Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> Is the address space ICANN has delegated itself the same as that which
> was reserved by the IANA before ICANN was created?
I don't know, and, because ICANN is not a publicly accountable
organization despite what it says about itself, there's no way to
find out.
===
Greg Skinner wrote:
> The
> solution that we have now was the best compromise that was thought of
> at the time. I'll note that these issues were debated as far back as
> 1993 (possibly earlier -- I don't remember), and there was susbantial
> concern that the choices would put the smaller ISPs a
Greg Skinner wrote:
> The
> solution that we have now was the best compromise that was thought of
> at the time. I'll note that these issues were debated as far back as
> 1993 (possibly earlier -- I don't remember), and there was susbantial
> concern that the choices would put the smaller ISPs at
Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> Is the address space ICANN has delegated itself the same as that which
> was reserved by the IANA before ICANN was created?
I don't know, and, because ICANN is not a publicly accountable
organization (despite what they say), there's no way to find out.
=
Michael,
> I meant free in the
> sense that all networks were equal, had equal access, were equally
> connected to all others. Isn't that so?
No. Not since classfull addressing and the EGP/IGP split was implemented,
back during ARPANet days.
Rgds,
-drc
Michael Sondow wrote:
> This is adding insult to injury, it seems to me. Is the small ISP to
> be blamed for the shortcomings of his provider?
Out of curiosity, do these ISPs understand the policies that the
providers adhere to? My ISP states its policy with regards to
routing, etc. on its web
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Oh, I didn't mean free in the monetary sense. I meant free in the
> sense that all networks were equal, had equal access, were equally
> connected to all others. Isn't that so? Whereas now there is a
> hierarchy of networks: my ISP is a subnet of his upstream provider,
> w
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > My ISP has been waiting
> > for 4 years, and he has the money.
>
> But obviously not the size.
That's the chicken-or-the-egg conundrum, isn't it?
Michael Sondow I.C.
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> You were hoping for an even stronger ICANN? Be careful what you ask for.
I don't think it's a question of strong or weak, but of orientation.
If ICANN saw itself as an arbiter of fair and equitable policies, as
the White Paper appeared to call for and as we all hoped
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Smaller ISPs are more worried about running a
> successful business than they are in protracted legal battles which they
> generally don't have the funds for anyways.
Of course. I didn't suggest otherwise.
But consider the time factor. As time has gone on, the address
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> The Internet was _NEVER_ free. It was paid for by (to paraphrase Ayn
> Rand) sucking at the government's tit.
Oh, I didn't mean free in the monetary sense. I meant free in the
sense that all networks were equal, had equal access, were equally
connected to all others. I
> ... due to the deleterious effect a lack of ability to aggregate
> addresses and summarize routes have on both the size and CPU/Memory
> requirements necessary to hold and calculate routing tables.
After so many years of this I'd have thought someone would have
had a go at tackling it, surely
Michael,
> There's no EuroISPA here.
www.cix.org
> My ISP has been waiting
> for 4 years, and he has the money. Meanwhile, his upstream provider
> treats him like *&%$*, won't configure his zone files properly,
> won't let him be multi-homed, lets him get hacked by not providing
> protections,
Michael,
> These are problems caused by the RIRs, IANA, and now ICANN. They may
> have some basis in the topology of routing, but they are
> fundamentally problems of economic model,
No. An ISP who is not solvent enough to pay the ARIN (or other RIR fees) has
far more difficulties to worry abo
Greg,
> I recall reading somewhere
> that one consideration of @Home's allocation was the contribution of
> Capt. Mike St. Johns to Internet research and development, particularly
> with regards to IP over cable.
Uh, no. This was never (to my knowledge) part of the consideration for the
allocat
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
> >
> > Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP
> > associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf?
>
> I don't know if they have or not. But "here" for me is the U.S.
> There's no EuroISPA her
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Greg Skinner wrote:
> Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of
> > the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an
> > organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the
> > power there is with
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of
> the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint.
Michael, you're reaching. Smaller ISPs are more worried about running a
successful business than they are in protracted legal ba
Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP
> associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf?
I don't know if they have or not. But "here" for me is the U.S.
There's no EuroISPA here. What chance does a small ISP have in the
U.S.A., when A
Michael Sondow wrote:
> I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of
> the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an
> organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the
> power there is with the larger independent ISPs who control their
> own bl
Greg Skinner wrote:
> If you
> feel strongly that some of the commercial providers who got legacy /8s
> ought to return some of those addresses, perhaps a constructive way of
> going about it is to gather the ISPs you feel are being squeezed, and
> have them file a formal complaint with the NTIA.
Jay Fenello wrote:
> What does this have to do with complaints about ARIN's regressive pricing
> policies?
> Or the huge @Home delegation?
> These are questions of policy.
