completed.
Couldn't you just use internal AS numbers to talk to each other? I agree, its not the best solution, but it would at least get you on the road.
At 02:53 PM 5/29/98 -0600, Pete Ashdown wrote:
John Golovich said once upon a time:
In the Detroit area alot of smaller ISPs are looking to create a peering between each other to create shorter router for wherever traffic needs to go (ie. transit routing).
This plan has been placed on hold and almost officially shelved because alot of the smaller ISPs dont see the need for an AS number.
It is like trying to get your budget increased. If the fee for AS numbers was removed this peering would probably be already completed.
Couldn't you just use internal AS numbers to talk to each other? I agree, its not the best solution, but it would at least get you on the road.
Seems to me they would need at least one ASN. But they could split the cost of that one amongst themselves to make it more reasonable and use private ASNs internally. BGP confederations are well documented. Of course, your routers would have to support confederations. Otherwise, you might (or might not) be able to do something like that manually depending upon the filtering, etc. capabilities of your routers. TTFN, patrick ************************************************************** Patrick W. Gilmore voice: +1-650-482-2840 Director of Operations, CCIE #2983 fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today" **************************************************************
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 08:08:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: [ Karl asks a bunch of cogent questions and then scares the shit out of me by following up with: ]
[This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
Would it be out of line for me to ask why you are having so much difficulty _getting_ answers to these questions that you need to ask them here? This whole ARIN thing is starting to smell somewhat like the InterNIC does...
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered. It is my counter-assertion that IF ARIN is going to act as a custodian of an essential facility (which it is), in the public interest (which is currently open and in debate), that not only do the AC and membership have these rights, but the general public has the right to full transparency within ARIN's operation. IMHO the network operators within ARIN's "sphere of influence" should consider "waking up" and making their opinions known about this and related sets of issues having to do with IPv4 allocation. If there is a set of "affected organizations" which should be fully aware of and involved in this, its the NANOG group. Two places to do so are "arin-members@arin.net", and "arin-council@arin.net", which are the mailing lists for the membership and AC, respectively. Those who find themselves embargoed from posting to either are welcome to ask me to forward material for them; as both an AC member, and an ARIN member, I have the right to post to both. The only way the questions will be resolved is if the debate is deemed important by those who are impacted by ARIN - which is, virtually without exception, an intersecting set within the NANOG community. It would also be a good idea to read the ARIN bylaws (available on their web site) and note carefully the lack of any real, functional oversight by the membership (ie: the membership cannot recall an AC member, a board member, or a corporate officer, either directly or indirectly). Then surf over to the CIX web site and read THEIR bylaws. Compare the two, and draw your own conclusions. Both are, by the way, 501c(6) organizations. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcFrom owner-nanog@merit.edu Thu May 28 14:53:42 1998 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) by nic.merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA26458 for <hyper_nanog@nic.merit.net>; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26731; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 28 May 1998 14:12:21 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA25214 for nanog-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netra.graphnet.com (netra.graphnet.com [192.206.112.2]) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA25189 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from graphnet.com (dana.graphnet.com [192.206.112.98]) by netra.graphnet.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA04793 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <356DA8DD.85E5030C@graphnet.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 14:11:41 -0400 From: "Mr. Dana Hudes" <dhudes@graphnet.com> Organization: Graphnet Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ingress filtering References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980528134840.18837P-100000@nsa.ecosoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu I have more than 2 routers and less than 100. One thing I've found with some source addresses of mine coming from the upstream is packets in a piece of PA space. For example, I have some addresses from my own PA /19 and some in /20 from UUNET. My UUNET /20 is part of a /11 of theirs. So if packets of mine come into my router but have no more-specific route from my IGP then off they go to UUNET. UUNET throws them back at me. The solution is a static blackhole for the announcement. somehow all this was easier with GateD, which made the blackhole for me automatically -- or maybe its fond but hazily wrong memories. In any case, the blackhole routes for ones own allocations help block wayward packets. Now if I could make those blackholes properly propagate in OSPF.... Dana Brian Horvitz wrote:
I have the luxury of being able to filter for source address at my ingress points on only two routers. That makes it relatively easy to do. I find a surprising number of packets with source addresses from inside my network or from the private IP space.
Brian
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Mr. Dana Hudes wrote:
Who *does* do ingress filtering? I have it on our border routers and customer connect ports. We have transit from MCI and UUNET. Neither has ingress filters -- see below message from MCI on this. The result of course is that spammers and other bad guys can try to attack your systems with forged source IP addresses. Random strange people in the 'net send "NETBIOS name service" (port 137) packets to my unix mail relay, which of course ignores them. Other such fun things continue to be seen in the logs.
