Sprint's route filters and Europe

Mon Jun 17 16:29:39 UTC 1996

> >From my (admittedly biased) perspective, it would seem there are two
> options:
> 
> 	A) The socalist approach
> 	B) The capitalist approach
> 
And, generally, I would have to say that for a resource such as IP addresses
and Internet registration services, option A is certainly better suited
to the task at hand.

> Right now, the registries use option A.  Addresses are allocated "to
> each according to need" and the regional registries that charge (APNIC
> and RIPE-NCC) request "from each according to ability" (at least to
> some extent).  As a result, since the definition of "need" is hard to
> pin down, a bureaucracy is created and (since there is no other
> acceptible way of verifying needs and/or reducing the address
> allocation rate), huge amounts of paperwork and oodles of tedious
> forms are necessary to submit requests.
> 
Agreed.  There should be an effort to streamline the process while still
recognizing that a certain amount of bureaucracy and forms goes with
the territory.  It would, however, be nice if the various registries
could standardize on a user interface and make their modifications behind
the scenes.  I just received an announcement from the InterNIC that they
have completely changed the form yet again. AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!!
Oh, well, at least this time, I found out _BEFORE_ I submitted something.

> Every time someone (who me?) brings up option B, we go chasing merrily
> down one or more of the following ratholes:
> 
> 	1) we need to conserve route table space, lets charge for that,
> 	   not addresses (irrelevant)

Not irrelevant.  Highly relevant, but not the right solution to that
problem either.

> 	2) AT&T (or some other evil speculator) will buy up all the
> 	   address space (and ISPs are just going to sit idly by?)

Depending on the situation, it might be difficult for them to do anything
effective about it.  It is a real danger, and could easily occur.

> 	3) if you charge, then poor organizations can't connect
> 	   to the Internet (so who's paying for their connectivity?)

For one thing, I am.  I provide free connections to a number of small
non-profit organizations that have little or no money.  Similarly, ConXioN
does the same, and plans to expand the amount of that we do, as we become
more profitable.  Donating connectivity is easy.  Donating NIC fees is
significantly less attractive.  (Especially in the case of InterNIC, where
the level of service is low, the delays high, and the general attitude
less than helpful, it is very unpalatable to donate CASH to them).

> 	4) you can't charge for addresses because they're just
> 	   numbers and have no value (tell that to the US Treasury)
> 
Gladly.  The IRS opinion that they could "auction off" a domain name as an
asset is a clear cut example of the need for strong legislative relief to
the contrary.  Unfortunately, we are dealing with a government that doesn't
even understand people, let alone the network we have built.  This government
is so backwards that it attempted to regulate content on a federal level for
a network that is so thoroughly internation in nature that the concept is
absurd.  In so doing, it completely ignored the supreme law which it is sworn
to uphold, the Constitution for the united States of America.

> Regardless of the validity of any of these ratholes, they are missing
> the point -- without some OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE CRITERIA, the
> registries must rely on people being honest and forthright about their
> requirements.  Money (e.g., a charge per address) has proven to be a
> pretty effective objectively verifiable criteria to determine whether
> someone *really* needs the address space they are requesting.
> 
Bull.  Money has proven to be an effective weapon which allows the larger
to smash the smaller.  The internet is a great equalizer right now.  If
you apply this model to it, it will become the next great tool of domination
used by large corporations.

> However, since option B is theo-politically infeasible for whatever
> reason, you get option A, with increasingly draconian rules and ever
> growing mountains of paperwork.  Life is harsh.
> 
And on a balance, I will opt for the existing system.