I can't speak to ARIN's pricing policies, but I recall reading somewhere
that one consideration of @Home's allocation was
Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
> If not, why don't you work things out so that freedom and free
> enterprise can continue to flourish on the Internet, ins
At 07:49 PM 3/15/00 , David R. Conrad wrote:
>Michael,
>
> > I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> > companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
>
>Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort on
>the implications of CIDR,
You wroteÑ
> ISP members and end-users are welcome to join the IETF, which is where
> most useful (imho) discussion of routing and address allocation > happens.
That may have been true until now, but "the times, they are
a-changin'". ICANN now has ultimate authority over addressing, and
if you
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Mike, david conrad is correct in what he says about routing
> registries and small isps, they complain vociferously but there are
> valid technical reasons for what has been done, and since the number
> of isps has grown from maybe 1000 five years ago to about 10,000 no
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort on
> the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing, and
> why it is necessary. I have been involved in and seen all the arguments and
> counter-arguments more times than
Mike, david conrad is correct in what he says about routing
registries and small isps, they complain vociferously but there are
valid technical reasons for what has been done, and since the number
of isps has grown from maybe 1000 five years ago to about 10,000 now
. of course the non po
Michael,
> I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort on
the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing, and
w
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> I gather you have never requested address space from an RIR.
No, but I've been listening to my ISP's complaints, all perfectly
legitimate, for three years. Multiply them by the thousands of other
small-to-middling-size ISPs, and you get a hell of a row.
I know it's in
Michael,
> > What I would like to see is continued reliance on technical considerations for
> > the allocation of IPv4 address space rather than a system that relies on
> > politics.
> Then don't make allocation decisions without negotiating with ISPs
> and end-users.
I gather you have never re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would suggest that collaboration rather than
> confrontation is what we need.
Fine. Get together with the ISP associations of the world and the
associations of consumers (who are ultimately the people whose money
is paying for IP addresses), and negotiate with them
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> What I would like to see is continued reliance on technical considerations for
> the allocation of IPv4 address space rather than a system that relies on
> politics.
Then don't make allocation decisions without negotiating with ISPs
and end-users. And tell ICANN to min
Sigh.
> > You don't get it - do you. Let me try to clarify the state of BIND for
> > you. ALL VERSIONS OF BIND UNDER VIXIE CAN BE HACKED.
The DNS protocol suite, as specified in RFC 1034 and 1035 has a bug: the
sequence space of DNS queries is only 16 bits, thus it is possible to spoof a
r
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, KS LIM wrote:
> I feel that I need to say some thing here. BIND may not be the best
> product that can be but it is acceptable for the time being and
> available free to all of us. If any one is unhappy about it he(she) can
You don't get it - do you. Let me try to clarify
Mike and all,
I would agree that collaboration vs confrontation would be the PREFERRED
approach, Mike. But sometimes that is not always possible and unrealistic
as well. As for David Conrad, we differ greatly in that regard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree with David Conrad. And that
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, David R. Conrad wrote:
>> What I would like to see is continued reliance on technical considerations for
>> the allocation of IPv4 address space rather than a system that relies on
>> politics.
Do you feel the same way about the domain name system?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with David Conrad. And that's not just because he maintains
a courteous tone in his mails. David's record is one of achievement
through cooperation, and I would suggest that collaboration rather than
confrontation is what we need.
Regards.
Mike Norris
> -Original Message-
> F
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, David R. Conrad wrote:
> IPv4 address allocation is based on technical considerations that relate to
> management of a limited (albeit one can argue not currently scarce) resource
> and the implications the allocation of that resource has on the Internet
> routing system.
Well - Michael - this is one of my concerns - the people involved in this.
Conrad along with Vixie took over the BIND maintenance. The result of
that is every BIND since 4.9.4 has been buggy. In fact BIND is to a large
extent the unix joke version of gates windows.
Further to that - I have the
David R. Conrad wrote:
>
> I'm curious: have you complained to the FCC about not having democratic
> representation in the allocation of E.164 addresses to end users? How 'bout
> to the IEEE in the allocation of 802.3 addresses?
David Schutt's intelligent reply to this just about says it all. I
Your barking up the wrong tree David. IP owners already have a degree of
control over the ip infrastructure. The question is - are they
represented?
The whole ICANN mess could result in the RIR's losing their right to
administer the ip space. It's happened in domain names, it's happened in
ICA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That's a rather sweeping dismissal and ignores what I said in the
> earlier part of my mail about the open processes of policy formation
> and representation in at least one region.
I believe that it is a simple statement of the objective reality. As
to RIPE having a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ICANN's membership structure (http://members.icann.org) is open
> to
> **all** members of the Internet community and offers a broad and global
> channel
> for input and representation in Internet governance.
It doesn't serve any useful purpose to repeat nostrums and emp
I don't believe you or your organization has received addresses directly
from ARIN nor are you an ARIN member (although you're more than welcome to
join). ARIN holds public policy meetings twice a year and does everything
it can to make the general public aware of these meetings although it's not
45 matches
Mail list logo