Subject: Re: RFC1918 addresses from MCI Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:16:23 -0700 From: security@mci.net To: dhudes@graphnet.com CC: security@mci.net
Mr. Hudes,
Thank you for your note. MCI does not currently source filter address space at it's ingress points. Addresses sourced from non-routable or invalid addresses are not blocked or filtered. Addresses destined to non-routable addresses spaced are not routed.
If you think it is a security issue and it is on-going then please contact us with the target address so we can investigate.
Regards,
-Julian Min
s.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 08:08:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: [ Karl asks a bunch of cogent questions and then scares the shit out of me by following up with: ]
[This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
Would it be out of line for me to ask why you are having so much difficulty _getting_ answers to these questions that you need to ask them here? This whole ARIN thing is starting to smell somewhat like the InterNIC does...
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.
ARIN has NEVER asserted that members or individuals have no right to have these types of questions answered. To my knowledge, neither Karl nor anyone else that I can think of, has asked ARIN any questions regarding it's involvement in Sprint's decision to filter prefixes. If someone is asking now, the answer is that the registries (ARIN didn't even exist at the time Sprint began filtering) had no involvement other than to request that Sprint lower their filters from a /18 to a /19. Kim Hubbard ARIN
It is my counter-assertion that IF ARIN is going to act as a custodian of an essential facility (which it is), in the public interest (which is currently open and in debate), that not only do the AC and membership have these rights, but the general public has the right to full transparency within ARIN's operation.
IMHO the network operators within ARIN's "sphere of influence" should consider "waking up" and making their opinions known about this and related sets of issues having to do with IPv4 allocation.
If there is a set of "affected organizations" which should be fully aware of and involved in this, its the NANOG group.
Two places to do so are "arin-members@arin.net", and "arin-council@arin.net", which are the mailing lists for the membership and AC, respectively.
Those who find themselves embargoed from posting to either are welcome to ask me to forward material for them; as both an AC member, and an ARIN member, I have the right to post to both.
The only way the questions will be resolved is if the debate is deemed important by those who are impacted by ARIN - which is, virtually without exception, an intersecting set within the NANOG community.
It would also be a good idea to read the ARIN bylaws (available on their web site) and note carefully the lack of any real, functional oversight by the membership (ie: the membership cannot recall an AC member, a board member, or a corporate officer, either directly or indirectly).
Then surf over to the CIX web site and read THEIR bylaws. Compare the two, and draw your own conclusions.
Both are, by the way, 501c(6) organizations.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 02:58:35PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 08:08:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: [ Karl asks a bunch of cogent questions and then scares the shit out of me by following up with: ]
[This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
Would it be out of line for me to ask why you are having so much difficulty _getting_ answers to these questions that you need to ask them here? This whole ARIN thing is starting to smell somewhat like the InterNIC does...
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.
ARIN has NEVER asserted that members or individuals have no right to have these types of questions answered.
Should I repost the list of questions I've sent through the AC list (without answer) to NANOG Kim?
To my knowledge, neither Karl nor anyone else that I can think of, has asked ARIN any questions regarding it's involvement in Sprint's decision to filter prefixes. If someone is asking now, the answer is that the registries (ARIN didn't even exist at the time Sprint began filtering) had no involvement other than to request that Sprint lower their filters from a /18 to a /19.
Kim Hubbard ARIN
This discussion wasn't ONLY about Sprint's decision to filter prefixes. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 02:58:35PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 08:08:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: [ Karl asks a bunch of cogent questions and then scares the shit out of me by following up with: ]
[This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
Would it be out of line for me to ask why you are having so much difficulty _getting_ answers to these questions that you need to ask them here? This whole ARIN thing is starting to smell somewhat like the InterNIC does...
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.
ARIN has NEVER asserted that members or individuals have no right to have these types of questions answered.
Should I repost the list of questions I've sent through the AC list (without answer) to NANOG Kim?
That's up to you and the rest of the AC, it's their mailing list. Kim
To my knowledge, neither Karl nor anyone else that I can think of, has asked ARIN any questions regarding it's involvement in Sprint's decision to filter prefixes. If someone is asking now, the answer is that the registries (ARIN didn't even exist at the time Sprint began filtering) had no involvement other than to request that Sprint lower their filters from a /18 to a /19.
Kim Hubbard ARIN
This discussion wasn't ONLY about Sprint's decision to filter prefixes.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 03:36:13PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:
Should I repost the list of questions I've sent through the AC list (without answer) to NANOG Kim?
That's up to you and the rest of the AC, it's their mailing list.
