North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Thu Mar 14 14:16:34 1996 
> Hi,
> 
> >Here's an idea. Let new ISP's reserve large blocks (say /16's) in 65/8,
> >66/8, .... but don't let them actually use these addresses on the global 
> >Internet. Then, the ISP can run a Network Address Translation gateway and
> 
> Why not use net 10 and leave the NATs in?
> 
You can't possibly be serious here.  No way NATs scale to multihomed, and they
don't speak BGP.  They aren't heavy-duty backbone routers.  They're designed
for small to medium sized corporate LANs, not ISP's.


> >Of course, there is one little problem with this....
> >bash$ whois 65
> >Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS                         65
> >bash$ whois 96
> >Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS               96
> >How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved?
> 
> You're probably gonna regret that one:  you're looking at AS numbers, not
> networks.  Now, let see how many people tell you the same thing :-).
> 
:-)

> >I think that the fundamental problem here is that the Internic is 
> >fundamentally clueless about important issues such as global routing 
> 
> Bullshit.  The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues.
> 
I'm not 100% convinced of this.  The InterNIC is somewhat unresponsive to startup
providers who are starting multi-homed.  It took me almost two weeks to convince
them that I needed routable space, and I had to allocate a bunch of networks
to various internal uses to do it.  Even though I already had bilateral peering
agreements at MAE West with about 10 other providers, including several of the
big ones.  Currently, there are only three major providers that we know of at
MAE west that we do not peer with.  Two are a matter of time, and one is a policy
issue. (on their side)

> >and *BUSINESS* issues. 
> 
> What business issues are you talking about?
> 
The only BUSINESS issues the InterNIC really seems to be aware of from what I have
seen are:
		Lining the pockets of the gray men
		Ridiculous attempts to map trademarks onto DNS space

> >They are behaving a lot like a government bureaucracy 
> >or a regulatory agency. 
> 
> The registries are simply following the policy as defined by the
> Internet community at large.  Read RFC 1466, 1814, and the latest
> internet draft on allocation policy.  If the Internet community were
> to define new policies, the registries would implement those as well.
> Currently, there is a small bit of contradiction in what small ISPs
> and end users want and what the larger ISPs (and what is necessary to
> keep the Internet from partitioning) want.  But, both sides are more
> than happy to scream and whine at the registries for not doing the
> "right" thing.
> 
Yes and no.  The InterNIC changes policy, templates, and procedures quite
often over the last 3 years, often without notice, and enforces the new
policies quite rudely, even if they contradict the last policy you received
from them.  Example:
	Submit template to update domain
	Get response back saying "This domain is already allocated"
	Make phone call explaining that template was an UPDATE, as stated on template
	Get response saying "Then don't submit a template, just send us a note."
	Send note
	Get response "Updates complete"
	Next weeK, Submit another update note for a different domain
	Get a response back saying "Updates require submission of a template"
	ARRRGGGGGHHHHH!!

There are REAL problems with the InterNIC, and we need to address them.  Is
the InterNIC doing an OK job, by and large yes.  Are there things wrong, YES.
Are the things that are wrong the InterNIC's fault or the policy InterNIC was
given?  Some of each.

> >I don't really see how this can be fixed with the current system of 
> >having a US government agency writing a contract with a private US 
> >company to provide a fundamental international infrastructure service!
> 
> The US government agency could get out of the way, but the squeals of
> outrage when InterNIC started charging US $50/year for domain name
> registrations leads me to believe it will be a while before any sort of
> rational allocation policy can be imposed.
> 
I don't see how having the US government fund the agency really has much of an
impact here.  The NSF has had very little to say about HOW things are done,
and merely sets the funding level.  The decisions about HOW things are done
are made largely by the IANA, IAB, and IETF.

> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> 
> 
Owen




----- End Included Message -----