Mailing List Archive

See below:

--On Thu, Jan 2, 1997 9:56 PM "Kim Hubbard" <kimh@internic.net> wrote:

> Recently, there has been discussion concerning the need to keep IP issues
> separate from domain issues. The stability of the Internet in part
relies
> on the careful management of the Internet Protocol addresses.
>
> The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should
> be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether
> those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they
> should all play a role.
>
> To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund
> a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry
> for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to manage the IP address space for the
> territories it currently administers, similar to the APNIC and RIPE
> regional IP registries. This organization will be a non-profit
> spin-off of the current InterNIC IP group.
>
> Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed
> and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable,
> self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership
> dues, registration and maintenance fees.
>
> Details on the proposed organizational structure and 1997 funding
> model are located at http://rs.internic.net/arin.

Two questions that I am sure will be widespread.

1) The information on the web page does not seem to cover this: If an ISP
pays the annual membership fees and it delegates a /24 (or so) to a
customer, will the customer have to pay the $2,500 one-time fee for a /24?

2) What is the proposed timeframe for such an organization to be created
and fees to be imposed (important to those of us who are in the middle of
budget time...).

Thanks,
-Bob


--
Bob Collie, Chief Technical Officer, Telalink Corporation
mailto:rmc@telalink.net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two questions come to mind with this:

One:
How will portable/non-portable address space be effected. Does the mean
that if I have non-portable address space, I can charge customers for
address space, and if it is portable, they have to pay $2500 per /24 to
have it registered to them?

Two:
If an entity has address space already and does not require more space,
do they have to pay the fee or is this going to be grandfather claused? I
know with domain names it was not that way, but that is only 50 bucks,
$2500 or more could put a lot of business off the net.


I guess this will make the routing table size come to a sudden and
screaching halt!

Eric



At 09:57 PM 1/2/97 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote:
>
>
>Hello,
>
>Recently, there has been discussion concerning the need to keep IP issues
>separate from domain issues. The stability of the Internet in part relies
>on the careful management of the Internet Protocol addresses.
>
>The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should
>be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether
>those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they
>should all play a role.
>
>To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund
>a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry
>for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to manage the IP address space for the
>territories it currently administers, similar to the APNIC and RIPE
>regional IP registries. This organization will be a non-profit
>spin-off of the current InterNIC IP group.
>
>Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed
>and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable,
>self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership
>dues, registration and maintenance fees.
>
>Details on the proposed organizational structure and 1997 funding
>model are located at http://rs.internic.net/arin.
>
>Questions regarding the proposal will be answered on the ARIN mailing
>list. To subscribe, send mail to:
>
> listserv@internic.net
>
> with "subscribe naipr" in the body along with your first and
> last name.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Kim Hubbard
>InterNIC Registry
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________
Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer -
ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group
24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc@acsi.net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you need to get a /24 from the registry, you need to pay the price.

If you just want a /24, get one from your upstream. If they have a /17,
the cost per /24 drops down _quite_ a bit; $7500/128 = ~$60 for a one-time
fee. Generally speaking, right now you can not get a /24 from the
InterNIC and have everyone listen to your advertisment so this really
doesn't change that much for the small guy. I think it will, however,
cause a good number of people with legacy class Cs allocated a long time
ago to renumber into provider assigned space to reduce their costs.

I have some big concerns about some of the details; with some things I
don't like what I see (there seems to be more behind the ideas than what
is being stated; that "hidden agenda" of sorts isn't a bad one, but I
think it is hidden and that is bad), others there simply needs to be more
details on, however I don't think that the overall plan is as bad as you
make it out to be.

I think further discussion should really go to the naipr list that Kim
mentioned; some of the issues aren't clear, the details aren't finalized
yet and there is a potential for a lot of useless bickering.


On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, David Stoddard wrote:

>
> While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal
> outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging
> $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the
> ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations
> and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750
> for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added
> to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for
> POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge
> will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will
> disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't
> think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative
> effect on our own industry.
>
> Dave Stoddard
> US Net Incorporated
> 301-572-5926
> dgs@us.net
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan.

The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is
technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations.

Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could.

Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small
bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a small bar
because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing
you to pay more.

Think about it.

David Schwartz

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David,

ISPs in Asia, the Pacific Rim, Europe, the Middle East, and Northern
Africa pay similar fees for allocation services from APNIC or RIPE-NCC
and most of these regions are growing faster than the US. Further,
small businesses should *NOT* be obtaining addresses from a regional
registry directly -- they should be obtaining them from their provider.