Kim
Actually, no, its not up to the AC. My questions are mine, and nobody other than myself controls the distribution of same. I will, however, do them the <courtesy> of asking if they believe it is appropriate to request input not just from the membership, but also from NANOG, and whether or not anyone objects to my posting my question and reform-of-bylaw proposals to NANOG. Comments, AC members (yes, in public, please reply to both lists)? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
I will, however, do them the <courtesy> of asking if they believe it is appropriate to request input not just from the membership, but also from NANOG, and whether or not anyone objects to my posting my question and reform-of-bylaw proposals to NANOG.
Comments, AC members (yes, in public, please reply to both lists)?
I have no problems with any proposals for ARIN being discussed in public on other mailing lists. In fact I prefer a wide range of input to ARIN policymaking which is why I frequently discuss ARIN related stuff on other lists even though most of the list members are non-members of ARIN. The more minds we have looking at a policy proposal, the less likely it is for one person to bully the AC into recommending flawed policies. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
At 13:11 5/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.
It is my counter-assertion that IF ARIN is going to act as a custodian of an essential facility (which it is), in the public interest (which is currently open and in debate), that not only do the AC and membership have these rights, but the general public has the right to full transparency within ARIN's operation.
I must agree with you in principle. If YOU, of all people, are not permitted answers to these questions, who in the world is? And...what do you get for your $1000 membership fee? Spam(tm) is pressed meat. Spammers should be too. Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 05:56:40PM -0400, Dean Robb wrote:
At 13:11 5/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.
It is my counter-assertion that IF ARIN is going to act as a custodian of an essential facility (which it is), in the public interest (which is currently open and in debate), that not only do the AC and membership have these rights, but the general public has the right to full transparency within ARIN's operation.
I must agree with you in principle. If YOU, of all people, are not permitted answers to these questions, who in the world is? And...what do you get for your $1000 membership fee?
According to the bylaws (which provide me no ability to remove a BoT member or officer, even if every other member agrees with me, and they're the only ones who can make or implement policy; ergo, if there's folks members should be able to fire, that's the short list) - the right to show up and stand (or sit) in a room with others once a year. And a cancelled check. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members) don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.
It is my counter-assertion that IF ARIN is going to act as a custodian of an essential facility (which it is), in the public interest (which is currently open and in debate), that not only do the AC and membership have these rights, but the general public has the right to full transparency within ARIN's operation.
Right. And that requires that ARIN make such decisions with due process. It does not allow an individual to browbeat the information out of an ARIN employee. And it does not allow an ARIN employee to make the decision to release this information without any consultation with at least the ARIN Board of Trustees. It is especially important that ARIN employees don't make special exceptions to the existing policies for you since you appear to be attempting to entrap them by simultaneously demanding that ARIN act like a public interest organization and demanding that ARIN employees do special things for you right now that are outside of the current ARIN policies.
IMHO the network operators within ARIN's "sphere of influence" should consider "waking up" and making their opinions known about this and related sets of issues having to do with IPv4 allocation.
I agree wholeheartedly. But I intensely dislike seeing your attempts to subvert due process by demanding that ARIN employees work for you merely because of some airy-fairy title like "Advisory Council Member". I don't see why ARIN employees should need to jump when you say jump.
Those who find themselves embargoed from posting to either are welcome to ask me to forward material for them; as both an AC member, and an ARIN member, I have the right to post to both.
That's just plain silly. There are ARIN people on this list and if it's an issue of importance to the NANOG community then there is no need to hide the discussion off in a closed list somewhere. I see no good reason not to have such a discussion here.
Then surf over to the CIX web site and read THEIR bylaws. Compare the two, and draw your own conclusions.
No, please don't draw your own conclusions. The last thing we need are more conspiracy theorists. But it would be decidedly useful if we had a few more people willing to put some real effort into rewriting the bylaws or at least digging up some more examples of bylaws from similar organizations. Karl seems to think that the CIX is similar enough to ARIN that we can copy parts of their bylaws wholesale. I happen to believe that the CIX is rather unlike ARIN and would like to see some more examples. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
For some unknown reason, although IHETS has been allocated the entire traditional class B 165.138.0.0, they are announcing it as a partial 165.138.0.0/20. They could announce the entire /16. But they've chosen not too.
They are quite entitled to that choice. And we are entitled not to accept the route. randy
participants (16)
-
Al Reuben -
Avi Freedman -
Dean Robb -
Doug Humphrey -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jeffrey C. Ollie -
John Golovich -
Jordyn A. Buchanan -
Karl Denninger -
Kim Hubbard -
Michael Dillon -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Pete Ashdown -
Randy Bush -
Sean Donelan -
Steve Sobol