Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC

Phil Howard phil at
Wed Jan 20 22:55:57 UTC 1999

> Let's for a moment assume you're argument that real (i.e. non-RFC1918)
> addresses are a requirement. Let's also assume some new companies wish
> to join these private internets which use real addresses.
> Just how exactly are those new companies to get real addresses? They
> can't get them from IANA. I suppose they could pay an ISP for a block of
> addresses and then not actually connect them.

That is exactly how we told them to get addresses in my previous job.
If they wanted to use a non-RFC1918 address (and many did) we required
that they be legitimate addresses.  Several connecting customers had
randomly chosen network blocks and we refused those connections, even
if the block hadn't actually been assigned to anyone yet (had one of
those cases, too).  Most of these were resolved with NAT and a few
actually learned they needed to go get their own address space.

We also did administer RFC1918 space, and accepted no connections on
any of these addresses that had already be allocated to someone else
based on our allocation records.

> Perhaps you've come up with a good and workable reason to deploy IPv6.

I'd love to see IPv6 get rolling, personally.  I do know that a _LOT_
still has to be done with various programs to make them IPv6 ready.
I was discussing plans just last night with a friend to set up an IPv6
tunnel between our homes and addressing some technical issues in how
to connect 2 tunneled LANs that were both homed on dynamic addresses.

> Ultimately ARIN is an agency for assigning IP addresses for use in the
> PUBLIC Internet. If you choose to use those addresses for other
> purposes, I don't see that as a problem the folks managing the public
> Internet need be concerned with. 
> Similarly the InterNIC is an agency for handing out namespace for use in
> the PUBLIC Internet. If you wish to use their service for private use,
> and you pay your money, there's no harm in that. But, you'll be expected
> to play by the rules. That means name servers and valid contact info. It
> doesn't mean you have to have a working web server. Name servers need
> only serve SOA info. That, at least, provides evidence the domain is
> valid and in use, and gives the contact information for anyone wishing
> to challenge an organization's right to use a particular domain name.

The rule may say there needs to be a name server, but tell my why we
even need such a rule?  The "validity" of a domain name is an issue
only between the registrar and registrant.

I do agree with the valid contact info.

> As thhis whole thread of discussion really centers around private use of
> internetworking technology, I have to wonder how it affects operational
> issues (which just happens to be the subject of the mailing list).

I think it got started with domain names without name servers that
speculators were registering, and I mentioned the analogy of private
address usage, which then resulted in a confusion between private
"internal" addresses and private "external" addresses.

It _was_ an operational issue at one time, but it doesn't really resemble
it anymore unless someone wants to fuss about not being able to exercise
his God given right to traceroute to any IP address he pleases.

 --    *-----------------------------*      Phil Howard KA9WGN       *    --
  --   | Inturnet, Inc.              | Director of Internet Services |   --
   --  | Business Internet Solutions |       eng at        |  --
    -- *-----------------------------*      phil at        * --

More information about the NANOG mailing list