Regards,
-drc
---------
>
> While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal
> outlined on the web page at http://rs.internic.net/arin, charging
> $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the
> ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations
> and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750
> for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added
> to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for
> POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge
> will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will
> disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't
> think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative
> effect on our own industry.
>
> Dave Stoddard
> US Net Incorporated
> 301-572-5926
> dgs@us.net
>
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That is why:

" The Advisory Council is to act on behalf of the membership on all issues including, but not limited to:

¤ Registry goals
¤ Future funding
¤ Allocation policy guidelines
¤ Training
¤ Nominations for Advisory Council
¤ Database maintenance
¤ Registry procedures "

and:

"ARIN members will nominate candidates for the the Advisory Council."

This allows:

"The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they should all play a role."


BTW, let's move this to the NAIPR list.


> There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan.
>
> The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is
>technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations.
>
> Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could.
>
> Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small
>bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a small bar
>because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing
>you to pay more.
>
> Think about it.
>
> David Schwartz

Begin forwarded message:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Daryn D. Fisher <oz>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 97 23:13:29 -0700
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Non-profit IP Registry
cc: naipr@lists.internic.net
Reply-To: oz@tpa.net

That is why:

" The Advisory Council is to act on behalf of the membership on all
issues including, but not limited to:

_ Registry goals
_ Future funding
_ Allocation policy guidelines
_ Training
_ Nominations for Advisory Council
_ Database maintenance
_ Registry procedures "

and:

"ARIN members will nominate candidates for the the Advisory Council."

This allows:

"The point has also been made that the management of the IP space
should be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users.
Whether those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities,
etc., they should all play a role."


BTW, let's move this to the NAIPR list.


> There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan.
>
> The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is
>technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations.
>
> Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could.
>
> Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small
>bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a
small bar
>because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing
>you to pay more.
>
> Think about it.
>
> David Schwartz

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote:

> To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund
> a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry
> for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Might be nice if you change the name slightly to The Americas Registry
for Internet Numbers so you don't seem so much like damn yankees.

> Network Solutions, Inc. will initially fund ARIN until fees are imposed
> and will offer continued financing until such time as it is a stable,
> self-sufficient entity capable of funding itself through its membership
> dues, registration and maintenance fees.

Why is Network Solutions funding this instead of NSF? Or are they just
passing through the money that NSF has already paid for this function?

Anyway, sounds like a step in the right direction.


Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote:
>
> > To this end, Network Solutions, Inc. plans to create and initially fund
> > a non-profit 501(c)6 organization to be known as The American Registry
> > for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
> Might be nice if you change the name slightly to The Americas Registry
> for Internet Numbers so you don't seem so much like damn yankees.

Just a minor nit, but other folks of North and South America are just as
American as folks who live in USA.

1) let's move this to NAIPR

and

2) let's talk about something that matters.

-dorian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Eric makes two very important points here but its the overall "rush" that I
wonder about. This thing seems to have come up quite suddenly and appears as
if it's being implemented as we speak. A program with such far reaching
effects should not be taken lightly. One need only look at the state of the
domain name system to realize that its what we haven't thought of that will
bite us later....


>One:
> How will portable/non-portable address space be effected. Does the mean
>that if I have non-portable address space, I can charge customers for
>address space, and if it is portable, they have to pay $2500 per /24 to
>have it registered to them?

That would not go over well. <G>

>
>Two:
> If an entity has address space already and does not require more space,
>do they have to pay the fee or is this going to be grandfather claused? I
>know with domain names it was not that way, but that is only 50 bucks,
>$2500 or more could put a lot of business off the net.
>
Again, this could put an unbearable financial hardship on many companies if
not grandfathered...

>
>I guess this will make the routing table size come to a sudden and
>screaching halt!

Doubtful but it certainly will slow things down. But remember, the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer in business as well.



Robert J. Fehn Sr.,President and CEO
Jersey Cape Information Systems Inc.

http://www.jerseycape.net


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> > How will portable/non-portable address space be effected. Does the mean
> >that if I have non-portable address space, I can charge customers for
> >address space, and if it is portable, they have to pay $2500 per /24 to
> >have it registered to them?
>
> That would not go over well. <G>

<Warning: the following is not entirely serious>

Oh I don't know, a $122m grant for some competition perhaps? Internic currently
assigns (effectively) out of a /8. There are several other /8s around that
are underutilised. Let's say you run one of these and your network could
actually fit in a /10. You renumber (ouch, expensive), then assign the rest
of your /8 (49152 class Cs) in a manner similar to Internic, doing your best
to assign CIDR friendly blocks etc. etc. to applicants. If you sold them
all at $2500 per class C, you'd pocket $122m (enough to pay for any renumbering
and the admin of the exercise). Would they get routed? Well you would be
assigning blocks of all sizes and if your assignment policy was as good as
or better than Internic, why would people want to filter? In fact, if you
undercut Internic, you could perhaps even sell class Bs etc. to tier-1s
who'd have no reason not to use them. If not, the change from $122m can
pay for a pretty decent amount of transit for some proxy aggregation (i.e.
you continue to announce the /8 for a while).