> >If there is a finite resource that needs to be managed, it should be
> >done in a fair way for all players, and right now i don't think 
> >that's not the case if we look at the globe as a whole.
> 
> What is "fair"?
> 
> Is it fair early adopters have (mutliples of) /8s and will never need
> to go through the registry hassle?  Is it fair that the current
> allocation policies are (statistically speaking) conserving address
> space to the benefit of the large ISPs, most of which are in the US?
> Would it be fairer if the registries allocated /14s (or /19s) to
> everyone regardless of requirements?  Should everyone who wants an IP
> address be given one, regardless of what they'll use it for?  Should
> addresses only be given to ISPs?
> 
Yes and no.  However, that is certainly more "fair" than retroactively
charging them for what they already have.  To lease address space to
people would require the lessor to "own" the address space.  This is
not a good solution.  Address space cannot be owned.  The real solution
is to work as rapidly as possible to transform it from a finite resource
into an abundant resource.  This can be done with a protocol change.  The
design is already avaialble, and there are reference ports appearing for 
a multitude of platforms.  When this transition is well underway, the
issue of "limited" address space will be moot.

> The registries try to be "fair", from their perspective.  Presumably,
> the concern you are expressing here is that the regional registries
> have implemented the various policies somewhat differently.  I believe
> this was a specific goal of RFC 1466 which created the multiple
> registries in the first place.  The registries are trying to
> coordinate policies, but we're somewhat constrained by the different
> communities we serve (e.g., what is considered a "small ISP" in the US
> is likely to be larger than most of the ISPs in the AP region).
> 
True.  However, the definition of small should be relatively irrelevant.
Everyone should be treated the same, regardless of size.  If you have
a need for 8 class C's, then you need a /21.  If you need 64, you need a /18.
If you need 256, you need a /16.  Etc.  Number of addresses needed and
rate of growth should be the primary parameters used to judge address
allocation.  Size of the company relative to others is irrelevant.

> >Fix the rules, 
> 
> Not to pick on you in particular, but I didn't see a lot of comment
> from you or other people on the registry guidelines draft.  Please
> indicate what rules need to be fixed (I have my own set, but I'd like
> to see other people's).
> 
I have not read the draft yet, so am unable to comment.

> >open up more registrys wich all apply the same rules,
> 
> Applying all the same rules would tend to imply ignoring the
> differences in the development in the Internet throughout the world.
> Is this what people really want (honest question -- there are
> arguments on both sides)?
> 
Why would it imply ignoring the differences?  Why can we not come up
with a standardized set of rules based on need (current and reasonable
projected) which can be applied fairly.  Those differences should result
in different needs.  If the rules are properly written, the differences
in input will result in different output and the output will always
be appropriate to the input.  Realistically, I recognize that it won't
be perfect, but I bet we could hit 90% if we tried.

Also, and in my opinion more important that a consistent policy structure
between registries, is a unified standardized user interface.  Figure out
what information you want/need from the users and put it all down.  Ask
for it all, and stabilize the template.  Recognize that you are going to
have to live with this template for many years to come, and put in place
a policy that any errors made in the design of this template are the
registries' problem that they are responsible for dealing with.  Having
a new template design come out of InterNIC every time I go to register a domain
is getting really old.

> Oh yeah, check out how many bits there are for registries in IPv6...
> 
> >maybe someone needs to audit the registrys to make sure that things
> >are done correct, 
> 
> Who and who would pay them?
> 
I propose the ISOC and the IANA be jointly responsible for this process, and
it should be funded by the fees the registries are collecting.

> >and have them compete on speed and effectiveness and cost.
> 
> I think we agree this should be the end goal.  How do we get there?
> 
> For those who are interested in this gunk, there will be 2 BOFs at
> the Montreal IETF:
> 
>     Pricing of Internet Addresses and Route Advertisements (PIARA)
> 
> and
> 
>     Internet Registry Evolution (IRE)
> 
> I'm sure both BOFs will be non-controversial and quite sedate.  Stop
> on by if you want to catch up on your sleep... :-).
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> P.S. So which rathole are we going to go down this time?  30 quatloos
> on rathole #4 (it's my favorite 'cause it's so silly (Hi Brian!)).
> 
It's not silly at all.  All four of the "ratholes" you mentioned are legitimate
issues.  Whether you choose to agree or not is a different issue.

Owen