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 the
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.
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 it says about itself, 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
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
allocation
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 about
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, etc.
... 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 a
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.
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:
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.I.I.U.
Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI, ATT 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, instead of
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 the
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.
I
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 block.
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
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
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 the
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 here. What
At 07:49 PM 3/15/00 , David R. Conrad wrote:
Michael,
I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI, ATT 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
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
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
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 mind
[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:
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,
I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI, ATT 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
why
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
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 I
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 now
.
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
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-
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]
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
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
[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 empty
36 matches
Mail list logo