Perhaps better still, pervert the RIPE model. Sell class /16s out of your /8
to competing subregistries, who can then onsell space at a profit (as smaller
bits are more expensive). May be even reinvent pyramid selling: "Look, you
have this /n currently, all you have to do is renumber with our $5000
autorenumbering software into our /n-2 and sell the plan and the other /n-2 to
3 organizations for $5000, and you'll have instantly made $10,000! Then
sell your old /n using this scheme as well to someone with a /n+2 and make
another $5000". Or something.

Why do I feel there is a flaw somewhere....

Alex Bligh
Xara Networks




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As a customer I have no problem paying for /16s so long as you'll give
me as many as I wish to buy.
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>
> As a customer I have no problem paying for /16s so long as you'll give
> me as many as I wish to buy.
> --
> Eliot Lear
> [lear@sgi.com]

As a customer I feel the same.

But this is precisely why addresses should never be sold. How do you expect
some mom & pop business or individual to compete with billion dollar companies
that don't blink at a $50K service charge.

Joe Pace
pace@honda.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Eliot Lear wrote:

> As a customer I have no problem paying for /16s so long as you'll give
> me as many as I wish to buy.

I would also append to that a guarantee of the block(s) routability on the
Internet and if multiple blocks, that they be contiguous which could
be stipulated by amount of growth over a period of time.... etc.

Am I dreaming here or what?

BTW where exactly is that other mail list?

> --
> Eliot Lear
> [lear@sgi.com]
>

T..S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>
> As a customer I have no problem paying for /16s so long as you'll give
> me as many as I wish to buy.
> --
> Eliot Lear
> [lear@sgi.com]
>

Ah Eliot - you're such a kidder :-) Sorry, same rules apply.

-Kim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Arun Welch wrote:

>
> Since the registry doesn't control routing there's no way for them to
> provide such a guarantee...
>

Being the facetious, jocular individual that I am, you don't think I
understand this?? Since this was an attachment to the clause about
getting whatever size block you wanted and getting more blocks
without question.. why not dream a little bit.

Anything is possible.


> ...arun
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arun Welch 5000 Arlington Centre Blvd
> Lead Engineer, Internet R&D Columbus, OH 43220
> CompuServe awelch@compuserve.net
>
T..S

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Todd R. Stroup wrote:

> BTW where exactly is that other mail list?
>
Here's what Kim posted earlier:
listserv@internic.net

with "subscribe naipr" in the body along with your first and
last name.

Has anyone else successfully subscribed to it?

Paul R.D. Lantinga
Systems Administrator
Verifone ICD
I like this place and would willingly waste my time in it. -W. Shakespeare


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> > As a customer I have no problem paying for /16s so long as you'll give
> > me as many as I wish to buy.
> > --
> > Eliot Lear
> > [lear@sgi.com]
>
> As a customer I feel the same.
>
> But this is precisely why addresses should never be sold. How do you expect
> some mom & pop business or individual to compete with billion dollar companies
> that don't blink at a $50K service charge.
>
> Joe Pace
> pace@honda.com

May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide
scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. The greatly
increased quantity of addresses should have some impact on
this. Granted, for the sake of routing tables, some organization needs
to manage the allocation so we don't end up with piecemeal routing but
the restrictions on how many addresses folks can have should be
lessened in such a circumstance.

>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At 02:58 PM 1/3/97 -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote:

>
>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide
>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. The greatly
>increased quantity of addresses should have some impact on
>this. Granted, for the sake of routing tables, some organization needs
>to manage the allocation so we don't end up with piecemeal routing but
>the restrictions on how many addresses folks can have should be
>lessened in such a circumstance.
>

What wide-scale implementation?

- paul

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> writes:

>>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide
>>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof.

>What wide-scale implementation?

Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing"
IPv6? Be sure to check:

http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html
http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/

Thomas
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm quite aware of v6 implementation efforts; my point was that
the *scale* at which v6 is actually being implemented is
by no means, 'wide'. I suppose, however, that this is quite a
subjective statement from both perspectives.

I also hesitate to mention that there is a significant part of
the industry that still questions the immediate need for IPv6,
or perhaps has not been convinced that IPv6 actually fixes any
existing problems, but that is another can of worms altogether
and is better discussed in another venue.

- paul (not representative of cisco Systems, Inc.)


At 08:57 AM 1/4/97 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:

>>>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide
>>>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof.
>
>>What wide-scale implementation?
>
>Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing"
>IPv6? Be sure to check:
>
> http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html
> http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/
>
>Thomas
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> writes:
>
> >>May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide
> >>scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof.
>
> >What wide-scale implementation?
>
> Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing"
> IPv6? Be sure to check:
>
> http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html
> http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/
>
> Thomas
>
Wide scale IMPLEMENTATION is different from VENDOR DEVELOPMENT.

I think the statement was more of "What wide-scale DEPLOYMENT" than
saying that major vendors were not implementing.

Owen
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -